November 10, 2024 • 55 mins
In this episode of Still Unbelievable! David from Skeptics and Seekers joins Matthew to discuss, and answer, 3 questions that Cameron Bertuzzi posted onto his Capturing Christianity channel. We're unimpressed by these questions because we think they reveal an attempt to trap atheists into a specific answer, and as such they are not good faith questions. This is why our discussion of the questions run to an hour. This is the edited audio of a video David and Matthew recorded, to see the full unedited video see the links in the show notes. The link to the original questions video is also in the show notes, along with the full text of the questions.
The Questions:
1) do you believe that our beliefs ought to be proportioned to the evidence?
2) if we could verify that a miracle occurred, is that good reason to think god exists?
3) if you're an atheist and you said yes to no1. and you think we have a way of verifying that miracles exists. How many of the millions of claims have you deeply investigated?
1) original video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK3ArZ1r4bs
2) skeptics and seekers
https://skepticsandseekers.squarespace.com/
https://www.youtube.com/@skepticsandseekers4715
3) The video version of this audio content
https://youtu.be/_0E8W3Srdtk
4) Sai Baba
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sai_Baba_of_Shirdi
To contact us, email: reasonpress@gmail.com
our YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@reasonpress2901
Our Theme Music was written for us by Holly, to support her and to purchase her music use the links below:
https://hollykirstensongs.com/
https://hollykirsten.bandcamp.com/
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:02):
Episode 123 answering 3 silly questions for atheists.
This is Matthew, and in this episode of Still Unbelievable,
David from Sceptics and Seekers joins me to discuss and answer 3
questions that Cameron Bertuzzi posted onto his Capturing
Christianity channel. We're unimpressed by these
(00:23):
questions because we think they reveal an attempt to trap
atheists into a specific answer,and as such, they are not good
faith questions. This is why our discussion of
the questions runs to an hour. This is the edited audio of a
video David and I recorded. See the full unedited video.
See the link in the show notes. The link to the original
(00:46):
questions video is also in the show notes, along with the full
text of the questions. Boom David recording this is
going to be a still unbelievablespecial.
I have no idea how this is goingto work.
Are you ready with your best humour on this lovely Sunday
morning? My best humour is not what it is
(01:09):
billed to be. Yes.
Was not the answer I was expecting.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Matthew over in Blighty.
It is approaching midday for me.It is something stupid in the
morning for David. He probably hasn't even had his
morning cup of Joe yet. That is right.
(01:30):
You do say cup of Joe over your side, do you?
Well, it's not really a law. Well.
You know, we have proper names for things here in the UK.
We don't use ridiculous euphemisms.
Oh of course not. Never heard of ridiculous
(01:50):
euphemism from the UK, that's for sure.
No, you, you haven't. You know any ridiculousness is
only implied by your ridiculous culture, right?
Anyway, so Are you ready for some questions, David?
Because we know we love. We know we we love questions.
(02:10):
Have you got a swirly thing in front of your face?
Right. I do have a question.
The intellectual side of Chris, has he actually dropped saying
that? He has, hasn't he?
Cameron Bertuzzi has released three questions for atheists and
they are knocked down. Devastating questions.
These are going to stump us for weeks.
Isn't that right, David? I've already converted to
(02:31):
Christianity. You disappoint me anew every
week. Cameron's got some questions.
What I'm going to do. It's only a 46 second video.
I'm going to play the video through, then we're going to
rewind and go through it again, answering the questions.
David, Are you ready? I am ready.
Let's go for it. All right, I've got three more
(02:52):
questions for atheists. Here is number one.
Do you believe that our beliefs ought to be proportioned to the
evidence? So should we only really believe
something if we've got evidence in favour of it #2 is if we
could verify that some miracle actually occurred, would that
give us a reason to think that God exists?
I mean, again, this is contingent on whether or not we
(03:12):
could actually verify that the miracle happened.
All right #3 And this is my final question.
If you're an atheist that cares about truth and thinks that we
should, we should proportion ourbeliefs to the evidence.
But then you also think that we've got this unique way to
verify whether or not God existsthrough studying miracles.
How many of the millions of miracle reports throughout
(03:34):
history have you actually deeplyinvestigated?
Ouch. There was definitely a sting and
a jab in that final part of thatfinal question, but we will get
there. David, thoughts?
My initial thought has not changed from now, which this all
feels like the same question. It almost feels like, you know,
(03:58):
he's created a syllogism that leads to a conclusion that he's
not quite announcing, and each of his questions are part of his
syllogism. That's what it feels like.
Yeah, this is not good faith questioning.
He's trying to lead the person who's addressing the questions
to a specific conclusion, and the questions are phrased to
(04:22):
create that pathway. Right it this is a there's.
A point before, when we've done this kind of show, we have
raised this exact. Point, right, But that's, I
suppose that's OK. I, I would feel better about
this sort of thing if they wouldn't phrase it as questions
(04:42):
for atheists. They're not questions then it's
not a person who is really wondering what's going on inside
of our head and trying to have adialogue or trying to understand
something. This is a Socratic method of
making a point. So it's we have to just
understand that from the jump. These these aren't questions in
(05:07):
that sense. These are more philosophical
mind teasers that are intended to lead the atheist to, and I
don't know, or something to thateffect or or to catch them in an
inconsistency. But the problem with this if if
you don't mind me saying something by way of
(05:27):
introduction, is these questionsignore the greater evangelistic
truth. So this is this is me speaking
with my Christian hat on. And from the time when I was
doing this, there's a false focus with regard to Christians
(05:49):
and miracles. Nothing.
Even if we agreed, even if he did actually stomp us, which he
has not, for the record, it would not lead.
Spoilers. Oh, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have.
Even if it had though, it would not lead to the thing that
(06:11):
requires that is required for conversion, which is
relationship with God and and itignores a lot that the Bible
itself has to say about miracles.
So yes, the Bible talks about miracles sometimes, especially
(06:33):
early in the New Testament signsand wonders.
Paul, however, almost never talks about miracles.
So that's that's not a big focusof his.
And throughout the Bible, other gods have miracles, other gods
have magics, and there are magics coming from other places.
(06:57):
And so that in and of itself is never a proof of God.
You can compare the magics and say, well, God's magic is better
than this other God's magic. But if you just prove that
something freaky happened in theworld in the Bible, that doesn't
prove anything. And so I would I just need to
(07:20):
point you to witches. Witches were real in the Bible.
They they weren't just some people trying to, you know, be
attuned to nature, you know, be good citizens to squirrels.
These were people with magic andthey had to be killed.
(07:41):
Necromancy was real. It wasn't fake.
We see an example of a witch that could necromance a holy man
out of the grave. You know, that's, that's
impressive. We we have the whole scene
(08:03):
narrated right, you would think only a God could do that.
No, he's not the only one who could do that.
In the trials of Moses and Pharaoh and the tin flags,
Pharaoh's magicians. And by the way, we use the word
magicians pretty loosely. They were kind of like prophets
for their gods. Their gods could also do magic.
(08:26):
It could do the thing. You can say, well, their magic
was not as impressive, and God had a fight with these other
gods, and God won, but the magics were still there.
And so if all you do as a Christian is point out that some
freaky stuff happens in the world in that, you know, there's
(08:49):
a world of metaphysical beings who can do stuff, you still
haven't given me God you. You've just given me a world of
possibilities. And in order for me to worship
God, it's not miracles that I need, it's relationship.
(09:10):
And I say one more thing about this and then I'll really kind
of shut up because this, this ismost of it.
I was going to break this up, but it kind of goes in together.
So the last part of this is we don't need magic to have
relationships, worship full relationships with people.
We never have. Kings of old were all were
(09:34):
worshipped. Emperors were worshipped as
gods. They couldn't do a lick of
magic. It wasn't magic that drew it.
And I, and I can, I can tell youthat if, if the right leader
came along, I would follow that leader.
(09:57):
I don't need magic to follow a leader.
And to won't you be like that leader and, you know, live a
life, you know, based on that leader.
Look at San Suu, people follow his ideas all the time.
Confucius, people follow his ideas all the time.
(10:19):
So whether military, spiritual, or political, magic is not
required for any of that. And so if you show me magic,
you've just shown me a world of gods and demons and jinns and so
forth. If you want me to have
relationship with your God, you need more than philosophical
arguments and you need more thantricks that I cannot explain.
(10:41):
You need to introduce me to the God himself.
And there needs to be a creationrelationship.
And that's the one thing that Christians cannot deliver.
And so they're stuck on philosophies about magic and
it's it's an utter waste of time.
(11:02):
It will convert 0 people even ifhe wins the argument he's trying
to start. Yeah.
And the point that I'd like to make about this is the nature of
the questions, which goes right back to what we were talking
about 10 minutes ago or or so a question is a good faith
question if the answer to that question increases your
(11:25):
knowledge and understanding. These are not that types of
questions. The only achievement he gets out
of this question is when the atheist says no.
At the end he goes, aha, you close minded bastard.
So Christians, if you're, if there's a Christian, whoever
gets gets to listen to this. My question for you is if you
think these questions are good and valid questions answered
(11:48):
down there in the comments or reasonpress@gmail.com.
I will read that e-mail and giveme the knowledge and the
information that helps me to understand why you think these
questions are good questions. Because I don't think a thinking
person thinks that these are good questions to ask.
And I do not respect Cameron enough to call him a thinking
person. Although he does use more hair
(12:12):
gel than I do for a video, whichmaybe that's a good thing, I
don't know, right? Shall we I.
Mean it could be a, it could be a piece.
Now you're getting personal, David.
Now you. Oh, I wonder if I could get one
of those. I definitely, yeah.
