Speaker 1: For a one year period from July twenty twenty three
to June twenty twenty four, the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops reported nine hundred and two allegations by eight
hundred and fifty five victims and survivors of child sexual
abuse by clergy, making the daily victim average two point
seven self reported children in the Catholic Church today, in
modern times, nearly three children are assaulted per day by
member of the Catholic clergy. Presidents, However, are no better.
Insurance companies that track SA cases list the church as
the most likely place for a child under eighteen to
get assaulted, and based on population statistics, the church is
three times more likely to be an assault location than
the next most likely location. This data is all very
confusing because Christians are said to have the Holy Spirit
leaving in them, which turns them into a new creature.
Tewo Corinthians five seventeen. Does if any man be in Christ,
he is a new creature? I say all that to
say this that if Christ is not able to conform
his believers to be like him, after the Bible said
that he would, and then we have no reason to
believe any claims made by the Bible or any claims
made by Jesus. In Mark sixteen eighteen, Jesus said that
believers will place hands on the sick and they will
be healed. Yet hospitals are full of sick people. Jesus
also said in Matthew eighteen nineteen that if two of
you agree on earth about anything that they ask, it
shall be done for them. Yet, prayers by Christians have
been studied, and praying has no better outcome than flipping
a coin. Is there any reason why non believers should
take Jesus or the God of the Bible seriously given
the myriad of failures and lies.
Speaker 2: If you have a reason, give us a call.
Speaker 1: The lines are open and the show starts now. Oo
coome in everybody Today is May tenth, twenty twenty six.
And joining me today is my friend Scott Dicky.
Speaker 2: Really appreciate you having here.
Speaker 1: And also, friends, we've got mother's day to day, so
let's not forget about the.
Speaker 3: Mothers exactly, exactly, Kudos to all the moms out there
and all of the uh all the people that take
on the mother role as well, and so you know,
being a mom is hard. Being a mom as difficult
and so so you you get all of our respect here.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. You know what people get mad at me. I've
said this before. I realized people don't like hearing it.
Speaker 1: But like I went with quite a bit of like
childbirthing in my life, and I don't know how willing
like if men had to go through that, I'm thinking
like putting myself in that position of minute to go
through it. I don't know if the sheer number.
Speaker 2: Of them would. I just don't know if they would
would do the thing. It's it's a yeah, terrifying process.
Speaker 4: It.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Like I said, kudos to to anybody who who
who does that for the sake of another human being,
And yeah, I agree. I mean, I've had a pretty
nasty kidney stone in my life. I wouldn't want to
go through that again. And I've heard that compared to childbirth.
And I'm not trying to say that it's worse or
better or whatever, but yeah, I'm kind of a worst too.
I do have kind of a high pain tolerance, But
I think I would shy away from something like that,
although I like to think that I would step up,
you know, I would like I like to think that
I would, you know, when push came to shove that
I would be able to follow through on that. But yeah,
I totally hear you. I think that a lot of
the people that are you know, I would think it's
a lot of the people that try to push those
gendered roles onto other people might be the same people
that would shy away from something like that, I.
Speaker 2: Think, yeah, yeah, indeed.
Speaker 1: The other interesting thing too is like in a lot
of these early religions, like the Abamer religions, there's this
huge push towards you gotta have kids.
Speaker 2: You know, you gotta have babies.
Speaker 1: God says be fruitful, multiply, But like, isn't it weird
that God wants you to be fruitful multiply and like
based on his design metrics, like a huge number of
babies die in the womb giving birth or within six
months the birth. It's a weird command knowing that God,
for no reason is this going to make sure that
a high percentage of those baby don't survive?
Speaker 5: Right? Yeah?
Speaker 3: And what what's what's also weird about those people that
that want to basically outbirth, you know, the opponents or.
Speaker 5: The other the other beliefs. That's evolution right there.
Speaker 3: That's that's you know, survival of the fittest happening right there.
So you know, trying to outpopulate the uh, the other beliefs.
Speaker 5: You know, that's evolution happening right there.
Speaker 2: That's a fair point.
Speaker 1: Everything we see in terms of human existence, like an
animal existence outside of the human race is pretty well
predicted within evolution. Like every time, like science and biology
make these bold predictions that line up with evolution, they
keep coming true.
Speaker 2: It's it's wild how that works.
Speaker 1: Yet all of the God predictions can never get verified.
Every time we learn new science that makes God seem
sillier and sillier. I can't think of like a scientific
theory that was ever overturned by God yet.
Speaker 3: Still waiting, still waiting for it to happen. But we're
but we're looking. Maybe we'll get maybe we'll get a
caller today that will shed some weight on the subject
we are looking.
Speaker 1: And also a quick announcement, we remember we're streaming UH
vertically and horizontal. You can pick your poison, and we're
also going to be streaming on TikTok.
Speaker 2: If you're a guest and you're watching on.
Speaker 1: TikTok, you can request up using the guest Request feature,
and we can bring you into the show without having
to call in with the number on the screen, and
the number to call in is five one two nine
nine to two, four to two, or you can visit tiny.
Speaker 2: Dot c C forward slash call AXP.
Speaker 1: We would certainly love to hear from you, and we
are open to have our minds changed. In fact, I
was once a believer and it was information, data, logic
arguments that brought me to the position where I'm no
longer a believer. So you know now the right information
might actually bring me back. Before we get started, though,
I'm going to do one quick announcement. We have one
theist already waiting in the wings. The Atheist Experience is
a product of the Atheist Community of Boston, a five
o' one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion
of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation of
religion government. We are try streaming tonight, as we already said,
So you're going to see us on TikTok.
Speaker 2: You're going to see us on YouTube.
Speaker 1: Actually you're going to see us twice on YouTube, and
you can call in using one of three different means.
You can call the number on the screen. You can
use the tiny dot c CE link and you can
also call in using.
Speaker 2: The TikTok app.
Speaker 1: And we do also request that anyone who calls in
is over the age of eighteen years old.
Speaker 2: We don't talk to children. We leave that up to
the priests.
Speaker 1: And we would love to hear about whatever your theory
is for God. And maybe you'll if you don't at
least convince us, maybe you'll convince somebody in the audience.
Speaker 2: So today's your day. Go ahead and pray to God.
Speaker 1: Remember he says, if Jesus said in the Olivant Discourse,
when they drag you in front of rulers and judges,
don't worry about what you'll say, because the Holy Spirit
will give you utterance. So you don't have to worry
about what you're going to say when you call in.
Just call in and the Holy Spirit will give you utterance.
And we'll take it as it comes. And the last
thing I say is we do read superchats during the
live stream and at the end of the live stream
if there's extra leftover, So if you have a question
or something for Scott or myself, or even perhaps a
comment on one of the guests. You're welcome to send
it in over super chat and we'll grab those super
chats as we have availability. It's a great way to
support the live stream and it's a great way to
interact with the with the hosts.
Speaker 2: As the listening audience, because.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately, reading all of the comments is not really possible
while we're actually debating.
Speaker 2: But we do read all the super jest, if we.
Speaker 5: Did, it would be incredibly boring. It would be just us.
Speaker 3: They're watching reading it during the whole half of the
show right there.
Speaker 2: Absolutely right. So we've got Isaac waiting to get in.
Speaker 1: Isaac's calling in from Alabama and wants to talk about
God's existence.
Speaker 2: Well, welcome in, Isaac. You're on XP with Scott and Justin.
How are you doing.
Speaker 6: I'm all right? How about you?
Speaker 2: I'm doing all right? Thanks for asking.
Speaker 5: Hey Isaac, Hey, I mean, it'll be real.
Speaker 6: It's my first time doing anything like this, so forgive
me if I get a little nervous. But so it's
my first time watching you guys.
Speaker 2: You know what, It's okay to be nervous. Scott been
doing this for a while.
Speaker 1: I've been doing this for a while, and even before
the beginning of every episode, I take a series of
deep breaths and just kind of let the air in,
let the old air out, calm your nerves, and letter rip.
We're as long as you're kind to us, will always
be kind to you. So how about we start with
some simple back and forth.
Speaker 2: What type of God do you believe in?
Speaker 1: And what do you think would be good evidence for
that God?
Speaker 6: Well, I'm a Christian, kind of non denominational. I believe
in a one God and a triune God, and I
believe that he exists based off the not just the Gospels,
but the history of it.
Speaker 1: Okay, so you think that Jesus exists or God exists
because of the historical references.
Speaker 6: All right, you cut out for a moment.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the historicity of the Bible proves
that Jesus existed or that God existed?
Speaker 4: I think it's.
Speaker 6: Easier to prove that Jesus if we're going off of
eyewitness accounts. I think it's safe to say that God
does exist.
Speaker 2: Sure, Well, let me start with a couple questions.
Speaker 1: One question I would have is I think I agree
with you that Jesus was a real person and probably
a lot of the people in the New Testament. Probably
most of the people in the New Testament are probably
real people. But the reason why I don't think that
this proves God in any way is because I've read
a lot of other texts, and a lot of these
other texts, like the Babylonian Chronicles and other ancient e
Eastern writings. We've got lots of like real historical events
that are described, real historical people that are described, but
I don't believe in their mythological claims, Like for example,
the Cyrus Cylinder, when King Cyrus came in and defeated
what was left of the Babylonians after the Meads, depending
on which historical Sourcy reading after the meats got ahold
of them.
Speaker 2: He actually credits Marduke with the victory.
Speaker 1: But like, obviously I don't believe in Marduke, even though
I believe in King Cyrus right, so I would apply
the same to the Bible.
Speaker 2: I agree that Jesus was probably real.
Speaker 1: I agree that the Bible records some historical events, but
I don't have a good reason to believe in the
mythological claims, given that ancient texts make a lot of
claims that are mixing historicity with their mythology, and.
Speaker 6: That's totally understandable. But I think that, well, it's the
reason I'm a Christian. I think that christ and specifically Christianity,
is different from them. And at first he may say, well,
you know, it's just another religion and you can put
them all in the same box of you know, mythology.
But I don't think there's ever been quite the same
standards of proof put upon Christianity as the other religions.
I think it's I think it's pretty easy to say
more dukes didn't have any hand in that victory that day.
I think it's well, what do the okay? So I'm
not familiar with that entirely. But was it the king
that said that? Was it his transcribers or was it
like eyewitnesses.
Speaker 1: So typically the kings, not all the kings. So there
were some kings that could write, and the Neo Assyrian king,
some of the late ones were really braggadocious about.
Speaker 2: Their ability to read and write.
Speaker 1: Whether or not Cyrus could reader write, I don't know.
But the ones that couldn't read or write had scribes
that would take their dictation.
Speaker 2: So that's why, like the Cyrus cylinder.
