Talk Heathen 09.41 with Richard Gilliver and ObjectivelyDan

Show notes upon receipt.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/talk-heathen--3195702/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Philosophy used by the religious to try and justify the
existence of God through all sorts of arguments that if
God exists, would he have to go to such convoluted
lengths to let let us know that He is there?
And one of these arguments, William Lane Craig said the
original formulation of the colomb was the best argument he'd
ever heard. Then, when challenged on its premises, agreed with

(00:23):
the floor and said, I agree, That's why I modified it.
Then the next time he spoke to someone new, returned
to saying the original formulation of the colamb was the
best argument he'd ever heard. Our apologetic arguments for God
just goalpost moving on a grand scale. Give us a
call and let us know what you think. And if
you have an argument for God that you think is convincing,

(00:44):
then please call because the show starts now. Hello, Hello, Hello,
Today is October the fifth, twenty No, it's not somebody's
not the document.

Speaker 2 (01:03):
No, it's we're streaming from the.

Speaker 1 (01:06):
Past, update the document. It's not mine.

Speaker 2 (01:11):
Yes, I think the producers job is to do that,
but it's not October twelfth.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
I am your host, Richard Gilliver. Indeed, and the producer
and in charge of updating the document and joining me
today is objectively done done. How the devil are you, Richard.

Speaker 2 (01:30):
I'm doing great. It's it's a fine day this October.
It's twenty twenty five from the past.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:36):
No, I'm doing good. I'm doing good. I just went
on Facebook and and I never go on Facebook. And
I just got an ad telling me that I can
get an autism test, like as an adult. Like it
was a recommended ad to me. And I don't know.
Does Facebook know something about me that I don't know?
And I got to figure that out. But anyway, you know,

(01:57):
probably just random.

Speaker 1 (01:58):
But putting those new in your brain keeping.

Speaker 2 (02:03):
Makes you wonder, makes you wonder. But yeah, you know.

Speaker 1 (02:07):
So Heathen is of course a live calling show and
we have open lines. Get your calls in at five
to one two nine nine one nine two four two
or from your computer at tiny dot cc slash call
t h on tok Heathen. We're open to all of
your questions about religion, secular humanism, atheist morality, cosmology, philosophy, science, history,

(02:29):
life and the universe and so Keithen is a product
of the Atheist Community of Austin, which is a five
h one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion
of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation of
religion and government. But of course myself and Dan we
have fun here, but we don't do it alone. Where

(02:50):
helps how In fact, some people might say, carried by
the crew. So let us go and have a look
at those wonderful, wonderful people. Bring the crew up and
let's have a look at those people. Oh, look at them,
Yeah they are. And today we have a very special
crew member. We like to shout out people in the crew,
and today's shout out it's for Daniel, who is a

(03:12):
member of our production team and a skilled day one
audio group for Tokieden and on occasion, the Atheist Experience.
Thanks for keeping his organized.

Speaker 3 (03:21):
Dan.

Speaker 1 (03:21):
Let's have a look at Daniel. Look at that handsome
exuding handsomeness and whatever else you're exuding. I wouldn't like
to guess, I wouldn't like to put parameters on you, Daniel. Yeah,
Daniel and every member of the crew doing a sterling
job as always and keeping us going. Thank you very much, guys,

(03:44):
very much appreciate you all. So let's have a look
at we have calls jumping in. Is there any one
of those that takes your fancy?

Speaker 3 (03:52):
Dan?

Speaker 2 (03:52):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (03:52):
You know me?

Speaker 2 (03:53):
I'm damn for whatever. Maybe Servants go first. Yeah, they
waited longer. I feel like we should go.

Speaker 1 (04:01):
We should go, Okay, Brings Savants was in the free
show TikTok and wanted to call us, and so hello Savansas,
thank you for heeding the call and the calling in.
What is it you'd like to discuss, sir?

Speaker 2 (04:14):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (04:15):
Sure, so curious My original question in the pre show
do you guys believe in an objective nature of reality
or a subjective nature of reality?

Speaker 2 (04:24):
M Yeah, it's a big one, Richard. What do you think?

Speaker 1 (04:27):
I want to know what you mean by an objective
nature of reality and the subjective nature of reality before
we start, just so we're on the same page.

Speaker 3 (04:36):
Sure, So the universe exists. Fundamentally, it exists, Things are happening.
The pursuit of science is a subjective means of trying
to attain understanding about that, a truthful understanding. But there
is an objective. A tree is a tree objectively, we
can try to figure out what that means, but it
exists in and of itself.

Speaker 1 (04:56):
Yeah, I'm happy with that.

Speaker 2 (04:59):
It's one of those things where like you can't unless
you have a great principle for verification that breaks through
all the history of epistemology. Right, You're never going to
know for sure. But I guess I could say I
believe that there's an objective nature to reality and not
know that there's an objective nature to reality because I
don't really have the methods or tools outside of my
own senses and reasoning, which is going to be inherently flawed, right,

(05:22):
So I guess I'd leave it at that.

Speaker 1 (05:24):
Yeah, and just tugging onto what Dan said, if you
don't mind. I think there is an the universe, the
universe which exists, which the fundamental level is lots of
zips and pops and pots and little atoms and particles
doing their atomium particle thing, and we as a species

(05:46):
only have our perspective on that. In biology, there's a
thing called the unvault, I think it's called, and it's
basically the sensory bubble that each species has. And you know,
human humans have their sensory bubble which is completely different
to a bad sensory bubble, which is completely different to
in elephants and we all perceive the universe in entirely

(06:10):
different ways, completely alien to each other, but it is
the same universe that we all occupy. So I don't
know if you'd agree with that. Cementsis Yeah, Yeah, there
you go.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
Let's us talking for a while. What do you think?

Speaker 3 (06:21):
Yeah, I think it's a working definition. I think it
shoots the purpose ultimately with the question comes down to then,
just as a follow up, do you believe that the
universe exists regardless of our perception of it?

Speaker 2 (06:34):
Right?

Speaker 3 (06:34):
The univer objectively, it's happening regardless of whether we're perceiving
it in our bubble as you called it.

Speaker 2 (06:39):
Yeah. Personally, yes, Yeah, I think it's another thing where
it's like, yeah, that's a belief I hold. I don't
know that to be true, but there's a belief I hold.
I at least have a model where that makes sense. Right,
If I'm being in this universe and I existed because
of all the laws of the universe that exists before
that that came into being, then it would make sense
that things would have happened before my state of consciousness,

(07:02):
and things would happen after my state of consciousness. So yeah,
I would say I do cool.

Speaker 3 (07:07):
So when we observe this objective universe that does exist,
do we not see that merely every science? I can't
think of a single science that studied the nature of
the universe or you know, on an even more you know,
on a fundamental on a micro or on a macro level.
It seems to me, through all of the scientific endeavor
that we've looked at, that there is an ordering principle

(07:27):
to reality itself.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
What do you mean by an ordering principle?

Speaker 3 (07:32):
Yeah, so things are just the nature. It's a little
bit abstract. So bear with me. Take a tree, for example,
the idea that it grows in a very particular way.
Each tree individually grows in its very particular way. It
is it is in being a tree. It's treeing, right,

(07:53):
it's doing this thing that trees do in a pretty
ordered in the sense that we can observe it and
replicate it if you will, or observed or observe the
replicated process of being a tree across the.

Speaker 1 (08:07):
Board, right, Ye, sure, yeah, right?

Speaker 3 (08:11):
So is there anything you can think of in particular
that is chaotic, that is not ordered.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
Things that are chaotic and not ordered. I don't know.
There's like quantum scientists, quantum physicists that may say that
there's some things that are chaotic and we can't really
I mean, whether patterns system weather systems are chaotic. They
rely on chaos theory, right, for a lot of things.
We can predict some things, but we can't do with certainty.
I guess it depends what you mean by chaotic. I

(08:38):
mean I do think they underlyingly rely on physical principles.
I don't think like things are breaking physical principles in
order to exist necessarily, right, but don't.

Speaker 3 (08:51):
Yeah, sure a law of physics if you will.

Speaker 2 (08:54):
Sure.

Speaker 3 (08:54):
Yeah, cool, So even on that, you know, when we
talk about physics, because I think that's really important. It's
a fundom you know, on the micro scale. I think
that's fundamental to the nature of reality and of itself.
What What do most physicists believe most people who are
studying quantum physics, what.

Speaker 2 (09:10):
Do they believe about?

Speaker 1 (09:11):
What? Yeah, that was my question.

Speaker 3 (09:13):
Most of them, when it comes to what we're talking about,
most of them are in fact outwardly believers.

Speaker 2 (09:18):
You mean, like, oh, like believers in God. No, Actually,
they've done studies on this. Physicists are by and far
the most atheist th most one of the most atheist
science is out there, for sure, I can.