And I mean I. I definitely hear one right.
(12:32):
Anyway, question one. Let's.
All right, I've got three more questions for atheists.
Here is number one. Do you believe that our beliefs
ought to be proportioned to the evidence?
So should we only really believesomething if we've got evidence
in favour of it? Well, I guess yes.
Is there a yes, but or is it just yeah, OK, yes, let's take.
That I mean, you can, you can travel either Rd. because there
(12:56):
are a couple of paths. I mean, I believe I'm trying to,
I'm trying to think of a good example, but I mean, we believe
things all the time where there's no evidence, where we
don't have evidence there there is evidence someone else has
evidence. Good to believe.
But a lot of our knowledge is passed on by people who have
(13:20):
knowledge. The chain of evidence is deeper
down. So we get the knowledge before
the evidence. This, this is how kids learn
things. You know, sometimes there's
immediate evidence. Don't touch the stove because
it's hot. They touch the stove and it's
hot. But most things that kids learn
about the world, they learn fromother people apart from
(13:44):
evidence. Now, I and A lot of that stuff
ends up being wrong because there isn't any evidence backing
it up and it takes them until they become older kids or adults
to realize it. But I would say superficially
that I'm sure that there are many beliefs that we have gained
from childhood that you still pick out from time to time.
(14:05):
And you think, you know, I've always believed this, but it
turns out that that wasn't the case.
So you did believe things and probably do believe things
without evidence. Now the real question I think to
me would be how important are those things?
Do I care if Caesar crossed the Rubicon?
I do not. I don't care.
(14:27):
Did he cross the Rubicon? He may have.
If someone who says it authoritatively enough, I'll
shrug my shoulders and say OK, you know, 'cause I don't care.
But if someone tells me that I need to cross the Rubicon with
an army and they have heard fromGod, and if that's what I need
(14:47):
to do now, suddenly I won't be evidence.
Because now this becomes a more important thing and more
personal thing, and it's going to have an effect on my life.
And so are the claims different?Maybe not in some great grand
philosophical sense, but one claim I don't care about and so
(15:10):
I can believe loosely, and the other claim I do care about and
I need more. That's a very valid point,
actually. I mean, he doesn't quantify
about what type of belief he's referring to.
So let's just assume for argument's sake that he's
referring to beliefs about reality.
Yeah, the reality is that the Windows operating system is
(15:32):
superior to the Apple operating system.
Now, I've probably just now I'veobviously just offended 1/3 of
my listener audience. I'm sorry guys do come.
Back. Not nearly that high.
Not nearly that high. But yeah, that's the evidence is
my experience. What experience do I have over
(15:52):
the Apple operating system? Very little.
You know, if my experience was the other way round, I would
probably have a different opinion, different belief, you
know, so often what it is that we believe is based purely on
(16:12):
our subjective experiences, and often those beliefs are not
objectively verifiable. They're just straight down to
our subjective experience. Another belief I have.
Honda is a superior car model tohave.
If you don't drive a Honda, you're driving an inferior car.
Why do I say that? Because most of the cars that
(16:33):
I've owned over the last 30 years have been Hondas.
That is the vehicle brand that Iknow.
I'm familiar with the engines, I'm familiar with the gearboxes.
I like the combination. I don't like the combination
from other cars. It's my subjective experience
and it is now a firm belief. Yeah.
And I honestly, if you were, let's say an enthusiastic
(16:56):
gearhead and you made that statement, I couldn't believe it
on the basis that you are an authority who made that
statement, I also wouldn't care.So, you know, so that would be
the difference. I don't.
I don't actually mind holding some being wrong about some
(17:18):
stuff, because in places where there is no evidence, I'm not
going to teach it in school. I'm not going to teach that
Hondas are better cars and everything else on that basis.
Because now I would need more evidence if I'm going to make
some fact claims to others aboutthe nature of reality.
But I don't mind holding ideas loosely when there's no evidence
(17:45):
if it's presented well and also if I don't care that much about
it. So what is something that you do
care about, David? Well, this is not the answer.
You won't. But I I care about audio.
So I'm not a car gear head, but I'm an audio gear head.
That's my first and oldest and shoest geekdom.
(18:06):
So if people make claims about microphones, I am an expert.
So now I now I'm going to listento some of your claims and I
might call you out on your bullshit it, you know, in in
certain forms. If you know, if I happen to be
(18:27):
in one of those and you were saying some things that are that
I know are factually wrong and Ihave the receipts for OK.
All right. Let's put that to the test then,
David. Hopefully people can see my
video. I'm wearing headphones here.
These headphones have got a nifty built in microphone.
I'm going to suggest to you thatthe microphone that is connected
(18:49):
to this headset is actually better quality than this big
chunky thing in front of my face.
All right, so because Zoom, yeah, it's so it's, it's too
small and not enough of your microphone is in frame, so I
can't see what it is. Do you know what your microphone
is? No, my microphone is is
(19:13):
unbranded but my headphones are Sennheiser.
OK, so already I have to stop you.
There's not really any such thing as an unbranded
microphone. I don't know what the brand.
You are right. You are right.
I will grant that I don't know what the brand is because it's
not stamped on the side of it. OK, I would say that it is
(19:36):
possible that your the microphone on your headset could
be better than your microphone because your microphone is
probably not a premium microphone.
You can get, you know, big chunky microphones for 20 bucks
and they're simply not very good.
And you can pay a couple 100 bucks for a headset and get a
(19:57):
microphone that's worth about 50bucks and so.
I would not argue that unless I knew what microphone was in
front of you, and if I did, I would know the specifications of
it probably off the top of my head, or I could look them up
there. There is hard data that one can
look at with microphones and I could actually tell you just
(20:20):
from specs which microphone would probably be better in
which situations. And so you would be making a
kind of a falsifiable claim. But we'd have to do a little bit
of digging. And in in either case, in in
that case, I still wouldn't needto listen to the microphone to
(20:40):
know the truth of the claim because there's certain truths
about microphones where if the specs are true, we can make some
judgments without even hearing them.
So that what I would say about that claim is that it is a
falsifiable claim that can be investigated.
And I think that's the key pointto, and you used a very
important phrase here, hard data.
(21:02):
And in this particular example, the hard data will be the
frequency range with which the microphones I'll be able to
reliably pick up and transmit tothe computer.
And for the record distance, thereason why I'm talking to the
one in front of my face and not the one on my head is because
the one in front of my face is the better microphone.
Yeah, well and right, so there'sthere is hard data outside of
(21:27):
the experiment, but the experimental data is usually
going to win the day with microphones because you can just
speak into both of them and we can hear which one sounds better
that you see. Here's the thing though.
Because I know so much about microphones, I can just show you
that's not always true. My audio may not sound as good
(21:47):
as your audio for any of 1000 reasons, but I can almost
guarantee you that my mic, the microphone I'm using, is better
than the one you're using. So I could be transmitting a bad
signal, and you could be transmitting a good signal and
your audio could sound better. It wouldn't mean that your
microphone is better. So again, there are very
(22:08):
specific and verifiable testable, provable factors that
you can look at to compare microphones.
And then if you set them up where all things were equal,
then you could you could prove it out in the audio.
(22:28):
But what we're doing right now doesn't really prove anything.
You know, something is as simpleas you have a good connection
and I have a bad connection to the Internet could make one mic
sound better than the other. But you know, you combine that
with the data that we can clearly see.
(22:49):
Then once again, you've made a very falsifiable statement that
can be verified. And if Christians want to make
those kinds of statements, thesefalsifiable statements that can
be verified and we can look at the data together and, and we
can see it, great. We can, we can answer some of
(23:11):
these questions and deal with some of these claims.
But so much of what Christians want to do ends up in a Gray
zone where it can't be falsified.
I cannot, for instance, prove that no miracles took place.
I can't, I can't prove it. I've had broken bones that have
healed. Was it a miracle?
Well, they healed in about 12 weeks, which is about how long
(23:33):
it takes for them to heal. I have had 72 hour flus that
went away in about 72 hours. Did they go away because they
went away or did they go away because a church full of people
were praying? Who can say I can't, you know?
So it's not quite as straightforward to prove some of
(23:54):
those things. And This is why atheists ask for
miracles that are more visible. And when you do that, when you
when you say, here's a guy, you know a soldier and his leg was
shot off in the war, you can seehe has no leg here.
So go ahead and pray his leg back.
(24:16):
And then I'll believe you. Notice that no one ever does
that. They talk about miracles that
cannot ever be verified. And so we're at that place where
maybe you're right, maybe you'rewrong, but I can't prove it or
falsify it. And so in what way is that
supposed to convince me of anything other than that bail is
(24:37):
back? Yeah, exactly.
I mean, we're taking an awful long time to answer what is
essentially a yes, no question, but it does help to set the
theme for what Cameron's trying to achieve here.
But to summarise you and I don'treally care if people believe
things that are not of life magnificent importance.
(24:58):
You know, if somebody wants to believe that Windows is the
superior operating system, if somebody wants to believe that
Hondas are the superior automobile to have on your
driveway, let them. You know the world isn't going
to end because they hold that belief and it's wrong.
And if it's not going to end, ifyou believe them and it's wrong,
yeah, it's so it honestly doesn't matter.
(25:22):
So yeah, I mean, what in order for his question to be kind of
valid, because he's asking a kind of a philosophical question
without specifics, there's no way to really answer his
question, which is why I say it's a, it's a syllogism in a
bigger argument. So why don't we go ahead and do
(25:44):
the thing and grant his syllogism like like you
suggested a way long time ago, and say yes, we should abortion
our belief with the evidence. Yeah, OK.