Speaker 1: Even if he's not writing it, it's still written in
the first person.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well that is just one person, though. That said that,
for those that also transcribed it for him. I suppose
I heard somewhere that for Christ there was about four
hundred eyewitnesses.
Speaker 2: Can you name any of it? I know we lost.
I think we lost the audio.
Speaker 6: Look at the chemistesses writing down what they saw.
Speaker 2: Can you say that again? Your audio cut out for
a second.
Speaker 6: Yours did too. I'm so sorry. It's probably my phone.
I think that when it comes to Christ, the number
of eyewitnesses, I believe there was about four hundred of them.
But quote me if I'm wrong. Don't quote me if
I'm wrong. Actually, but I told you I'm nervous, okay,
of eyewitnesses. The amount of eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection, I
think is the determining factor versus a king just making
a claim on his own.
Speaker 1: Sure, Now, the eyewitnesses, I would say, are I don't know.
Speaker 2: In terms of eyewitnesses, very few. And I'll explain what
I mean.
Speaker 1: So the in First Trinthians fifteen, Paul mentions that Christ
appeared to the disciples, and then he appeared to five hundred.
Speaker 2: We didn't name any of the five hundred.
Speaker 1: We have no idea who they are, and not one
of them left us any writings to know who they
are or what they saw, So that, to me is
just a nonsensical claim. If I said, hey, listen, I
actually last week I rose from the dead, and Scott
saw it, and so did five hundred others. Well, the
fact that I didn't tell you who the five hundred
others kind of makes that claim a little bit useless
because you can't go and see who they are, you
can't collect the evidence. It's just an unverifiable claim, right.
Speaker 6: That's understandable. But was he supposed to write down which camps,
what families? Was he supposed to name every individual? I mean,
Roman historians did the same thing, and that's treated as
history as well though, right.
Speaker 1: Right, But what I'm saying is we don't know that
the five hundred people existed, and not a single one
of them wrote.
Speaker 2: Anything or left anything for us, So to.
Speaker 1: Me, saying that there were that many witnesses is kind
of useless. Like, for example, in Pacidus and Suetonius, we
read about a healing miracle that Vespasian did, so he
healed because the God therapist gave a vision the two
different gentlemen, one that was blind and one who had
a lame leg, and Syrapis came to them in a
dream that says, hey, listen, if you go and beseech
the help of Vespasian, he'll lay his hands on you
and you'll get healed. And Vespasian is like, what that
doesn't make any sense, And then his advisors were like, hey,
try it. And so it says that he tried it
in front of a large multitude of witnesses and both
of them were healed by the power of therapist. Like,
would you agree that then a multitude of people witness
therapists using Vespasian to heal people.
Speaker 6: Well, you know I wouldn't. But for me, what makes
it a little bit different. You know, it's a little
different from Paul's claim of five hundred. But the other people,
like the other apostles, the other twelve right then, each
individually writing their own eyewitness accounts is what I think
makes it unique, and not just him saying there are
five hundred people there, but other people also saying the
same things, witnessing the same miracles and writing it down,
you know, each in their.
Speaker 1: Own So we've got two opposed accounts of Vespasian. Now
when it comes to the eyewitnesses of Jesus, I don't
know who we're talking about. Like, so, Mark wasn't an eyewitness,
He's the cousin of Barnabas. If Mark even wrote Mark
according to you know, history, we don't have a good
reason to believe that. But if he did, it's just
a cousin of Barnabas who was writing, you know, three
decades or more after Jesus died. And then Matthew and Luke,
whoever wrote those Gospels, copied for Mark, which is weird.
I mean Luke admits he wasn't a disciple. I mean
we know he wasn't a disciple. Matthew was listed as
one of the disciples, but there's not any good evidence
that Matthew wrote Matthew. And like even the earliest manuscript
P one is our earliest Manu script, it doesn't have
Matthew's name on it, even though it does contain the
section of Matthew where the name would have been included.
So and it's also weird that Matthew copies his own
conversion story from Mark and doesn't change it, Like the
only thing he changes is the name. He changes the
name from Levi to Matthew. And he tells his entire
conversion story in the third person without changing anything, like
even the same word order. It's a very strange behavior.
If you're writing a gospel and you want to tell
about your own conversion story, you're not going to like
just copy it from somebody else who has it met you,
by the way, they don't know who you are. And then,
I mean, obviously, John to me is probably the most
preposterous the Gospel of John. The authors admit that there's
multiple authors. John never claims to write any of that,
and the title Johannine or according to acta Jo in Greek,
just means according to John.
Speaker 2: We don't know which John.
Speaker 1: In fact, in chapter one, Baptist is giving the testimony.
In chapter twenty one, maybe John the Disciple is giving
the testimony. It says the disciple who Jesus loved, and
it's being recorded by multiple scribes who identify themselves as
a Wei. We know that his testimony is true, So
John was obviously not written by Johnny. There's just a
group of people that are going around theoretically collecting testimony,
but happening in the nineties, like in the like the
four decades after Christ died. Somehow these people are collecting,
you know, accounts and witnesses. It seems like what's more
likely happening is they're collecting fragments that people said were
from these people, and then they're they're just assuming that
they're legit. But that when it comes to the eyewitnesses,
those are the only ones I know about.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm not sure about the historians who saw him
like there's Esus and as such, I'm fairly new to apologetics.
I do think though, that they're to be some sort
of reason. I know this sounds like a cop out,
but to you, why do you think people think that
those manuscripts are.
Speaker 1: Incredible Because they haven't studied the history, right, So even
if they wrote, let's say Matthew wrote something originally, we
don't really have a good reason to believe that what.
Speaker 2: We have is what Matthew wrote. Same thing with Mark.
Speaker 1: We know for a fact that they were being edited
and copied and whatnot after what we would consider the originals.
I'll give an example of what I'm talking about. So
there's a late ending of Mark. I don't have my
Bible with me. I guess I've used the Internet. But
the late ending of Mark ADS is really interesting snippet.
It was added hundreds of years after Mark was already finished.
It doesn't show up until late and it basically says
that Jesus first appeared after the resurrection to Mary Magdalene
and then to the others, which is weird because that
statement contradicts the beginning of Mark sixteen, where it says
that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb with the women,
not by her. You might be asking, well, why the
heck would somebody add that to the ending of Mark, Like, oh,
because it was added after John came out. See when
the Gospel of John came out, which is after Mark.
Gospel of John depicts Mary Maglin going to the tomb
alone and seeing Jesus alone before anyone else does. And
so they're like, oh, shoot, we need to add a
snippet at the end of Mark to make sure Mark
and John actually agree with each other. But what they
didn't realize is in trying to make them agree with
each other, they created a huge problem, which is at
the beginning of Mark, it says that she came with
the other women, and it says that as they were
going to the tomb, they were going one to spice
the body, that's what you dressed, and spice the body
to keep it from smelling as it decayed, and they
were arguing about, hey, who's going to roll away the stone? Well,
listen if Mary Magdalene had already gone to the tomb,
because it says in John that once she got there,
the stone was already rolled away and then she saw Jesus.
If she had already done all that, it wouldn't make
sense that she'd be going back the tomb with a
gaggle of girls to spice the body, knowing it's not there,
and asking who's going to roll away the stone, knowing
that the stone's already been rolled away. And this is
a really good piece of evidence that hey, people have
been tampering with these manuscripts for a long time.
Speaker 2: And there's actually a lot of examples of this.
Speaker 6: Okay, well, you see I've never actually heard that. Well,
I've heard people mention it before, but not exactly in
that depth. So you're obviously very well read. The guy,
the filter guy who had me before I went on,
told me that, and it's true I heard that you
had read through the Bible. I have it like totally memorized.
So I think what I need to do is go
and read the apologetics that counter apologetics what you had
just mentioned, because I truly don't have any idea how
to respond to that.
Speaker 3: If I could jump in here, really, I have a
question for you, Isaac. By the way, I have on
my notes here stay out of Justin's way.
Speaker 5: So I'm gonna try to do that as much as
i can.
Speaker 3: But I did have a question for a hear and
that is I'm going to ask you the question first,
and then I have a little explainer i'd like to
give it. And the question is what good does five
hundred eye witnesses get you? And so I want you
to think of that in the context of this this
idea that extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence. And that's at
least the way I read it, is that if you
want to make a claim of something extraordinary, you can't
rely on the mountains of everyday, mundane common evidence that
we have. If you're asking, do you believe that you
know Julius Caesar existed, Yeah, we have some evidence that
he existed, and some of that evidence might apply to
other people as well. But the claim is that this
a person exists, and we have lots of evidence that
people exist. We have lots of evidence that some of
those people attain the rank of Caesar, et cetera, et cetera,
et cetera. So if you're making a claim that Jesus existed,
that's one thing. And you know, Justin was saying that,
you know, he kind of thinks that Jesus probably existed,
and I'm kind of in that same boat too. I'm
I'm fine accepting that there was a that there was
a rabbi during that time named Jesus, who was who
was preaching this message and so on. The question, though,
is related to whether or not this Jesus person was
a god, And so I would ask you, we have
these stories and these eyewitness reports, and eyewitness reports we
know are a little can be sketchy in some circumstances,
but we use eyewitness reports to to justify common beliefs.
If my wife says, yeah, I just got back from McDonald's,
you know, I'm gonna believe her, you know, because we
do that kind of thing all the time, and it's
a common event and requires common basic evidence. But if
you're saying that something outstanding is happening, I think the
bar goes a little bit higher because now we have
to we have to weigh what's more likely that the
stories are true or that these people got the story wrong. Okay,
there's lots of ways they could get the story wrong.
They could be mistaken, they could be lying, they could
be misquoted, they could be you know, passing on something
that they misheard from someone else. There's lots of reasons
that somebody could get a story like this wrong. And yes,
I agree, it's way less likely for five hundred people.
And again I'm stipulating the five hundred witnesses here, but
it's even less likely for five hundred people to get
that story wrong. But we know that that probability is
not zero. We know that it's still possible that five
hundred people could get the story wrong. So the question
that I would ask you, and piggybacking on the challenges
that that Justin gave, is why do you think the
fact that the story is true is more likely an
explanation for the stories than they were just wrong? Because
that bar that somebody as God is understandably much higher
than saying somebody exists.
Speaker 5: What do you have to say about that?
Speaker 6: Well, I think that well, the prophecies were filled David's
Masoneric prophecies and songs and Isaiah and the like. But
when it comes to the eyewitness accounts being credible or not,
I know, even today Eyewinness accounts can be thrown out
in court for being you know, they're not admissible in court.
But when we're talking about history that ancient, I think
all we have to rely on are the a the
artifacts they left and be the eyewitness accounts and what
those people wrote. Right, So I mean things like the
shroud of Turin. I mean even NASA took a look
at that and they still can't give a proper explanation.