Speaker 3 (09:31):
So let's let's I don't even want to use the
word God necessarily. I think it has a lot of
baggage with it. I want to say an orderer, if
you will, something that is beyond the scope. I can
name offhand several physicists. And I'm not privy to the
studies that you mentioned. I'd have to look more into that,
because you know, those studies can very easily be skewed,

(09:53):
especially when they're self reporting. I need to see the
meta on that. But I can name offhand several quantum
who are very.

Speaker 2 (10:01):
Outwardly Okay, well let me wait, wait, wait, so you're saying,
wait a minute, I don't know about your study, but
I can name a few people that I know just
bought based off names, and that's more reliable. Right, Well,
like the under we understand how this works, right It's
we don't say, oh, well, I can name a few
people and that should inform the majority opinion of people

(10:23):
in this field, right It's no, we have to survey
the people in this field and come to right here.
I'm trying to google this for you here, So we can,
we can do this, but.

Speaker 1 (10:35):
I think I think something more important than that, If
you don't mind me jumping in just for a second,
I don't think I think something more important than this
as well. Is regardless because they might be, they might
be ninety nine percent of physicists. I think that God exists,
And let's let's stick with the term God, because I
don't like this other idea of some vague thing. Because

(10:59):
you you have a believe in God, I presume that's
certainly what you kind of put forward to me in
the precio TikTok, where you know I just call anyway.
So let's stick with the God you believe in, because
that's what we're talking about. That's the argument' making. So
we've got several problems. Even if we accept that lots

(11:19):
of physicists, ninety nine percent of physicists believe in God,
we've got lots of problems because those physicists belong to
a vast array of different and contradictory religions. That's the
first problem. And even we can't even just say, yeah,
but the nature of God in those religions is the same,

(11:40):
because even the nature of God, the very nature of
that God is completely different, so we can't say that. Secondly,
and more important in my view than that, the fact
that we've already got that problem with. Even if it's
the case that the vast majority of physicists believe in God,
they believe in different ones. More important than that, how
many of them have shown that God exists in their work,

(12:05):
Because if all you're going to do is say, well,
the most physicists believe in God, all you're doing is
making an argument from authority. That's not an argument that
God exists. That's just a fallacious argument. So let's talk
about what's important when we're talking about this, and how
many of them has shown God exists in their professional work,

(12:29):
which has been repeated by other physicists and agreed upon
and concluded that that's the case. And the answer to
that is none of them have. And that's really really important.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
So you touched on quite a few things that I
want to try to respond to as many of them
as possible. Absolutely, to take a big step back on
what I was saying, I would say, and this is
something I had mentioned in the pre show, in the
little pre screening. It's a really hard sell for either side.
Who's making a positive or a negative claim God does

(13:01):
exist or God doesn't exist. There's a big wall between us, right,
that's really hard to reconcile because neither of us have
that evidence that proves one way or.

Speaker 1 (13:10):
Another depends which God you're talking about.

Speaker 2 (13:12):
Yeah, that's true. You know, there are some things that
we can identify as.

Speaker 1 (13:16):
And this is one of the reasons why I said
to you, yeah, and I will let you continue in
a minute, but I just want to clarify. This is
one of the reasons why I said to you, it's
really important that we're talking about the gods that you
believe in and not just making a vague god concept.

Speaker 2 (13:30):
Sure.

Speaker 3 (13:31):
Sure, So the reason that that is going to be
my next pot The reason I'm making a vague concept
is because I want to try to reconcile as much
as I can and give a decent enough justification for
why I take the first belief, the first principle that
there is something beyond our existence. And I think this
is the only way that either side can sort of

(13:53):
try to have a decent level of understanding is just
accepting that there is something right, and I do that
through that evidence. When I say physicists. I am talking
about a lot of the leading and top quantum. There's
people who are studying more nuanced and more specialized parts
of physics, but I'm talking about the like really great
minds that are looking at this that have openly professed

(14:15):
the belief. And again we table that if that's not something.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
Well, again to Richard's point, and unless their professional work
demonstrates that God exists or doesn't exist, that's just going
to be their personal belief in their personal opinion, right,
which is like, is fine, but like like when a
climate scientist is saying, hey, climate change is real, that's
not just opinion, right, that's like, oh they're they're talking
about their work as a reference to climate change being

(14:40):
a fact. Right. There's no physicists that are saying, hey,
we did the math, turns out God he's a thing, right, Like,
that's not how that works. So it's their opinion matters
like way less.

Speaker 3 (14:51):
So yeah, let's jump on the climate if you guys
don't mind taking the tangent really quick down the climate conversation.

Speaker 1 (14:57):
Okay, yeah, I want to talk about climate change calin
next week, and so to the whole sense.

Speaker 2 (15:05):
Yeah, probably it's probably best to stick to one thing
at a time here, especially, so yeah, let's rap it
up this one. Yeah, thanks, sure.

Speaker 3 (15:14):
So I believe in a Christian God. I believe that
these scientists that I'm referencing are hinting. I know they
are not proving. I will pull we make that claim
and stand behind it. They are not proving that God exists,
but they are using their science and they are are
They're they're you know, contextual science, they're abstractions, they're using
that improving or they're hinting, not proving. They're hinting at

(15:36):
the idea that there may be something beyond the material
universe which we perceive.

Speaker 1 (15:41):
So what does that mean? What does that mean? Because
this is this is another reason I want to be
very very clear, because something beyond I believe personally. I
am convinced by the science that I've seen that, although
I have problems with it, that's for another day. I

(16:01):
am convinced that there is something beyond the universe. I
think there is, and I think that thing was the
singularity from which the universe came. So this is why
I think it's very very important to be so specific,
because if you tell me, oh, lots of physicists believe
there is something beyond the universe. I would say I

(16:22):
think most physicists think that who accept the Big Bang model,
you know, And as I'm a complete layperson, I have
an interest in physics and cosmology. I'm a complete laperson
in it. From my perspective, I also think there is
something beyond the universe. And this is why I wanted
to say, let's talk specifically about your God, because that

(16:43):
is entirely vague, and you're not talking about When you
say just something so vague like that, you're not talking
about God. For me, you're not talking about God. You're
talking about just something within you know, the natural world,
if you.

Speaker 2 (16:59):
Like, when you're reconciling, you're actually undermining or under selling
your own point, right, because and I appreciate that you
followed up and said, now it's the Christian God. Okay,
Well that's great because the Christian God has specific characteristics
and specific things that would be different compared to if
other kinds of gods existed, Right, So, like I'm much
more interested in that than just saying, is there like
a higher power? Is there something else? I mean, yeah, maybe, right,

(17:21):
there's always going to be a maybe to that. We
can't definitively answer that. But to Richard's point, we can
look down some of these things, like if you think
that there's a gremlin in a cave that causes hurricanes somewhere, right,
Like I think we can throw that one out, you know,
Like I don't think we can show that, right, but
like you know, higher is there a higher force that's
beyond us, and maybe we can't really do do anything

(17:43):
with that, you know, but anyway, go ahead.

Speaker 3 (17:44):
Yeah, So to just forgive me then, because I'm used
to talking to a lot of people who are you sist,
who don't have as well thought out of a position
as you guys clearly do. That's why I'm trying. I
was kind of trying to lead us there. The belief
in the higher power leads to the and it is
its assumptions and it's leaps of based on you know,
college educated like you said that there's not a gremlin

(18:06):
causing hurricanes in a cave somewhere. I believe that there's
an educated strong hint that the higher power that could
be referred to beyond this universe is the Judeo Christian God.
The reason that I believe that is the consistency throughout
Old Testament and New Testament definitely give you guys want
to take the lead on poken holes and it goes

(18:27):
for it.

Speaker 2 (18:28):
That's interesting. I think there's like very little consistency between
the Old Testament and New Testament. But like, I don't
know how much more time we want to take to
this call urture because we have been at for twelve
minutes now to switch gears here, I'll say this, if
you can demonstrate to me, then you know, like the
well one, I don't even know that that even matters,
right between the consistency between the narrative of the Old

(18:48):
Testament God and New Testament God. I mean, like that's
that's more of a triviality to me. There's still depictions
of what God is and what he's capable of and
what he does that we could still verify, right Like,
So for example, if God gave like God has the
ability to give plagues, right like, that's the thing that's happened.
Or God is able to flood the world. If you
believe those stories to be literal accounts of what happened,

(19:09):
there would be physical evidence of these things, right And
every single time that we have stories of whatever God does,
whether it's Jericho or whatever, like a physically affecting the world,
we don't seem to reflect that in archaeology or biology
or any other kind of science that we can think of.
And so like that, that's why we talk about why

(19:29):
we want to be so specific when we talk about
these kinds of gods, because like that that specific God
doesn't seem to exist or at least have evidence of
his existence, right, doesn't lead us to the conclusion that
he could be real.

Speaker 3 (19:40):
So, yeah, the two things you just mentioned are actually
two things that a lot of scientists are coming to
accept our true account. The ten around ten thousand, I
can't I can't remember the name for it. The geologists
to use the less you're the Dryest period, the dryest
impact hypothesis very strongly that there was not maybe entirely global,

(20:04):
but a pretty large scale global flood around the Near
East at that time.