And just before I move on though, there, there is an
important point here around thisis you.
I think it's the way I would phrase it is you portion the
(26:06):
strength of the belief that you hold according to the the dents
available. And what that means is if the
evidence changes, you're very happy to change the strength of
your belief or completely rejectthat belief and switch it in for
an alternative belief because the evidence has indicated that.
And that's probably the kind of answer that Cameron is looking
for here, so. Yes, hold, hold your beliefs
(26:28):
loosely, you know, with an open hand.
Yeah, you know, that's and and then if one drops off because
the evidence wasn't strong enough, big freaking deal.
Yeah, yeah, fine. I do not hold any belief so
strongly that it would shake thefoundations of my well-being if
(26:50):
that belief got challenged. However, I used to hold a belief
like that when I was a Christian.
Right, let's move on. #2 is if we could verify that some
miracle actually occurred, wouldthat give us a reason to think
that God exists? Any Again, this is contingent on
(27:10):
whether or not we could actuallyverify that the miracle
happened. All right, number.
Yeah, there is an assumption in this question that it's his God
and his God alone that would do a miracle.
Right. So my answer to this is no, I, I
think the second part of his syllogism is getting a little
(27:33):
bit more specific. So it's fairly easy to grant the
first one, and it's a little bitharder to grant this one because
when he says that God exists, hemeans Yahweh.
He means a specific God. So I would ask him a similar
disingenuous question, which is if we could prove that a miracle
(27:55):
happened with that prove with that, prove that Zeus exists,
would that be good evidence to believe that Zeus exists or that
Romulus exists for that you knowGanesh exists, that Allah
(28:15):
exists. Would that be proof of it?
He would say no, of course it wouldn't.
That wouldn't be reasonably thatany of those specific gods
exist. And it also, as I said, wouldn't
even prove that a God existed, because even in the Bible, the
world was full of magic that hadnothing to do with God.
It would prove that magic exists.
(28:37):
We haven't made a connection with God.
And that is the important point here.
So let's grant hypothetically, because the question is based on
the notion that a miracle can beverifiable as a miracle, and
that has happened. So let's grant that we have
(28:57):
miracle X and we have verified that X is a miracle.
There is no possible way it could have happened naturally.
It's happened miraculously through some kind of
otherworldly, unnatural, divine,whatever adjective you want.
Intervention. OK, let's take that.
(29:18):
How do we make the link, which is what you just said?
How do you make the link from that's happening to what did it,
and that's what's missing from this question.
That's what's missing from this data.
Right. If we ever had that scenario
where we were able to absolutelyvalidate that an event happened
(29:39):
that could not have happened naturally and absolutely did
happen through some kind of other natural intervention,
people who have a belief that isa supernatural belief, every
single one of those people wouldassign the agency of that
miracle to their supernatural belief.
(29:59):
Right. And that's what's happening
here. We so you see, if some magic had
happened, we have no indication that it's an agent at all.
It it just might be that someonehas learned how to manipulate
nature in such a way to create that exception to the rule.
(30:23):
But now, you know, I'll muddy the waters just a little bit and
say that if that happens, that still wouldn't actually be a
miracle. That would just be a better
mastery over nature. You found a way to do the thing.
You know, if you can teleport anapple from where you are to
where I am, everybody would say,oh, magic.
(30:46):
Everybody except physicists who would say, you know, we have
been working on that for years. And whereas we don't know how
you solved all the problems, they would not leap to, oh, God,
you know, intelligent agent doing some other magics in the
world for you. So there's no reason to leap to
that conclusion because you saw something that blew your mind.
(31:10):
I saw a show, a David Copperfield show.
Blew my mind. I have no idea how he did it.
You know when when you're watching that stuff on TV, you
just think that's all cameras. When you're a few hours away
from the front, you got to have another explanation.
So I don't have an explanation. I don't care.
(31:31):
It's a great show. But what if David Copperfield
was some kind of gin? OK, it's a gin that put on a
great show that doesn't get me to God, but I I actually want to
have a little fun with this one.I wanted to give the the right
answer, but I actually want to grant his argument.
(31:53):
I want to, I want to grant this point that if a bona fide
miracle happens, then that wouldbe some evidence toward a God is
that's not to say it's the only evidence you need.
It's the evidence that convinces.
But you know, let's say God is one of the possibilities.
And so this, you know, this is athing that a God would do and it
(32:19):
happened. So let's just let's just grant
that this would be one evidence toward the existence of his God,
just to see where. Far more gracious than I
normally credit you with, David,because I am absolutely not
prepared to go that far, becausethis question is absolutely
backwards. You don't go from the alleged
(32:41):
event and then work backwards to, oh, this my preferred
supernatural deity therefore didit.
First of all, you establish thatthe deity existed.
Then you establish that the deity is capable of doing such a
thing. Then you establish the mechanism
by which that deity did that thing.
You don't go backwards, you go forwards.
And this is a completely topsy turvy.
(33:03):
I understand. Look, it's like saying you see
there's Thunder and lightning that proves that Thor exists,
that that's you know, what more do you people need?
Do you see the Thunder? You see the lightning?
You see it struck down that evilperson over there.
Therefore, Thor, I understand why no sane person would grant
(33:27):
this. That said, I do a thing
sometimes just for my own wickedentertainment, which is
Occasionally I will get in one of these discussion discussions
with a Christian and grant almost everything just to play
the game and see how far the argument goes and watch it still
(33:50):
crash and burn at the end. And I.
Believe it will. Even if I grant this as an
evidence for Thor, excuse me, Yahweh, I don't think that we're
going to get to Yahweh at the end of this, but.
No, you're giving spoilers away,David, Come on.
(34:11):
Have you not learned this podcasting thing?
How long have we been doing thisnow?
I don't I don't know. I said I converted.
I thought that people believed me there, but I could maybe not.
So yeah, let's let's see the third question.
So I've granted his first question.
I don't actually buy I I'm not you for the people keeping sword
at home have granted the second question just for the just for.
(34:35):
You're doing it for the shits and giggles.
You're not actually being serious.
I. Didn't say shits and giggles, I
just I edited myself and said giggles.
No, you. Can't have the one without the
other. And of course, let's just skip
over that whole inconvenient thing of the methodology by
(34:57):
which you would establish that amiracle actually happened,
because that has not been detailed, That has not been.
It's just assumed that it's possible that we have a way of
doing that. We don't.
That's the way I say it. If you're going to grant that a
miracle happened at all, you just, well, grant the.
Yeah, All right, OK, We're having far too far.
(35:20):
Look, this is a 46 second video we're responding to.
How long have we been going? Oh, thought that question. 320
seconds worth. Come on, strap in.
Here it goes. Three, and this is my final
question, if you're an atheist that cares about truth and
thinks that we should, we shouldproportion our beliefs to the
evidence. Are you that atheist?
(35:42):
Yes, I am that atheist. Right.
OK, let's go. But then you also think that
we've got this unique way to verify whether or not God exists
through studying miracles. You gave a yes to that.
I am still a hard no on this, but you gave that a yes just to
be gracious. Yes, I did.
But you know, people who have listened to the 40 minutes of me
(36:03):
talking know what I really think.
But yes, I want to. I am going to play the game, but
I think he's changing it up a little.
Bit he is he's he's cheating here because the way he's
phrased it just now is not how he phrased question 2 pay.
Attention exactly. So I I caught that.
So yeah, that's called, it's called a bait and switch guys.
(36:26):
And he's a Christian. He's a Catholic converted
Christian. That's what he does.
That's his MO. Do not be surprised.
Right? Let's carry.
On how many of the millions of miracle reports throughout
history have you actually deeplyinvestigated?
Boom. Gotcha, David.
(36:47):
OK, I actually practiced this. I actually practiced this a
little bit. I'll try not to make it sound
too rehearsed. I could do it with a nun or
meaning. Which would you like to hear?
Which everyone ends with mic drop.
(37:08):
Oh damn it, where's my spare microphone?
Damn. OK, so here's the thing.
If the people who believe in Godthrough miracles believe because
of the miracles that he has donefor them that they have seen,
then good for them. But what you're telling me is
(37:29):
that experiencing a miracle would be good reason to believe
in God. I haven't experienced 1, so I do
not need to examine anyone else's miracle story because
they didn't believe based on a story of someone else's miracle.
They believed based on their miracle.
(37:49):
So I just want the same thing asthey get.
I want my miracle, my validation.
You can't say it was valid for them to get a miracle and then
believe. But somehow I have to believe
based on the story of them getting a miracle.
So I won't equal access to the miracle.
I don't need to. I don't need to examine to see
(38:12):
whether you had a miracle. That's not what I want.
I don't knowledge of your miracle because that's not what
convinced you. What convinced you it was a
miracle. I want the same.
So that's the no part. I'll let you go and if we find
it entertaining, I'll give you the yes.
But someone's already typing in the comments.
(38:34):
David, you can't give that kind of demand of God.
He is not your puppet at your beck and core.
How dare you be so arrogant as to make that demand of God?
Except for the millions and millions of people who claim
that God actually does give themmiracles.
So once again, if God is handingout millions and millions of
(38:54):
miracles to get millions and millions of believers, I'm not
asking for anything more than what He has already done for
other people. But but but all right then.
OK, fine. So.
You you can't say that God has given these millions of people
(39:14):
miracles and that God doesn't work that way.
You you can have one, but not that you have.
It he has a point, he, that guy,he has a point, right?
So yeah, my answer is again, he's got it backwards.
You don't create something good by piling up a big amount of
(39:37):
shit, you know, nought .0001 times by nought .001 multiple
times does not get you 100. You know, it just gets you a
small number. Yeah, being serious.
