The Atheist Experience 29.18 with Justin and Allegedly-Ian 2025-05-04

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Every week, billions of people kneel before invisible gods, reading
from ancient books, following traditions that justify everything from genocide
to genital mutilation, all while trying to convince the public
that God is necessarily good. The same people believe that
this cosmic magition gets upset if you eat shrimp, cut
your sideburns, or love somebody of the same gender. And

(00:21):
we're here to ask one simple question. Why why do
we follow texts that haven't been updated since before leeches?
We're cutting ed, cutting edge medicine technology. Why are we
still defending ideas that crumble under the weight of freshman
philosophy classes. Why do we worship a creator that demands
our obedience upon the threat of torture while also refusing

(00:42):
to reveal itself. It's time to reject faith and demand evidence.
If you've got a belief in God and you think
it can survive scrutiny, we'd love to hear about it.
The lines are open and the show starts now.

Speaker 2 (01:00):
Everybody.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
Today is May fourth, twenty twenty five. I'm your host, Justin.
You might know me as Deconstruction Zone, and I'm pleased
to introduce my co host for the first time on AXP,
the Ruler of rhetoric, the Deacon of discourse, the Emperor
of annunciation, the Viceroy of reason, and the Emissary of inferences.

Speaker 2 (01:19):
Allegedly Ian, thank you so much. Wow, that's uh wow,
the glaze is crazy. I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
We're certainly glad to have you with us on the
Atheist Experience. And for those just coming in, The Atheists
Experience is a product of the Atheist Community of Austin,
a five oh one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to
the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the
separation of religion and government. And for anyone who doesn't

(01:49):
know my friend Ian yet, you can find him on
TikTok and on YouTube at allegedly Ian.

Speaker 2 (01:55):
And I think you're only one going by that name, right, Yeah,
hopefully if I did my branding right then yeah, absolutely fantastic.
Now we've got one caller already in the queue and
it sounds to me like he's going to be right
up your alley. Perfect.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
So for those who don't know Ian, yeah, Ian is
a skilled rhetorician and is a skilled in philosophy, so
he's going to be giving me a huge help with
some of these calls.

Speaker 2 (02:24):
And first in is going to be Adam.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
Actually let me see, Yeah, I read that right, Adam
from England, who says a contingency argument for a necessary entity.
So let's get let's get the first call going, see
if you can connect. There we go, Adam, can you
hear us?

Speaker 3 (02:40):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (02:40):
Welcome in, Adam. Can you hope you're good?

Speaker 3 (02:43):
There was just a bit of a delay. Hello Ian, Hello, justin?

Speaker 2 (02:46):
Hey heere's it going the argument? Or yeah? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (02:51):
Can you put some legs behind the argument for us?

Speaker 3 (02:53):
Okay, yeah, I'm going to argue that it's an impossibility
that all entities in reality are contingent, where contingency means
conditional dependency between entities, objects, and relationships. So that being
an impossibility implies that reality has to have a non
contingent member. And when we deduce that entity's properties, it

(03:15):
has the properties of God. So should I give the
like a description of the sologism?

Speaker 2 (03:20):
Sure? Well, I guess I have like some preliminary thoughts,
so I might agree that there's some sort of like
necessary foundation. If by are necessary foundational, I mean it's
like something that exists in all possible worlds. But I
might just say that the necessary foundation is either the
universe itself or like the laws of nature, something of
that sort, not like a thing that is like a mind.

Speaker 3 (03:39):
Okay, well, if that is granted, I'd just say that
the universe is characterized by specific laws with specific values
and specific mathematical structures, but those have mathematically consistent alternatives,
and that implies that they're actually the member of an
infinite set. So there's a contingency or dependency relation between

(04:01):
those two things. And when we look at what kind
of thing can select or ground that kind of specific information,
the specific laws, the mathematical structures that the universe exhibits,
we find that what can do that is actually a mind.

Speaker 2 (04:14):
Why should I believe that there was ever a point
in time where these things were selected? But maybe even
like a better question is do you think God was
eternally willing the laws of nature into existence?

Speaker 3 (04:23):
Well, eternal to me means time independent, So yes, I
think that time is relational. So on the output of
that will, that would be the first the first term
or the first point of the universe, and that would
then be a temporal relation between so God.

Speaker 2 (04:43):
So God was eternally willing the universe into existence. You're
eternally willing the laws of nature into existence.

Speaker 3 (04:48):
Okay, so God is time independent. We can say that
God was always willing the universe the laws of the
universe into existence, but always means across all the time points,
then they will always distinguish. I think that that conflates
always existing with time independence. So if time is relational,

(05:13):
then if it's just like a relation between the points,
then it can be the case that God is willing
the temporal sequence of the universe into existence across the
entire sequence. But it's not the case that the universe
is also time independent.

Speaker 2 (05:31):
So the case that God was always willing the laws
of nature into existence, and God willing something is sufficient
for it existing, then presumably the laws of nature would
have just always existed.

Speaker 3 (05:44):
Well, I think I don't think that follows. You have
to distinguish between two things. So time is relational, so
time arises upon the creation of the first time point.
But what you said there was always but always just
means across the entire set of temporal points. But the
temporal points of what the universe consists of, would you
say to be eternal?

Speaker 2 (06:05):
Maybe there were always for us. Right, So would you
say God is eternal? Would you say that he always existed?
I guess how would you describe God?

Speaker 3 (06:15):
Okay, so I'd describe God as a non contingent entity.
So if it's non contingent, it's independent, and that includes
independence of time. So something can be independent of time
if it Yeah, so time independence is eternity is what
I mean by eternity.

Speaker 2 (06:31):
Okay, So was God eternally willing the laws of nature
into existence? Yeah, then the laws of nature would just
be eternal.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
No, because when the output of that will is like
a point, right, So God's grounding something. But time is relational, right,
So time arises upon the creation of the first time point.
And so yes, you can say that God is willing
the universe across the entire sequence of points, but that
entire sequence is a finite. Is a finite?

Speaker 2 (06:59):
Said, that just doesn't make any sense to me. I
think I'm just going to need you to like reject
a premiss and the syllogism. So I might say, like
premise one, God was eternally willing the laws of nature
into existence. Premise to God willing something is sufficient for
it to exist, and then conclusion, the laws of nature
are going to be eternal.

Speaker 3 (07:19):
Well, so the laws of nature exist across a set
of time points, right, So like.

Speaker 2 (07:25):
To reject premise one or premiss too, though.

Speaker 3 (07:27):
I don't reject either. I think that what's happening is
kind of like a conflation as to what's true for
the universe and what's true for God. So like God
is God's time independent. God can create a sequence of
events that are themselves temporal, so over which the laws
the laws of the universe distribute. The laws of the
universe would distribute over those over the time points, but

(07:48):
that wouldn't make them. That wouldn't mean that they are
sort of infinite in terms of a sequence of points.

Speaker 2 (07:57):
Respectfully, that this is kind of the point of logic,
is that you can't accept the premises and then reject
the conclusion. This would be like if you said, yes,
I agree that Socrates is a man, and yes I
agree that all men are mortal, but all this Socrates
is mortal business, I'm not too sure. Like, I just
don't think that it's consistent to accept the premises and

(08:19):
then reject the conclusion.

Speaker 3 (08:21):
Could you restate the conclusion?

Speaker 2 (08:23):
Yeah, the laws of nature are eternal, their existence is eternal.

Speaker 3 (08:27):
Okay, I mean I regard the laws of logic and
mathematics to be eternal, but the laws of physics I
regard to be the what is responsible for the universe
as a finitely temporal sequence of events. So I would
regard those as being as existing over a finite period

(08:48):
of time.

Speaker 2 (08:49):
And my argument is demonstrating to you the exact opposite
is true. Why that actually can't be the case at all.
You know, if God was eternally willing the laws of
physics into existence, and God willing something into existence is
sufficient for it to exist, then the conclusion to that
is just going to be that the laws of physics
would have eternally existed.

Speaker 3 (09:10):
I think that what's occurring there is again is like
kind of like a conflation between something which is created
and something which is independent. So in p. One, the
subject of eternal is God, but God is independent, whereas
in the conclusion the subject of eternal's laws, but the
laws are created. What I'm saying is that time is relational.

(09:32):
So if time is relational, the created thing is either
an nth term or a first term of some kind
of temporal sequence. Because it's something that's been grounded by
the independent thing.

Speaker 2 (09:45):
I feel like that just doesn't work around like the
fact that it just logically follows via a valid inference
that the laws of physics would have been eternal. But
maybe another way I can approach this is like this,
prior to God creating the law laws of physics, did
God believe that he created the laws of physics?

Speaker 3 (10:05):
I don't think there's any prior to because if if
prior to is temporal, I don't think that the temporal
sequence is not It is not an external metric to
the what is true inside the universe.

Speaker 2 (10:15):
Well, so if there is no point prior to the
laws of physics existing, then that means that there's no
point where it was just God existing alone.

Speaker 3 (10:26):
Yeah, I think, yeah, I think you can say that.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
Then I guess I'm just like completely confused about your theology.
You don't think there was ever any state of existence
where God existed without the universe. But if God's eternal,
that just means that the universe is eternal.

Speaker 3 (10:41):
Yeah, So for God to sorry for the for there
to be no point where the universe didn't exist without God,
that just means that across the entire set of temporal points. God,
God is true across the entire set. Right, So God
is God is willing the universe into existence across the
entire sequence of temporal points the inside the universe. But

(11:03):
what I'm saying is that God is. For God to
be eternal means that God is time independent. So what
I'm trying to distinguish between the temporal sequence in the
universe and eternity. So what eternity just means time independent?
Do you feel me?

Speaker 2 (11:18):
No? Not really? Do you agree that causes pursue their effects.

Speaker 3 (11:22):
Yeah, in space, in space and time, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (11:25):
Just like overall, right, Like, presumably God's exist. If God
is the cause of the universe, maybe that's a good question.
Do you think God is the cause of the universe?

Speaker 3 (11:32):
Yeah, I think that is a good question, because I
wouldn't say it's the cause, right, because I regard cause
to be spatial and temporal. But what what I'm offering
is a contingency argument, So I'd say that the universe
is contingent on God.

Speaker 2 (11:44):
So then it just sounds like God didn't create the universe.
That's what I heard.

Speaker 3 (11:48):
The universe is dependent, but the universe is the output
of a function, so.