Speaker 1 (20:09):
That's not what the Bible's saying. The Bible doesn't say that.
The Bible says it covers the Old Earth. You could
make the argument the.

Speaker 2 (20:19):
High mountains on Earth, by the way, which is very specific.

Speaker 1 (20:23):
You could make the argument that it is about the
near East, because the the word for the land or
the earth, the planet earth or land in the Old
Testament has different meanings depending on context. So you could
make that argument, but then I think that brings more
problems than it solves when we're talking about you know,

(20:45):
do you actually believe in the gold global flood, because
if you do, then the Bible itself contradict you there.
So you know, what are we talk what are we
talking about? This is why it's so important to talk
specifically about these things and to such on a point
Dan made about it not being consistent, we know and

(21:05):
I said no with the capital K that the Biblical
narrative was kind of formed by lots of different peoples
at different times, with different interpretations. And we can see
most clearly in the New Testament in the economical councils
that were put together when nobody agreed on the nature

(21:28):
of God. And these were Christians. These were the early
Christians who were largely responsible for actually amalgamating the Bible
into what it is the Bible that we have. And
when we're talking about biblical consistency, this is really really important.
And they were arguing about the nature of God, they
were arguing about the theology of God. They were being

(21:49):
influenced by lots of different things, the Old Testament, by
the Greek philosophers. They were influenced by so many things.
They had contradictory points of view, and the winners won out.
It wasn't the case that this was the case that
everybody agreed. The winners won out, and there were some

(22:10):
very very different views. Some of these early bishops believed
in reincarnation, which I'm sure you wouldn't. You know, most
Christians today wouldn't accept as a thing, And yet some
of the early bishops believed in that. So I don't
think there is a consistency there. I really want to
go please look out, because we are going to have

(22:32):
to let you go and move on to the next caller.
But please do look out, and I'm going to I'm
going to drop a bombshell and next time you call
when I'm hosting, you know, if you want to talk
about that. I think if you believe in a try
omni God, which I don't know if you're do it
not if you not. All Christians do believe that God
is all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. But I

(22:54):
do not think there is an argument for that God
not existing. But on that bombshell, I'm going to let
you go and.

Speaker 2 (23:04):
Hey, here's an yeah you spawn at the end there.

Speaker 1 (23:07):
Yeah, I just know it's going to go down the
road if we if we go down there, I like it.
I appreciate the call genuinely, genuinely appreciated, and we can.

Speaker 2 (23:19):
Talk to more. We can talk you more because there's
a lot more to go over there. But like I
think we've made a points pretty clear as far if this.

Speaker 1 (23:25):
Is talk He, then you can call back week on
week and talk to different shows hosts and get different opinions.
That is exactly what we are here for. So we
are we have more calls in the queue. Stick around.
We are going to come to your h You've got
some great people. We've got lease in there. Pe Mars.

(23:46):
I'm looking forward to taking some of those calls. P
Mars was another guy who was in the pre show
TikTok or stick around, We are going to get to you.
Did you know? Did you know that Talk Heathen is
on tip Top Live Tuesday and Thursdays. Set your reminders
for Tuesdays at three pm Central that's me and Thursdays

(24:08):
at seven PM Central where you can talk to Jimmy Junior,
who's another one of our wonderful hosts and the assistance producer.
I don't know why I said that.

Speaker 2 (24:20):
Yeah, why did you say it? Like that's just it's
just like you mean, it's telling it was a joke.

Speaker 1 (24:25):
Like Jimmy, Jimmy works really really hard. It really really
does you know kind of Jimmy should be spotlighted on
the cruising. He really does work really hard.

Speaker 2 (24:37):
This spotlight we need to his egle. Come on. That's
for the that's for the background. That's for the folks
that work behind the scenes.

Speaker 1 (24:43):
Okay, if you if you do want to talk to
myself or Jimmy, you can check us out on Tuesdays
and Thursdays and if you can't make it, recordings are
available to all our subscribers on Patreon the paid levels
of Patreon, so please do get in. We also have
a couple of super chats. An Johnson has sent us
five dollars, so thank you very much. A Johnson and

(25:04):
says there may be a god or gods, but none
of that guarantees the existence of a Christian God.

Speaker 2 (25:11):
Yeah, yeah, to comment on that, like I think you
know Servanna's Obviously, this sounds like a smart guy, and
I think he understands there's a weakness when you try
to bring in the Christian God. I think that's why
he was hesitant to bring that up. It's easier to
point to this sort of and this is a common
Christian pologies strategy where you kind of point to a
vague spiritual higher power or force to see if you
can at least get people on board with that, because

(25:33):
it's it's it's literally like a sales tactic. It's like
you're funneling people into like the Christian God, right if
you can get him to get on the on some
of the bigger stuff. So we see it, we see
it happen a lot so bit.

Speaker 1 (25:45):
To be fair to him, I want to give him
the benefit of the doubt because he did say that.
You know, this is the first time he talked to us,
and it did.

Speaker 2 (25:52):
Say it we were good ones. He said, I have
to I have to talk to these dumb other atheists,
but you guys seem kind of smart. That's not what
he said, but you know that's why I said.

Speaker 1 (26:03):
Anyway, Yeah, Daniel shower Shure hopeless with pronunciations. Sorry, Daniel
As sent five dollars and says he doesn't want to
define these gods specifically that lets you efficiently argue against them.
I think the problem is with that is the fact that,
as I said, we've got these this concept of something

(26:26):
that existed before the universe, and I don't think anybody
would really argue against that.

Speaker 2 (26:31):
Well, Richard, Yeah, imagine this. Imagine I'm a physicist and
I just get this paper published, right and I'm like, hey, guys,
I want to introduce you this new force. It's kind
of like the Higgs boson, except it's not. And then
you immediately asked, Okay, well what is it? And I'm like, well,
it's kind of like, you know, it's like kind of
out there and it kind of does some stuff, and

(26:52):
I think it I think you could see that it
affects particles. You'd be like, okay, how like in what way?
Like how like how's it compared the other fundamental forces?

Speaker 3 (27:01):
Right?

Speaker 2 (27:01):
Like, of course you're going to ask specifics if you're
introducing a new physical constant to the universe, and if
God is a thing that is affecting physical constants to
the universe, I want to know specifically how if it's
if it's too vague and you can't define it, then
it might as well be anything right or just nothing.

Speaker 1 (27:20):
So absolutely we we've lost one of the callers. Well,
I wanted to talk to if you can get a
call back.

Speaker 2 (27:27):
We're getting calls. I don't know if they're dropping or
if they're losing patients. But stay on the line. We'll
get to you, guys.

Speaker 1 (27:33):
We'll definitely get to you anyway. We have Gohan from
Texas who wants to talk to possibly my least favorite
subject ever in the world, and that is the Shroud of.

Speaker 2 (27:46):
This is literally probably your release. I would say least
favorite thing ever Shroud of turn But I guess we'll
give it a shot. Gohan, you're live. What's up? Well?
I love it. My cat is named Lord Freezer, which
is also a dragon ball thing, so you know, I
get it. I'm with you on that.

Speaker 4 (28:03):
Just be careful, don't let your cat turn on you.

Speaker 2 (28:07):
I'll keep him at bay. I'll keep him at bay.
But for now, what do you got for us?

Speaker 3 (28:11):
So?

Speaker 4 (28:11):
I want to discuss the shout of Turns. For a
long time, I was a doubter. I mean recently I've
become more of a believer in it. I'm just trying
to see if you guys could unconvince me, make me
doubt again.

Speaker 2 (28:25):
Okay, well you came to the right place, because, like
I said, Richard is the biggest Shroud of Turn hater
I probably have ever met in my life. This man
that could write a whole book about why the shroud
of Turn sucks. So Richard, you take this one.

Speaker 1 (28:38):
I just don't like talking about it because I think
it's one of those things where you know, when some
people I'm going to go and I'm good, let me
take you on a journey. When some people get things
like the column cosmological argument and they sit there and
they say, oh no, not that again. Don't want to
talk about that again. I've talked about that a million

(28:58):
times and it didn't convinced me the first time, and
I don't really want to talk about it for the
nine hundred and fifty billionth time. That's what I'm like
with the shroud of Churn. Tell me, gohan, what convinces you, Yeah,
that the shroud of Churin is the boreal shroud of
Jesus of Nazareth. Is that is the claim you're making?

Speaker 2 (29:19):
You know, maybe That's a good strategy, Richard, because there's
a million reasons why we could say the claims it
makes don't work. But we should talk about what claims
are convinced. You go on, like what makes you a
believer of it is? We can talk about those specifically.

Speaker 4 (29:33):
Sure, So I would have to start by saying the
thing that made me doubt the most was the carbon dating.
And I still trust the carbon dating. I just think
it was now I'm convinced that it was from a
piece of the cloth that has been repaired, and we
can get into that or not. And then okay, I
would say the main reason that I believe it is not,

(29:54):
at least not a painting. I'm not one sold it
was Jesus, but I believe almost for a fact that
an imprint of a crucified man. I don't think it
was a painting.