So millions and millions of miracle reports that are all
encapsulated with a belief system that encourages miracle
(40:01):
reports is not the way you go about gathering good evidence.
We can flip this over and give the, you know, I've investigated
the many answer because here's the thing, no matter how many
you investigate, you always findthat there's more story to the
story that the Christian gave. Whenever there is investigation.
(40:24):
I haven't, I haven't been able to do a lot of this first hand
investigation myself, but other people investigate these things
I find inevitably and I and I read those investigations, which
are seldom done by Christians. I when I read the details of a
miracle claim from someone who takes the time to hunt these
(40:45):
things down, it becomes less andless miracle the more details
that emerged. Oh, this person, they were at
this place and they got up out of their wheelchair and walked
when the preacher laid their hand on them and they walked OK,
and that's doable. And then they got back in the
wheelchair when they got home because their freaking back was
(41:09):
hurting. That's the part that never goes
into the story. I am in a wheelchair half the
time these days and someone could pray over me, arise and
walk. Well, I can arise and walk.
OK, get back in the wheelchair, though, you know, if I'm, if I'm
having one of those days. So it's it's always stuff like
(41:33):
that or that something was misreported.
Yes, that cancer went away. You also had three months of
heavy chemo. That part didn't get mentioned.
The story. Whenever you we are able to
examine these things, it always turns out that there is some
(41:54):
other detail that throws the miracle claim into doubt.
And so I would say that I have read enough of those stories to
not waste my life chasing down amillion stories.
Let me add one more point though.
Let's give you your million stories.
(42:15):
I'll give you 10 times your million stories for Hindu
miracles because they believe inmore gods than you do, and those
gods do miracles all the damn time.
So let's add those stories. Let's give you some Muslim
miracle stories. Let's give you miracle stories
(42:37):
for all the gods through history.
Are you convinced yet? No.
Why? Because you know that stories of
miracles are a dime a dozen. You are not convinced by any of
(42:57):
those other stories of miracles.You're only convinced, quote UN
quote, because I don't think youare by stories of miracles of
people on your team. And you want me to ignore all
the miracle claims in history and just focus on the ones for
your Christian God. But your argument is
(43:17):
inconsistent, and it fails because if there are more
miracle stories by other gods than your God, then you should
believe in those other gods, andI would contend that there are.
Yeah, there's something that I absolutely need to say, and it's
something I don't say often enough.
(43:39):
Claims are not evidence. Saying that there are millions
of miracle reports is not evidence that they are actually
miracles. Come on, Cameron, you're better
than this. Come on, Christians, you are.
Bet you're right. He's not.
That's why he's dropped that whole intellectual side of
Christianity. Anyway.
The other thing is, it's not on me to go and investigate every
(44:03):
single one of those. If you've got a miracle that you
think is a real miracle, and I hope you need one, I don't need
millions. If you've got one absolutely
bona fide miracle that is, that does show that it can't have
been done naturally, that does show that there actually was
agency that got involved in thatand that evidence includes the
(44:26):
chain of events that makes that agent your God, then let's have
it. Let's go and examine it.
I only need one. I don't need multiple ones.
Don't Gish gallop me. I only need one.
But you don't have it. And that's the thing.
We've spoken with people. We've had people here on Still
Unbelievable who've talked aboutmiracles.
I've been on your show, Talk about miracles and those ones
(44:51):
that have been claimed. I think one of the one of the
great ones, Gary Habermas, one about the red shoe on the roof
with an NDE or something like that.
Apparently the area of roof where that shoe was supposed to
have been was visible from a window on a corridor.
Holy crap is a miracle. Right, right.
(45:12):
It's always, it's always like that when, when they can be
investigated, yeah. And you go and you pick out some
of these big high profile ones that people have started talking
and you see gaps in the evidencechain.
You see gaps in what is actuallybeing suggested and what is
happening here. And Cameron and all those
(45:32):
Christians who assert miracles are all guilty of it.
There is a oh, but I don't understand this.
Oh, there's a bit of a gap here where we don't have knowledge
that fills it. I've got something that's a
perfect shape to fill that gap and it's spelt God.
And this is what happens. It is God.
Gapperty, don't do it. Actual evidence, please.
(45:53):
Fill the gap. So, and and if we just want to
point out hypocrisy, I could askthis guy, how many Hindu
miracles have you personally investigated?
How many any, any Satya Sai Babawas a man from our lifetime.
(46:18):
We would have been babies for a lot of his work, but he was, he
was in our, he raised dead people in our lifetime and he
had thousands of people around him at a time as he performed
his miracles. He, he was maybe bigger than
(46:42):
Simon the sorcerer back in his day because it's, it's
contemporary and thousands, maybe millions, certainly
thousands of people are alive today who can give testimony to
(47:03):
him. Have you looked up any of those
miracles of Satya Sai Baba, Sir?No, you haven't, because you
don't care about it at the end of the day.
Now, his syllogism, he asks these three questions leading to
a conclusion. He never actually drops the
(47:24):
conclusion that we're supposed to be led to.
So this is one of the reasons why I could grant all of his
arguments and still not, still not have a conclusion that God
exists. I, I think he's, you know,
trying to do that. But let me just, let me just
grant this one too to to fulfillmy ridiculous drunken granting
(47:51):
of, of ridiculous claims. So all these miracle claims
point to a miracle happening, which points to a God being
real. OK, We can also provide counter
arguments that a lot of these miracle claims when investigated
(48:11):
end up not being miracle claims at all.
We can't really verify that any miracles have happened.
But you know, we'll grant all that too.
So a God exists. Maybe even your God exists.
So where does that get us? Because your God still hasn't
(48:33):
granted me a miracle and forget a miracle because I've said
before I could follow someone without a miracle.
He still hasn't introduced himself to me.
We haven't sat down and chatted.He's done nothing to create
relationship with me. I have stories of him creating
relationships with other people.What about that relationship has
(48:56):
happened for me? I have sought this God despite
what anyone has said. I have worshipped this God to
the extent that I can worship a being that I cannot see, hear,
feel, touch, or fully know is there.
And I've received nothing by wayof spiritual confirmation.
So at the end of the day, if your God exists, he seems to
(49:22):
have rejected relationship with me and so it's actually at his
door at this point to create that relationship because I have
tried and you know, I am told that you know, it's not me who
does the creating a relationshipis a spirit.
(49:44):
Great. Well, I'm here.
He knows my address. I know this makes Christians
mad, but anything that a Christian would say, well,
here's what you're supposed to do to get to the next step.
I've already done. I've done it more and better
than you. I I feel confident in saying
that. So where are we now?
(50:06):
What else am I supposed to do it?
I can't. I can't force this relationship.
And all I can say is maybe I'm one of the people who were
created as a vessel of destruction.
OK, then I'm playing my role. But I'm not going to declare
guilty to one who refuses to show up to, to provide his
(50:32):
spirit in a way that makes it clear that he's communicating
with me something so I, I can give you all of your miracles
and the existence of your God. And we still can't get, you
know, from here to there becauseI can't, I can't cross that
divide. He has to cross it.
(50:53):
I'm not using the word cross. Ironically, I, I realize I've
used it a couple of times, you know, but that's as far as I'm
concerned, that's a story. And even if the story were true,
where is his spirit? Where was it when I was
baptized? Where was it when I was a
Christian and seeking him? Where was it when I was reading
his Bible? Where was it when I was no
(51:15):
longer a believer? But still ask for him to, you
know, to show up and be there. Give me one good reason to not
be an unbeliever. Where was he in all the times?
And if you know I don't, there's, there's nothing else
for me to do. So your proof of miracles that
(51:36):
prove your God existing does notcreate another convert because
it can't. There's, there's nothing that I
can do with that information. So at the end of the day, your
God's going to have to show up. Yeah.
Thank you for that, David. My closing thoughts are in the
form of an anecdote. I was listening to podcasts, I
(51:58):
think it's a couple of years agoand on it somebody was being
interviewed to makes a career out of investigating these kinds
of miracle claims. And he told the story of a
specific type of miracle claim, which was a statue of the Virgin
Mary on the top of the Catholic Church, right at the top of the
(52:18):
the building had the statue of Mary.
And on a particular day, the statue glowed with an ethereal
type light. And it created quite an quite a
commotion and quite an emotionalresponse amongst the faithful
and the believers. So this guy came down and he
investigated and it took him some time and he checked what's
(52:40):
going on. But basically what the result
was was when a certain level of cloud cover and the moon is in a
certain point in the sky and that full it creates a
reflection of the light. And the light ends up
illuminating Mary because of theangle, but not the rest of the
the church. So the Mary statue flows with
(53:01):
the reflected moonlight while the rest of the building does
not under these particular conditions.
And you went and checked back towhat the weather was like on the
day of the report and found thatthat it matched.
So that's what he presented to the church as his conclusion as
to what happened. And after we'd done that, this
(53:22):
lady came up to him and said, you know what I prefer not to
believe? That and that.
Tells you all you need to know. Yeah, and honestly, I kind of
said this earlier. I don't actually mind that
answer so much because yeah, as long as you believe in a God
(53:44):
that can create the conditions that created that weather
pattern, then Miracle is still on the table for you.
She's. Pushing the miracle back.
Yeah. I mean, so sure, that was that
was a particular weather patternthat shows up, but why would
that weather pattern show up at that particular time in that,
(54:05):
you know, that particular occasion that was religiously
charged? And so, yeah, you can say that
it's a natural incident, but whocontrols nature?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm not even going to credit
that one with a polite response.David, thank you for that.