Speaker 2 (11:52):
That like God's caused the function because you just said
it was.

Speaker 3 (12:00):
A cause. Is a function that's restricted to space and time.

Speaker 1 (12:02):
Okay, so it can't be the output of a function
if it's if it's not caused.

Speaker 3 (12:06):
No, you can have contingency, you like, dependency is a
function because dependency is just a relationship between not just
objects in space, but it's it's between objects and the
laws or like the kind of abstract mathematical facts that
are required for something to be true. So, for example,
for objects to not be able to interact with each
other so that they travel faster than light, that that

(12:29):
is dependent on an abstraction. That's true everywhere. So like
the the rens you know, the Rents factor or whatever
it is.

Speaker 2 (12:35):
You agree that the creator of the universe. So I didn't.

Speaker 3 (12:39):
I didn't hear the beginning of your question.

Speaker 2 (12:41):
Yeah, I apologize, But would you agree that God isn't
the creator of the universe under your version of theology?

Speaker 3 (12:48):
No, so creation would be like a dependency relation.

Speaker 2 (12:52):
I take creation to be like when you cause something
to come into existence. That to me is what creation means.
Maybe we're using different definite I have the same definition
as Ian.

Speaker 3 (13:01):
Okay, yeah, I understand that. So I think it's important
to distinguish between causation and contingency, Like I was.

Speaker 1 (13:09):
There a moment? Was there a moment where the universe
didn't exist?

Speaker 3 (13:12):
A moment would be a moment of time, right, what.

Speaker 1 (13:14):
You however you want to define it. Was there a
state at which the universe did not exist?

Speaker 3 (13:20):
It's it's quite difficult to answer. I'm I'd go with no,
because there's the universe always existed.

Speaker 2 (13:27):
Well, you just the need for your God.

Speaker 3 (13:31):
Yeah, So what I'm saying is that if there's not
a moment where the universe doesn't exist because the temporal
sequences grounded by God's.

Speaker 2 (13:39):
Action, you can call it a state or a moment.

Speaker 1 (13:42):
Was there a state in which the universe didn't exist?

Speaker 2 (13:48):
Did the universe exist?

Speaker 3 (13:50):
I mean it's okay for just answer Justin's question. So
like if by state you mean like a logical state,
I think, like a truth value of some kind of proposition.
They will say yes, okay.

Speaker 2 (14:01):
So there was a state where it didn't exist.

Speaker 1 (14:04):
Did the state where it didn't exist precede the state
where it did exist?

Speaker 3 (14:08):
There wouldn't be like proceeding as a temporal notion.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
No, so then the state of non existence was also
simultaneously the state of existence, which is a direct contradiction
as far as I can tell.

Speaker 3 (14:20):
Yeah, it's not that it would be a contradiction, be
a temporal or time independent.

Speaker 1 (14:28):
I'm not great at classical logic, but I'm pretty sure
you can't exist and not exist at the same time.

Speaker 2 (14:33):
Yeah, yeah, that is. It's just a direct contradiction.

Speaker 3 (14:37):
Yeah, but what you're missing is that that's not what
I'm saying. What I'm saying is that there would be
to do dependency, right, so that there could be a state.
It could be the case that the universe isn't created,
but the universe creation is still dependent on God. That's
what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (14:54):
So would you agree that in this state the universe
both existed and didn't exist.

Speaker 3 (14:59):
It's in super position?

Speaker 2 (15:01):
The universe could be otherwise.

Speaker 3 (15:04):
So is that it could be otherwise? Right?

Speaker 2 (15:08):
But why would we Why would we do that? Come on,
there's no need to dip into like like quantum stuff.
That's like, like what we're actually looking for is that
it's a contradiction, right, Like, let's be honest, it's not
in superposition if it exists and doesn't exist. Well, that's
just a contradiction, a violation of like fundamental laws of logic.

Speaker 3 (15:28):
Yeah, I'm not saying that it does exist in that state, right,
So if God hasn't grounded it, then it doesn't exist
at that point.

Speaker 2 (15:34):
But it would both exist and not exist unless I misunderstanding.

Speaker 3 (15:39):
I'm not saying that it does. I'm not saying that
in that state that it does exist. I'm just saying
that it doesn't exist until God. Until God grounds it,
that's some saying.

Speaker 2 (15:45):
Okay, wait, so so in this state, does God believe
that the universe exists?

Speaker 3 (15:49):
No, until it grounds it, it doesn't.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
Okay, So then God changes, He goes from not believing
that it exists to believing that it exists.

Speaker 3 (15:57):
Yeah, once he's grounded it, he does.

Speaker 2 (15:59):
Yeah, then God can't be outst of time because if
you're outset of time, you don't have future states. But
if God changes, if he goes from not believing that
the universe exists to believing that the universe exists, then
that's just a change.

Speaker 3 (16:12):
Okay, So God can't be outside of time if he changes, right, Yeah, Okay,
so I.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
Don't think anything can be outside of time, because if
things are outside of time and it prohibits things from changing,
then whatever state that existed outside of time would just
always and forever eternally be that state. The Since that
state doesn't exist, we must conclude that there's not just
things outside of time.

Speaker 3 (16:37):
Okay, So I think that the reply that both of
you gave kind of presupposes that change requires time. But
what I was kind of explaining at the beginning, its
intails things the other way around, right, So it's the creation,
like an act of creation can ground a temporal sequence.
So like what I was saying before was that God
is time time independent, but time is relational. So if

(17:01):
if God creates like A, first point, let's call it
like an A. Right, So it's if God creates A
where A is the initial state of the universe, the
temporal relation arises once. It's once that A is created,
So it's a relation between God and A that would
be the temporal relation. So it's it's not that creation
is God's.

Speaker 1 (17:21):
Out of time or else at a time, because you
can't have a temporal relationship out at a time, no one.

Speaker 3 (17:25):
What I'm saying is that the temporal relationship is created
upon God's action. But God is time independent, That's what
I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (17:31):
So there's no relationship. Then between point A and God
there is.

Speaker 3 (17:34):
It's dependency. So God, God creates an a and then
once God once time is relational, So then once.

Speaker 1 (17:42):
Is Because it sounds to me like you're using a
word that you think has meaning and it really doesn't
in the real world.

Speaker 2 (17:48):
So what does it mean to be dependent?

Speaker 3 (17:50):
It means to It means that the truth value only
obtains under certain conditions, under the conditions of the thing
that's dependent on.

Speaker 2 (17:57):
So one causes the other thing to be true.

Speaker 3 (17:59):
Well you you're saying causation, and right, Sorry, contingency is
not about causation is from formal logic. It's like looking
at the truth conditions of a statement.

Speaker 2 (18:10):
So what causes something to be true?

Speaker 3 (18:12):
If it's well, he's using causing again, But it's if
it's conditions are true, Like if it if it's truth
conditions are true, then something's true.

Speaker 1 (18:21):
I would say, yeah, it's the truth conditions of something
are true, that it's true.

Speaker 2 (18:27):
I would connect those dots too. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (18:29):
But you see, like the kind of weird like gymnastics
you have to do to get around trying to say
that God doesn't cause creation.

Speaker 3 (18:36):
No, it just requires me to distinguish between causation and dependency,
because I think that causation just happens in space, right.
Causation is something that we see happening only in space time,
and obviously that's going to present problems for explaining things
like logic, mathematics, those sort of things that aren't caused.
They don't stand in cause or relation to anything.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
So in terms of of do you think that things
outside of time don't experience a past or a future?

Speaker 3 (19:04):
No, So I think God's of the God is time independent,
but I think that he can observe temporal sequences within
the universe.

Speaker 2 (19:13):
So I guess, like, what is being outset of time even?

Speaker 1 (19:16):
Mean?

Speaker 2 (19:16):
Then if a thing that's out set of time can
have a past and the future, I guess I just
have no idea what it would even mean to be
outside of time.

Speaker 3 (19:23):
Okay, Well, I remember I didn't say outside of time, right,
because like outside in the conventional whether we use it
means that it's not means not inside, right, But in
set theory, it's not how it's used. Like there's this
notion of inclusive inclusive, like outside. So if you have
a set A and you have a subset B, A

(19:45):
is outside of B. But everywhere where B is, A
also is.

Speaker 2 (19:49):
So I just want to make a subset or like
a subset.

Speaker 3 (19:53):
Yeah. Yeah, so I would say that the universe is
a subset of God. Right, So God is only present,
so God represents the whole reality. Do you think God
is just a sad Well, you can represent God that way.

Speaker 2 (20:05):
Set stone of minds though.

Speaker 3 (20:06):
Yeah, So I'm just saying it's a representation. So if
we're talking, if I'm making statements about what is inside
what is outside, things like functions, because functions part of
set theory. You can represent God as a set, but
it just doesn't capture everything. That's That's all I mean there.

Speaker 2 (20:21):
So you said that the universe is a subset of God,
that the universe is Like, would you say that the
universe just is God?

Speaker 3 (20:29):
Well, no, because like I said before, so the universe
is defined by specific laws.

Speaker 4 (20:37):
Right.

Speaker 3 (20:37):
So there's these laws of physics which are just like
a subset of mathematical possibility. There's there's kind of other
mathematical structures that we don't see in our universe. But
all of those other possibilities. They're all mathematically consistent, right,
They're not They're not untrue. So I'd say that God
has more functionality than the universe has. The universe like

(21:00):
a restriction of what's possible.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
So I feel like if you're saying that the universe
is a subset of God, you are committing yourself to
saying that the universe is God. In the same way
that we would say, like the set one, two, three,
four is a subset of all of the numbers. We
would say that one, two, three, and four are numbers,
that this set is like a like a set of numbers.

(21:22):
So we would be like a set of God. You know,
the universe is just like part of God at that point.

Speaker 3 (21:28):
Yeah, yeah, really yeah.

Speaker 2 (21:30):
Well, I don't know, do you wand to like divine
simplicity because this is like catastrophic for divine simplicity.

Speaker 3 (21:36):
I do in a sense, Yeah, I I don't think
it's catastrophic.

Speaker 2 (21:40):
Because if we're part of God, then that means God
has parts.

Speaker 3 (21:44):
Yeah, so God like as a mathematical structure, yeap, God
has parts.

Speaker 2 (21:49):
Okay, then you would just reject divine simplicity.