I mean I believe, and don't quote me on this,
but the light, the amount of light that would be
needed to make an imprint on that level would be
so immense that have to come from some sort of
nuclear reaction, and then.
Speaker 2: In the nuclear reaction would destroy the cloth.
Speaker 6: I think they said the amount of light generated. I
don't know about just trying the cloth itself, but.
Speaker 1: Like it would it would probably get annihily from like
like alpha radiation or gamma radiation or whatever type of
radiation is going, they're going to be appealing to, Like
it has a tendency to like destroy and decay you know,
other other molecules, other atoms.
Speaker 3: But even if we accepted this, even even if we
even if we stipulated boy, a lot of light was
needed to to you know, make these markings on this
on this cloth. So what does that get you closer
to a God? You know, God can't do that unless
God exists. So that's really something tying thing. Saying that
God caused something is really something that should be addressed
further on down the line, because if there is no God,
then that's just an unexplained phenomenon, right, And so if
unless you already are assuming that God exists, God can't
do that to a cloth.
Speaker 5: If God doesn't exist, would you agree with that.
Speaker 6: Well, yeah, you'd have to assume God exists. But I
think if you're coming from it from a scientific perspective,
there's still no answer.
Speaker 5: So I don't want to go does no answer get
you to an answer of God?
Speaker 7: Though?
Speaker 3: That's that's a big difference between saying between admitting that
you don't have an answer, which happens. Scientists do that
all the time. They say, you know, we don't, we
just don't know. We see this thing, we see, we
have this evidence that there must have been a nuclear
explosion or nuclear reaction or something or that amount of light,
whatever it is. But then making the jump to a
god must have done it, that that I think is
specious and I think that's unsupported as well.
Speaker 6: Well. I'm i'd like to man, you know, that's a
good point. That really is a good point. I really
need to brush up on my apologetics. Man, you showed me.
But I think that if there is a lack of
explanation from any human means, and it has to be
outside of science or understanding, because why, it has to
be outside of our current understanding of what we can do,
what we can do now, of what we can measure.
Now that's a way.
Speaker 3: What we know that we can do. Now there's a difference.
Do you see the difference? Yeah, So certain we might
be able to do things that we don't know we
can do. And so then going back to what I
was saying earlier, if that's an if that's a possible explanation,
if that's how you're qualifying possible explanations by just saying
you know it fits the fits the description.
Speaker 5: Okay, that fits the discretion. So again you have the
same thing. How do you know your description, your reasoning,
how do you know your conclusion is more likely than
some other more mundane conclusions? And a nuclear reaction is
is is.
Speaker 3: An unlow is A is a rare phenomenon, but it's
still we know it's really we have evidence that that
kind of thing happens, not like not.
Speaker 6: Like in a tomb, though I don't think at least
our current understanding. Uh. I don't want to make a
God of the gap sort of argument, because I know
that's been had a million holes poked through it. But
how are you going to mention or not mentioned but
measures something that's just unmeasurable. I mean, we don't know
how it got there, and that felt you're totally reasonable
to say, well, how can you attribute that to God?
You're totally reasonable in saying that, and.
Speaker 2: It makes it suggest.
Speaker 1: So we've had two different scientists, one of them Italian
and one of not that I have actually recreated the
shroud using methods that would have been available in the
time period where it was carbonated to, namely the twelve
hundreds and the thirteen hundreds, so.
Speaker 2: We do know that it is possible to make it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, There are at least two different scientists that we
know of who have actually published who have been able
to replicate the shroud the one. Let me grab you
the name of the one that I'm specifically thinking of.
Speaker 2: I've got his name written down here. Let's see, I'm.
Speaker 6: Looking at a Google. I'm looking at Google right now,
the name of jb Renaldo and neutron and tone of
missions that.
Speaker 1: No, I'm not, I'm looking for the guy who actually
recreated the shroud.
Speaker 2: Give me one second.
Speaker 1: So the guy that we're looking for is going to
be I.
Speaker 2: Got the article right here. His name is.
Speaker 1: He's a professor if I remember correctly, and it's a
it's a super difficult, difficult name. It's Luigi Garla Shelley.
And don't ask me to pronounce or to spell Garla Shelley.
Luji Garis Shelley was on a mission to recreate the
shroud using archaic methods, and you did a pretty good
job of it. And I think we've got a lot
of problems with the shroud. One that it doesn't make
sense from a like a three D mapping standpoint, Like
if you've seen if you lay a cloth around something
that's round, and then you've flattened it out like the shroud,
well the face becomes like elongated.
Speaker 2: You should see the ears like out rather than.
Speaker 1: Out here, because it was wrapping around the head and
that we don't see that on the shroud. The other
problem is the Gospel of John states that he was
wrapped in multiple linens, including a head covering, meaning he
had a head covering, and then he was wrapped as
well in multiple linens.
Speaker 2: It wasn't actually customary to.
Speaker 1: Just lay a dude on a sheet and then drape
the other part over top of him.
Speaker 2: That wasn't typically how it was done.
Speaker 1: So the shroud of Turin would contradict the biblical account
as well. And then when it was discovered, the pope
at the time and the bishop who was involved in
investigating the discovery found the guy who brought it forward,
and the guy who brought it forward said that it
wasn't real, And so I guess I don't really I
don't know why we're still like trying to figure out,
like if the shroud is archaic since it was a
confessed forgery at a time where church relics were, you know,
abundantly being forged.
Speaker 6: Well, I suppose, I mean, I suppose it's continued to
be prevalent because of NASA's analysis of it.
Speaker 2: What did NASA say and where can I find their article?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm curious to read that.
Speaker 6: Let me let me look because maybe hearsay didn't look
at the Shroud of Turin.
Speaker 1: Because I'm aware that there was there was some imaging
done in the seventies, but it's not recent and that
same I don't know that same time period. It went
through a battery of different tests, including carbon dating from
like six different laboratories, and they dated it to the
to the thirteenth century.
Speaker 6: Well, the problem is there was repairs done to the
Shroud of Turin because there was fought.
Speaker 2: That's been disproven. That's been widely disproven.
Speaker 1: That's a claim that even the people who did the
carbon testing has refuted.
Speaker 6: Okay, well I'm not aware of that. I'll have to
go look at that after this. But this is just
the AI over you. Yes, scientists affiliated with NASA another
US institutions examined the Shroud of Turin in nineteen seventy.
It's part of the Shroud of sre In research project,
the stu R.
Speaker 2: Right, so not NASA.
Speaker 6: So yeah, it would appear they're just scientists that were affiliated.
Speaker 5: Right, So the sientists were NASA affiliated. Right.
Speaker 1: That's kind of a weird way to phrase it, right,
It's kind of like they're trying to borrow NASA's branding capital,
you know.
Speaker 5: I mean, what was they.
Speaker 6: I mean, if you say you're a marine, but you
retired once a marine, always a marine, right.
Speaker 1: But that's different if you're that's different than saying that
the Marine Corps studied it.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 5: Yeah, good point.
Speaker 1: So we don't we don't know if this person was
a scientist like the person that's associated with NASA. We
don't know if they were a scientist with NASA or
a janitor. We don't know anything about the person.
Speaker 6: Very true. By the way, you guys are really great
at this. I would this is really eye opening for me.
I really need to read up more.
Speaker 2: Well, listen, we've been doing this.
Speaker 1: For quite some time. Right, So it's not your fault.
You said you're new to apologetics.
Speaker 2: We'll just let you.
Speaker 1: Know that we've heard like every talking point in the book,
and we already we already have opinions on it that
are pretty easy to substantiate.
Speaker 2: But let me ask you a question. I don't want
to appile too much on you.
Speaker 1: You're being like super good faith, but I think you
know one of the things you said earlier that I
think for me was one of the reasons why I
left Christianity was this idea that Jesus like fulfilled all
these messianic prophecies. I used to believe that, but then
I studied the Hebrew Bible and he didn't fill anything.
And like I get that, there are some people that
will be like, well, yeah, but look, he fulfilled these psalms.
But like, psalms aren't actually prophecies, Like a prophecy is
like a real form of speech where God says like, hey,
something's going to happen, and then it happens, and somebody
writing in the psalms just because we find a psalm
where like one verse sounds vaguely familiar that something happened later,
it doesn't automatically make it prophetic. That's not how prophecy works.
So like, I don't maybe you can help me out.
I don't know a single Messianic prophecy that Jesus ever fulfilled.
Speaker 6: I know he had unfurled a scroll from I believe
Isaiah forty or forty.
Speaker 1: Two, almost it was Isaiah sixty one in Luke chapter four.
Speaker 6: Oh man, I was close. But what really caught my
eye there was he didn't read the full prophecy. And
as far as my understanding goes, the second half of
that prophecy is understood to be his second coming, what
would be fulfilled?
Speaker 7: There?
Speaker 2: You go? Perfect? All right, we touched on a very
good point.
Speaker 1: Yeah. In Luke chapter four, he's in the synagogue and
they handled the Isaiah scroll and he reads, the spirit
of the Lord is upon me because he.
Speaker 2: Has annoyed to me to bring good news to the poor.
Speaker 1: He said, to proclaim release of the captives, recovery of
sight to the blind, although recovery of site the blind's
not actually in the Hebrew Bible. That's an addition, to
set free those who are oppressed, and to proclaim the
year of the Lord's favor.
Speaker 2: And he rolled up the.
Speaker 1: Scroll, gave it back to the attendant, set down, and
then it says, today the scripture has been fulfilled in
your hearing. Okay, Now the problem, and you already know
what the problem is because you kind of mentioned it,
is that if you go to where this originates, originates
from Isaiah sixty one, like, it doesn't actually look like
it's about Jesus because you've got just this vague block
of text. The spirit of the Lord is upon me,
so on and so forth, and then the rest of it.
He stops right before it says to proclaim the year
of the Lord's favor. He stops, and then it goes
on and the day of vengeance of our God. That's
one sentence, the year of the Lord's favor and the
day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,
to provide for those who mourn in Zion. And then
you already notice if you keep reading, like a verse four,
he clearly talking about the restoration of the Israelite people
after captivity, says they will build up the ancient ruins,
they shall raise up the former devastations, they shall repair
the ruined cities.
Speaker 2: So on and so forth.
Speaker 1: So like if the prophecy, if we're reading the prophecy,
and it's clearly about the restorrection of Israel and Jesus
didn't restore the tribes of Israel, or the land or
the cities.
Speaker 2: It just seems to me like he didn't fulfill this.
Speaker 1: And if you're saying, well, he partially fulfilled it, I mean,
to be fair, it's kind of a meaningless point, like
I've partially fulfilled this as long as I get to
fulfill the mundane parts that anybody could do and just
say the spirit of Lord God is upon me because
he anointed me.
Speaker 2: Okay, I mean anyone could have done that, John.
Speaker 1: De Baptists, I'm a brock Cochba, Like there's nobody, not
a single prophet within Judaism couldn't claim something of that nature.