Speaker 2 (30:07):
There's uh, why do you say? Why do you make
that distinction? Sure?

Speaker 4 (30:11):
So, like the bloodstains are on the shroud before the images,
So if it was a painting, that means they would
have had put to put the blood stains in the
correct spot, and then they would have had to paint
the body to match up with the blood stains, which
would be incredibly hard to do, like almost unbelievable. There,

(30:32):
That's one reason. Another reason is we know it's not painted.
When you look at the fibers of the shroud itself,
the image is very very shallow. So uh, if it
was a painting, it would have been much deeper than that.
So it looks much more like it was a high
intensity radiation for a split second.

Speaker 2 (30:53):
Why we get in this information from going well even
before that, like the whole point that people care about.
Sorry Richard, but the whole reason why people care about
the Shroud of Journey is because it's Jesus, right, Like,
not just because it's some guy, Like you do you
think like it's it was just some guy, and then
people lied about it saying it was Jesus.

Speaker 4 (31:14):
So there's a couple of questions that were asked there.
I'll go first with, like, I an't convinced that Jesus,
but not as convinced as I think it is an
image of a man that was crucified. I don't think
it was painted like that. I'm very convinced of and
it being Jesus. I'm somewhat less convinced, but still convinced

(31:34):
Does that make sense?

Speaker 2 (31:36):
Does that make sense for Richard?

Speaker 1 (31:37):
I don't know, not particularly. I'm still interested in why
you think it's not painted. What what kind of sauces
are you using to come up with this information? Or
is it just that you just don't think it looks
like a painting.

Speaker 4 (31:52):
No, I wouldn't say, yes, it does look like a painting,
but there are a couple of things on there that
show that it is definitely not a painting. One, there's
a three D effect with image that you cannot get
with paintings. Two, if it was a painting, the paint
will go further into fibers than just the first.

Speaker 1 (32:12):
How do we know how far the painting's gone in
Because it's it's not let's be honest, it's not been
sufficiently tested. I would love, I think a lot of
people would love for the shroud of two in to
be tested. The Catholic Church Church will not allow it
to happen. And I think if the Catholic Church did
allow it to happen, it would probably give us an

(32:35):
answer one some for all, which kind of in the
hints why they might not want this to happen because
there's a bit of a money spinner for them. But
I think I'm not getting this. Which tests are you taking?
Are you a citing that are saying this isn't a
painted artifact?

Speaker 2 (32:54):
Sure?

Speaker 4 (32:54):
So let me just say really quickly, it is the
most tested historical are fact in history. It's not that
it hasn't been tested.

Speaker 1 (33:03):
No, it's not. It's not been sufficiently tested. It has
not been anywhere near sufficiently tested. Only small amounts of
it have being given over to testing.

Speaker 4 (33:12):
You say sufficiently maybe subificially is your root word there,
but it hasn't tested.

Speaker 1 (33:17):
It's an important word. It's a very important word, because
we could you know, you know, let's let's say we
just let's take something completely different, just to make this
point really really spectacular. If we say that the Mona
Lisa is the most tested painting in history, and all
we mean by that is that lots of people have

(33:39):
looked at it, and I think this rather than actually
getting paint analysis and doing sufficient tests, they have done.

Speaker 2 (33:52):
They have done some of that.

Speaker 1 (33:54):
Is it sufficient to say that wiki?

Speaker 2 (33:57):
Right now? Look it says October. Yeah. They had a
whole team, disturbed team, which was the Shroud of Turn
research project team, and they did they took analysis of
it to see if they could try to get pigments
off it and stuff. You know, they did do some
of that.

Speaker 1 (34:10):
So okay, So how's this because I'm interested in this
point that Goham's banking. Yeah, it is not deep enough
to be pain in the fibers. Has this been found?

Speaker 4 (34:21):
Yes, well we found the image not from paint. Sorry,
and maybe i'm speaking out turn. I'm not too sure
if I'm butting in, I'm not sorry, But they have
found that the image was not from paint. It is
not from being burnt from a mold. Like some people thought.
Maybe there was a mold a crucified man and they

(34:44):
and they imprinted this shroud on top of it, and
that's how the image was made. That's not it because
that doesn't give any of the three D effects, and
it burns the fibers too deeply. You need to only
burn the most shallow portion of the fibers, which rules
out paint and and any type of mold. So the
best looking explanation is radiation.

Speaker 1 (35:06):
What do you mean by doesn't give a three D effect?

Speaker 4 (35:10):
There is a type of study used to like judge
the topography of like the moon and Mars, where you
can take a picture of something and I can tell
you three D how deep something is or how high
something is. And they did the same thing with the shroud,
and there's a three D effect of the man who
is in the shroud. And that doesn't happen with painting.

(35:33):
Only would happen if it was not only, but a
good way for it to happen was through radiation. And
so far radiation seems to be answering all the questions.

Speaker 1 (35:43):
Why is it saying that it's radiation. I'm missing the
connection there. Let's go with this. Yeah, it's a boreal
cloth of a man. This is why we're getting this
three D image. Fine, no problem with that, whatsoever? Where
are we getting this radiation thing from.

Speaker 4 (35:58):
If you put the cloth over a man, it would
not look like the shroud. If you put it like
the image that would be on the cloth would not
be what is on the shroud.

Speaker 5 (36:07):
What is on the.

Speaker 4 (36:08):
Shroud looks like there was an explosion from the inside
for a split second, which left the marquings on the shroud.

Speaker 1 (36:15):
Where are you taking this? Where are you getting this?
Because I want to come onto something else in a minute.
I want to kind of go off this line and
on something else, which I think is really important. But
where are you getting this information that is it looks
like an explosion from the inside.

Speaker 4 (36:31):
I don't remember the name of the physicist, but there
is a physicist who tried to figure out how if
light radio, if radiation from light could have left the image,
and I found that, yes, it could have if it
was as I think it was, like three point four
billion watts for a split second could have left the image.
So that I don't remember the name of the physicist,

(36:53):
it's they've tested to see if that's the way it
could have been left. And the conclusion is, yes, that
is a way that it could have been left, and
that would also solve the three D image issue.

Speaker 1 (37:04):
So we have a candidate explanation. Then let's say we
have a candidate explanation. So let's let's go back and
let's say that it is from the I think it
was the late first century. It was dated from, wasn't it.
So we've we've got this.

Speaker 2 (37:18):
I think that's not what the radiocarbon dating.

Speaker 1 (37:22):
The later dating that people site that is the late
first century. I'm not saying I think that is when
it's from I think it's from the I think it's
from the Middle Ages, and I'm going to come onto
that in just a second. But let's I'm just for
the sake of argument, Let's say the older dating that

(37:42):
people cite the late first century is accurate. So we've
got a late first century cloth with a candidate explanation
that light came from the inside and caused this image
somehow to be on the thing. Why are we then
saying it's Jesus.

Speaker 4 (38:00):
I don't know if any human is told to have
light radiating from them, and there is a passage in
the Resurrection story where there is told to be light
radiating from the.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Two there's a passage that says border emits light and
the tiputaka. Why couldn't have been a passage?

Speaker 2 (38:18):
I don't I don't like. So look, everything I've been studying,
this entire Wikipedia article is this entire time everybody's been
talking here, Okay, this idea that, uh, you know, the
people have done all these physics things and stuff. I'm
not seeing any of that. What I have seen is
that people have been tested for the pigments and stuff
on there right to see if they match up with

(38:39):
you know, like paint, pigments and stuff and techniques that
are used at the time, And what I'm seeing there
is that it could be right, that it could be
pigments and stuff, that it doesn't rule it out right,
So I'm not seeing anything on here that suggests that
couldn't be. What I think is the explanation of what
Richard thinks is the explanation, which is this was a
fraud perpetuated by somebody in the Middle Ages, right of

(39:01):
a painted you know, a painted a shroud, right that
somebody made of the face of Jesus. I think I'd
had to be dissuaded of that the most likely explanation
in order for me to like accept anything else, because
to me, that seems to fit the most criteria of
everything that I've seen that's been tested on it orcclaimed
about it. And I'm not, certainly not an expert on

(39:22):
the shroud of turn, but you know, based on what
I've seen, that that would have to be the most
likely thing.

Speaker 1 (39:27):
That was what I was going to come on to next.
Are you aware, Gohan that? And I can't remember the
name of the bishop and it's really frustrating me. There
was a letter sent to the Pope, by the bishop
who presented the first presented to the Shroud of Chewing
about the Shroud of Chewing, and it was responded to

(39:47):
and they were told not to present it because so yeah,
so if the people at the time aren't accepting this,
and you know, there were further lets down the line
that suggests it were it was, you know, finally allowed
to be presented in this particular church due to monetary reasons.

(40:11):
If we have this information, what makes you think that
this isn't the best explanation. Because even the people at
the time who were discussing it thought it was a
fraudulent item. What makes you think that that is not
the case.