Speaker 3 (21:51):
I don't see why. So to me, simplicity just means
that it's described by relatively few properties. It's like an
object that's moving around space is not simple obviously because
it has lots of properties. But God, in my view,
compared to everything else, God has relatively few properties.

Speaker 2 (22:09):
Well that's so that's just not how anybody in the
literature uses like divine simplicity. I've heard like two formulations,
which is either like God doesn't have parts, or equivalently,
that God's essence is identical to his existence. Either way,
under like any standard reading of divine simplicity, this would
just be like a direct contradiction absent, like affirming things

(22:31):
that are like really bizarre, like I don't know if
God doesn't have or if his essence is identical to
his existence, and his essence includes like the entire universe,
then that means that we're all like our existence is
identical to one another's. So my existence is identical to
your existence. And I certainly don't think you want to
say that.

Speaker 3 (22:51):
No, I think what is probably missing from your critique
there is that things can be hierarchically organized, so we
can all be a part of God, we can all
be a part, we can all form parts of God's
identity or God's deathence if you want to say that, right,
because we're all dependent on God. We're a part of
God as a mathematical structure, but we're not identical to
each other because there's like a you know, there's there's

(23:14):
like a hierarchy of identity, and you can see that
in terms of functionality as well. So we're all made
out of matter and energy.

Speaker 2 (23:23):
But are God's parts are all different?

Speaker 3 (23:26):
You're a bit muffled there. Could you repeat that?

Speaker 2 (23:28):
Please? Are God's parts necessary?

Speaker 3 (23:30):
No?

Speaker 2 (23:30):
Oh, gossary being.

Speaker 3 (23:33):
I don't see how follow. So God's identity is what's
non contingent or necessary. But God can create things that
are dependent on him.

Speaker 2 (23:41):
So if God has none, if God has contingent parts,
then God himself cannot be a purely necessary being because
some of his parts are contingent.

Speaker 3 (23:52):
Okay, so by parts, I guess you mean like composition
that's supporting. You kind of mean that the parts are
supporting the structure, like the parts of a car. Right,
So you're thinking of things in terms of composition.

Speaker 2 (24:04):
You're saying that we're all a part of God, But
you also want to say that each of our existence
is contingent, right, Like you know, my parents could have
easily failed to create me or like a million other things.
So my existence right now is contingent. If I am
a part of God, then that means that God is
not fully necessary because part of God, namely me, you,

(24:26):
justin everyone, we are all, We're all contingent, So part
of God is contingent. So God's not fully necessary.

Speaker 3 (24:34):
I think. I think to think of that things in
terms of set theory. Right, So if you have a set,
like if you have a superset S, and then you've
got like these subsets A, B, and C, the superset
can exist without the subsets. So A, B and C
are all a part of S. But S, as you
know it has, it has relations. Like sets, sets are
defined by relations typically all their properties, and those can

(24:56):
exist without any of their subsets, even though there are
subsets inherent it the properties of the sad by virtue
of being subsets? Is that too obstruct or should I
follow along?

Speaker 2 (25:07):
I don't think any of that helps you.

Speaker 1 (25:09):
Now, let me ask you a question, Adam, what God
do you believe in that forces you to contort yourself
into these gymnastic pretzels to define his existence or her existence.

Speaker 3 (25:20):
Okay, I don't I don't agree with your characterization, but I'm.

Speaker 2 (25:24):
A Catholic, right, yeah, so you believe in trinity.

Speaker 3 (25:26):
I don't have an argument for the Trinity.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
I'm just asking you, do you believe in trinity?

Speaker 3 (25:30):
I accept on faith yep.

Speaker 2 (25:31):
Okay, fantastic. Okay.

Speaker 1 (25:32):
So, then, prior to the creation of the universe, and
maybe I'm wrong, the universe was at one point somehow
created out of nothing.

Speaker 3 (25:42):
Right, Well, that was of nothing physical. I'd say it
was crazy out of God.

Speaker 2 (25:46):
Fair enough.

Speaker 1 (25:47):
Prior to the creation of the universe, it would have
just been the Trinity, right, Father, Son, Holy Spirit?

Speaker 2 (25:53):
Yep? Yeah.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
Could the father and the son have a conversation with
each other?

Speaker 3 (25:57):
I don't know. Well, I think that there's a conversation
is basically just an exchange of information. Information doesn't have
to be physical, So I think I'll go with yes.

Speaker 2 (26:07):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (26:08):
Do we conclude that a conversation, though, is a series
of at a minimum thoughts?

Speaker 3 (26:13):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (26:13):
Does that not require time?

Speaker 3 (26:15):
Well, it creates time, so time time is a relation between.

Speaker 1 (26:19):
Every time the father and the son share a thought,
they create a moment of time.

Speaker 3 (26:24):
Yeah, they experience it is time.

Speaker 1 (26:26):
What's more parsimonious that every time God wants to do
something he creates an instance of time, or that time
just always existed.

Speaker 3 (26:34):
Is when when God grounds something like you know, a
statement or some kind of output information, then that creates
a relation, right, and the time is relational.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
It's all of it. Are all of God's parts good?

Speaker 3 (26:47):
So the things that are that come purely from God.

Speaker 2 (26:50):
Yeah, but there are parts of God that are not
good because I take like being all good. If God
has parts and God is all good, then presumably each
and every part of God would be good. But if
every part of the universe is a part of God,
then that means that you're kind of left defending that
everything in the universe is good.

Speaker 3 (27:09):
Well, I think that should comes down comes down to
what identities are. So each part is an identity, and
each ident so if some if something is bad, then
the predicate bad is just is just index to that
particular identity. It's not it's not index to God as
a whole, which something can be true of a subset B,
but it's it's not true of the superset s that

(27:30):
that can happen.

Speaker 2 (27:31):
But if the superset s is like the super set
characterized by having like being like all something. Right, Like,
if if the superset is like this, the superset of
all even numbers, then each subset is also going to
be defined by being like even numbers. Right. You're not
going to find a three in any subset of the

(27:52):
set of all even numbers. So likewise, if God is
all good, then presumably every subset of his parts of
his property are likewise going to be all good.

Speaker 3 (28:04):
Yeah, that that that would be true. But I think
that good and bad are subject to free will.

Speaker 2 (28:08):
But then that's just going to be a problem. Right,
So you're gonna say that for example, I don't know,
let's let's let's go for the throat. Is the Holocaust
a part of God?

Speaker 3 (28:18):
It's yeah, it's inside God?

Speaker 2 (28:19):
Okay? And are all of God's parts good?

Speaker 5 (28:22):
No?

Speaker 2 (28:22):
Okay, then God's not all good? Cool, I guess the
benevolence right out the window.

Speaker 3 (28:27):
Well, no, because the predicate of goodness it's not attributed
to every like if it's not if it's not attributed
to some of the parts. Right, So if some of
the parts are good and some are bad, that doesn't
mean that the the identity that's that contains all of them,
that that can still be all good. It's it's not
like composition. Do you see what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
No, Likewise, okay, super set. If the superset was like
the set of all even numbers, none of the subsets
are going to contain odd numbers. If if the superset
is all good, then none of the subsets are going
to be not all good. Otherwise they and be in
the super set.

Speaker 3 (29:01):
Okay, But then they're going to be restrictions of what
the what the superset has. I mean, there's like privation
theory of evil, and that's where that it's like evil
is more like the negation of of good, like it's
what is absent.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
But isn't God going to be equivalent to good? If
if if something is literally a part of God, then
how is it a privation of God?

Speaker 3 (29:22):
That would be the predicate. So if something is a
part of God, that the part the part is the set,
But the functions that the set engages in, they're just
like a restriction of what the superset is capable of.

Speaker 2 (29:35):
And something be a part of God and also a
privation of God, it's.

Speaker 3 (29:38):
Not the it's not the thing itself that is a privation.
It's what it does, right, It's the function that it
that it implements. That's that's the privation.

Speaker 2 (29:47):
So in like the like the case of littering, I
don't know, is littering a part of God?

Speaker 3 (29:51):
It's what it takes place inside God. It takes place
inside reality, which is.

Speaker 2 (29:56):
What God must have a lot of trash. And uh
so it takes place in reality, takes place in God.
I mean, presumably we agree that littering is bad, so
then there's like a bad thing within God.

Speaker 3 (30:09):
Yeah, but remember what's what's true of one of the parts.
So one of the sub identities, what are you gonna
call it? Is not that predicate doesn't have to be
attributed to the like the only present identity, because they're
different identities, even though one of them part of the other.
They're just thincs. Right.

Speaker 2 (30:27):
So I mean, I guess, would you agree that an
all good being within an all good being, all of
his parts are going to be good?

Speaker 3 (30:34):
No? I don't. I think it's up to defend on conditions.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
I guess I just don't. I completely don't share those
intuitions that to me, seems like very obvious that in
all good being, all of his parts would be good
as well.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
Yeah, Like if I said I was an all good person,
but then I strangled somebody last week, Well listen, I'm
not all good if I strangled to my last week. Like,
you can't have parts of you that are bad and
then claim to be all good.

Speaker 3 (31:04):
Yeah, but that's because you're talking about yourself. You are
just one identity, so of course you're not going to
have Like, if you enact bad actions, then that reflects
badly on you. But what we're talking about is whether
people's bad actions are like to create like a transitive
property onto God. Right.

Speaker 2 (31:23):
I don't think it's just people's bad actions.

Speaker 1 (31:25):
I think, you know, we can take a look at
what your God does and judge that as bad. Like,
presumably you believe that God created natural disasters and bone
cancer and skin cancer and things like that.

Speaker 2 (31:35):
You don't think those are good things, do you?

Speaker 3 (31:37):
I don't think they're either good or bad because they're not.
They're not intense or actions, they're just events.

Speaker 1 (31:43):
Yeah, but did something cause those events to be possible?

Speaker 3 (31:46):
Yeah, to be possible?

Speaker 2 (31:48):
Yeah? Right?

Speaker 1 (31:48):
Yeah, So God created the earth in a way in
which natural disasters would be part of it. Could he
have created the earth without the natural disasters?

Speaker 3 (31:55):
Well, not not in the way that it exists, because
the disasters are.

Speaker 1 (31:59):
That wasn't my question, though, My question is could he
do it? Could he create a world with no natural disasters?
Though I know of so he's not a powerful either. Yeah,
you're making your God weaker and weaker every time we
pry open the next layer.