(54:27):
We've taken an hour on a video that took less than a minute.
That is just par for the course for us.
This is what we do. If you're new to Still
Unbelievable, if you're new to David, Skeptic and seekers
welcome. This is what we do.
We take far too long that is necessary to talk about things.
Find David, find me, find a relevant podcast, check the show
(54:49):
notes for for stuff. We're cool.
Hope you enjoyed it. Until next time you have been
listening to a podcast from Reason Press.
Do you have any thoughts on whatyou've just heard?
Do you have a topic that you would like us to cover?
(55:10):
Please send all feedback to reasonpress@gmail.com.
You might even appear on an episode.
Our theme music was written for us by Holly.
To hear more of her music, see the links in our show notes.
Episode 123 answering 3 silly questions for atheists.
This is Matthew, and in this episode of Still Unbelievable,
David from Sceptics and Seekers joins me to discuss and answer 3
questions that Cameron Bertuzzi posted onto his Capturing
Christianity channel. We're unimpressed by these
(00:23):
questions because we think they reveal an attempt to trap
atheists into a specific answer,and as such, they are not good
faith questions. This is why our discussion of
the questions runs to an hour. This is the edited audio of a
video David and I recorded. See the full unedited video.
See the link in the show notes. The link to the original
(00:46):
questions video is also in the show notes, along with the full
text of the questions. Boom David recording this is
going to be a still unbelievablespecial.
I have no idea how this is goingto work.
Are you ready with your best humour on this lovely Sunday
morning? My best humour is not what it is
(01:09):
billed to be. Yes.
Was not the answer I was expecting.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Matthew over in Blighty.
It is approaching midday for me.It is something stupid in the
morning for David. He probably hasn't even had his
morning cup of Joe yet. That is right.
(01:30):
You do say cup of Joe over your side, do you?
Well, it's not really a law. Well.
You know, we have proper names for things here in the UK.
We don't use ridiculous euphemisms.
Oh of course not. Never heard of ridiculous
(01:50):
euphemism from the UK, that's for sure.
No, you, you haven't. You know any ridiculousness is
only implied by your ridiculous culture, right?
Anyway, so Are you ready for some questions, David?
Because we know we love. We know we we love questions.
(02:10):
Have you got a swirly thing in front of your face?
Right. I do have a question.
The intellectual side of Chris, has he actually dropped saying
that? He has, hasn't he?
Cameron Bertuzzi has released three questions for atheists and
they are knocked down. Devastating questions.
These are going to stump us for weeks.
Isn't that right, David? I've already converted to
(02:31):
Christianity. You disappoint me anew every
week. Cameron's got some questions.
What I'm going to do. It's only a 46 second video.
I'm going to play the video through, then we're going to
rewind and go through it again, answering the questions.
David, Are you ready? I am ready.
Let's go for it. All right, I've got three more
(02:52):
questions for atheists. Here is number one.
Do you believe that our beliefs ought to be proportioned to the
evidence? So should we only really believe
something if we've got evidence in favour of it #2 is if we
could verify that some miracle actually occurred, would that
give us a reason to think that God exists?
I mean, again, this is contingent on whether or not we
(03:12):
could actually verify that the miracle happened.
All right #3 And this is my final question.
If you're an atheist that cares about truth and thinks that we
should, we should proportion ourbeliefs to the evidence.
But then you also think that we've got this unique way to
verify whether or not God existsthrough studying miracles.
How many of the millions of miracle reports throughout
(03:34):
history have you actually deeplyinvestigated?
Ouch. There was definitely a sting and
a jab in that final part of thatfinal question, but we will get
there. David, thoughts?
My initial thought has not changed from now, which this all
feels like the same question. It almost feels like, you know,
(03:58):
he's created a syllogism that leads to a conclusion that he's
not quite announcing, and each of his questions are part of his
syllogism. That's what it feels like.
Yeah, this is not good faith questioning.
He's trying to lead the person who's addressing the questions
to a specific conclusion, and the questions are phrased to
(04:22):
create that pathway. Right it this is a there's.
A point before, when we've done this kind of show, we have
raised this exact. Point, right, But that's, I
suppose that's OK. I, I would feel better about
this sort of thing if they wouldn't phrase it as questions
(04:42):
for atheists. They're not questions then it's
not a person who is really wondering what's going on inside
of our head and trying to have adialogue or trying to understand
something. This is a Socratic method of
making a point. So it's we have to just
understand that from the jump. These these aren't questions in
(05:07):
that sense. These are more philosophical
mind teasers that are intended to lead the atheist to, and I
don't know, or something to thateffect or or to catch them in an
inconsistency. But the problem with this if if
you don't mind me saying something by way of
(05:27):
introduction, is these questionsignore the greater evangelistic
truth. So this is this is me speaking
with my Christian hat on. And from the time when I was
doing this, there's a false focus with regard to Christians
(05:49):
and miracles. Nothing.
Even if we agreed, even if he did actually stomp us, which he
has not, for the record, it would not lead.
Spoilers. Oh, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have.
Even if it had though, it would not lead to the thing that
(06:11):
requires that is required for conversion, which is
relationship with God and and itignores a lot that the Bible
itself has to say about miracles.
So yes, the Bible talks about miracles sometimes, especially
(06:33):
early in the New Testament signsand wonders.
Paul, however, almost never talks about miracles.
So that's that's not a big focusof his.
And throughout the Bible, other gods have miracles, other gods
have magics, and there are magics coming from other places.
(06:57):
And so that in and of itself is never a proof of God.
You can compare the magics and say, well, God's magic is better
than this other God's magic. But if you just prove that
something freaky happened in theworld in the Bible, that doesn't
prove anything. And so I would I just need to
(07:20):
point you to witches. Witches were real in the Bible.
They they weren't just some people trying to, you know, be
attuned to nature, you know, be good citizens to squirrels.
These were people with magic andthey had to be killed.
(07:41):
Necromancy was real. It wasn't fake.
We see an example of a witch that could necromance a holy man
out of the grave. You know, that's, that's
impressive. We we have the whole scene
(08:03):
narrated right, you would think only a God could do that.
No, he's not the only one who could do that.
In the trials of Moses and Pharaoh and the tin flags,
Pharaoh's magicians. And by the way, we use the word
magicians pretty loosely. They were kind of like prophets
for their gods. Their gods could also do magic.
(08:26):
It could do the thing. You can say, well, their magic
was not as impressive, and God had a fight with these other
gods, and God won, but the magics were still there.
And so if all you do as a Christian is point out that some
freaky stuff happens in the world in that, you know, there's
(08:49):
a world of metaphysical beings who can do stuff, you still
haven't given me God you. You've just given me a world of
possibilities. And in order for me to worship
God, it's not miracles that I need, it's relationship.
(09:10):
And I say one more thing about this and then I'll really kind
of shut up because this, this ismost of it.
I was going to break this up, but it kind of goes in together.
So the last part of this is we don't need magic to have
relationships, worship full relationships with people.
We never have. Kings of old were all were
(09:34):
worshipped. Emperors were worshipped as
gods. They couldn't do a lick of
magic. It wasn't magic that drew it.
And I, and I can, I can tell youthat if, if the right leader
came along, I would follow that leader.
(09:57):
I don't need magic to follow a leader.
And to won't you be like that leader and, you know, live a
life, you know, based on that leader.
Look at San Suu, people follow his ideas all the time.
Confucius, people follow his ideas all the time.
(10:19):
So whether military, spiritual, or political, magic is not
required for any of that. And so if you show me magic,
you've just shown me a world of gods and demons and jinns and so
forth. If you want me to have
relationship with your God, you need more than philosophical
arguments and you need more thantricks that I cannot explain.
(10:41):
You need to introduce me to the God himself.
And there needs to be a creationrelationship.
And that's the one thing that Christians cannot deliver.
And so they're stuck on philosophies about magic and
it's it's an utter waste of time.
(11:02):
It will convert 0 people even ifhe wins the argument he's trying
to start. Yeah.
And the point that I'd like to make about this is the nature of
the questions, which goes right back to what we were talking
about 10 minutes ago or or so a question is a good faith
question if the answer to that question increases your
(11:25):
knowledge and understanding. These are not that types of
questions. The only achievement he gets out
of this question is when the atheist says no.
At the end he goes, aha, you close minded bastard.
So Christians, if you're, if there's a Christian, whoever
gets gets to listen to this. My question for you is if you
think these questions are good and valid questions answered
(11:48):
down there in the comments or reasonpress@gmail.com.
I will read that e-mail and giveme the knowledge and the
information that helps me to understand why you think these
questions are good questions. Because I don't think a thinking
person thinks that these are good questions to ask.
And I do not respect Cameron enough to call him a thinking
person. Although he does use more hair
(12:12):
gel than I do for a video, whichmaybe that's a good thing, I
don't know, right? Shall we I.
Mean it could be a, it could be a piece.
Now you're getting personal, David.
Now you. Oh, I wonder if I could get one
of those. I definitely, yeah.
And I mean I. I definitely hear one right.
(12:32):
Anyway, question one. Let's.
All right, I've got three more questions for atheists.
Here is number one. Do you believe that our beliefs
ought to be proportioned to the evidence?
So should we only really believesomething if we've got evidence
in favour of it? Well, I guess yes.
Is there a yes, but or is it just yeah, OK, yes, let's take.
That I mean, you can, you can travel either Rd. because there
(12:56):
are a couple of paths. I mean, I believe I'm trying to,
I'm trying to think of a good example, but I mean, we believe
things all the time where there's no evidence, where we
don't have evidence there there is evidence someone else has
evidence. Good to believe.