It's to me saying that he partially fulfilled it, and
then the part that he partially fulfilled is mundane and
anyone could have done it to me, just tells me
that this guy didn't fulfill any prophecies.
Speaker 6: Well, I believe there were also prior prophecies that said
you would be strung up. I think is that in
Daniel or is that in another book of the prophets?
But I think when it's talking about around verse four
rebuilding the old ruins, they shall raise up former desolations
and such, and they wait to bear the ruined cities.
Speaker 3: I think, Isaac, could I jump in here real quick
before you move on to a new prophecy. Do you
what's your response on what Justin had to say about
that prophecy. Do you still think that was a fulfilled
prophecy or are you setting that aside and then going
to the next one because it seems like it might
be a deflection.
Speaker 5: I want to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 6: Ologies. I think what this here is about in Isaiah
sixty one is when it's referring to the second half
of the prophecy, stopping mid sentence. I think it's talking
about tribulation, and not just tribulation, but the millennial kingdom
and Israel being raised up, you know, heavenly Jerusalem and
the such. So why that's my impression, But.
Speaker 2: Why would we believe that?
Speaker 6: I know there's concepts of heavenly and earthly Jerusalem referenced
earlier book. I can't quote you where.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but so if a if a prophecy, let's say
the prophecy has five stipulations, and the first stipulation is
really easy.
Speaker 2: It's just hey, the.
Speaker 1: Spirit of Lord God is upon me, and I'm going
to do some really cool stuff. I want to help
a lot of people. And then the rest of it
I just didn't do. Like, don't you find it weird
that you'd be like, oh yeah, that the other stuff,
the more difficult stuff in that prophecy, He'll do that
when he.
Speaker 2: Comes back to me. That sounds like a cop out.
Speaker 1: Listen, if you've got a five point prophecy and Jesus
only fulfills one point in the prophecy, it sounds to
me like he's just not the fulfillment of the prophecy.
Speaker 6: Well, what about the other prophecies he did fulfill? Though? What?
Speaker 2: I again, I don't know of a single one.
Speaker 6: Let me do some google and quote on. But go ahead, prophecy.
Speaker 1: You're gonna put a list of three hundred and fifty
one prophecies and it's going to start in Genesis three
point fifteen, and I promise I know.
Speaker 2: Every one of them.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 5: I hope you're justin.
Speaker 3: I hope your evening is free tonight, because we're gonna
we're gonna go through the entire list tonight.
Speaker 6: Oh no, I think you're dragon through all that.
Speaker 1: My first live stream. Ever, I was on TikTok of
the years ago. It's not recorded. I went through that list.
I had like a two hour window. I was like,
I don't know how many can I get through in
a period of two hours, And I got through like
over a hundred of them. It was pretty fun.
Speaker 6: All Right, that's impressive. I mean, that's that's definitely a
feat to have all those answers memorized. But I guess
for me, and this is what I'm semi familiar with,
is the lineage you know, the stump of Jesse.
Speaker 2: Oh sure, this is one of my favorite topics.
Speaker 1: So Isaiah eleven, okay, uh yeah, Isaiah eleven.
Speaker 2: Sure. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So for those who don't know, Isaiah eleven says, a
shoot shall come out from the stump of Jesse, and
our branch shall grow out of roots. The spirit the
Lord will rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and
understand so and so forth. So why would we think
that this is Jesus.
Speaker 6: Because the lineage can be tracked down in the New
Testament where Mary had come from. That's mine perfect, That's
where I think, gotcha.
Speaker 1: Okay, So we're going to turn the into Matthew chapter
one in Luke chapter three.
Speaker 2: Now, like you, when I was in church, I had.
Speaker 1: People say that actually Joseph wasn't the daddy, so we
can't trace him back to David. But Mary's lineage is given,
and so we can use Mary's lineage. Mary's lineage is
typically attributed to Luke chapter three, and unfortunately, when you
go to Luke chapter three, we don't hear anything about
Mary's lineage. In fact, if you go to verse twenty three,
which is where we see the culmination of the lineage,
because Jesus was about thirty years old when he began
his work, he was the son as was thought of Joseph,
the son of Eli, son of son of Levi.
Speaker 2: So the lineage in Luke is actually for Joseph.
Speaker 6: Okay, yeah, I've never heard that.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And there's another problem actually, because inside of this lineage
it traces through Nathan, right. So traditionally the lineage was
supposed to go through King David and then through Solomon.
So if you go to Second Samuel seven, verse twelve
or so, what you'll find is that God made a
promise and it shows up as well in the Book
of Kings.
Speaker 2: If I remember.
Speaker 1: Correctly, I can grab that in a second, if it
becomes you know, if it becomes relevant. Actually, Psalm eighty
nine is the other place we probably want to look at.
Psalm eighty nine. So in Second Samuel seven twelve through fourteen,
it says, when your days are fulfilled, and you'll lie
down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring
after you, who shall come forth from your body. So
it's got to be a physical offspring. And I will
establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name,
and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
And I will be a father to him, and he
shall be a son to me, and so on and
so forth. And this is culmu dating after God gets
done saying this, Solomon takes the throne. This is obviously
talking about the kingdom that has passed down through Solomon.
So going through Nathan in the chapter three of Luke's
seems like kind of silly, and we get kind of
the more the same. In Psalm eighty nine, it repeats
the promise, says, you have said, I made a covenant
with my chosen one. I've sworn to my servant David,
I will establish your descendants forever and build your throne
for all generations, and then he says something similar in
thirty three and thirty four. He says, I will not
violate my covenant or alter the word that went forth
from my lips once and for all I have sworn
by my holiness.
Speaker 2: I will not lie to David.
Speaker 1: His line shall continue forever, and his throne shall be
before me like the sun. But David's line to the
king to the throne didn't continue forever, and Jesus isn't
part of David's line.
Speaker 6: I mean, does it have to be well, does David's
family have to still reign as kings and queens and
princesses and princes though for that to be fulfilled?
Speaker 1: Well, that's what it says, right, says that the promise
is going to go through Solomon and that he is
going to establish the throne forever. And in fact, we
see this repeated in Jeremiah thirty three. Jeremiah is a
really interesting passage when it comes to Jesus's lineage and kingship,
because in Jeremiah thirty three and twenty two we've got
two very interesting admissions. In thirty three when it talks
about the Messianic age, it says, let's say that the
Lord David shall never lack a man to sit on
the throne of the House of Israel, and the levitical
priests shall never lack a man in my presence to
offer burn offerings, to make grein offerings, and to make
sacrifices forever. So unfortunately, this is predicting that the dividic
line is never going to have a break in it
at all.
Speaker 2: And when there's a repeat in.
Speaker 1: A couple other parts of Jeremiah, Jeremiah twenty two thirty,
there's a gentleman who gets cursed Jack Andiah shortened to
Kenaia in some passages.
Speaker 2: He's kind of a wicked king.
Speaker 1: God doesn't like him, and it says, thus, say the
Lord record this man as childless, who shall not succeed
in his days, for none of his offspring shall succeed
in sitting on the throne of David and ruling again
in Judah. So even at the time of Jeremiah, they're
expecting that the rulers of Judah, the rulers who sit
on the throne, are like the physical seed of the
physical offspring of the kings. And it just so happens
that in the Gospel of Matthew that Jesus his lineage
gets traced through Jack and Yah, which means in both lineages,
neither one of them go back to David, and they
both go through an improper line One goes through Nathan
and one goes through Jack Andiah, and none of Jack
Andized descendants are allowed to sit on the her own.
Speaker 6: Okay, could this pertain to any sort of spiritual kings?
I mean, that's my first thought. Did I know Clents
would be the spiritual king because they were expect to
The Jews were expecting for their Messiah to be a physical.
Speaker 1: King, because that's what the Hebrew Bible says. If you
go to Ezekiel thirty six and thirty seven and go
to the other passage like even Isaiah eleven that you
quoted earlier, which is paralleled in Isaiah two and micahfore
talks about like an actual king that defeats the enemies
of Israel. Even Zachariah nine, verse nine, and ten talk
about the same thing. So the minute we go to
these passages and they're like, Hm, well they didn't really
seem to come true, let's just spiritualize them. Well, it
seems like now the words don't really have any meaning. Like,
once I get to a text, IM say, listen, I
actually don't like what these say at face value. I'm
going to spiritualize them. Is there anything that we can
not make them say? I can make them say they're
about me, as long as I get to ignore the context,
the history and the plane you know, the plane reading
of the text.
Speaker 6: Well, for me, one of the biggest ones was you know,
he was pierced for our transgressions. Didn't it say that?
Smart in Isaiah? Okay, let me look Isaiah fifty three,
that's where it said that. And then the resurrection because
I'm looking at a list of my own ear Psalm
sixteen ten was not abandoned to the grave.
Speaker 2: Well, we can talk about.
Speaker 1: Any one of those that you want.
Speaker 2: I'm familar with all of them.
Speaker 1: I think Isaiah fifty three, if you're reading the Bible
in context, is admittedly about the righteous remmed into Israel.
Speaker 2: And the reason why I believe this is.
Speaker 1: One because I've I've read all the prophets, so I
know what the prophets say about the servant. And also
within this section of Isaiah, I've tried to.
Speaker 2: Dump too much information on you.
Speaker 1: But the section of Isaiah that we're dealing with is
chapter forty to fifty five, which is generally considered Dutero
or second Isaiah, and it's considered a second author from Isaiah,
somebody that came from his school, because the verbiage is different,
the time period of writing is different, and the text
itself tells you that it comes two hundred years later,
which we can cover later.
Speaker 2: Anyways, In this section, the theme is.
Speaker 1: That the Israelites are done paying for their crimes. They
got sent to the Bablon in captivity, and their time
of service is up, and God's about to liberate them,
and then He's going to exalt them, and then all
the nations are going to see that Yahweh has been
glorified through the exaltation of his servant, the nation of Israel,
which he tells you in the same section Isaiah forty
one eight through nine. He says, but you Israel, my servant, Jacob,
and whom I've chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend,
you who I took from the ends of the earth
and called you from its furthest corners, saying that you
are my servant.
Speaker 2: I've chosen you and not cast you off.
Speaker 1: So right at the beginning of the section chapter forty one,
God's like, hey, Israel, you're my servant. I didn't forget you,
I haven't cast you off. And then forty three to
ten he says, you are my witnesses in the plural,
you are my witnesses. Does the Lord and my servant
whom I have chosen? He says something similar in forty
four verse one and two, forty four, twenty one, forty
five to four.
Speaker 2: My favorite reference is.