Speaker 3 (32:12):
No, it's I don't think it's an issue of making
him not all powerful that The point is that God,
but natural dissice serve a purpose. The purpose is that
it's all a part of kind of renewing the environment.

Speaker 1 (32:27):
Anything about purpose, I asked you about his ability.

Speaker 2 (32:30):
Well, how does the how does like the wholesale slaughter
of innocence like renew the environment? Could God renew the
environment without taking the lives of like two hundred thousand
people a year?

Speaker 3 (32:41):
Well, it's it's depending on us to avoid it.

Speaker 4 (32:44):
Right.

Speaker 3 (32:44):
Well, what we're just talking about is the existence of
the natural disasters, which the moment, we're just talking about
the existence of the natural disasters.

Speaker 1 (32:50):
Whether how does the island of Haiti avoid the earthquake
that killed two hundred thousand people.

Speaker 3 (32:55):
What should be build? Well, if we had high enough
i Q, we could just build buildings that you know,
like don't collapse onto earthquakes like they're having some parts
of Japan or whatever.

Speaker 2 (33:06):
But why don't give us like a way higher IQ?

Speaker 3 (33:09):
Yeahrud, Why didn't?

Speaker 2 (33:11):
If if us surviving is contingent on us having like,
you know, all of us being like super genius as,
why didn't God just give all of us like a
like a two twenty IQ.

Speaker 3 (33:22):
Well, because it's our responsibility to create those conditions, like
we're all species and create like.

Speaker 2 (33:28):
The high IQ. You know, people dye in earthquakes that
aren't in large buildings, right.

Speaker 3 (33:34):
But I didn't I didn't unerstand that. Sorry.

Speaker 1 (33:36):
You know, people get injured in earthquakes that aren't living
in large buildings or near large buildings, right. People have
been dying in earthquakes since before we can make buildings.

Speaker 3 (33:44):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (33:45):
Right, So this is not a good argument, just saying
that that are the goal of humanity is to avoid
doing things that would exacerbate the damage. The reality is
there's nothing humanity can do that would completely allow them
to avoid the natural disasters. But it's also irrelevant because like,
if I took a flamethrower and set it up in
my living room with a bunch of babies in there,

(34:05):
I'm like, listen, avoid the flamethrower. Well, listen, I'm the
idiot for putting a flamethrower in a living room full
of babies. It doesn't matter if the babies didn't have
enough wherewithal to avoid the flamethrower. The fact that the
flamethrower exists is the problem. So the fact that these
natural disasters exist and that for the most part they're
unavoidable is the problem.

Speaker 3 (34:25):
Okay, but the example that you gave is one way.
You're deliberately doing that, and that's the only thing that
I achieved is killing those people. Right, So what I'm
trying to explain is the omnipotence, Like I don't think.

Speaker 2 (34:36):
It renews the earth. The ashes from the dead babies
go in my garden. Well, let's say, like, let's say
the flamethrower is like it's you know, it's roasting some
some hot dogs on the barbecue. Then you're just saying, hey,
babies have a high enough IQ to not get incinerated,
and then they do. I probably, like I just don't
think the police are going to take you very seriously

(34:57):
when you give the explanation. Well, surely it was the
babies who needed to be wise enough to avoid it.

Speaker 1 (35:04):
Yeah, Like, the better result would be not to have
the natural disasters. That's that's the thing you should do
is design the thing without the horrific part.

Speaker 3 (35:11):
Yeah, but then you can only do that by avoiding
the causes of the disasters. But the cause of the disasters,
or like the laws of physics that allow for planets
that have you know, tectonic plates on them that renew
that whether yes, being renewed.

Speaker 1 (35:25):
And he created the laws of physics. Who created laws
of physics? Who decided what the laws of physics would do?

Speaker 3 (35:31):
Yeah, I'm saying it's God.

Speaker 1 (35:32):
Okay, So God could create different laws of physics that
allow natural disasters to not be needed.

Speaker 2 (35:38):
He's in charge of everything in your world view. He
could do. He could do whatever physics he wants.

Speaker 3 (35:43):
Yeah, but the laws of physics have consequences, right, So
but he said.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
Does God suspend? God suspends the laws of physics in
your theology all the time, right, He suspended the laws
of physics to revive Jesus from the dead, you know,
for Jesus to walk on water. God suspends the laws
of physics presumably all the time, especially if you think
that he intervenes to fulfill prayers when people pray like God, please,
like don't let my kid get killed by cancer or whatever.

(36:12):
God intervenes all the time. So couldn't God just intervene
to prevent earthquakes or to save the lives of people?
You know, when the when the rubble is falling, God
intervenes to just move it out of the way of people,
or better yet, he intervenes to make it such that
there aren't these earthquakes or that we don't feel the
effects of them. Couldn't God just do that?

Speaker 3 (36:32):
I think that he probably does do that in some places.
But whether or not he's going to do he probably
depends on his relationship with you.

Speaker 1 (36:39):
Well he did he did save that Bible one time
in the like the wildfires, if you don't remember that,
So maybe that's what he's talking about.

Speaker 2 (36:47):
But I mean, in all good God, like you know,
if we're if we're evaluating goodness, I don't think a
good individual is just going to do things that helps
the people that they're in, Like a close relationship with.
I think that a good person would help people regardless.
I don't think that, like like a good and all
good firefighter wouldn't just be in there saving like the

(37:07):
people who he knows and likes, He would be saving everybody.
So likewise, I don't think that it makes sense to
say that God and all good God is just saving
the people who he has like a close relationship with.

Speaker 3 (37:20):
But might not just be the people that he has
a close relationship with, might also be people who ask
or who have some kind of intent. They might he
might just be reading their intents and just deciding who
is going to live longer and who isn't based on
their intents.

Speaker 2 (37:34):
Just be like that, Just to be clear, we we
can know for certainty under this view that whenever we
watch the news and we find out that somebody died
in an earthquake, like you would say that the that
the hundreds of thousands of people who died in like
the Haity earthquake, that these people must have just had
bad intent.

Speaker 3 (37:53):
Well, no, it's it's a mixture of things. It's maybe
they didn't ask or ask for what I think obviously,
I think deaths of inevitable eventually a very very good
person can dine on an earthquake. It's like, we're not
supposed to live forever.

Speaker 2 (38:05):
Oh so you would say that, you know, like death
isn't that bad.

Speaker 1 (38:09):
Yeah, so the suffering's negated by the fact that you
get to spend eternity is somewhere in heaven.

Speaker 3 (38:14):
Well, suffering negated. I don't think the suffering is a
bad thing.

Speaker 1 (38:17):
Oh so Jesus suffering wasn't that bad. Yeah, yeah, so
it like we had a bad weekend.

Speaker 2 (38:23):
Basically.

Speaker 3 (38:24):
No, I'm just saying that suffering isn't a bad thing.

Speaker 2 (38:25):
Oh so, shit, what happened to Jesus wasn't bad then? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (38:29):
Well what's bad is the intense is the intention of
the people that are mistreating someone.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
Okay, so the intent of the person making others suffer
is what matters, which means God intention of making people
suffer is the bad part. Well yeah, so yeah, that's
the right answer.

Speaker 3 (38:48):
Yeah, is bad.

Speaker 1 (38:49):
God's intent to make a humanity suffer is bad. I agree,
I would have done it differently.

Speaker 4 (38:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (38:55):
Holy shit, we didn't even get the job.

Speaker 1 (38:57):
But God legitimately forced this man and all these other
people to suffer just to like win a bet with Satan,
which is weird for an all knowing being.

Speaker 2 (39:08):
He has a lot of pride for this all good being.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
Well, listen, we've had we got a couple of people
waiting to get in. Still you and we've been talking
for like forty five minutes, and I mean, listen, we
could probably talk for another hour, but I want to
make sure we get to all the guests. So we
appreciate you coming up and talking with us, Adam and
call back again.

Speaker 2 (39:28):
Zoom Absolutely, thanks so much, Thank you.

Speaker 3 (39:31):
Jerosy.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
Well, that was interesting. I was curious he was He
was really rooting hard for the philosophical approach, and as
he was doing it, I was thinking, no way, this
guy doesn't have a religion. Nobody's rooting this hard for
philosophy that doesn't follow some religion.

Speaker 2 (39:46):
Yeah, it was like like kind of a bunch of
wacky twists and turns. Suddenly we're all a part of God.
But you know, God's all good and we're a part
of God, so is everything else. So it was like
the act of littering, and littering is bad and it's
a part of God, but God's still all good. I
don't know, it's just a lot of like mental gymnastics.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
We had a lot of twist and turns in that call,
but holy smokes, I'm glad you were here to handle
the philosophy because he might have drove me insaie. Let
me grab some announcements first and we'll read our super
chats and we're gonna get our next caller on the line.
If you like what we do, please consider supporting us
on Patreon. Giving to our Patreon ensures our ability to

(40:30):
continue to produce a content that you all love, and
you can go and visit tiny dot cc ford slash
patreon AXP to be a donor. Again, it's tiny dot
cc ford slash patreon AXP. Another way that you can
support is by sending superchats. We get them in, we
read them between calls. Your input in the show matters,

(40:53):
and it's a way that you guys can participate in
the show with us. You can also become a channel
member for as little as ninety nine cents month. Just
click the join button below the video. This will give
you access to special chat emoji's, early access to YouTube
shorts and clips, and other videos, and you can also
buy atheist experience merch at tiny dot CC forward slash

(41:14):
merch Aca and I would wear that loud and proud.
That's what I do out in public, let people know.
And we've got T shirts, sweaters, hoodies, hats, pint glasses
which are important, and mugs and also last one, not least,
a big, big thank you to the crew that put
the show together every week, our audio operators or video operators,
note takers, call screeners, chat moderators. It might look like

(41:36):
Ian and I are up here doing the work. The
reality is we're just up here talking heads. The work
is being done behind the scenes. That's where the real
stuff is happening. So thank you so much to the
XP crew making all this possible.

Speaker 2 (41:48):
We really appreciate that. Let's grab a couple of super chats.

Speaker 1 (41:52):
We've got one from Jonathan, Thank you so much, says,
what does come to fulfill the law?

Speaker 3 (41:58):
Mean?

Speaker 2 (41:59):
Good question?