But a lot of our knowledge is passed on by people who have
(13:20):
knowledge. The chain of evidence is deeper
down. So we get the knowledge before
the evidence. This, this is how kids learn
things. You know, sometimes there's
immediate evidence. Don't touch the stove because
it's hot. They touch the stove and it's
hot. But most things that kids learn
about the world, they learn fromother people apart from
(13:44):
evidence. Now, I and A lot of that stuff
ends up being wrong because there isn't any evidence backing
it up and it takes them until they become older kids or adults
to realize it. But I would say superficially
that I'm sure that there are many beliefs that we have gained
from childhood that you still pick out from time to time.
(14:05):
And you think, you know, I've always believed this, but it
turns out that that wasn't the case.
So you did believe things and probably do believe things
without evidence. Now the real question I think to
me would be how important are those things?
Do I care if Caesar crossed the Rubicon?
I do not. I don't care.
(14:27):
Did he cross the Rubicon? He may have.
If someone who says it authoritatively enough, I'll
shrug my shoulders and say OK, you know, 'cause I don't care.
But if someone tells me that I need to cross the Rubicon with
an army and they have heard fromGod, and if that's what I need
(14:47):
to do now, suddenly I won't be evidence.
Because now this becomes a more important thing and more
personal thing, and it's going to have an effect on my life.
And so are the claims different?Maybe not in some great grand
philosophical sense, but one claim I don't care about and so
(15:10):
I can believe loosely, and the other claim I do care about and
I need more. That's a very valid point,
actually. I mean, he doesn't quantify
about what type of belief he's referring to.
So let's just assume for argument's sake that he's
referring to beliefs about reality.
Yeah, the reality is that the Windows operating system is
(15:32):
superior to the Apple operating system.
Now, I've probably just now I'veobviously just offended 1/3 of
my listener audience. I'm sorry guys do come.
Back. Not nearly that high.
Not nearly that high. But yeah, that's the evidence is
my experience. What experience do I have over
(15:52):
the Apple operating system? Very little.
You know, if my experience was the other way round, I would
probably have a different opinion, different belief, you
know, so often what it is that we believe is based purely on
(16:12):
our subjective experiences, and often those beliefs are not
objectively verifiable. They're just straight down to
our subjective experience. Another belief I have.
Honda is a superior car model tohave.
If you don't drive a Honda, you're driving an inferior car.
Why do I say that? Because most of the cars that
(16:33):
I've owned over the last 30 years have been Hondas.
That is the vehicle brand that Iknow.
I'm familiar with the engines, I'm familiar with the gearboxes.
I like the combination. I don't like the combination
from other cars. It's my subjective experience
and it is now a firm belief. Yeah.
And I honestly, if you were, let's say an enthusiastic
(16:56):
gearhead and you made that statement, I couldn't believe it
on the basis that you are an authority who made that
statement, I also wouldn't care.So, you know, so that would be
the difference. I don't.
I don't actually mind holding some being wrong about some
(17:18):
stuff, because in places where there is no evidence, I'm not
going to teach it in school. I'm not going to teach that
Hondas are better cars and everything else on that basis.
Because now I would need more evidence if I'm going to make
some fact claims to others aboutthe nature of reality.
But I don't mind holding ideas loosely when there's no evidence
(17:45):
if it's presented well and also if I don't care that much about
it. So what is something that you do
care about, David? Well, this is not the answer.
You won't. But I I care about audio.
So I'm not a car gear head, but I'm an audio gear head.
That's my first and oldest and shoest geekdom.
(18:06):
So if people make claims about microphones, I am an expert.
So now I now I'm going to listento some of your claims and I
might call you out on your bullshit it, you know, in in
certain forms. If you know, if I happen to be
(18:27):
in one of those and you were saying some things that are that
I know are factually wrong and Ihave the receipts for OK.
All right. Let's put that to the test then,
David. Hopefully people can see my
video. I'm wearing headphones here.
These headphones have got a nifty built in microphone.
I'm going to suggest to you thatthe microphone that is connected
(18:49):
to this headset is actually better quality than this big
chunky thing in front of my face.
All right, so because Zoom, yeah, it's so it's, it's too
small and not enough of your microphone is in frame, so I
can't see what it is. Do you know what your microphone
is? No, my microphone is is
(19:13):
unbranded but my headphones are Sennheiser.
OK, so already I have to stop you.
There's not really any such thing as an unbranded
microphone. I don't know what the brand.
You are right. You are right.
I will grant that I don't know what the brand is because it's
not stamped on the side of it. OK, I would say that it is
(19:36):
possible that your the microphone on your headset could
be better than your microphone because your microphone is
probably not a premium microphone.
You can get, you know, big chunky microphones for 20 bucks
and they're simply not very good.
And you can pay a couple 100 bucks for a headset and get a
(19:57):
microphone that's worth about 50bucks and so.
I would not argue that unless I knew what microphone was in
front of you, and if I did, I would know the specifications of
it probably off the top of my head, or I could look them up
there. There is hard data that one can
look at with microphones and I could actually tell you just
(20:20):
from specs which microphone would probably be better in
which situations. And so you would be making a
kind of a falsifiable claim. But we'd have to do a little bit
of digging. And in in either case, in in
that case, I still wouldn't needto listen to the microphone to
(20:40):
know the truth of the claim because there's certain truths
about microphones where if the specs are true, we can make some
judgments without even hearing them.
So that what I would say about that claim is that it is a
falsifiable claim that can be investigated.
And I think that's the key pointto, and you used a very
important phrase here, hard data.
(21:02):
And in this particular example, the hard data will be the
frequency range with which the microphones I'll be able to
reliably pick up and transmit tothe computer.
And for the record distance, thereason why I'm talking to the
one in front of my face and not the one on my head is because
the one in front of my face is the better microphone.
Yeah, well and right, so there'sthere is hard data outside of
(21:27):
the experiment, but the experimental data is usually
going to win the day with microphones because you can just
speak into both of them and we can hear which one sounds better
that you see. Here's the thing though.
Because I know so much about microphones, I can just show you
that's not always true. My audio may not sound as good
(21:47):
as your audio for any of 1000 reasons, but I can almost
guarantee you that my mic, the microphone I'm using, is better
than the one you're using. So I could be transmitting a bad
signal, and you could be transmitting a good signal and
your audio could sound better. It wouldn't mean that your
microphone is better. So again, there are very
(22:08):
specific and verifiable testable, provable factors that
you can look at to compare microphones.
And then if you set them up where all things were equal,
then you could you could prove it out in the audio.
(22:28):
But what we're doing right now doesn't really prove anything.
You know, something is as simpleas you have a good connection
and I have a bad connection to the Internet could make one mic
sound better than the other. But you know, you combine that
with the data that we can clearly see.
(22:49):
Then once again, you've made a very falsifiable statement that
can be verified. And if Christians want to make
those kinds of statements, thesefalsifiable statements that can
be verified and we can look at the data together and, and we
can see it, great. We can, we can answer some of
(23:11):
these questions and deal with some of these claims.
But so much of what Christians want to do ends up in a Gray
zone where it can't be falsified.
I cannot, for instance, prove that no miracles took place.
I can't, I can't prove it. I've had broken bones that have
healed. Was it a miracle?
Well, they healed in about 12 weeks, which is about how long
(23:33):
it takes for them to heal. I have had 72 hour flus that
went away in about 72 hours. Did they go away because they
went away or did they go away because a church full of people
were praying? Who can say I can't, you know?
So it's not quite as straightforward to prove some of
(23:54):
those things. And This is why atheists ask for
miracles that are more visible. And when you do that, when you
when you say, here's a guy, you know a soldier and his leg was
shot off in the war, you can seehe has no leg here.
So go ahead and pray his leg back.
(24:16):
And then I'll believe you. Notice that no one ever does
that. They talk about miracles that
cannot ever be verified. And so we're at that place where
maybe you're right, maybe you'rewrong, but I can't prove it or
falsify it. And so in what way is that
supposed to convince me of anything other than that bail is
(24:37):
back? Yeah, exactly.
I mean, we're taking an awful long time to answer what is
essentially a yes, no question, but it does help to set the
theme for what Cameron's trying to achieve here.
But to summarise you and I don'treally care if people believe
things that are not of life magnificent importance.
(24:58):
You know, if somebody wants to believe that Windows is the
superior operating system, if somebody wants to believe that
Hondas are the superior automobile to have on your
driveway, let them. You know the world isn't going
to end because they hold that belief and it's wrong.
And if it's not going to end, ifyou believe them and it's wrong,
yeah, it's so it honestly doesn't matter.
(25:22):
So yeah, I mean, what in order for his question to be kind of
valid, because he's asking a kind of a philosophical question
without specifics, there's no way to really answer his
question, which is why I say it's a, it's a syllogism in a
bigger argument. So why don't we go ahead and do
(25:44):
the thing and grant his syllogism like like you
suggested a way long time ago, and say yes, we should abortion
our belief with the evidence. Yeah, OK.
And just before I move on though, there, there is an
important point here around thisis you.
I think it's the way I would phrase it is you portion the
(26:06):
strength of the belief that you hold according to the the dents
available. And what that means is if the
evidence changes, you're very happy to change the strength of
your belief or completely rejectthat belief and switch it in for
an alternative belief because the evidence has indicated that.
And that's probably the kind of answer that Cameron is looking
for here, so. Yes, hold, hold your beliefs
(26:28):
loosely, you know, with an open hand.
Yeah, you know, that's and and then if one drops off because
the evidence wasn't strong enough, big freaking deal.