Speaker 1: Forty eight twenty because it gives you the overarching theme
of Second Isaiah, which is go out from Babylon, flee
from Choda chowda is the people group that lived in Babylon,
declare this with a shout of joy, proclaim it, and
send it forth to the ends of the earth, and
say that the Lord has redeemed his servant Jacob.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 1: So when I get to chapter fifty two and chapter
fifty three and I see this servant song, I'm saying, Ah,
the author of this text has already told me on
nine different occasions that the people of Israel the remnant,
the righteous womnin and the visual specifically is in fact
the servant that he's dealing with. Yes, well, I don't
really have a good reason to think that it's somehow
not Israel. When I get to chapter fifty three, I'm
going to I'm not going to read all of them
in context and say, actually, the servants is real on
all these occasions. But actually, now that I'm looking at it,
I'm going to make this servant somebody that comes, you know,
six hundred years later to me.
Speaker 2: That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Speaker 6: That's understandable from how you've said it. I mean, I
have no way to disprove you from my current understanding,
and I just have to ask you, now, will this
be did this time? Go back to this when it's
not live to rewatch it, because honestly, I'm not really
trying to win here or anything like that. I'm really
just trying to increase my understanding. So you've brought a
million and a half great points. So I hes off
to you, and I might even call back in a
month or two time, just to when I've already refreshed
over all this stuff, gotten a better understanding.
Speaker 1: Yeah, for sure, And listen again, this isn't We're not
in a competition with each other.
Speaker 2: We're just here to have some dialogue.
Speaker 1: And I to say, I remember when I was a
young Christian, I used to engage in apologetics. And right
before it was the summer before I started Bible College,
I had a friend of mine who was in a
Bible study with me, and she actually just finished Bible College.
She was a couple years older than me, and we
were dialoguing about what we think we could present to
people who don't believe that might entice them to become believers.
And I say, well, I think the Messianic prophecies are
pretty good, because it seems like there's quite a few
of them, and the odds would be pretty slim to
fulfill so many of them. And she's like, justin, like
all these ones that you're talking about, like, if you
go back to the Hebrew Bible and read them, it
doesn't actually look like he fulfilled them, at least not
in any meaningful way.
Speaker 2: I was like, well, that's really interesting.
Speaker 1: I didn't expect that from someone to just graduate from
Bible College. And so I went back that summer before
I started Bible College and I read all of them.
I read all of the Old Testament, prophets and all
of them as they're related to Jesus and the New Testament,
and I came to the same conclusion, Oh yeah, he
didn't actually fulfill these in any meaningful way. It seems
like they're all like either spiritually fulfilled or partially fulfilled,
or you'd have to like win real hard and ignore
the context. And so that to me, that was like
at the beginning phase of my deconstruction. But I was
so confident in this talking point because I hadn't actually
fully read them yet. So my only suggestion is, hey,
spend some time this summer summer is coming up, my friend,
and read through all of the profits and how they
get used in the New Testament and ask yourself, like,
would I accept this if it was in the Quran,
Would I accept this if I found it in the Vedas?
Or do I only accept it because I already believe
in the religion.
Speaker 3: And I would like to add on if I can
to what Justin was saying about this idea about reflecting
on your own thought process as you're as you're thinking
about these I think I think we've we've seen in
our discussion here, at least from from my perspective that
these arguments from from Miracles.
Speaker 6: Sor I don't know my phone is connected. Perhaps you'll
hear me.
Speaker 3: Sorry, sorry, I was just saying that it that it
seems to me from my perspective that these are these
arguments from Can you hear me?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 6: All right?
Speaker 3: Well maybe maybe when you go back to watch the
recording you'll you'll you'll catch everything that I'm saying here.
But these these arguments from from Prophecy fail on two counts. One,
as Justin has just given in extensive, abundant detail, they
fail on content, at least the ones that we've that
we've talked about here. And the second thing that I
was kind of hinting at is that the arguments also
fail on form too. They're also not good logically either.
And so the the premises are failing, and the logical
structure is also failing, because it doesn't even if the profit,
even if there was a prophecy, a very specific and
very unlikely prophecy, and things happened exactly the way that
the prophecy says, that does not grant you the tie
to a god. It just means that something weird happened.
And so again the question that I asked you before
is why would that make God more likely than just
coincidence or that the story was made up after the
fact by people who had read the prophecy earlier on.
I mean the people who wrote the New you know,
the New Testament, many of them knew the stories from
the Old Testament, and so a lot of that came
into play. One last thing that I want to ask
you here is to You've been a great.
Speaker 5: Caller, by the way.
Speaker 3: I really enjoy how you've engaged with what we've been saying.
And it's been clear that you've been thinking about what
we've been saying, which is surprisingly uncommon.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 3: The fact that we're that we're saying things and you're
actually considering it and giving us considered thoughtful feedback, I
think that's awesome.
Speaker 5: I think we need more of that in the world today.
Whether you're a.
Speaker 3: Theist or an atheist, I think thinking about what the
other people say is something that's lost, and so I
want to encourage you to reflect on the way you
felt while we were having this conversation. Just to give
you a very very short example, there was a time,
you know, maybe five eight years ago or something like that,
when something bad happened to somebody that I admired, or
you know, somebody that I admired did something that was questionable.
And so as soon as I heard about that, I
was like, Okay, I'm going to watch myself. How do
I react to the stories about this thing happening. And
when I when I started reading the stories about this
bad thing happening being done by somebody that I respected,
I could I could feel myself wanting to turn away.
Speaker 5: And I could. I could, really I could. I could
see this happening to me.
Speaker 3: I could see the desire to to turn the page
and to and to move on to dismiss it as
being you know, stories or biased reporting or whatever it is.
And I think that kind of self reflection can can
really give you insight into your own thinking process. I mean,
we all have biases, we all One thing that all
human beings have in common is that they we all
have a human brain, and human.
Speaker 5: Brains work in very similar ways.
Speaker 3: And and so I think it's it's important that we
learn how we that we self reflect, that we that
we know that we try to understand why we're responding
the way we are.
Speaker 5: And I'm not saying.
Speaker 3: That that you should be assuming that you had knee
jerk reactions and we're avoiding and that kind of thing.
Speaker 5: But just think about that, that kind of thing.
Speaker 3: And I think those two, those two things going hand,
being thoughtful about what other people say, but also being
thoughtful about what you yourself say.
Speaker 5: And and that can help help you.
Speaker 3: And whether or not it leads you to deeper into
your theism or whether it leads you to atheism remains
to be seen. But but I'm I'm impressed by by
your engagement with with what we've been saying. And I
want to encourage you. I'm a teacher, this is what
I do. I want to encourage you to think about
your process as you move forward.
Speaker 5: Does that make any sense to you, Isaac?
Speaker 6: Oh, for sure? And I thank you guys for your patients.
It's become very evident to me that I am in
a lower class of debate than I sure thought I was,
you know, because there's the people that they aren't exactly
familiar with any of this stuff, who are like your
average person on the street who's like in that Christian culture,
you know, they don't exactly go to church, they don't
really read it that much. But then you have somebody
like me who has you know, a base level understanding
of some of these texts, has read them a couple
of times that can give them an answer. Then there's
that next level like you guys, who can give a
counter to that. So for me, I'm just going to
go rewatch what we've looked at right now, and I'm
gonna brush up on all this stuff. I'm gonna look
at what the apologists before us have said to all
this stuff, because I've never heard any of this. Usually,
the quality of debate out there on this kind of
thing is so sadly low. It's some Muhammed hit job
level's head out there, especially as well, where it's just mudglinging.
Is mud flinging. Yeah, I mean Matt Delahante, he is
a great guy. Who was listening to him last night.
I mean he had mentioned, and I don't know how
I am for prime, but uh, he had mentioned the
story of and I'm not going to try to make
a debate out of it, but uh, the story of
Elisha sending the two she bears after the children or
the youths. And he had said that I had started
his d conversion. Yeah, yeah, he said that had started
his deconversion train and he was going to seminary and
all that. But my understanding just by reading the Hebrew,
because there's people like him that are so well read,
and I may just be overlooking something that he's seen
that I have not, Like there's translation differences, like that
word youth in that context could mean young men. I mean,
I believe that same word was used for fur to
Joseph when he was seventeen. So yeah, I think.
Speaker 1: The I'm pretty familiar with this with the Hebrew in
this text as well. So you've got the youth using
the word not au rem sonar is Hebrew for like
a youth, like a young person, and it's pretty broad.
And then you've got a modifier katan, which means small,
so it'd be a rem katanim, which would be the
plural of little youth children basically, And so that's why
you know, scholars overwhelmingly will translate it as children rather
than youth, because they're not just youth. They're a little
use are probably between like eight and twelve, so it's
it's a little bit difficult to pinpoint the age, but
we don't have a good reason to believe that they
were like a band of like roaming nineteen year old
gangbangers looking to mess up Elisha. And the other thing
is what were they doing, Whether they're making fun of
him because he was bald some thing that kids do.
Teenagers don't engage in that kind of stuff. They're usually like,
oh yeah, I mean another ten or fifteen years, I'll
be bald too, right, So to me, it just looks.
Speaker 2: Like the.
Speaker 6: Age well pretty childish people that are like nineteen before.
But that's I mean, I get what you.
Speaker 1: Said, and like, So, while I agree that the word
in r can get used kind of broadly, an archaton
doesn't really. And there's like one passage that people turn
to in the historical books where Solomon refers to himself
as an archatan, but he also is using it in
a very whimsical idiomatic fashion where when he first gets
told he's gonna take over for his dad, he's very
emotional and he's like, you know, certainly not I I
don't even know how to come or go. I'm but
a small child, right, Well, obviously he knows how to
come out of the house and come into the house.
That this is a hyper bog statement where he's abasing
himself before yeahweh basically saying, hey, I'm not worthy. I've
got the intelligence of a child. I don't even know
how to come into the house and go out of
the house, right, And that's the only other reference to
this formulation of words. And it's clear in the way
that Solomon is using the words, he's comparing himself to
a child.
Speaker 2: So I think it's important.
Speaker 1: While the apologetics are good, I used to when I
was a young Christian, I read the same apologetics and
then I read the counter to the apologetics. Oh actually, yeah,
the counter say the apologetics makes more sense.
Speaker 6: Well, for me, there's another level above. You know, there's
a counter to the counter, and that's just I'm not
aware of the counter to the counter that you guys
have brought up. And it may just be so that
they are not as good as the atheist counter to
these scripts. But for me, I still do believe in Christ,
though there is a major lack of understated on these
verses that I have, But that's very apparent. I will
say this because I got to go, I got take
some medication I have. I have hemophilia, so I believe
and whatnot. But I wanted to ask you, guys, would
you be willing to have me on in a month
or two if I were to call back.
Speaker 2: Here, Oh, any time.
Speaker 1: Yeah, You're always welcome to call back, especially such a
good faith caller. These are the type of calls we
want to have with people we don't you know, we're
not specifically looking for people who are going to crash
out and lose their mind.