Speaker 1 (42:00):
So a quotation from Matthew chapter five, verse seventeen, where
Jesus says that he did not come to abolish the law,
but to fulfill law and the prophets. It's pretty clear
fulfill just means to complete the requirements of something. And
whatever you think about the interpretation of fulfill, what it
doesn't mean is abolish. It cannot mean abolish because Jesus

(42:21):
is using it to express this idea that he did
not come to abolish the law.

Speaker 2 (42:26):
What did he come to do?

Speaker 1 (42:27):
Instead, he came to fulfill the law, which means it
must be completing the requirements of the law. It doesn't
mean the law goes away, which is why in the
same verse he says, whoever does the law and teaches
others to do the law will be called great in
the Kingdom of Heaven. But whoever teaches others to not
follow the law will be called least in the Kingdom
of Heaven.

Speaker 2 (42:45):
Next, we got j cal thinks so much of the
two dollars for praise Doug. Do thin get the timing right?
I hope I got the timing right. Younailed that praise Doug.

Speaker 1 (42:56):
And minute men, thank you so much for the four
to nit nine supertest says during these difficult times, let
us remember the mercy of Doug. Give us your love
and guidance, and remember Doug, the rock God is always
rock hard for you. He's never flaccid, He's always got
your bat guys.

Speaker 2 (43:13):
Thank you Bad Religion nineteen eighty three for the two
dollars here to support the greatest duo. Doug is good.
Doug is good, he is the rock.

Speaker 1 (43:24):
Luda Loomps, thank you so much for the superchest, says
love you both. PS praise Doug well. Thank you so much, Loomps.
I appreciate the support.

Speaker 2 (43:33):
B for Bangkai, thanks so much for the five dollars
for Oh, I know Doug is rock hard for this
duo tonight, so am I thank you, B. I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (43:42):
Big w and Adell Reader, thank you so much for
the fight our super chest, says big Justin fan. Also
a huge Ian fan, So good to see you live
on AXP man, keep it up.

Speaker 2 (43:53):
Thank you. I'm glad to be here. Rock hard for Doug,
thanks so much for the five dollars. Doug and Sharon
are so glad you're here. Ian. I'm so glad I'm
here too. It's so nice to be here. Everyone's being
so nice and I appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (44:07):
Absolutely and Larry Beck, thank you so much for the
six sixty six super chat. Praise Nero, he says Encore
woo hoo.

Speaker 2 (44:16):
Absolutely rock hard for Doug, thanks so much for the
five dollars for the word of Doug can only be
written by a pilot G two zero seven. I see you, Ian,
thank you. I have lots of pens because I dropped
them frequently, but I'd like to take notes on the
conversation to make sure that I can check it. And also, Jake,

(44:38):
thank you for the six sixty six.

Speaker 1 (44:39):
It says, if God has a body, humans might be
the appendix technically part of it, but nobody is.

Speaker 2 (44:45):
Sure why we're here. We just cause problems an act
up absolutely, Johannis, thanks so much for the five dollars
on YouTube. So Adam, if one were to call into
AXPN it utterly cooked while defending horrible suffering, it might
be their fault for having a low IQ. Oh boy,

(45:11):
I feel because it's clear that Adam is like intelligent enough,
but it's just that he has to make himself unintelligent
for the sake of a religion, which is just too bad.

Speaker 1 (45:21):
Yeah, a lot of like smart, decent people resort to
idiocy due to religion. Daniel, thank you for the super chet.
Daniel says it's refreshing to see Ian outside of a
black room.

Speaker 2 (45:36):
Somebody let me outside of the basement, our duke, thanks
so much for the ten dollars. On YouTube peer our
pair character jumping up and down saying number one fan,
Oh it's a sticker. Okay, I'm sorry, I read the words.
You know I got I got set up for failure. No,

(45:57):
I'm kidding for the ten dollars. All right, let's grab
our next guest. We've got a.

Speaker 1 (46:06):
Theist from South Carolina and then possibly a theist from California. Nice,
So let's pull up Mike from South Carolina. Mike says,
if there were not any natural disasters, what should you
next have issues with God?

Speaker 2 (46:21):
Is living a long, healthy life? The meaning of life?

Speaker 4 (46:27):
You know?

Speaker 1 (46:27):
I would say, like there's a lot of Like when
I say issues with God, natural disasters are.

Speaker 2 (46:32):
Just one of them.

Speaker 1 (46:34):
I think it depends on which God you're talking about, though, right, Like,
if we're talking about the Christian God, I've got like
a lot of bones to pick with the Christian God,
I would say, really even like the God of Islam too.
This idea that anything would want to create hell and
then send people there to me is nonsensical. As a
father myself, I can tell you there's not a single
thing ever that my child could do that would want

(46:56):
me to suffer, have them suffer even for five seconds
in flength. So the idea that like God, the Loving Father,
would send people to hell for eternity is completely nonsensical.
But Ian might have some something after natural disasters.

Speaker 2 (47:11):
Yeah, those are all great, I you know this is
this isn't like too much of a of a far
cry from that, But you know, I would probably do
either like another natural evil, like the facts that our
DNA mutates and causes cancer. You know, God could have
given us like the the the naked mole rat cells
that essentially don't get cancer, Like they almost never get

(47:33):
cancer compared to ourselves, where tons of people get cancer
throughout their life, tons of people get taken by cancer.
You know, I don't know, like the fact that God
gave us the cancer cells versus the no cancer cells
is extremely surprising on the hypothesis that He's good and just.
But even like taking it away from like natural stuff,
I think the regular problem of evil works fine, you know,

(47:57):
you like literally just the fact that the Holocaust happened.
I don't think that that, you know, I don't think
Hitler's free will is worth the lives of six million
Jewish people, Like I don't know, literally stop and ask yourself.
Which one is more valuable one dude's free will or
six million Jewish lives. To me, that answer is like

(48:18):
pretty easy, but the theist is forced to give the
crazy answer. So so we gave you a whole lot
right out of the gate. There, Mike, what are your thoughts?

Speaker 4 (48:27):
Oh? Hey, yeah, thank you, and nice talking to both
of you. First time talking to Ian cat there, you're
so calm. I thought Justin was calm. You're calm, and
I'm My hope is that I don't get smoked by
Justin or folded by Ian. And I don't know which
term is cooler real quick, which one is cooler?

Speaker 2 (48:47):
Yeah, well you'll get to experience both, and then you
can tell us.

Speaker 4 (48:53):
I hope that all right? All right, here we go. Yeah.
So it's like, you know, you got natural disasters and
God gets blamed for it, and it's like, okay, what
would it take man instead of the Haiti two hundred
thousand people dying? If only two thousand died or only
two or does it have to be zero? I mean,
what's going to take to make you all happy? I'm
just curious.

Speaker 2 (49:11):
So I guess when we approach like the being all good,
what being all good to me means is that you
do the best thing that you know to do and
are able to do, which means that we would just
expect God to do the best thing because He's able
to do anything, and he knows exactly what the best
thing is. So I think the best thing is zero deaths,

(49:31):
so I would just expect zero deaths, right.

Speaker 1 (49:34):
I mean my understanding of the all good is that
it must all be good. Right, you can't have even
one bad thing?

Speaker 4 (49:42):
Okay, And if I can step back for a moment,
y'all are looking at this from I want to have
a great life, a long life, fun life, forever life.
And God's looking at this as justin you would know this.
I don't know what your training is in. But He's
looking at earth as this is a testing ground. We
are being tested. Is not fun, but we are on

(50:02):
whether we want to choose to follow God or just
choose what we want to do. So God's point of view,
need to test anyone because he doesn't know what your
free will is going to be. He can jump ahead
in the future and see what your choices are and
it looks like they branch, but he wants to put
it to the test and let you choose.

Speaker 2 (50:19):
So are you an open theist?

Speaker 4 (50:21):
I'm sorry with that.

Speaker 2 (50:22):
Are you an open theist?

Speaker 4 (50:23):
I don't know what that means.

Speaker 2 (50:24):
Do you think that God only exists in the present moment?
Do you think God is in time? I guess yeah.

Speaker 4 (50:30):
I think he's outside of time. If we can even
understand that outside of time, so he can see.

Speaker 2 (50:37):
A set of time, then presumably he can just see
the full story, right, Like imagine a person looking down
at like a gosh, what is it, like a video
timeline on like a video editor. Presumably like being outset
of time might be something kind of equivalent to that,
so he can just scrub ahead and see what's going
to happen. Or I guess, like maybe like a like
a more direct way. If God's all knowing and he's

(51:00):
outset of time, then he should just know exactly what's
going to happen. Yeah, the Bible says he does.

Speaker 4 (51:05):
Christian like that, the Christian of the Bible. Yeah, not
out all or anything yet.

Speaker 1 (51:10):
Yeah, I mean the Bible I think says contradictory statements
about God's knowingness. But first John three twenty does suggest
that he knows all things. It says, if our hearts
condemn us. We know that God is greater than our
hearts and he knows everything. It seems to coincide with
this idea that God would be all knowing.

Speaker 2 (51:29):
Yeah, there's also the verse, and Justin would be able
to tell you what it is, but the one about
you know, God says the end. From the beginning, it
seems like God knows exactly what's going to happen in
the future.

Speaker 4 (51:39):
Well, I think where the confusion hits is got God
ahead of us outside of time, and then then there's us,
and then now we're in time. But he's not doing
is all powerful everything. He's letting us run around do things.
He cursed the world, which is why we get a
lot of the earthquakes. He cursed it, and who knows
what else. I mean, yeah, I could have made a
perfect world, but he didn't. And so we're does which

(52:00):
which way we want to follow? And then when time
is wrapped up, then it's going to be a perfect heaven.
There won't be earthquakes, there won't be cancer, there's gonna
be all the things you guys want in heaven. But
now it's our free will running around and it's a
curse world. It's a mess, but it's not going to
be like that. But you're looking at it from your
life and your life. You know, I'm going to the cancer.

Speaker 2 (52:20):
All knowing beings don't don't have to test anybody. Yeah,
I think they.

Speaker 4 (52:24):
Do when it comes to free will, because he's pulled
back his power to allow us to make decisions.

Speaker 2 (52:29):
Were about your free will?

Speaker 4 (52:30):
Yeah, no, that's everything. You can't have love. He wants
a loving relationship. We have to choose it with free will.