Speaker 4 (40:26):
I'd like to try to answer both questions, because I
think those are both questions great questions, but from you,
mister Richard and mister Dan. But for mister Richard's question
about like kind of we call that prominent of the
crowd where some bishops were saying, hey, this is a fraud,
don't show it that. I don't see why that matters

(40:49):
more than some experts saying hey, some experts saying nah,
hey it's a fraud. Like yes, people are For a
long time I thought it's a fraud. Why that changed
my mind. I'm just going to follow the evidence where
it goes. I don't care what Person Why says from
the thirteen hundreds.

Speaker 2 (41:11):
I want to hear his next part.

Speaker 4 (41:13):
On it's a person why. He says, hey, like, we're
not finding enough paint pigment on here for this to
be a painting, and Person B says, yeah, this is
definitely a painting. It's a fraud. I want to trust
where the evidence goes. I says, hey, we don't have
enough paint pigment to say this was ever painted. But
I would like to get now more into mister Dan's question,

(41:33):
which was why am I doubting the fact that was
painted by a medieval artist? One thing I would just like,
I just actually looking into I looked into recently. I
understand this isn't fair because I've been looking into this
a lot and you guys might not have. But as
far as painting on the risks, there are two different

(41:55):
blood stains, there's two scenes of blood going at different angles.
Do you guys know why that is.

Speaker 2 (42:01):
Why there's some different blood stains at different angles because
the artists decided to make it that way. Maybe do
you know why he was to read to emulate Jesus
piercing of the wrists.

Speaker 4 (42:12):
When you get pierced, blood will trickle down in one path.
But if you are constantly pulling yourself up to breathe,
because when you're crucified, you died of asphyxiation, you can't exhale.
So in order to exhale, you have to pull yourself
up at the wrist, which would change the angle of
the arm, which would change the blood the pulling of
the blood, And that's evident on the shroud and artists.

(42:34):
In the thirteenth century. The last time there was a
crucifixion was three thirty seven. That's when Constantine stop crucifixions.
Other than Romans, there were no crucifixions. So if the
last one was three thirty seven, how the world didn't
an artist know that in order to breathe, you have
to pull yourself up in order to breathe, You guys,
dame know that.

Speaker 1 (42:52):
Oh well, you're jumping to some massive conclusions here. There
are two directions. If I mean, I don't know because
I because say I hate the two in shild so
I've not done a great amount of research into it.
There are two directions. Let's say let's say again, for
the sake of argument, you are correct, Let's say there
are two directions. Why are you jumping to this is

(43:14):
consistent with someone pulling themselves up on a crucifix Because
as far as I'm aware, we don't have any example
of anyone being examined after being crucified on a crucifix
and pulling themselves up, so we don't know what the
pulling would be like. Would you not agree with that?

Speaker 4 (43:35):
I disagree for one main reason because we have done
like mock crucifixions where we've had people hanging tied to
a crossbew to see how effect and that's how we
know that people die.

Speaker 1 (43:50):
So how do you know the artists didn't do this?

Speaker 2 (43:52):
Yeah, Like, what's going to be a stronger argument. What's
going to be a stronger argument than an artist maybe
either on purpose or by coincidence, happened to match up
what it would look like on a painting where risk
injuries would have occurred, or the radiocarbon dating that's been done,
the experts that have looked at this and concluded that

(44:13):
the material on the shroud could be paint right, Like
all these other like methods of like science that are
being used to validate this, right, or to invalidate this
then Oh, an artist happened to get this thing, right,
because coincidences are always going to be a thing, right,
Like there's always going to be some weird details on
frauds and stuff, but like that doesn't make them not frauds, right.

(44:35):
I mean looking at the shroud itself, you know nowadays
it just looks like a mess, right because it's so old,
so it's really hard to be conclusive about. Wow, this
matches up with this technique of what would have happened
with crucifixion. Right, I'm going to be more interested in
like what we can do as on a material level
on that kind of analysis, rather than sort of an
artistic interpretation of like what could or couldn't happen?

Speaker 4 (44:58):
Right, I mean, wait the evidence? How you wait it
for me? I think that's strong evidence. But if you
don't think it's strong evidence that like that, that's fine.
We can kind of go more down the route of, hey,
not just the painting, but let's look at the signs
of what is physically on the painting, yes, one of
I mean, we.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
Gotta we gotta we have other callers. I don't know
how much more time we have for this call, in
particular John.

Speaker 1 (45:21):
I also just want to say that one of the
crew members has put in our chart that there was
a test done in twenty eighteen. An experimental bloodstain pattern
analysis was performed on his behavior of blood flows from
the ones of a crucified person. And this is they're
saying in there that that's actually different to what you're saying.

(45:42):
It's inconsistent with the crucified person. So we look, it's
one of those things that you're in Shroudwagh either either
floats your boat or he doesn't. I find it entirely uninteresting,
and I think maybe it's also one of those things
which Thede's opinion. The question we have to ask is

(46:04):
is this proof of Jesus' crucifixion. That is the main
question I think we have to ask, and I don't
think we have enough evidence to say that. And it
might have been sounded live for me saying, well, what
about the body he's supposed to have emitted lie, But
Jesus is not the only person in history who is
supposed to have omitted lie. Jesus is not the only

(46:26):
person in history who's supposedly being crucified and resurrected afterwards,
or killed and resurrected afterwards. We have lots and lots
of candidate explanations, and I just don't think it's strong enough.
And this is why I find it uninteresting as an argument,
because I just don't think it's strong enough to be
interesting as an argument. Dan, any thoughts from you.

Speaker 2 (46:48):
Well, I just like, again, I'm not an expert on
trotur and it's been a lot since I've looked at
this up. I mean, they definitely died testing on it.
They've definitely had inconclusive results about a lot of the material.
Because while we're looking at it such a specific artifact
and it's so old, and there's only so much you
can do with like what's been given, right, Plus you know,
it's it's it's it's going to be an interesting novelty

(47:10):
at best, I think right like it, it'd be very
hard to demonstrate that this has anything to do with
Jesus Christ, you know, let alone his divinity and everything else,
like like like Richard said, But I do think that
the tests that they have done to me, what's what's
weighted most in favor of is that this is a
middle age forgery, and I think that that's what I'm

(47:30):
going to be sticking with unless I find compelling evidence otherwise.
I don't think arguments of artistic you know, sort of
a pre knowledge of what crucifixion would be like. You know,
that doesn't sway me as much as like radiocarbon dating
or like pigment testing and stuff. Right, So I'm going
to be looking into the material science and what that
has to say about the object. You know, arguments of providence,

(47:51):
as you mentioned, those are interesting as well. You're right,
they could go either way just because one person's opinion
at the time, like had an opinion. Yeah, that bishop
could be wrong. It could actually be us this thing, right,
you know, the what does the bishop no? But you know,
like I said that, that's I'm going to rank that
less in terms of what I find convincing compared to
like analysis of like material Right. So that's that's all

(48:13):
I got on it. But we should we should probably
get moving here because we got we got more calls
in the bank, and we appreciate your time. Go home.
We can you know, talk more on a different day.

Speaker 1 (48:22):
Yeah, thanks for carl And like say, it's I mean,
you've probably just got the wrong day. It's not a
thing that floats my battle. I'm just being.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
Number one hater hater right here.

Speaker 1 (48:33):
We we have some wonderful people who do support us,
and they are our patrons, which I like to read
out the top five.

Speaker 2 (48:43):
Man, Yeah, that'd be awesome if I was prepared. Huh.
It's almost like right now, I got it. Now I
can do it. Here we go, Top five Patriot announcements.
Here we go.

Speaker 1 (48:55):
Baby.

Speaker 2 (48:56):
Number one is oops All Singularity, number two, Dingle Buried Jackson,
number three call Evy Helvedi, number four Ja Carlton, number
five Casey kickindaw and the honorable mention goes to Steven McDougal.
Thank you to everyone that donates on the talkie than
patrear On. If you want to have your name read,
please consider donating. It's turned dot cc slash patreon th

(49:19):
and uh yeah that's that's the Patriots. Baby.

Speaker 1 (49:22):
Yeah, moving on, so cal I I'm really interested in
taking is P Males or wilso came from the pre
show TikTok, who has a transcendental argument for God. Mister
P Males, how are.

Speaker 6 (49:34):
You, I do be fine.

Speaker 3 (49:35):
How are you guys?

Speaker 1 (49:37):
Very well? Thank you. Do you want to lay out
your argument for us?

Speaker 3 (49:39):
Okay?

Speaker 4 (49:40):
Sure.

Speaker 3 (49:40):
Well.

Speaker 6 (49:41):
The first thing I think that's important to understand is
that facts are not neutral. They require you can think
of it as a framework, a paradigm, a model of reality.
So for example, if I say the apples on the
table and you say the apples on the table, it
seems like the same fact, but there's like background in
for me, Whereas like in my worldview or my model reality,

(50:03):
the apples on the table, its existence is being sustained
by Jesus, right, And presumably a non Christian doesn't think
that apples existence is sustained to Jesus. So well, they
seem on the surface like different or the same fact,
they're actually different facts. Is that you guys kind of
get that?