Speaker 2: We love these good faith calls definitely.
Speaker 6: All right, Well you were a mathemattician, right or the
all right, sorry, Scott Dickey, you're the mathematician in justin
you were the guy that went to seminary, right, just
give myself acquainted?
Speaker 2: True? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I went to I did.
Speaker 1: My background's actually electrical engineering. I went to school for
robotics and engineering, and then I went to the Bible College
and seminary. And it was lucky for me because I
could work as an engineer. Once I kind of, you know,
decided that Christianity was going to pen out.
Speaker 6: All right, Well, God bless you guys. I hope you
have a wonderfull rest of your show, and hope to
talk again soon.
Speaker 2: Curious friend.
Speaker 5: Good to hear for your music. That was a great call.
I really enjoyed that.
Speaker 2: What a nice Christian and.
Speaker 1: Like And again, you know we say it all the time, Listen,
we were not conn Scott. We don't expect that we're
going to talk to somebody and they're going to deconvert
on the phone. That's how that works, right, But we
do hope that they're going to be listening to the argument,
engaging with the argument, and trying to think through the
argument the same way that they did when they became
convinced of the religion.
Speaker 5: Right, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 5: Yeah, or at least as much. At least as much.
Speaker 3: But I'm curious as to how many of the deconstruction
stories that you see kind of start out this way
as somebody really engaging with the content and with the
claims with an honest, with an honest approach, I think that,
and I don't mean to imply dishonesty to anybody else,
but I think that if you look at things with
an with honesty and with integrity and with humility, it
makes for much better conversations, regardless of how those conversations
turn out.
Speaker 1: But Scott, have you considered that God actually just created
you to be a vessel of wrath? And salvation is
beyond your comprehension.
Speaker 5: That's pretty I can't argue with that. I have no
argument against that.
Speaker 1: Actually, friends, we got a super chat in while we
were talking.
Speaker 2: It looks like there might be more that came in.
Speaker 1: I didn't see them, but let me grab our super
chat from treaduce.
Speaker 2: I think saduce triple deuce.
Speaker 5: That looks pretty coolse Yeah, I was curious.
Speaker 3: That is how you're going to pronounce that, like, wait
a minute, backwards e acting as a three right tree deuce.
Speaker 1: Maybe anyways, Hey, it says happy Mother's Day to all
moms out there atheists or theists, and I agree, Happy
Mother's Day, y'all. Make sure to get your mom some
flowers and call her on the phone and thank her
for pushing your giant head out of the birth can,
because that is a monumental feat that, if evolution is true,
makes sense.
Speaker 2: If God is.
Speaker 1: True is old and vindictive, crazy stuff. We've got some
people waiting in the queue. We do, uh, we do
have lines open on TikTok. I don't see anyone in
the TikTok queue. You can call in on TikTok using
the guest request. You can call in at five one nine, two,
four to two or using the link tiny dot c
c Forde slash call XP and we'll get you in.
Our key is not full on the lines either. If
you call in, I don't know uh. During the next
call or too, we'll probably be able to get to you.
If you wait another hour to call in, we might
not have time to get to your friends because it's
already six thirty. But I do want to run through
a couple quick announcements before we take our next guest,
So let's see what our announcements have changed. Look at that, hey, listen,
I've got a very short list of announcements. Announcement number
one it says we're going to bring up our friend
and co host, Jamie the Blind Limey, because we've got
an announcement for a May event and it's going to
be rolling right now.
Speaker 8: Jamie the Blind lime here, and I've got some interesting
news for you. On Saturday, May sixteenth, at six pm,
we'll be hosting our twenty four hour We Are Here
live stream and fundraiser to highlight secular voices around the world.
We've invited dozens of your favorite content creators like genetically
Modified Skeptic, the Antibot, Justin d Z and more to
let the world know that we are here and we're
not going anywhere. If you're here in Austin, come join
us at Free Thought Library at fifteen oh seven West
cain Igline. Well, we'll be kicking things off in style,
and if you're online, do join us on the Atheist
Experience channel to check out the stream and join in
the fund. So join us from wherever you are in
the world, and together we can dedicate ourselves to secular
humanist values wherever we are.
Speaker 5: Yeah, that's coming up next weekend, right, that's next weekend,
So it's going to be a busy weekend. Justin, are
you doing anything for the Are you gonna be participating
in our You.
Speaker 2: Know, I apologize. I actually haven't gotten back with I know,
I've got an.
Speaker 1: Abundance of emails because next weekend there are two different
twenty four hour fundraisers happening on different networks that both
want me on.
Speaker 5: And that's what happens the ball man.
Speaker 1: So I just actually don't know what's happening. I think
I might be hosting a show set I don't know.
I gotta work it out between now and then, but
I'll try to make it to all of the places where.
Speaker 2: I can be.
Speaker 1: If you're watching, Marie, I'm sorry I didn't get back
to you.
Speaker 2: I promise i'll get back to you.
Speaker 1: But we do want to send a big thank you
out to the cast and crew that put the show
together every week. Hey, we've got a bunch of people
that help volunteer to make this show possible.
Speaker 2: We've got video.
Speaker 1: Operators, audio operators, note takers, call screeners, and chat moderators.
Speaker 2: So that means Scott and I don't have to screen the.
Speaker 1: Phone calls, we don't have to do the downboard, we
don't have to cast video anywhere. We just get to
sit up here and banter and talk to the guest.
So send a big thank you to the cast and crew.
And hey, listen, if you've got skills and you've got
free time, and you want to be a volunteer and
help out the ACA on any of the various ACA shows, Hey,
you can email us at volunteer at atheistdashcommunity dot org.
Speaker 2: Let them know that you've got.
Speaker 1: A particular skill and see if there's a place that
you can be plugged in. And even if you're like Hey, listen,
I would really be interested in hosting one of the
ACA shows.
Speaker 2: Sometime we're being a guest.
Speaker 1: Hey email at the same email volunteer at atheist dash
community dot org, and if we can get you plugged in,
we'll get you plugged in friends to see.
Speaker 2: Now, I think it's all of our announcements to scrab
if I'm looking at this correctly. Our first in line
I thought was Joel.
Speaker 1: He says, Joel's been here for fifty seven minutes, So
we'll grab Joel next, and then we'll grab Toby after Joel.
Speaker 5: That sounds good.
Speaker 1: Joel's calling all the way from Arkansas and is asking
can a perfect God create imperfection?
Speaker 2: Well, welcome to XP Joel. You're aw with Scott and Justin.
Speaker 1: How are you?
Speaker 4: Yes, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: So it sounds like your question is kind of a
familiar one to us, but I don't want to put
words in your mouth. Can you kind of fill out
your question and where you think it might the you know,
the conclusion might lead.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I'm kind of on the fence in my beliefs,
and what would be helpful is to design, first of all,
if the universe is a perfect universe. I don't think
the Earth is a perfect Earth, but I just am wondering,
really if there is a you know, God is supposed
to be a perfect god omnistion on the present and
all that, and can a being like that? Is it
possible for a perfect being to create imperfection?
Speaker 1: I think Scott I might have asolutely different answers. I'd
like to hear a Scot's answer first.
Speaker 5: I mean, I would be curious.
Speaker 3: You know, to me, the question seems ill formed, and
I because you know, the word perfect is really not
very specific. I mean perfect in what way?
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: I've heard people say God is perfect in every way. Well,
you can't be perfectly imperfect, and you can't be both
perfectly black and perfectly white at the same time, and
you can't be perfectly up and perfectly down.
Speaker 5: You know, there's it just seems you know, perfect.
Speaker 7: What is what?
Speaker 3: I what I would say when you said Earth is
not a perfect earth, I would disagree with that. I
think the Earth is a perfect earth. You know, it's
exactly the way Earth is. I mean, that's a tautological statement.
It has to be true. I'm the perfect me, You're
the perfect you, Justin is the perfect Justin And so really,
to me, the question doesn't doesn't even get off the ground.
Speaker 5: You know, perfect, what is it? What do you mean
by perfect?
Speaker 4: Well, you are absolutely right. I didn't really think about
that perspective of perfect. I guess it is an ill
formed question, which probably would be helpful for you to
help fill out the question a little bit, because my
view of perfect has always been your first definition of
perfect just you know, God is God is perfect in always.
That's That's what my thought has always been.
Speaker 3: Is that your thought, now, God is perfect in all ways?
So God's the perfect devil?
Speaker 4: Well, well, see, if you talk about God creating the devil,
I would think that that would be an imperfection.
Speaker 3: No, I would say, if God is perfect in every way,
then God is the perfect devil. Right now, to some extent,
I'm Penny yank in your chain here, because when people
say perfect, typically they're implying a handful you know, maybe
perfectly good, perfectly knowing, perfectly, you know, available, perfectly healthy,
you know, things like that, and so generally people are
implying a more specific meaning of perfection there. So I
am kind of giving you the business here, But I
still think that's an important thing to at least consider.
But I'm curious justin what are your thoughts on that
you said you wanted to take it a different I
see you're getting some top secret information from your cat there,
so maybe what did the cat have to.
Speaker 2: Say about it?
Speaker 6: Yeah?
Speaker 1: So heck what you can now see behind me on
the shelf getting ready to eat my plants? So I
think there might be a way out of this. First
of all, I agree with what Scott was going to say.
What Scott was saying, I think when we use the
word perfect, I think it's very intriguing to figure out
what we mean by perfect. We mean that like nothing's lacking,
or do we mean like it has perfect goodness?
Speaker 6: Like?
Speaker 2: There's some questions here.
Speaker 1: But if I was a Christian, this is how I
would resolve the problem. So here's some food for thought.
So I would say this tremis number one. If God exists, she.
Speaker 2: Is perfect, premis number two.
Speaker 1: If God is perfect, then her desires are perfect premis
number three. If her desires are perfect, then desiring to
create an imperfect universe is a perfect desire.
Speaker 2: Uh. And then the conclusion would obviously be.
Speaker 1: That an imperfect universe is uh is a you know,
uh not incompatible with God's perfect will.
Speaker 4: Well, I think if you it sounds like you're saying,
then everything is perfect. I mean, if God exists and
it's a perfect God, then everything is perfect, including good
and evil. It's just everything is perfect.
Speaker 2: As an atheist, I would agree with you.
Speaker 1: I'd say, yes, the creation is perfect in that this is.
Speaker 2: How God wanted it to be.
Speaker 1: Right now, I think the reason why this is a
good atheist position even though like, so this is the
fun part, right, I walked you through like a basic
syllogism I put together, so as an atheist we can
actually just agree to all those points.
Speaker 2: Like if we're talking to a Christian and say.
Speaker 1: Yes, we agree that creating an imperfect universe.
Speaker 2: Is perfect because God's will is perfect.