Speaker 1 (52:36):
No, no, that's not true at all, because if you
don't choose them, he tortures you.

Speaker 2 (52:40):
That's coersia, not love.

Speaker 5 (52:41):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (52:41):
Also, you don't necessarily need like free will and like
a classic sense to have love, right like you're your
newborn baby loves you, even though we wouldn't really say
that they like chose to love you.

Speaker 4 (52:53):
Uh No, I don't. I don't believe that you have
to choose to who you're going to marry. You have to,
and babies love us and mom.

Speaker 2 (53:01):
Baby, I don't think you have to. I know quite
a few people that had arranged marriages, but I don't know.
I don't think like I don't think babies. I think
babies love because of like neurochemical reactions, right, I think,
like the love that a baby feels towards its parents
is going to be necessitated by the neurochemicals that it feels,
via like spending lots of time vice versa for the

(53:22):
parents towards the baby. I'm skeptical of this notion that
like the love of baby specifically feels is a choice.
Like I grant that maybe adults choose to love each other, right, Like,
maybe that's your choice as an adult, I just don't
think that that applies to babies. So in that regard,
it seems like you can totally have like a loving
relationship that doesn't involve free will. Also, i'd say, I

(53:45):
don't know. I'm skeptical that free will even exists on
your worldview, especially if you think God is all knowing.
Oh well, if God knows that some event is going
to happen, then it's inevitable. And if it's inevitable, then
it's not possible that it doesn't happen. And if it's
not possible that it doesn't happen, then there is no choice.

Speaker 4 (54:04):
That's a nice hypothetical. I could say, the sun's going
to rise tomorrow, but I'm not affecting it. And and
God's trying to step back absolutely as much as he
can and let us choose without him hanging over our shoulder.
That's the point of creating this little bubble universe we're in.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
But do you think God sees the future? I think
he can.

Speaker 4 (54:19):
I mean it says he's you know, there's got revelation,
which is interesting, and he sees what's going to happen
at the end. But all along the way, we're all
making these choices. But justin helped me out. There's a
comment in the Bible about if Sodom mcgimore I had
had that guy Jonah preach, they would have repented.

Speaker 2 (54:37):
But yeah, they would have repented long ago.

Speaker 1 (54:39):
Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, said he when he was in
tired inside.

Speaker 2 (54:44):
And I believe.

Speaker 1 (54:44):
But none of that's actually relevant here to what Ian's
referring to.

Speaker 2 (54:49):
Yeah, do you think God? If does God know everything?
He knows all the things that he can know, all
the true things.

Speaker 4 (54:56):
I think so. But again he's pulled back and we're
doing free will, and it's like crazy, It's like there's
a lot of stuff going on, yes.

Speaker 2 (55:03):
But like overall, like in the worldview.

Speaker 4 (55:07):
I think I think all the above. I mean, I'd
like to go to a Bible verse and quote something
for you, but I believe so, yes, help me justice?
Is that true?

Speaker 2 (55:16):
Well?

Speaker 1 (55:16):
I was hoping you were just going to answer Ian's
question without like ducking and dodging.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
I thought it was an easy question. Help me.

Speaker 4 (55:26):
Out. Let's have a biblical reason. I mean, I can
tell you what I think, and what I think doesn't matter.
It matters if I can back it up with something
in the Bible. But I'm going to say, yeah, that
sounds right.

Speaker 1 (55:35):
Well, let's let's talk a little bit about what's actually
happening here, because I think Ian and I are trying
to corral you into the conversation, and I don't know
if you're participating in the same conversation. We're still talking about, uh,
like a Sideway's address of the Epicarian paradox.

Speaker 2 (55:51):
What if God is all.

Speaker 1 (55:53):
All knowing, he's all good, uh, and he's all powerful.
He first of all, he doesn't have to test anybody.
He is what the result of the test is going
to be from the outset boom not a problem.

Speaker 2 (56:04):
Number two is.

Speaker 3 (56:05):
Even if he did, I don't agree with that well.

Speaker 2 (56:07):
Then he's not all known. You have to read.

Speaker 1 (56:10):
So then you don't think that God is all knowing,
do you?

Speaker 4 (56:12):
I think the the outcomes are up to.

Speaker 2 (56:14):
Us, right, But does God know the outcome?

Speaker 4 (56:17):
I think he can see possible outcomes, but until we
do it.

Speaker 2 (56:20):
It's right. But that doesn't answer my question. My question.
Knowledge changes with time, So then God's in time.

Speaker 4 (56:26):
I think he's in time and out of time. That
that I can't back.

Speaker 3 (56:29):
Up the Bible.

Speaker 2 (56:30):
But well, well, well then we have an even bigger problem,
that's action.

Speaker 1 (56:36):
Yeah, So lest clarify what you're saying, God does not
know all things.

Speaker 4 (56:44):
I think he's yeah. I mean I think he's pulling
back and he's allowing us to make decisions, and I
think they're branching out, and I wish I could back that.

Speaker 1 (56:53):
I'm not asking you about our free will. I'm just
asking you about God's knowledge. I think you're trying to
have a different conversation than what having. I'm just talking
about God's knowledge. Does God have knowledge of all things?
If I choose to eat breakfast tomorrow morning, does he
know what I'm going to eat before I eat it?

Speaker 4 (57:11):
I don't know, Because you got free will there I'm
gonna say.

Speaker 2 (57:15):
Then he's not all knowing.

Speaker 1 (57:16):
If he doesn't know what decision I'm gonna make, then
he's not all knowing.

Speaker 2 (57:19):
He's just like mostly knowing. I also think that we
can drive a contradiction if.

Speaker 4 (57:23):
He knows it until after you make it, and then
he jumps ahead in time and sees it. I don't
know how that works. I don't it's a mind bender.

Speaker 2 (57:29):
Would you agree that something that's that set of time
doesn't have like future or past states.

Speaker 4 (57:34):
Something outside does not have a future past, Something outside
of time does not have a future or a past.
You know, if you're outside of time. I don't know
if the rules apply. It's like dividing by zero.

Speaker 3 (57:46):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (57:47):
So presumably if God had a past present in future state,
then he would just be in time, because that's what
it means to be in time, is that you have
a past present in future state. There's like some sort
of like progression of your existence in accordance with time.
So presumably, if God is out set of time, he
doesn't have this like past or future state. Would you

(58:09):
agree with that?

Speaker 4 (58:09):
Here's one for you. Sometimes there isn't time, like a
photon that travels from the Sun to the Earth. That
takes eight minutes. But according to that photon, nothing is passed.
It was at the sun and then it's at our plant.
It's here.

Speaker 2 (58:22):
That's a great example. I understand that that's a great
example about why your God actually can't exist in time
is because of a phenomena called time dilation. Simultaneously would
be two separate moments for God if he exists everywhere.
You know, something traveling close to the speed of light
experiences less time, which means that when it's like twelve

(58:44):
o'clock one place, it might be you know, eleven thirty
at a different place, depending on like the inertial reference frame.
So just on that basis, it doesn't seem like God
can exist and know the things that are happening in
the present, because as the present is going to come
encompass a multitude of different times, it's going to be

(59:05):
a multitude of different times at the present. So it
doesn't seem like it makes much sense to say that
God knows the present stuff.

Speaker 4 (59:12):
Okay, two things. One is the photon that's traveling the
speed of light doesn't experience time dilation. It's time stopped.
That's interesting The other one is you ever see those
time examples where they have it, Yeah, where they are
have a two dimensional world and everything is on a
flat plane and a three dimensional being comes in and
appears in the wall, and then it comes in and
it looks like it's appearing here appearing there, And that's

(59:33):
what it's like. Time is like a line, and God's
able to come down because he's extra dimensional, I guess,
don't know, not in the Bible, but he's able to
see the beginning, in the middle of the end, whatever
he wants to do. Maybe you can do it all
at the same time while we're making all these free
willed decisions.

Speaker 2 (59:46):
If he could do all that, then he would be
all knowing.

Speaker 4 (59:49):
Depending on our free will decision.

Speaker 1 (59:50):
But we're not saying that that like we're not making decisions,
although we can make a case for that.

Speaker 2 (59:56):
Alls we're trying to figure out is if God.

Speaker 1 (59:58):
Knows all things, know what I'm going to decide, and
if he's outset of time, then presumably he already knows
what I'm going to do before I do it.

Speaker 4 (01:00:07):
I you know, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:00:09):
If you have to wait till after you do it,
till he knows. It's kind of like the photons. If
you see their position, you don't know their direction. Okay,
maybe one of those that the Schrodinger cat all that
fun stuff.

Speaker 1 (01:00:20):
Okay, so we'll just assume for now that God is
not all knowing. Boom one omni property down first, John
three twenty is wrong. Let's talk about whether or not
God is all good. The other omni property that I
think people talk about a lot more natural disasters aside
your particular God. The thing I would say I detest

(01:00:42):
about him currently at this moment in time is the
fact that he is a huge misogynist.

Speaker 2 (01:00:47):
And I think that's very clear in the text.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
And so maybe my favorite example of this is the
way that he punishes David for what he did with Bathsheba.

Speaker 2 (01:00:56):
Do you remember that story.

Speaker 4 (01:01:00):
Sheiba and David. Is that when he saw her up
on the other roofs and then decided to take her
as his wife. Well, yeah, I think I know what
you're talking about.

Speaker 1 (01:01:08):
Yeah, So if you go to Second Samuel chapter twelve,
David receives or kind of receives a punishment for taking
the wife of your riot the hit tight and then
impregnating her and then sending your riot to the front
line to get murdered so that he can cover up
this illegitimate birth. Right now, the prophet Nathan is going
to bring two different punishments for this. The first punishment

(01:01:30):
falls on the child. The child is made ill for
seven days, and then the child dies. Even though the
child didn't do anything wrong, David was the one that
should have died for his sin because in Deuteronomy twenty two,
the punishment for adult tree is getting stoned, so David
should have been stoned. Rather than him getting stoned, the
child got killed. The other punishment starts in verse eleven,
and it says, I will raise up trouble against you

(01:01:53):
from within your own house, and I will take your
wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor,
and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.
For you did it secretly, but I will do this
thing before all Israel in broad daylight. And so God
has ten of David's wives later in the story graped
by somebody from within his own household as his punishment
for david sin. So a God that is willing to

(01:02:15):
have somebody's wives graped for the sins of their husband
to me, is not a god that gets to claim
to be all good.