Yeah, yeah, fine. I do not hold any belief so
strongly that it would shake thefoundations of my well-being if
(26:50):
that belief got challenged. However, I used to hold a belief
like that when I was a Christian.
Right, let's move on. #2 is if we could verify that some
miracle actually occurred, wouldthat give us a reason to think
that God exists? Any Again, this is contingent on
(27:10):
whether or not we could actuallyverify that the miracle
happened. All right, number.
Yeah, there is an assumption in this question that it's his God
and his God alone that would do a miracle.
Right. So my answer to this is no, I, I
think the second part of his syllogism is getting a little
(27:33):
bit more specific. So it's fairly easy to grant the
first one, and it's a little bitharder to grant this one because
when he says that God exists, hemeans Yahweh.
He means a specific God. So I would ask him a similar
disingenuous question, which is if we could prove that a miracle
(27:55):
happened with that prove with that, prove that Zeus exists,
would that be good evidence to believe that Zeus exists or that
Romulus exists for that you knowGanesh exists, that Allah
(28:15):
exists. Would that be proof of it?
He would say no, of course it wouldn't.
That wouldn't be reasonably thatany of those specific gods
exist. And it also, as I said, wouldn't
even prove that a God existed, because even in the Bible, the
world was full of magic that hadnothing to do with God.
It would prove that magic exists.
(28:37):
We haven't made a connection with God.
And that is the important point here.
So let's grant hypothetically, because the question is based on
the notion that a miracle can beverifiable as a miracle, and
that has happened. So let's grant that we have
(28:57):
miracle X and we have verified that X is a miracle.
There is no possible way it could have happened naturally.
It's happened miraculously through some kind of
otherworldly, unnatural, divine,whatever adjective you want.
Intervention. OK, let's take that.
(29:18):
How do we make the link, which is what you just said?
How do you make the link from that's happening to what did it,
and that's what's missing from this question.
That's what's missing from this data.
Right. If we ever had that scenario
where we were able to absolutelyvalidate that an event happened
(29:39):
that could not have happened naturally and absolutely did
happen through some kind of other natural intervention,
people who have a belief that isa supernatural belief, every
single one of those people wouldassign the agency of that
miracle to their supernatural belief.
(29:59):
Right. And that's what's happening
here. We so you see, if some magic had
happened, we have no indication that it's an agent at all.
It it just might be that someonehas learned how to manipulate
nature in such a way to create that exception to the rule.
(30:23):
But now, you know, I'll muddy the waters just a little bit and
say that if that happens, that still wouldn't actually be a
miracle. That would just be a better
mastery over nature. You found a way to do the thing.
You know, if you can teleport anapple from where you are to
where I am, everybody would say,oh, magic.
(30:46):
Everybody except physicists who would say, you know, we have
been working on that for years. And whereas we don't know how
you solved all the problems, they would not leap to, oh, God,
you know, intelligent agent doing some other magics in the
world for you. So there's no reason to leap to
that conclusion because you saw something that blew your mind.
(31:10):
I saw a show, a David Copperfield show.
Blew my mind. I have no idea how he did it.
You know when when you're watching that stuff on TV, you
just think that's all cameras. When you're a few hours away
from the front, you got to have another explanation.
So I don't have an explanation. I don't care.
(31:31):
It's a great show. But what if David Copperfield
was some kind of gin? OK, it's a gin that put on a
great show that doesn't get me to God, but I I actually want to
have a little fun with this one.I wanted to give the the right
answer, but I actually want to grant his argument.
(31:53):
I want to, I want to grant this point that if a bona fide
miracle happens, then that wouldbe some evidence toward a God is
that's not to say it's the only evidence you need.
It's the evidence that convinces.
But you know, let's say God is one of the possibilities.
And so this, you know, this is athing that a God would do and it
(32:19):
happened. So let's just let's just grant
that this would be one evidence toward the existence of his God,
just to see where. Far more gracious than I
normally credit you with, David,because I am absolutely not
prepared to go that far, becausethis question is absolutely
backwards. You don't go from the alleged
(32:41):
event and then work backwards to, oh, this my preferred
supernatural deity therefore didit.
First of all, you establish thatthe deity existed.
Then you establish that the deity is capable of doing such a
thing. Then you establish the mechanism
by which that deity did that thing.
You don't go backwards, you go forwards.
And this is a completely topsy turvy.
(33:03):
I understand. Look, it's like saying you see
there's Thunder and lightning that proves that Thor exists,
that that's you know, what more do you people need?
Do you see the Thunder? You see the lightning?
You see it struck down that evilperson over there.
Therefore, Thor, I understand why no sane person would grant
(33:27):
this. That said, I do a thing
sometimes just for my own wickedentertainment, which is
Occasionally I will get in one of these discussion discussions
with a Christian and grant almost everything just to play
the game and see how far the argument goes and watch it still
(33:50):
crash and burn at the end. And I.
Believe it will. Even if I grant this as an
evidence for Thor, excuse me, Yahweh, I don't think that we're
going to get to Yahweh at the end of this, but.
No, you're giving spoilers away,David, Come on.
(34:11):
Have you not learned this podcasting thing?
How long have we been doing thisnow?
I don't I don't know. I said I converted.
I thought that people believed me there, but I could maybe not.
So yeah, let's let's see the third question.
So I've granted his first question.
I don't actually buy I I'm not you for the people keeping sword
at home have granted the second question just for the just for.
(34:35):
You're doing it for the shits and giggles.
You're not actually being serious.
I. Didn't say shits and giggles, I
just I edited myself and said giggles.
No, you. Can't have the one without the
other. And of course, let's just skip
over that whole inconvenient thing of the methodology by
(34:57):
which you would establish that amiracle actually happened,
because that has not been detailed, That has not been.
It's just assumed that it's possible that we have a way of
doing that. We don't.
That's the way I say it. If you're going to grant that a
miracle happened at all, you just, well, grant the.
Yeah, All right, OK, We're having far too far.
(35:20):
Look, this is a 46 second video we're responding to.
How long have we been going? Oh, thought that question. 320
seconds worth. Come on, strap in.
Here it goes. Three, and this is my final
question, if you're an atheist that cares about truth and
thinks that we should, we shouldproportion our beliefs to the
evidence. Are you that atheist?
(35:42):
Yes, I am that atheist. Right.
OK, let's go. But then you also think that
we've got this unique way to verify whether or not God exists
through studying miracles. You gave a yes to that.
I am still a hard no on this, but you gave that a yes just to
be gracious. Yes, I did.
But you know, people who have listened to the 40 minutes of me
(36:03):
talking know what I really think.
But yes, I want to. I am going to play the game, but
I think he's changing it up a little.
Bit he is he's he's cheating here because the way he's
phrased it just now is not how he phrased question 2 pay.
Attention exactly. So I I caught that.
So yeah, that's called, it's called a bait and switch guys.
(36:26):
And he's a Christian. He's a Catholic converted
Christian. That's what he does.
That's his MO. Do not be surprised.
Right? Let's carry.
On how many of the millions of miracle reports throughout
history have you actually deeplyinvestigated?
Boom. Gotcha, David.
(36:47):
OK, I actually practiced this. I actually practiced this a
little bit. I'll try not to make it sound
too rehearsed. I could do it with a nun or
meaning. Which would you like to hear?
Which everyone ends with mic drop.
(37:08):
Oh damn it, where's my spare microphone?
Damn. OK, so here's the thing.
If the people who believe in Godthrough miracles believe because
of the miracles that he has donefor them that they have seen,
then good for them. But what you're telling me is
(37:29):
that experiencing a miracle would be good reason to believe
in God. I haven't experienced 1, so I do
not need to examine anyone else's miracle story because
they didn't believe based on a story of someone else's miracle.
They believed based on their miracle.
(37:49):
So I just want the same thing asthey get.
I want my miracle, my validation.
You can't say it was valid for them to get a miracle and then
believe. But somehow I have to believe
based on the story of them getting a miracle.
So I won't equal access to the miracle.
I don't need to. I don't need to examine to see
(38:12):
whether you had a miracle. That's not what I want.
I don't knowledge of your miracle because that's not what
convinced you. What convinced you it was a
miracle. I want the same.
So that's the no part. I'll let you go and if we find
it entertaining, I'll give you the yes.
But someone's already typing in the comments.
(38:34):
David, you can't give that kind of demand of God.
He is not your puppet at your beck and core.
How dare you be so arrogant as to make that demand of God?
Except for the millions and millions of people who claim
that God actually does give themmiracles.
So once again, if God is handingout millions and millions of
(38:54):
miracles to get millions and millions of believers, I'm not
asking for anything more than what He has already done for
other people. But but but all right then.
OK, fine. So.
You you can't say that God has given these millions of people
(39:14):
miracles and that God doesn't work that way.
You you can have one, but not that you have.
It he has a point, he, that guy,he has a point, right?
So yeah, my answer is again, he's got it backwards.
You don't create something good by piling up a big amount of
(39:37):
shit, you know, nought .0001 times by nought .001 multiple
times does not get you 100. You know, it just gets you a
small number. Yeah, being serious.
So millions and millions of miracle reports that are all
encapsulated with a belief system that encourages miracle
(40:01):
reports is not the way you go about gathering good evidence.
We can flip this over and give the, you know, I've investigated
the many answer because here's the thing, no matter how many
you investigate, you always findthat there's more story to the
story that the Christian gave. Whenever there is investigation.