Speaker 1: And then I think the problem that you're going to
run into then is they're going to say, oh, actually
it's imperfect, not because he treated it that way, but
because of the fall.
Speaker 2: Oh so interesting.
Speaker 1: So God actually didn't intend to create an imperfect universe.
Speaker 2: He intended to create a perfect one.
Speaker 1: And now we get to do this really fun dialogue
about like the problem of evil. Okay, if God doesn't
want the imperfect universe. He actually wants a perfect universe,
but we have the imperfect one. We've got some serious
questions answer why is it that God allows this imperfection
when that's not actually his desires? See, this is a
fun question that I think does a lot of heavy
lifting if you're talking to a generic theist, But the
minute you talk to a Christian, it kind of if
you agree to the syllogism just defeats the Christian message.
If you're talking to a generic theist, I don't know
if you would grant them the entire syllogism.
Speaker 2: You might want to fight back on it.
Speaker 4: No, I always my view of perfection was going back
a little ways. My view of perfection as far as
God's perfection would have been He's perfectly good. And I
know in the Bible he's done some really nasty things
that my view would have been that he's perfectly good.
And I stumble on this question because I always my
thought is how can a perfect being create imperfection? And
I understand what you're saying, Well, if he's perfect, then
no matter what he does, it's going to be perfect. Honestly,
I don't like that. I don't like that statement.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a tough one.
Speaker 1: It is like you can get to a point of
logical foundness and validity with the syllogism. I would say
this though, if I was going to push back against that,
I would say something akin to, well, if God exists,
and then God himself or herself rather would be perfect.
But what that would imply is that all of God's
creation would have to be perfect. Because now we want
to get into the argument of goodness. Right, so if
God is perfect, we would expect that he always does
the best course of actions. Right, to be perfect, you
need to be perfect in goodness, because they would describe
like evil as like a lack of goodness or a
lack of God. So you'd say, listen, if God is
perfect and God is good, that means all of his
actions must be good necessarily. So then now you get
to ask the question, Okay, well, if all of his
actions are good, then the place that he created to
hear with all the unnecessary suffering. Well, this seems problematic
unless we think that unnecessary suffering is good. If we
agree that unnecessary suffering is not good, well, now we've
got a contradiction. Why is an all knowing, all powerful,
all loving God creating unnecessary suffering.
Speaker 2: If unnecessary suffering is not good.
Speaker 1: But if unnecessary suffering is good, well, now we just
get the absurdity. Well, if it's good, then why are
we helping children get sick when they're born to bone cancer?
Speaker 2: Why are we saving sick people dying?
Speaker 1: Why are we trying to prevent people from getting diseases?
If unnecessarily suffering is good, we should stop helping each other.
Speaker 4: Yeah, okay, let me ask you this question. Is the
word perfect a poor word to use in this discussion?
I mean, is there a better word that we can
use here instead of the word perfect?
Speaker 1: I suspect got probably has an opinion on this. I
personally don't have a problem with the word perfect, though, what.
Speaker 2: Do you think's got?
Speaker 3: Well, like I said before, I mean, it can be vague,
but again, typically people kind of assume thing. You know,
that it's kind of implied, and making implications like that
can be.
Speaker 5: Convenient, but it can also be confusing.
Speaker 3: And so you know, if your view of perfection, We've
talked about our various opinions of what perfection means, and
if we all have something, if we all think of
perfection differently than having a conversation on perfection can't be
can't be productive because we won't be on the same page.
But I can give you a short, quick answer to
the question can a perfect God create imperfection? And my
knee jerk reaction would be yes, and they can do
it perfectly.
Speaker 5: But beyond that, you know, we can't really say much.
Speaker 4: Okay, Well, that's I guess is kind of helpful. I can.
I can spend a little time thinking about it. But shoot, okay,
I he kind of caught me off guard with with
with your response a little bit, but that's okay, that's okay.
I appreciate your time, and I do appreciate your input.
I appreciate your show too. I really like your show,
watching your show.
Speaker 1: Yeah, sure things, Thanks for calling, Joe, I would ask,
there's another question along the same lines that you might
be interested in, so some food for thought. If God
is perfect, usually that entails that he's complete in he's
not lacking anything. Right, If God is perfect, why would
he want to create anything at all? What is the
what's the motivating desire for wanting to create? And if
God's I material, how does he even have or how
does she even have desires? So the idea of creation
with a perfect god has so many problems. Doesn't make
sense that a perfect God would even want to create
anything at all, much less an imperfect creation.
Speaker 3: You would think that adding a creation to the mix
would necessarily make it less perfect.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I mean that is a very That is a
very good point, very good observation. Okay, yeah, that's helpful too.
All right, I'll have to think about this also. I
just wanted to interject here that I'm from Arizona. You
got down there Arkansas, but I'm from Arizona.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's interesting. Yeah, they put ar instead of AK.
Speaker 1: I sometimes I mess up the state abbreviations too, it happens.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's no big deal, no big deal. All right again,
thank you guys for having me. I appreciate it very much.
Speaker 2: Thanks for your input, and thanks for calling anjel. Have
a good one. YouTube friends.
Speaker 1: The only abbreviations you need to know, and shout it
out if you know. Oh h anyone, anyone have any iOS?
Speaker 2: In the comments? Sure?
Speaker 5: Did you wait? Did you say? Iowins?
Speaker 2: Everyone?
Speaker 3: Ohio wins? Okay, I go yeah, all right, I thought
you said never mind.
Speaker 2: It's an Ohio thing. We're really weird people.
Speaker 1: Listen, we ate some of the poisonous Buckeyes a long
time ago, and we haven't been straight since.
Speaker 2: It's been really our brains are I get it.
Speaker 3: You know some people from Ohio, so you know, I
hear you.
Speaker 2: It all checks out. Also, we play so much football here.
Speaker 1: We're all suffering from from TBI and CT.
Speaker 2: So it's just it's a whole it's a whole situation.
Speaker 3: Went from Minnesota and so we take hockey pucks to
the mouth all the time, so you know, you know,
it's it's you're kind of screwed wherever you go, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, watch out for flying pucks for sure. Listen,
we've got Toby.
Speaker 1: Listen, Toby's calling in literally from Italy way way.
Speaker 2: Across the pond. So I'm excited to get Toby in here.
Speaker 1: Toby's been waiting now probably over an hour, and Toby
appears to be an atheist and is hoping justin Hey,
that's me can help clarify the idea that God grounds logic. Actually,
the funny that you mentioned it, I think this is probably.
Speaker 2: More in Scott's so we'll both be able to address this.
Speaker 1: Since I can't seem to get an answer from Christians,
and he probably understands the argument better than them. Well,
first of all, the whole grounding argument to me is
a funny one. But I'd like to have Scott address
at first. Anyways, Toby will come on XP with Scott
and Justin.
Speaker 2: How are you? Oh, I'm all right?
Speaker 7: Thank you appearing all right?
Speaker 2: Oh wow? Yeah?
Speaker 3: So Toby, are we kind of getting your question right
here or is there there anything that you'd like to
add before we kind of start respond?
Speaker 7: Well, I've been I've been watching Justine's videos for a
while now, and I see some filbrows from time to
time saying that, oh God is the grounding for logic,
and I really have no idea what that actually means, Like,
what does it mean to ground logic?
Speaker 6: Why does logic need the.
Speaker 7: Grounding besides being a description of things in a way,
I'm not exactly sure. So you know, I thought I
thought i'd ask someone who knows that better than me.
Speaker 3: Well, to be honest, it kind of confuses me too.
The idea of grounding logic itself doesn't really ask a
clear question. But I think if you view religion and
Christianity or you know whatever whatever, or you did mention Christians. Yeah,
so Christianity is very authoritarian, right, It's it's it's top
down that the person at the top or the god
at the top says.
Speaker 5: What it is, and that's the way it goes.
Speaker 3: And so from an authoritarian perspective, if you see things
acting all acting the same way, then it's natural to
make the assumption that something must be.
Speaker 5: Making them act that way.
Speaker 3: And so when we talk about logic, as as a
math teacher, and to correct what the earlier caller, I
don't consider myself a mathematician. I consider myself a math teacher.
I make mathematicians, and so that's what I do. But
the idea of grounding logic logic is really just a
description of relationships of truth values. If this is true,
then this other thing will be true. If this combination
of statements are true, then we can make we can
deduce or you know whatever logical process and come to
a conclusion. So we can basically take previous knowledge and
use it to generate new knowledge. We can we can
learn new things about reality. And to me, that's just
an observation of the way things are. You know, if
things had been different, then logic would be different, because
logic is a description of those relationships between those those
truth values.
Speaker 5: And so if.
Speaker 3: Philosophers use these terms called prescriptive and descriptive, right, prescriptive
means that the rules of logic or mathematics or science
dictate the way things go. Oh, you're a proton, you
have to act this way. You're an electron, you have
to act this other way. Oh you are twelve meters
from this other object. Here's the gravity that's going to
affect you, et cetera, et cetera. But when if you
look at the process of science talks about looking at
the world, looking for patterns and then making conclusions, Science, logic,
and math are at least descriptive. If you want to
show that they're prescriptive, then that's an extra step. And
so if they're saying that logic needs to be grounded,
in other words, logic needs to be formed or encouraged
or enforced, that will necessarily imply something that's doing that,
whether it's a god or whether it's something else that
remains to be seen. But the the idea that logic
is descriptive is really a cornerstone of science. It's a
cornerstone of our logical and mathematical thinking that we look
at the world, we see patterns, and then we look
for other places to apply those patterns.
Speaker 5: And so the.
Speaker 3: Idea of logic needing grounds well reality. And you know,
from my perspective, reality grounds logic because logic is a descriptive,
is a description of reality. It would be kind of
like me, me writing a story about this perfect apple,
and I give a great descriptive description of the apple,
and then later on somebody pulls up what I wrote
and pulls up the apple and they say, this is amazing.
Your description is exactly like the apple. You know how
what grounded that? Well, what grounded it was that I
was trying to describe the apple, right, And so if
we're looking for a grounding of logic, to me, and
this is my perspective as a as a student of
math and a teacher, that that's what's grounding it. We
look at reality, we see the pattern, and we apply
it that way. Now there might be other perspectives on
it as well, but that's just how I see it.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I mean, that's that's that's posion I view as well. Yeah,
I get that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I think if I would sum it up
with what Scott and I.
Speaker 2: I agree with Scott.
Speaker 1: Grounding seems to be the thing that causes the other thing,
like A causes B. Therefore B is grounded in A.
And the reason why logic works. Their prescriptions they just
or their descriptions about how the universe behaves.
Speaker 2: We can use the laws of logic.
Speaker 1: They're grounded in the fact that reality exists and it
has the behavior. Now, theists don't like this because they
think that the universe itself is contingent, and you can't
ground something in uh, something that's contingent.