Speaker 4 (01:02:22):
So you're saying, if God punishes people, then he's not
all good, or at least in that case.

Speaker 2 (01:02:26):
We know in this way, if you.

Speaker 1 (01:02:29):
He's punishing the women for the crimes that their husband committed.

Speaker 4 (01:02:34):
Yeah, I mean this is this is really really harsh.
And then innocent baby, and then the wives, assuming they're
innocent as well, maybe they know, assume they work.

Speaker 2 (01:02:43):
So would you be okay if you're right, I don't
understand your sin.

Speaker 4 (01:02:47):
No, I that's pretty severe punishment. And it's the biblical principle.
And this is not good. Not defending it, but it's
the principle where the father and the household his sins are.
That's why it's sill done.

Speaker 2 (01:03:01):
Serious.

Speaker 4 (01:03:02):
But yeah, this this is awful and severe, you know,
versus death. But yeah, this is this is pretty severe.
Make an example out of my guess this is bad?

Speaker 1 (01:03:10):
Yeah?

Speaker 4 (01:03:11):
I agree?

Speaker 2 (01:03:11):
And so why would you worship this god?

Speaker 4 (01:03:13):
Then?

Speaker 1 (01:03:13):
Why wouldn't you just say, hey, this god sounds like
fiction to me?

Speaker 4 (01:03:16):
Yeah, well, well not fiction, but he takes sin very seriously.
And you're not just going to mess up your own life.
You're going to mess up other people's lives. You need to,
as men at the very least shape up.

Speaker 2 (01:03:28):
But is it?

Speaker 1 (01:03:28):
But is it just very punished people for the crimes
they didn't commit.

Speaker 4 (01:03:33):
You know, like babies dying. I don't like that. But
from your point of view, the baby's done. From God's
point of view, the baby is moved on.

Speaker 2 (01:03:42):
What about the women?

Speaker 1 (01:03:44):
Is it ever just to punish women for the crimes
of their husband?

Speaker 4 (01:03:47):
I don't think it's uh desirable at all. No, I
don't like it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:50):
It can't be just though, right, I didn't know that
they got great. Yeah, that's against the definition of justice,
isn't it.

Speaker 4 (01:03:57):
You know, I really I can't defend it. If they
were rape This first time I've ever heard that, Justine,
is that they were taken away and rape. Were they
taken his wives or.

Speaker 2 (01:04:05):
The first Samuels raped in public?

Speaker 1 (01:04:07):
Tewod Samuel sixteen, Absalom tries to take over the throne
and chases his father out of the palace, and then
he takes a council from a trader of David's court,
a Hippahel and a Hippathel tells Absalom the thing you
need to do now that you're in the palace. The
thing that you need to do to show the people
that you're in charge, you need to go take David's

(01:04:30):
wives that got left behind, and you need to sleep
with them on top of the palace in front of
all the Israelites, so they know that you're in charge now.

Speaker 2 (01:04:37):
And he did.

Speaker 1 (01:04:38):
He went into the palace, took ten of David's wives,
put up a tent on top of the palace, and
slept with them in front of all of Israel in
order to give a display of power and force over
his father.

Speaker 4 (01:04:51):
So his own son is doing this, and now there's
something on the son as well, for and the guy
giving him crappy advice. So there's a lot of people
in all to the Shiite show here.

Speaker 2 (01:05:02):
Yeah, this is a rough one. Yeah right.

Speaker 1 (01:05:04):
It's also weird to me that like the omni benevolent
being like couldn't utter a couple of sentences just saying
like owning slaves is bad, and rather he said the
other thing. He said, he these are the slaves you
can own, this is how long you can own them for,
and this is how you can treat them.

Speaker 2 (01:05:22):
So myself, no.

Speaker 4 (01:05:25):
I mean, it was like never says don't own slaves.

Speaker 2 (01:05:28):
That once you have to do like some serious mental
gymnasts get the idea that it does.

Speaker 4 (01:05:33):
Right, No, there's two lines later where it says that
somebody kidnap somebody makes them slave, then that person should
be put to death, as two lines right after what
you were quoting.

Speaker 1 (01:05:41):
Well, I didn't quote anything yet. I was looking at
Leviticus twenty five. You're quoting Exodus twenty one sixteen, and
this is clarified in Deuteronomy. It's about kidnapping a free person,
a free Hebrew person, and selling them as a slave.

Speaker 2 (01:05:56):
That's not to be done. But there's other than that.
You can own slaves another part.

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
No thing of free people, and you can kidnap foreigners
that you're allowed to do that.

Speaker 2 (01:06:07):
Yeah. Also, even if you grant that, even if you
grant like this like weird like niche interpretation, that's like
definitely wrong. It's still going to be the case that
there are slaves because it outlines in Exodus twenty one
that you can sell your daughter into slavery. That wouldn't
require kidnapping at all.

Speaker 4 (01:06:25):
Too. That's not good, no, right, So why would God
and said that we wouldn't be doing it.

Speaker 2 (01:06:30):
No.

Speaker 1 (01:06:30):
What I'm saying is, if God is real, the God
of this book is real, I would expect that he
would know that you shouldn't sell your daughter as a slave.

Speaker 4 (01:06:38):
Well, how is it that people read the Bible slave
owners in the past. I've heard I don't know if
it's true, but they would use it and tell their slaves, Hey,
look says you're in a Bible. We got to you
got to listen to me. I'm your slave owner. And
you got other people who read the Bible and they're like, man,
slavery is wrong. We're all created equal. And then they
do the underground railroad. They all reading the same Bible.
What's going on there?

Speaker 1 (01:06:58):
Well, the Bible doesn't actually say what the people wanted
to say. That the people that are abolitionists couldn't really
appeal to what the text actually said. They had to
like look at certain passages sideways, like this idea that like,
you know, people are all created equal. Well, yeah, that's
like you can get that implied from a couple different

(01:07:18):
passages in the Bible. But that doesn't have anything to
do with whether or not you could own people. Because
the God of the Bible, if you think that the
God of the Bible is saying that all people are
created equal. That's completely different on whether or not people
can own people. He tells you outright, you can own people.

Speaker 2 (01:07:34):
Yeah, I mean, I'd say that this is a great
example of the Bible being like a like a rar
shock test. You know, you'll project onto it what you
want to get out of it.

Speaker 4 (01:07:42):
So the people that read the Bible and said, well,
we shouldn't do slavery, like the guy that wrote the
song Amazing Grace was a captain of a ship carrying
slaves back and forth. He read the Bible and then
he said I'm not doing this anymore, and he became
a Christian. He misinterpreted the Bible. But the people that
were using the Bible to beat down slaves and tell
them in line, they were correctly interpreting the Bible.

Speaker 2 (01:08:02):
Actually, I would agree with that.

Speaker 4 (01:08:03):
Yeah, wow, Okay.

Speaker 1 (01:08:05):
There's not a single sentence of the Bible that says
don't own slaves, not a single one. In fact, God
blessed Abraham with slaves in his household.

Speaker 4 (01:08:14):
Well, I thought we just went over the one. If
you grab get a free person and make them a slave,
then you're going to.

Speaker 2 (01:08:19):
Be put to death.

Speaker 4 (01:08:19):
I thought we just did that.

Speaker 1 (01:08:20):
That kidnapping a free is not the same thing as
owning slaves, right, Like, there's about a dozen ways you
can become a slave. Kidnapping a free person of your
own kin is not one of those ways that you're
allowed to do it. But I mean you are allowed
to kidnap people from other countries. Like Deuteronomy twenty says,
when you go to war against a town offered terms

(01:08:40):
of peace. If it accepts your terms of peace and
surrenders to you, then all the people in it will
serve you as forced labor. But if it does not
accept your terms of peace it makes war against you,
then you will besiege it. And when the Lord ry
God gives it into your hand, you shall put all
of its mails to the sword. You may, however, take
as your plunder the women, the children, the livestock, and
everything else in the town, all of it spoil. You

(01:09:01):
may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord
your God has given you. And so these are people
that are going to be taken as either slaves or concubines.

Speaker 2 (01:09:11):
And this is like God's cool with it.

Speaker 1 (01:09:13):
God even predicts in Isaiah fourteen that the Israelites are
going to make slaves of people, says of the nations,
you will take them and bring them to their to
They will take you to their place, and the House
of Israel will possess the nations as male and female
slaves in the Lord's land. They will take captive those
who were their captors and rule over those who oppress them.

(01:09:34):
So like, there's all these passages where God is like
legitimately glorifying Israel taking slaves of other people.

Speaker 2 (01:09:41):
He just doesn't want his people to be slaves.

Speaker 4 (01:09:43):
Yeah, I mean he got his people out of speak.
Took four hundred years before he did it. Why why
are we not doing it now? Why would that not
be the common practice? Why are people stoning people? What
have Christians lost in the translation of the Bible?

Speaker 1 (01:09:57):
I think society has just moved on now. We've just
ided that these parts of the Bible are outdated and
no longer needed, and so Christians just ignore it.

Speaker 4 (01:10:07):
Or was it a sign of the times as far
as it was survival back then?

Speaker 1 (01:10:11):
Well, I mean the sign of time that I think
is irrelevant to me. We're talking about a book that
comes from a God that is outside of time, outside
of man made morals. Right, What I would expect is
that when I read this book, I don't find morals
that are indicative of people living at that time period.
I would find morals that would be way better than
people living at that time period.

Speaker 2 (01:10:30):
Yeah, I feel like I should see like advanced positions
in philosophy, like ones that we haven't even discovered yet,
not ones that we left behind two thousand years ago, right,
I suppose, like more so like like two hundred years ago.
In fact, I don't know, Like our morals advance, and

(01:10:51):
with the advancement of our morals, we have like firmer
ground I suppose, is how i'd put it. Like our
morals advance in in almost like a scientific like way
where you go towards like truer and more accurate ones
over time. Which is why it's weird that the Bible
features morals that we have moved past.

Speaker 4 (01:11:13):
I disagree with that. I mean, we've got more human
trafficking and slavery across the world. If you include human
trafficking then there's ever been, and there's there's wars going
on and people are just getting killed. I mean, I
don't know where our advancement and morals is.

Speaker 2 (01:11:26):
But that's badea Like all that stuff is like really bad, right,
it's not.