Speaker 1 (50:21):
No, I disagree entirely. I think I think I hate
world view comparisons for exactly this reason, that you can
spend half an hour talking about why you're grounded in
one thing or another. I think the better way of
having these conversations is to say that, look, we have
a shared reality, and we agree on the vast, vast

(50:44):
majority of things. In that shared reality, we agree that
there is an apple on the table. We agree that
we drive cars to move from one place to another.
We agree that we're communicating right now via the Internet.
We agree that we live on a planet which is
called Earth, and we agree on the vast, vast majority
of things. I think rather than saying, right, i've got

(51:05):
this paradigm and you've got this paradigm, and you know
these facts are different, they are the same fact. Let's
look at that shared reality, and then let's take additional
views that we don't agree on. Anything we do not
agree on within that shared reality. Let's talk about that
and look at that as an extra claim on top

(51:25):
of that reality. I think that's much more useful avoids
being saying, well, i'm grounded in this and you're grounded
in this, Because what we're actually grounded in is our
shared reality, and then some people are just taking extra
steps to make other claims about that reality. Let's look
at those claims and see if they are consistent with
that reality. I think it's a much better way forward.

Speaker 6 (51:48):
Well, I just demonstrated that we don't have a shared reality.

Speaker 2 (51:51):
Like if you're.

Speaker 1 (51:52):
Saying we did, and what you're said is we had
different paradigms that we begin from, and I don't think
we do because the paradigm that we begin from is
our shared reality we have. We both agree this is
not alonga.

Speaker 6 (52:05):
No, we don't, and I'm trying to You're trying to
You're avoiding what I'm saying. So when you say that
facts don't require context, that statement.

Speaker 1 (52:13):
I didn't say that. I did not say that.

Speaker 2 (52:16):
I think we're we're getting in the weeds before we're
even getting started with this conversation, right, So, like, I'm
not going to take as harsh of a view as
Richard is on this because I understand, like I'm probably
more postmodern than Richard and many things anyway, So I'm
going to say that, yes, your facts do require additional context,
and I just want to hear, like what you have

(52:37):
to say about this. We can like move on from
this because I don't want to spend all day on it.

Speaker 6 (52:41):
Okay, Well, so this is kind of the problem with
presenting the argument is because I have to assume you're
reasoning is valid, but send clouds your judgment. That's what
we're experiencing right now.

Speaker 2 (52:50):
That's awesome. Wait a minute, hold on hold on, wait
a minute. I said I defended you.

Speaker 7 (52:56):
I defended you from Richard, mean cop Richard over here
here was giving you the beatdown in the interrogation cell.
And I came in and gave you a cookie and
some milk. And you said, my judgment is clouded in sin.

Speaker 2 (53:10):
Really really, come on, bro, come on.

Speaker 4 (53:14):
I didn't come.

Speaker 6 (53:16):
I didn't come to bring peace.

Speaker 3 (53:17):
So I'm here with the sword.

Speaker 1 (53:18):
So if you're looking sword, so fall oh man, I
shouldn't have given you the benefit of the doubt. The
benefit of the doubt. And that's exactly arguments.

Speaker 5 (53:32):
Darn.

Speaker 1 (53:33):
If you do not agree that there is an apple
on the table, tell me why that is. Why you
think there is not an apple on the table.

Speaker 2 (53:41):
Well, he thinks it's sustained by Jesus.

Speaker 6 (53:43):
Okay, So if let's think about the apple on the table.
If the apples states of existence have no limit, then
the apple states of existence have no limit.

Speaker 1 (53:54):
Would you agree if you saw an apple on the
table and you were would you eat the apple? Assuming
you like apples?

Speaker 6 (54:02):
Are you guys going to run away from everything?

Speaker 1 (54:04):
I say, I'm not running to clarify.

Speaker 2 (54:09):
An apple, and you're telling us running away Okay.

Speaker 1 (54:13):
If you see an apple on the table and you
are hungry, would you eat the apple?

Speaker 2 (54:18):
Okay?

Speaker 6 (54:18):
Can we please focus on what I'm saying and not
you're not.

Speaker 1 (54:21):
I'm focusing on what you're saying. Yeah, if you see
an apple on a table and you like apples and
you are hungry, would you eat the apple?

Speaker 6 (54:32):
What does it have to do with the pro in China?

Speaker 1 (54:34):
And we're not talking about in China. We're talking about
your ridiculous statements. Would you eat the apple? Yes or no?

Speaker 2 (54:41):
Would you question?

Speaker 1 (54:43):
I am answering your question, would you eat the apple?
Do you eat the apple?

Speaker 3 (54:49):
You're not going to avoid as vengeance?

Speaker 1 (54:51):
Would you going to a fire? I'm not even cutting
you off, I'm not. I want you to answer this
question because the only person you're making look ridiculous now
is yourself. Would you eat the apple? Yes or no?

Speaker 3 (55:09):
Richard?

Speaker 1 (55:09):
Would you eat the apple? Yes or no? This is
nothing to do with anything, as I'm proving that what
you've said is absolute nonsense. Would you eat the apple?

Speaker 2 (55:20):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (55:21):
Yes? So you do in fact agree that there is
an apple on the table, And when you said no,
you don't agree that that's the fact you were in
fact talking nonsense. You do agree that there is an
apple on the table. You do agree that we have
a shared reality. Now let's move on to the transental
argument for God, which is what you've formed about.

Speaker 6 (55:42):
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. So the apple has
a limit to its states of existence or else there's
no limit to the states of existence of the apple.
Would you agree that's not controversial?

Speaker 2 (55:51):
Sure, I don't care. Go ahead.

Speaker 4 (55:55):
I know you're so childish.

Speaker 6 (55:57):
I mean, this is why you guys are total fool me.

Speaker 1 (55:59):
You're the one that would shower. We're going to hell.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
No judgment day. Yeah, okay, issues daddy.

Speaker 4 (56:09):
So if there's no limit to the states of existence
of the apple, then reality is going to become unstable,
that everything would be irregular.

Speaker 2 (56:17):
What the fuck does that mean?

Speaker 1 (56:19):
It means he has gone argument on board of him by.

Speaker 2 (56:23):
Talk on a Sunday. Go go spend time with your
family while you still have this life. Instead of calling me,
don't call into other people's calling shows. First of all,
tell them how to run their shows. That is not
going to go well. Second of all, dog, just live
your life. Who cares? Okay, I'm going to go to hell?
All right? Under your worldview. Let me go to fucking

(56:45):
hell because I don't want to have to go to
heaven and deal with your fucking uh you know, ask
asking me about the limits of fucking apples on tables.
I don't care. I don't care, all right.

Speaker 1 (56:57):
I remain calm and Don goes off all months.

Speaker 3 (57:00):
Because I.

Speaker 2 (57:03):
Cross talked and I said, I was like, Okay, I'm
gonna like, I know Richard's hosting right now, but I'm
going to try to intervene. And he didn't even acknowledge it.
You know, he's still trying to I don't know, ridiculous,
ridiculous things I do for you people.

Speaker 1 (57:20):
You know, Yeah, you know when when you when you
start shouting on the day of judgment, that's the end
through is you know you've kind of lost the argument.
Then I just let you go because you're making yourself some.

Speaker 2 (57:34):
That I at least wanted to hear the argument, But
I don't even know if it was like, okay, there's limits,
there's limits to the existence of.

Speaker 1 (57:40):
A transcendental argument would have been a great conversation, it
really would, but we didn't get that.

Speaker 2 (57:49):
Limits to the existence of my fucking patience.

Speaker 1 (57:51):
Today, I guess bring Lee, who is in Canada and
is asking do you think the purpose of religion were
determined by looking at human psychology? Another great question, Dan,
would you like to have a puppet this first?

Speaker 2 (58:08):
Well, I want to hear Lease explain their primise to
us first, so yeah, at least go ahead.

Speaker 4 (58:14):
Hi.

Speaker 5 (58:16):
Hello, Hello, So I'm a Hello.

Speaker 3 (58:19):
Hi.

Speaker 5 (58:19):
I'm a rich a religious study student, and I was
wondering when we were studying. In our program, we had
to take a class called theory of religion, so basically
we had to look at it through the context of
different lenses. So like anthropology, sociology, psychology was one. And

(58:43):
I want to explain why I think. I mean, I
don't want to say that religion is created explicitly and
only for our own psychological needs. I think that would
be very reductionist. But I do think if I can
give you a couple of examples of why I why
I think the creation of religion or even just a

(59:05):
faith faith can can be attributed to human psychology. The
first thing is that I think that Sigmund Freud said
that people will basically said, the belief in God serves
as an imaginary father figure for our infantile needs. I
wouldn't phrase it that way. Personally, I would probably say

(59:28):
I would probably to say the idea of having someone
that loves you no matter what is comforting when you're
in distress. The other thing I would say is that
I think that human beings we don't like we don't
like not knowing things. We don't like uncertainty. It's it's
anxiety provoking. It's very uncomfortable. So, you know, why does

(59:49):
I think people needed answers for what happens after we die?
What happens when the sun goes down? Why do the
seasons change? I think, you know, why did the storm happen?
I think think people sometimes. I think it was created,
you know, for our own personal need of just wanting
to know things, being scared of the unknown. And I
also think, well, I think that religion can also serve.