(40:24):
I haven't, I haven't been able to do a lot of this first hand
investigation myself, but other people investigate these things
I find inevitably and I and I read those investigations, which
are seldom done by Christians. I when I read the details of a
miracle claim from someone who takes the time to hunt these
(40:45):
things down, it becomes less andless miracle the more details
that emerged. Oh, this person, they were at
this place and they got up out of their wheelchair and walked
when the preacher laid their hand on them and they walked OK,
and that's doable. And then they got back in the
wheelchair when they got home because their freaking back was
(41:09):
hurting. That's the part that never goes
into the story. I am in a wheelchair half the
time these days and someone could pray over me, arise and
walk. Well, I can arise and walk.
OK, get back in the wheelchair, though, you know, if I'm, if I'm
having one of those days. So it's it's always stuff like
(41:33):
that or that something was misreported.
Yes, that cancer went away. You also had three months of
heavy chemo. That part didn't get mentioned.
The story. Whenever you we are able to
examine these things, it always turns out that there is some
(41:54):
other detail that throws the miracle claim into doubt.
And so I would say that I have read enough of those stories to
not waste my life chasing down amillion stories.
Let me add one more point though.
Let's give you your million stories.
(42:15):
I'll give you 10 times your million stories for Hindu
miracles because they believe inmore gods than you do, and those
gods do miracles all the damn time.
So let's add those stories. Let's give you some Muslim
miracle stories. Let's give you miracle stories
(42:37):
for all the gods through history.
Are you convinced yet? No.
Why? Because you know that stories of
miracles are a dime a dozen. You are not convinced by any of
(42:57):
those other stories of miracles.You're only convinced, quote UN
quote, because I don't think youare by stories of miracles of
people on your team. And you want me to ignore all
the miracle claims in history and just focus on the ones for
your Christian God. But your argument is
(43:17):
inconsistent, and it fails because if there are more
miracle stories by other gods than your God, then you should
believe in those other gods, andI would contend that there are.
Yeah, there's something that I absolutely need to say, and it's
something I don't say often enough.
(43:39):
Claims are not evidence. Saying that there are millions
of miracle reports is not evidence that they are actually
miracles. Come on, Cameron, you're better
than this. Come on, Christians, you are.
Bet you're right. He's not.
That's why he's dropped that whole intellectual side of
Christianity. Anyway.
The other thing is, it's not on me to go and investigate every
(44:03):
single one of those. If you've got a miracle that you
think is a real miracle, and I hope you need one, I don't need
millions. If you've got one absolutely
bona fide miracle that is, that does show that it can't have
been done naturally, that does show that there actually was
agency that got involved in thatand that evidence includes the
(44:26):
chain of events that makes that agent your God, then let's have
it. Let's go and examine it.
I only need one. I don't need multiple ones.
Don't Gish gallop me. I only need one.
But you don't have it. And that's the thing.
We've spoken with people. We've had people here on Still
Unbelievable who've talked aboutmiracles.
I've been on your show, Talk about miracles and those ones
(44:51):
that have been claimed. I think one of the one of the
great ones, Gary Habermas, one about the red shoe on the roof
with an NDE or something like that.
Apparently the area of roof where that shoe was supposed to
have been was visible from a window on a corridor.
Holy crap is a miracle. Right, right.
(45:12):
It's always, it's always like that when, when they can be
investigated, yeah. And you go and you pick out some
of these big high profile ones that people have started talking
and you see gaps in the evidencechain.
You see gaps in what is actuallybeing suggested and what is
happening here. And Cameron and all those
(45:32):
Christians who assert miracles are all guilty of it.
There is a oh, but I don't understand this.
Oh, there's a bit of a gap here where we don't have knowledge
that fills it. I've got something that's a
perfect shape to fill that gap and it's spelt God.
And this is what happens. It is God.
Gapperty, don't do it. Actual evidence, please.
(45:53):
Fill the gap. So, and and if we just want to
point out hypocrisy, I could askthis guy, how many Hindu
miracles have you personally investigated?
How many any, any Satya Sai Babawas a man from our lifetime.
(46:18):
We would have been babies for a lot of his work, but he was, he
was in our, he raised dead people in our lifetime and he
had thousands of people around him at a time as he performed
his miracles. He, he was maybe bigger than
(46:42):
Simon the sorcerer back in his day because it's, it's
contemporary and thousands, maybe millions, certainly
thousands of people are alive today who can give testimony to
(47:03):
him. Have you looked up any of those
miracles of Satya Sai Baba, Sir?No, you haven't, because you
don't care about it at the end of the day.
Now, his syllogism, he asks these three questions leading to
a conclusion. He never actually drops the
(47:24):
conclusion that we're supposed to be led to.
So this is one of the reasons why I could grant all of his
arguments and still not, still not have a conclusion that God
exists. I, I think he's, you know,
trying to do that. But let me just, let me just
grant this one too to to fulfillmy ridiculous drunken granting
(47:51):
of, of ridiculous claims. So all these miracle claims
point to a miracle happening, which points to a God being
real. OK, We can also provide counter
arguments that a lot of these miracle claims when investigated
(48:11):
end up not being miracle claims at all.
We can't really verify that any miracles have happened.
But you know, we'll grant all that too.
So a God exists. Maybe even your God exists.
So where does that get us? Because your God still hasn't
(48:33):
granted me a miracle and forget a miracle because I've said
before I could follow someone without a miracle.
He still hasn't introduced himself to me.
We haven't sat down and chatted.He's done nothing to create
relationship with me. I have stories of him creating
relationships with other people.What about that relationship has
(48:56):
happened for me? I have sought this God despite
what anyone has said. I have worshipped this God to
the extent that I can worship a being that I cannot see, hear,
feel, touch, or fully know is there.
And I've received nothing by wayof spiritual confirmation.
So at the end of the day, if your God exists, he seems to
(49:22):
have rejected relationship with me and so it's actually at his
door at this point to create that relationship because I have
tried and you know, I am told that you know, it's not me who
does the creating a relationshipis a spirit.
(49:44):
Great. Well, I'm here.
He knows my address. I know this makes Christians
mad, but anything that a Christian would say, well,
here's what you're supposed to do to get to the next step.
I've already done. I've done it more and better
than you. I I feel confident in saying
that. So where are we now?
(50:06):
What else am I supposed to do it?
I can't. I can't force this relationship.
And all I can say is maybe I'm one of the people who were
created as a vessel of destruction.
OK, then I'm playing my role. But I'm not going to declare
guilty to one who refuses to show up to, to provide his
(50:32):
spirit in a way that makes it clear that he's communicating
with me something so I, I can give you all of your miracles
and the existence of your God. And we still can't get, you
know, from here to there becauseI can't, I can't cross that
divide. He has to cross it.
(50:53):
I'm not using the word cross. Ironically, I, I realize I've
used it a couple of times, you know, but that's as far as I'm
concerned, that's a story. And even if the story were true,
where is his spirit? Where was it when I was
baptized? Where was it when I was a
Christian and seeking him? Where was it when I was reading
his Bible? Where was it when I was no
(51:15):
longer a believer? But still ask for him to, you
know, to show up and be there. Give me one good reason to not
be an unbeliever. Where was he in all the times?
And if you know I don't, there's, there's nothing else
for me to do. So your proof of miracles that
(51:36):
prove your God existing does notcreate another convert because
it can't. There's, there's nothing that I
can do with that information. So at the end of the day, your
God's going to have to show up. Yeah.
Thank you for that, David. My closing thoughts are in the
form of an anecdote. I was listening to podcasts, I
(51:58):
think it's a couple of years agoand on it somebody was being
interviewed to makes a career out of investigating these kinds
of miracle claims. And he told the story of a
specific type of miracle claim, which was a statue of the Virgin
Mary on the top of the Catholic Church, right at the top of the
(52:18):
the building had the statue of Mary.
And on a particular day, the statue glowed with an ethereal
type light. And it created quite an quite a
commotion and quite an emotionalresponse amongst the faithful
and the believers. So this guy came down and he
investigated and it took him some time and he checked what's
(52:40):
going on. But basically what the result
was was when a certain level of cloud cover and the moon is in a
certain point in the sky and that full it creates a
reflection of the light. And the light ends up
illuminating Mary because of theangle, but not the rest of the
the church. So the Mary statue flows with
(53:01):
the reflected moonlight while the rest of the building does
not under these particular conditions.
And you went and checked back towhat the weather was like on the
day of the report and found thatthat it matched.
So that's what he presented to the church as his conclusion as
to what happened. And after we'd done that, this
(53:22):
lady came up to him and said, you know what I prefer not to
believe? That and that.
Tells you all you need to know. Yeah, and honestly, I kind of
said this earlier. I don't actually mind that
answer so much because yeah, as long as you believe in a God
(53:44):
that can create the conditions that created that weather
pattern, then Miracle is still on the table for you.
She's. Pushing the miracle back.
Yeah. I mean, so sure, that was that
was a particular weather patternthat shows up, but why would
that weather pattern show up at that particular time in that,
(54:05):
you know, that particular occasion that was religiously
charged? And so, yeah, you can say that
it's a natural incident, but whocontrols nature?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm not even going to credit
that one with a polite response.David, thank you for that.
(54:27):
We've taken an hour on a video that took less than a minute.
That is just par for the course for us.
This is what we do. If you're new to Still
Unbelievable, if you're new to David, Skeptic and seekers
welcome. This is what we do.
We take far too long that is necessary to talk about things.
Find David, find me, find a relevant podcast, check the show
(54:49):
notes for for stuff. We're cool.
Hope you enjoyed it. Until next time you have been
listening to a podcast from Reason Press.
Do you have any thoughts on whatyou've just heard?
Do you have a topic that you would like us to cover?
(55:10):
Please send all feedback to reasonpress@gmail.com.
You might even appear on an episode.
Our theme music was written for us by Holly.
To hear more of her music, see the links in our show notes.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.