Speaker 2: That's nonsense.
Speaker 1: Something can cause something else with even if it is
something that's contingent. So they're going to try to force
it back on you. They're going to try to say no, no, no,
it needs to we have to trace the chain of
contingencies all the way back to something ultimate. You don't
actually have to do that the universe itself. If we
conclude that the universe is necessary, even though the parts
inside of the universe aren't all necessary, then you have
an ultimate source of grounding, just the necessary existence of
the universe.
Speaker 2: So if you get pushed back, that's one thing you
might want to reckon.
Speaker 1: I would say the other thing, too, is the argument
that you're going to get from a lot of Christians is, remember,
a lot of Christians are basically like Platonists. They want
to believe in non material entities, like they think numbers
and morals and the laws of physics and the laws
of logic that they actually exist, like they're out there somewhere.
Speaker 2: They actually exist, and we just have to find them.
Speaker 1: But I mean, from my point of view, I have
no reason to believe that I have no reason to
believe that the laws of logic exist anywhere. The laws
of logic, like Scott said, appear just to be like
a language like mathematics that get to describe a particular phenomenon.
And so if they did exist transcendentally, there might be
a case to be made and say, hey, we actually
have to ground the laws of logic in something else
that is transcendental. But they'll never be able to prove
that the laws of logic are transcendental.
Speaker 2: I've I've been trying.
Speaker 1: I've been asking theis for three years now to give
me a reason to believe that the laws of logic
or anything else like numbers are transcendental and they can
never do it, and they never will be able to
do it. So I would if they try to force
it on you, just ask them how how would I
come to the conclusion, you know, how would Toby come
to the conclusion that the laws of logic are transcendental
and objective and that they exist independent, you know, of
everything else, and therefore needs a transcendental grounding. And I
don't think you'll get any sound argumentation.
Speaker 7: Oh well, thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Sure think Brin.
Speaker 7: Some think I have a little more.
Speaker 6: I have much more to say.
Speaker 7: I think I'll be headed to bed now because it's
when I am here.
Speaker 5: Sure, thanks a lot, Toby, Thanks for calling in.
Speaker 2: Well, hopefully Toby gets some sleep.
Speaker 1: I believe that the lines are closed now, although the
TikTok lines are open if.
Speaker 2: Somebody wants to call in.
Speaker 1: I did have a question for for Scott though. Okay,
so Scott, I'm curious and I've talked to a number
of people that like to do the philosophy.
Speaker 2: I don't get to talk to a lot.
Speaker 1: Of people that are really into math other than you know,
doctor Blitz, and ian Ian's got a mathematics degree in
Doctor Blitz obviously the physicist. I'm curious, what's your position
on numbers being transcendental. Are you a platonist, like a
numerical platonist, or do you believe that numbers are like
an invented language to describe reality.
Speaker 3: I would well, I mean, first of all, there's a
distinction and this some of this is getting kind of nitpicky,
and so you know, I'll preface by saying that, but
there's a difference between like number and numeral.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 3: The numeral is the symbol we use to represent the number.
We come up with this, this curvy shape with a
flat bottom, we say we're going to call that two,
and that's going to represent you know, twoness, right. And
so to answer your question, though, I think it's it
boils down to what we were talking about with the
caller about the idea about mathematics being descriptive. I think
I view math as being an invented language used to
describe discovered relationships. And one of those relationships is this
idea of twoness. If we talk about two sticks, if
we talk about two cows, we talk about two enemies,
we talk about two you know, two of all these
different things we see that there's a pattern between those
and so we call that too. And so I don't
know if that was a cop out answer or if
that was a that was a direct answer, But I
think that I don't.
Speaker 5: I don't.
Speaker 3: I'm not really a realist when it comes to you know,
or platonist when it comes to the concept of numbers.
I don't think that there's there's a perfect two somewhere,
you know, in existence. I think that really it's just
describing something as being two is very similar to describing
something as being red, or being stinky, or being over there.
You know, it's just a it's just a description of
the situation.
Speaker 2: Sure, but what if.
Speaker 1: What if I'm an astute Platonist Christian and I say, yes,
but the number two possesses tunis, and tunis is something
that is independent.
Speaker 5: So twunis is independent of.
Speaker 2: What the tunis is. The isness of two?
Speaker 3: Well, I mean you could say that that about anything.
You could say about the redness of red, the stinkiness
of stinky, and and so it's the the twnis. Yeah,
I see what you're getting at, right? Do you need
have the objects in front of you to recognize that
the two noess I mean we we can think conceptually.
The way our brains work is we can picture things
that aren't real, right, So we can picture I can
say two cows, and you're gonna, you're gonna, you know,
imagine two cows. And so I think that it's I
don't think we're tapping into something that's out there in
the universe. I think we're just describing the way things are,
and and and again it boils down to patterns. We
see that this idea when we just if somebody tells
me that's two of eggs or whatever, then I can
get an I can say, okay, well, eggs are kind
of round shape, they're kind of white or whatever color
they happen to be, they're laying on the table, they're about.
Speaker 5: The size of a golf ball or whatever.
Speaker 3: And you know, all these different descriptions are just us
attaching words to characteristics of the thing that we see.
I don't necessarily think that there has to be a
twoeness other then the pattern that we see and we
and so then we can kind of extrapolate from the
from the examples we've seen and we so we can
imagine even though I've never seen a unicorn, I can
imagine what two unicorns look like because I have that
concept of two in my head. There's there's a lot
of things that we can conceive of in our minds
that don't necessarily have you know, actual physical correlates.
Speaker 5: If that makes any sense.
Speaker 3: But I I think that I would say to that,
to that person, you got if you're saying that there's
a two neis outside of you know, describing this particular pattern,
show me, you know, show me.
Speaker 5: I mean, mathematics really has a lot to do with.
Speaker 3: You know, stepping back and abstraction, right, and and so
really it's it's an abstraction, but we're not saying that
abstract things exist. That it's just a way that we
can describe relationships and and uh, you know collections of
of objects.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was my thought. So you know, when we
talk about is this, it's not clear that is is.
They use the word as though it's a thing like
itself exists. But I think is this, like you said,
it's really actually just describing the relational properties of the
items which we make through observation.
Speaker 2: Our observation actually.
Speaker 1: Supplies the isness because you need subjective minds to determine relations.
Speaker 5: Yeah, yep, I would agree with that completely.
Speaker 2: Okay, friends, uh, we're basically out of time.
Speaker 1: I'm going to read one more super chat and then
we're going to bring up our friend Jamie, not the
pre recorded Jamie, the live Jamie, actual.
Speaker 3: Live Jamie here for you. We spare no expense at
the Atheist Experience.
Speaker 1: None, absolutely none, Zoxin, thank you for the five euro chat,
says Toby here. Oh Toby, hey, thank you, It says
thanks again for the chat, and have a little tip.
Keep doing what you're doing. You guys are great. Well,
thank you Zoxin. I really appreciate that. Friend, or actually Toby,
thank you to I really appreciate that.
Speaker 2: And friend.
Speaker 1: Remember there are many ways you can support the Atheist
Experience and the ACA. You could become members of the channel,
you can follow the Patreon. You don't have to just
you know, show up to the streams and send out
the super chats, although those obviously are helpful. Watching the
streams help a lot, and also watching the podcast. But
we really appreciate y'all being here. Jamie coming up, buddy,
I want to hear your thoughts on the calls.
Speaker 8: I come to you with a fist full of physics.
Speaker 5: Anyway, Yeah, every kind of physics.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but the whole what I against was a category
era when people try and say things like like does
nothingness exist? Or does you know, does existence exist? It's
like the concept does because I have a brains conceptualize it.
You can't hand me a bag of existence. I can't
have twenty five kilos of maths, you know. So it's
it's it's it's all a little bit thing. And it's
just the way that phil Brows tend to try and
tie you up in these in these semantic word traps,
and I find them.
Speaker 6: It's weird.
Speaker 8: I find them like tiring and fascinating at the same time,
like a slow motion train wreck. Great show as always, guys,
I always feel like I'm sandwich between uh, intellectual giants
when I'm when I'm up against people with far more
specific experience and knowledge than me. I'm just some blog
from Birmingham to talk sometimes on the internet. But yeah,
and so last.
Speaker 5: Two, humble, Jamie, you're too humble.
Speaker 2: You've also got one of the great voices of the
athiest generation.
Speaker 5: Definitely, that's the trick.
Speaker 8: You don't have to be smart if you're saying smart.
The I will just again one more big up to
the to the upcoming fundraiser. There's a bunch of people
getting involved, myself included. It's going to be really good fun.
And thank you for all the good calls the first one.
We love that kind of conversation with this where they
are honest and you know, inquisitive and let us talk
and we let them talk. It doesn't have to be
a fight. So again a big props to the first
Core on that one.
Speaker 1: You're here absolutely and friends, We're just about to end
the show and look, Kine is here with the Superdad.
Thank you, says our imaginative abilities are bound by reality.
What is a unicorn? A horse with a horn? Two
things that exist in reality. Actually, unicorn is one of
my favorite like King James topics, because there are two
are basically three animals that end up in the King
James Bible that people don't know what it means, even
though people used to know so the unicorn it is
actually just a one horn rhinoceros, which was native to
the southern eleventeen region at some point and would have
been known to the audience, but the medieval European didn't
know what a unicorn was, so they let their imagination
run wild, and we got these winged horses with horns,
and even in like Isaiah thirty four, we've got satyrs
like you know, goat and the bottom man on top
satyrs like from Greek mythology, because there's a goat demon
that shows up in Isaiah thirty four, and they didn't
know how to translate it. They didn't know the context,
they didn't know that much about the ancient Near East,
and so they translated it with their understanding of Greek
under philosophy in Greek texts, and so they ended up
putting a satyr in the King James Bible because they
didn't have the requisite knowledge to know what the hell's
going on in this pathage. Another good reason, friends, why
the Kingdoms Bible is out of date. No matter how
smart the translators were, we just know more than they
know because we've discovered lots of fun stuff. And I'll
get off my King James hoapbox now, Scott Jamie, I
had a ton of fun with you all today, And
if you guys had fun, come back, same time, same
place next week, four thirty DM Central Standard time, five
thirty Eastern Standard time and you can calculate the other
time zones. Really appreciate your friends and if you miss
the live stream. If you miss any live stream, remember
you can always download it on your favorite podcast or
just watch it back on YouTube.
Speaker 2: All of them are.
Speaker 1: Available on the major podcast platform, so even if you
just want to listen to it while you're at work
or on a plane, it's there, all right.
Speaker 9: Yeah start al ya, stop passing the bullshit emy around
you buy shit.
Speaker 7: Se y'all welcome, It's.
Speaker 4: Ele.
Speaker 2: Watch Talk ee Than live Sundays at one pm Central.
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