(01:00:13):
And this is unfortunate, but I think that I think
that some people create a religion or a faith following
for their own satisfaction of wanting to be a predator,
a predator in some way, wanting to control other people.
So that's what I mean by I think it can
be I don't want to say it's all summed down

(01:00:35):
to psychology because it's very intersectional when we look at religion.
But I think a huge part of it is kind
of our psychological makeup. And I was wondering what you
think about that assessment.

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
Yeah, I mean, so, first of all, I'm a liberal
arts major. Okay, so you know my assessment on the
topic is not scientific. It's just the result of me
reading books and going to school and just like knowing
what I know about things. Okay. So there's probably a
lot a million different reasons why people have religion, you know,
as you mentioned, it is intersectional, right. There's psychology, there's sociology,

(01:01:08):
and there's anthropological reasons to understand why people like religion.
I think you point out some key factors there. I
think people, you know, being human being means having psychological uncertainty,
and we sometimes handle psychological uncertainty through coping mechanisms. And
one of those coping mechanisms can be that we're being
taken care of by a higher power, right, and that

(01:01:30):
can sort of evolve into individual beliefs and stuff, right, Like,
you know, most religions on Earth, they have something to
say about their relationship with humans, right, Like, either they're
making humans do what they do, or they decide people's fates,
or you know that there's there's something to that. I
think that is important to point out. You mentioned that
some people take religion and use inn a predatory sense.

(01:01:53):
I think people can do that consciously or unconsciously. I
don't even think people have to know that they're doing that.
But yeah, certainly people can use and abuse those systems
once they recognize that that's an invitation to a power
dynamic that gives you an advantage, right like, pastors and
priests have had a social advantage and a dynamic over

(01:02:14):
people that aren't those things, right like. And that's just
the Christian religion obviously, but that's that's true for all
kinds of religions. So, you know, like, I don't think
there's gonna be one singular purpose for religion or one
single origin point for religion. I think it's multifaceted. I
don't know if you can figure out the single point.
You know, I'm sure there's a prize waiting for you

(01:02:34):
with your name on it, right So, but it's never
just gonna be one thing. It's never just gonna be like, oh,
what is the purpose it's going to serve? Multiple functions.
So I think you discussed in great detail some of
those functions and what they can serve. But yeah, it's
just it's never gonna be just one thing. It's always
going to be a couple of different answers. But that's
my take. What do you think, Richard?

Speaker 1 (01:02:55):
Yeah, I've been looking forward to talking to a least
because like least, my degree is in religious studies, and
I think, yeah, it is multi fascinated. I think psychology
is one of those things. I think when we're talking
about psychology in relation to how religions formed, I think
we're looking at a lot of the information which have,

(01:03:18):
which we have, which isn't a great deal actually, but
a lot of the animation we have, I think talks
about ritual and I think that's important from the psychological perspective.
There's a book that Yale University Press published called Pagan Britain.

(01:03:41):
I think it was by Ronald Hutton if I remember correctly,
and it talks about the Paleolithic and the Mesolithic, and
these were the periods before which predated religion proper that
we have now that we would call religion, call organized religion,
which largely started the Neolithic period. In these periods, the

(01:04:03):
evidence we had to have, which largely comes out of Scandinavia,
is one of burial practices. It's one of how food
plays into ritual and it's all ritual based, and that
lends heavily to the idea that psychology is playing a
really major part in this, because it is about how

(01:04:26):
people's understanding of the world, people's relationship to the world
under the people around them, and it does lean very,
very heavily on that kind of psychology of what we
are trying to do, which is discover the meaning of
the world around us, and that's really fascinating, is really
I've been writing about this a lot lately because I'm

(01:04:48):
writing a book about the history of the religion in
my local area, and one of the things I've been
studying is I live in an area which does have
Mesolithic sites in it from the people who did come
over from Scandinavia, So we do have that aspect of it.
When we talk about religion, what I would call religion,

(01:05:09):
proper organized religion that comes in the Neolithic period, it's
very it comes up interestingly, and I'm still not sure
how strong the connection is, whether this is a kind
of an ad hoc fallacy going off here. But I
think we can make a loose connection between religious organized

(01:05:35):
religion and warfare. Those things certainly came up together, whether
one was when, whether warfare was in response or in
some way related to organized religion specifically. I don't think
we can make that connection strongly enough to say that's
the case. But what we certainly see is when we

(01:05:58):
move from the Mesalithic period into the Neolithic period, people
started settling down, people started having communities, they started having
to defend certain pieces of land where because it was
a period when farming had come in and people had
started farming rather than being hunter gatherers. And it's a
period where we really really do see these communities coming together,

(01:06:22):
and we moved from these this ritual which we saw
in earlier periods. So these rituals becomeing formalized and organized
into specific religious practices, into specific religious beliefs. And there's
no kind of surprise wherever we are in the world,
because you know, the Neolithic period changes depending on where

(01:06:46):
you are in the world. They happened earlier in some
countries and in others. We can't just say it happened
from this year to this year. So wherever you are
in the world, we kind of see this great, big
explosion in these ideas about religion, in these organizational aspects
coming to religion. And of course when you've got communities

(01:07:07):
living together and communities farming, then you are going to
get warfare. So I don't think there is that connection
as such there, but it's really interesting to me how
these things come up together. Our organized religion and warfare
do come up together. I think we move away from
the psychological aspect when we get into this period, We

(01:07:27):
move away from that earlier psychological thing and we get
into what a lot of people I argue with a
lot of atheists about when atheists say religion is just
there to control you, which I disagree with. But I
think in this period we do see an element of
that coming up. We do see those elements of control,

(01:07:48):
these rules and regulations and things coming from religion in
that period. I have talked for way too long. Would
you like to respond to anything I have said?

Speaker 5 (01:08:01):
For the most part, I agree with you. I wouldn't
say that. I wouldn't say that the composition of religion
or any kind of faith is solely from a psychological standpoint.
One thing I have noticed in studying religion is that
religion and culture, so anthropology, are almost inseparable. They will
you know, what culture you belong to is going to

(01:08:23):
impact the belief system in that geographical area, and vice versa.
But yeah, I do agree with you. I think that
I think you're right. This is yeah. I just wanted
to know what your opinion was, because my opinion is
I think that the creation of religion I think, in

(01:08:43):
my opinion, stands mostly on the pillars of sociology, anthropology, psychology.
And I just to kind of add on to your
point before I leave, when you were talking about, you know,
the need for ritual and that really brought me. That
kind of brought back this memory. I was talking to
a social worker and she said, you know, people who

(01:09:07):
smoke when they have stressed, say, they go outside. You know,
I'm stressed out, they go outside for a smoke. It's
not just the nicotine that gives them the dopamine that
helps them feel better, it's the ritual of going outside.
There's a ritual component to it that helps them kind
of relieve some of that stress. And I think we
can also see that in secular society, right, like when

(01:09:29):
we pull up the flag, you know, we see that
as a or we hear the national anthem, we all
stand up and something that we all sing along as
a group, and it's a it's a thing that we
can collectively have some pride in. So I think that
that was a really good point to bring up.

Speaker 1 (01:09:46):
Yeah, I think as well. And I'm sure you'll have
come across this doing religious studies as well. And this
this touches on what both Dan and myself said to
the First Call. I think it was the First Call
and when we were talking about the is no kind
of consistency in the Bible, and were touched upon a
couple of reasons why when religion moves through time and place,

(01:10:08):
it changes. So you don't have Christianity, you have Christianities,
you don't have Buddhism, you have Buddhisms because when it
moves through time and place, it takes on the cultural
aspects and the ritualistic aspects of those places it moves through.
A great example of this is Buddhism in Tibet. Buddhism

(01:10:31):
in Tibet is probably one of the most recognized phases
of Buddhism to the kind of westerner in the world.
But what it also is, what a lot of people
don't realize, is that the aspects of the ritual aspects
of Buddhism in Tibet a really strong combination of Mahayana
Buddhism and the native Bond tradition of Tibet, and they

(01:10:56):
amalgamate and a lot of the practices they burned you
and the smoke risis this comes from the Bond tradition
and it's been amalgamated by the Buddhist tradition. And we
see this all throughout the world. Sometimes it's much more
sort than that, but we can certainly see it in
Christianity as well, as Christianity has moved and changed through

(01:11:16):
the ages. And I think it's a really really important
point to bear in fact, if you're looking for truth,
if you like, if we ignore the last Caller and
we're looking, we're looking for actual truth rather than just
trying to shove a factor down someone's throat. What we
see is we see this very very clearly as religions

(01:11:38):
move through time and place. We see this movement, we
see this change, We see these different ritualistic aspects and
we see these strong cultural identities being implemented into that
kind of sometimes outside religious influence that comes in. And
I think it's very very interesting that we see this.

Speaker 5 (01:11:58):
Yeah, I agree. That's one thing I have I've noticed
as well is that when the times change, people will
interpret things differently according to that cultural change. And like
there are some churches that still won't like the Catholic
Church may not marry they don't believe in same sex marriages.
But the United Yeah, the United Church of Canada is

(01:12:21):
a Christian sect that will marry people same sex.

Speaker 4 (01:12:26):
A couple of Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:12:27):
Absolutely, A friend of mine dramatic.

Speaker 5 (01:12:32):
I was going to say that that's kind of a big,
huge shift from from probably decades even centuries and thousands.
You know, that's a huge progress in change the culture.

Speaker 3 (01:12:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:12:45):
A friend of mine from Chicago was a gay man.
It's just a import on Facebook today was celebrat celebrating
his for one year wedding anniversary. And I think it's
brilliant that people can come out and be so open
about both their faith and their sex ruality and have
that accepted. I think that is something that a lot
of people view it as well. That's not traditional Christianity

(01:13:07):
that that's religion being watered down. But it's what we've
been talking about. It is just another cultural change that
religion goes through. And you know a lot of people
who are Christians who disagree with this are the same
Christians who probably have no idea what the original meaning

(01:13:27):
of the Holy Spirit was because it's not what the
majority of Christians today think it is. So it's really
interesting that they'll kind of go with it in one aspect,
but things they find a bit icky they won't go with. Yeah,
it's all great fun. Lease, I'm going to let Dan
jump in for just a second and kind of have

(01:13:48):
the last word with you. I've really enjoyed talking to you, Dan.
What are your thoughts on it?

Speaker 2 (01:13:53):
Your thoughts? Honestly, I think you guys pretty much covered
it all. You know, people are hypocrites, and therefore religion
is also hypocrite because religion is a product of humanity, right,
So it's going to change. It's gonna enforce certain customs
and norms at different times that are politically convenient, and
also when they feel like it, when they want to
justify their own prejudices or their own biases. So that's

(01:14:15):
an unfortunate thing. So, yeah, religion does fulfill a lot
of psychological needs. We don't talk like I try not
to talk about that too much on these shows because
it's kind of rude. I don't want to personally psychologize
anybody that calls into the show and say, well, you
believe this because, like that last caller said, because you
have daddy issues, Because it's like I have a great
relationship with my dad. I don't know maybe that I

(01:14:37):
wonder if that guy does, because I assure as how
would be you know, happy if my son was just
harassing people online at two o'clock on a Sunday. But hey,
you know, uh, you know point is it's.

Speaker 5 (01:14:50):
Fundescending and I can I can appreciate that, but I
try and phrase it in a way that every human
being at some point, like we all have inherent emotion,
no needs, and some people find it in different ways.

Speaker 2 (01:15:03):
Yes, and you know you talked about that too, right
the ritual, right, smoking isn't just it's not just about
the nicktine. It's about it becomes a part of what
somebody does. Sometimes it's hard to leave that, and that's
an additional social pressure that occurs there. So you know,
it's it's complicated, right, There's always going to be different
culture and social aspects to it. But I guess if

(01:15:25):
there's one takeaway from this call, I'll always point this out,
is that everything that we've talked about in terms of
religion is one hundred percent the product of human beings,
right and always will be. There doesn't seem to be
any need for supernatural to explain anything that we've just
talked about in the last ten minutes or so here.
So that's what I got, Richard.

Speaker 1 (01:15:43):
Yeah, perfect, Lise, thank you very very much for calling.
Please call again. I enjoyed listening to your calls. It's
the first time I've actually got to speak to you
in person, but I do enjoy listening to your calls.
Please keep calling back. I'm loving these conversations, dumb. We
have had some conversations today. We do have a super

(01:16:04):
chat left to read by Joshua Everett, who sent five
dollars very thank you very much Joshua for that, who
says fresh Dutch apple pie with a group of vanilla
bean ice cream sounds good right now. I believe that
was sent during the penuntimate call with our friend who
thinks on the day of judgment. We are going to hell.

(01:16:27):
Let's bring Kelly up. Kelly, what do you think of these?
We've had largely good calls. I particularly enjoyed the first call.
I loved the last call, you know, gohand call was
interesting for people who are interested in that thing not
my thing, just not my thing. And then we had
that other guy. What did you think, Kelly.

Speaker 8 (01:16:49):
I had a couple of notes, you're mostly just for
survietes because he mentioned that he never saw anything chaotic,
and I was like, man, come hang out with me,
because my life is just total fucking to see chaos.
Come hang out with me. But he was talking about
the sea levels like flooding everything during the Younger Dryest,
and in fact, sea levels did go up during the

(01:17:09):
Younger dryest. They they have been going up for center
for EON's millennia, but they actually rose slower during the
Younger Dryest than they did before and afterwards. So any
idea that this great flood happened in the Middle East
during the Younger Dryast is just right out the window
because sea levels were actually rising slower at that point
in history than before and afterwards. So I did I did?

(01:17:31):
I guess servants go check out some more some more
better science, because the way you're putting things together just
isn't working.

Speaker 2 (01:17:38):
Hmmm, all right, harsh criticisms from Kelly in the back
that it sounds like we need we need to bring
Kelly in for any time the flood comes up, because
we had a similar conversation on truth Wana on Friday
about flood stuff, and I was thinking during that call, Richard,
like we need to get Kelly in on this, get
him in.

Speaker 1 (01:17:58):
Yeah. Of course Kelly is the perfect person to talk
about the flood because Kelly is a geologist, so and
you know it's largely geologists study floods, so it's it's
you know, I think, very very very apt Kelly. What
do you think is? We will bend in the show shortly.
I just want to know what your opinion is because

(01:18:19):
I know Dan studied a bit of philosophy. I've studied
a bit of philosophy. I know you're not as keen
and well, you know, the theme for today's show was philosophy.
It just gives us a rundown of your opinion on philosophy.

Speaker 8 (01:18:36):
I used to be I used to love philosophy when
I was younger. We used to get together in my
house and just discuss philosophy on Sunday. Is actually me
and a group of people, and I loved it. It's
a great exercise for the mind. But in the end,
it doesn't really get us. As you were, And I
always say that philosophy is like it helps us understand
what questions to ask, but it never answers any of

(01:18:56):
those questions, right, So it's ken to me. It's kind
of like an exercise in thinking, and it doesn't really
get us anywhere. I'm not a big philosophy fan, and
I don't know if you all remember Puck. I'm sure
Dan remembers Puck. Yea, he was ex host here at
the ACA, but he had a Puck's law of philosophical conversations.

(01:19:17):
Any philosophical conversation will devolve into semantics and name dropping,
and it's so it just seems so true that, you know,
so I think that should actually be a real law.

Speaker 1 (01:19:29):
So yeah, yeah, it's a fit. We didn't get any
actual philosophical arguments for God. Yeah, we got pretty close
with the first one.

Speaker 8 (01:19:37):
And then yeah, it seems like a lot of the
Christians that call up and it could be true of
Muslims too. But I've just noticed that with some of
the Christians that they get caught up in the meta,
you know, and it's I don't know if it's because
they need they have a need to feel persecuted, because
that's part of the whole deal, you know. But yeah,
I mean I don't I don't really get it. It

(01:19:58):
seems like they get, oh, you're not let me talk
or you're not you know. And we had a guy
called in the Truth Wanted a few weeks ago. There's
actually like a thirty second silence when we're waiting for
him to talk, and he just never does. And all
he does is he keeps complaining that we're shutting him up,
you know. So I think there's just maybe this need
to feel persecuted by some Christians, and I think we

(01:20:19):
saw some of that today.

Speaker 1 (01:20:20):
So yeah, well, I've loved I have really really loved
having these calls today, even the shroud of towing one.
It was a friendly call, even though it's not my thing.
I've really enjoyed the calls. I think it's been a
great show. And I welcome all Christians, all Muslims, all
people of any faith to give us a call and

(01:20:41):
have those conversations. I think it's really important that we
try and keep them as nice as possible when we can.
If you don't believe, if you're not one of those people,
this is your community. We're here for you. I've noticed
some great conversations going off in the side chat while
the show's being gone going on, and it is a
great community. It's great, great community to be a part of.

(01:21:05):
We have the TikTok stuff, like we mentioned earlier, come
along in the TikTok stuff, and you know, we're really
open to you, you know, having yours saying. We try
and read as many comments out in there as we can.
Let's have those conversations. Let's let's really get into them.
The first caller I want to say, please call back.
I really really want to see where we can go next.

(01:21:26):
And I so much appreciate guys like that, such a
contrast to the other one. If you do believe, we
don't hate you.

Speaker 2 (01:21:34):
Bridge not convinced. Next week, everybody, we want the truth,

(01:22:20):
So watch Truth Wanted Live Fridays at seven pm Central
Call five one two nine nine one nine two four
two or visit tiny dot CC forward slash call tw