Speaker 4 (01:11:32):
If you're in a cartel and you're making a lot
of money off of human trafficking, then it's very good business.

Speaker 2 (01:11:37):
No, it's still bad.

Speaker 4 (01:11:38):
So I mean it depends on your point of view.

Speaker 2 (01:11:40):
No, it's still bad.

Speaker 4 (01:11:41):
It depends on your No, I don't think anybody.

Speaker 1 (01:11:44):
What I'm trying, profiting on somebody else's expense is bad.

Speaker 4 (01:11:48):
That's not true at all. The cartels disagree with.

Speaker 1 (01:11:50):
You that, Yeah, I would, I would agree. Yeah, they're
obviously wrong. So are you suggesting that it is okay
to enslaves them?

Speaker 4 (01:11:58):
No, I'm suggesting you believe the cartels are wrong to
use that as an out.

Speaker 1 (01:12:03):
I'm sorry, what do you disagree or do you disagree
or agree with the cartels?

Speaker 4 (01:12:07):
Yeah? I disagree with the cartels.

Speaker 1 (01:12:08):
Yeah, we do too, Yeah, and we disagree because making
people suffer for your own gain is bad.

Speaker 2 (01:12:15):
But I think the real question do you agree already
on that one?

Speaker 4 (01:12:18):
I mean slavery human trafficking and I'm just going to
use as the example everybody's familiar with is very profitable,
and if you don't have any morals. They're a fantastic
way to make money so easy, so you know, selling drugs,
all those things. I mean to say that we're advancing
in morals is not true. In human history, people will
do whatever is expedient. Not everybody, but enough of them

(01:12:40):
where you've got giant problems and wars. I don't see
this great moral advancement going on, and maybe you weren't
trying to make that.

Speaker 2 (01:12:46):
I do used to be universal. It's the thing right
like this, like like pro slavery, pro like genocide, ethos
used to be extremely commonplace, and in a lot of
places it still is. But there's some places where these
sorts of actions have become frowned upon. We have advanced

(01:13:06):
philosophically and societally passed the point where it's acceptable to
do things like this. I think that's indicative of a
real advancement, even if it's not universal.

Speaker 4 (01:13:19):
Yeah, I don't see it globally happening, even the United States.

Speaker 2 (01:13:22):
There's nobody.

Speaker 1 (01:13:24):
I don't set the entire globe share the same.

Speaker 2 (01:13:27):
We are as a global society.

Speaker 1 (01:13:29):
Yes, the types of things that we did as a
global society two thousand years ago is very different than
what we do. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't
still pockets that are living on you know, this will
kind of call it the old system. Sure there are
going to be pockets, but society at large has moved
beyond these things, like the idea that, for example, we

(01:13:49):
should be engaging in blood feuds because we are doing
tribal warfare.

Speaker 2 (01:13:54):
We don't do that anymore.

Speaker 1 (01:13:56):
Like if somebody comes over and executes a member of
my family, I don't then get to go and pick
one or two people in their family to execute. I
don't get to do blood feuds anymore. But there was
a time with that was common.

Speaker 4 (01:14:08):
That's exactly what's done in Africa and China and Russia
and the cartels. I guess South America as well. I
mean it's we're in the minority here and shrinking.

Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
No, no, we're not. You also, okay, I would like
to agree with you, I'd I'd like to hope you're right,
but I just that's not how it works.

Speaker 4 (01:14:24):
People are going to do it makes some money and
the bullies are going to rule the world, and you know, people.

Speaker 3 (01:14:29):
Straight up to it.

Speaker 5 (01:14:29):
Whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:14:30):
But the problem on top of my only stuff, the
stuff in the book justifies it, all right, if in
first second Samuel chapter twenty one, God justifies blood feud and.

Speaker 4 (01:14:42):
Justin you would know this better than I would. But
the whole point of the Mosaic law, Moses's law, is
that he's trying to He made a promise to Moses
that his bloodline was going to go through his people,
and then he's got these It's like hurting cats. These
guys are. They're rebellious. They're making golden calves every time
you turn around, try and give him ten commandments, and
he he's getting him through this and they're doing a
lot of stuff he doesn't appreciate, like having slaves. Something

(01:15:05):
that I never hear you guys bring up is, hey,
what's wrong with having a bunch of wives? Like David,
you got a problem with that because you've got a
problem with slavery. Whyn't Why don't the guys that we say, hey,
there should only be one wife? I never hear that.

Speaker 2 (01:15:15):
Probably consent. I think that, you know, I don't have
any issue with people who want to be in like,
like a polyamorous relationship. If you want to form your
polycule with as many like consenting wives as you have,
like you know sounds good, go for it, as long
as everyone's consenting.

Speaker 3 (01:15:35):
Justin I don't have probability much a responsible.

Speaker 1 (01:15:39):
I don't see like polygamy in general being like a
like a moral issue, like as long as all the
parties are consenting. The problem I have is that polygamy,
especially in religion like the Bible, only.

Speaker 2 (01:15:51):
Goes one way.

Speaker 1 (01:15:52):
You never find like a woman with multiple husbands. It's
always a husband that has all these wives and they
get treated like their proper right. But in the modern society,
and when we talk about polygamy, we wouldn't be accepting
these biblical types. We'd be accepting, you know, consenting adults
that have the ability to consent. They weren't co erst
they weren't forced into it, and all of them have

(01:16:14):
an equal say in how things play out. But to me, personally,
I would not want to be in a plugin mis relationship.
But that's my personal preference.

Speaker 2 (01:16:22):
Yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:16:22):
I mean, yeah, it always turns into the guy wants
multiple women and whatnot. Always it's never the women want
multiple guys just because they have lower nex drive.

Speaker 2 (01:16:30):
That's not true. This is you're clearly not like someone
who's like a millennial or gen z because I feel
like I feel like it's like pretty common that it
goes the other way around. I don't know, like of
the the polycules that I'm familiar with, the polyamorous relationships
that I've encountered very often. Also, it's just the opposite

(01:16:53):
where it's like one, it's like one girl, two guys
or something of that sort. Like I don't know. I
guess that's just that just hasn't been my experience.

Speaker 1 (01:17:04):
Yeah, but listen, Mike, we appreciate you coming talking with us.
We've got time for like one more caller, and but
thanks for coming and chat.

Speaker 2 (01:17:12):
With us again.

Speaker 4 (01:17:12):
Thank you, gentlemen.

Speaker 2 (01:17:15):
I think that's the second time I got to talk
to Mike.

Speaker 1 (01:17:17):
I if I recall, I think he was pleasant the
first time we talked as well. Sometimes we got hostile guests,
sometimes not so much. But let's get some super chats, guys,
Thank you so much for sending in all the superchats.
While we're discussing, we've got one in from Master MACHETI
or thank you so much, says on the third day,

(01:17:37):
Doug raises us all to be rock hard.

Speaker 2 (01:17:42):
Get elevated for Doug oh Mar, Thanks so much for
the five dollars for hold up all this blasphemy. Praise
the universe, farting turtle. Praise the universe, farting turtle. Indeed
it is turtles all the way down. And Miranda Rensberger,
big w thank you for the super chest says justin
what's your favorite obscure Bible fact? Shoo, I wasn't prepared

(01:18:04):
to this. There's so many good ones.

Speaker 1 (01:18:06):
My favorite obscure Bible fact is that the war between
the Israelites and the Moabites was recorded partially by the Moabites.
If you look up the station the Mesha Stelli, he
recorded some of his incursions with Israel, and in the
biblical account, Yahweh gets his ass kicked by the god

(01:18:28):
of the Moabites when king the king sacrifices his firstborn
son in order to ward off the invading enemies.

Speaker 2 (01:18:37):
And so there's actually, you know, chalk one victory up
for Kimash. Yeah, you know, the prophet in that story,
he like Bay of Pigs is them. He's like, you know,
you guys, go, God will definitely have your back, and
then he just doesn't. Aria. Thanks so much of the

(01:18:57):
two dollars infectious diseases are also a huge problem. Yeah,
things like malaria make zero sense if God is all good,
literally none whatsoever.

Speaker 1 (01:19:06):
And rock Hard for Doug says, that's a super bummer
when you know the future until you create a being
with free will Oopsie's Doug and chair in fdw.

Speaker 4 (01:19:19):
B.

Speaker 2 (01:19:19):
For Benkai, I think so much of the two dollars
callers confuse omniscience with ni omniscience. If I'm not entirely
sure what nie omniscience is, but if it's if this
is like like the middle knowledge, where it's like God
has knowledge of all the things that he can have
knowledge of if he lives in the present, then yeah,
I think it's I think it's such a difference of

(01:19:40):
whether or not you think God is outset of time
or inside of time. But if he's outset of time,
then certainly he just knows the future right like that.
It wouldn't make sense otherwise.

Speaker 1 (01:19:48):
He would have to I agree and all firsthand, thank
you for the super Chest says, just as a thought,
what if one's progeny turns out to be awful? A
Jeffrey Dahmer type, how do you think you deal with that?

Speaker 2 (01:20:01):
Like?

Speaker 1 (01:20:01):
Are you presuming that I know ahead of time that
that is the case. If that's what you're asking, what
would I do about it? What I wouldn't do is
like kill, bind or torture the child like yeahweh does
with so many children. I would seek therapy often and
early and try to change the course of events. And
if it became obvious that the course of events was unavoidable,

(01:20:24):
then I would sequester them in a location in which
they can not be harmed to humanity. But I certainly
wouldn't kill them, and I certainly wouldn't torture them for
all of eternity in healthire.

Speaker 2 (01:20:35):
Cyber deconstruction, thanks so much for the five dollars. And
these wives were essayed by their sons. God is an
absolute disgusting monster. Yeah, absolutely, that's horrific. But if you
look at the time, it would have been culturally accepted
or at least more so at the time that it's
not like completely crazy outside the realm of possibility, which

(01:20:57):
is a good indication that this was written at the time.
But great to see you, Cyber, Yeah, big w cybergo
to see.

Speaker 1 (01:21:03):
Also in the same chapter, we learned that all of
Saul's wives King Saul were given to David. So David
took on Saul's wives when he became king. The women
are just passed down from king to king, because that's
how God, that's how he rolls, you know. Luda Ludum,
thank you for the two hour superchests, says God seems

(01:21:24):
to really dislike women and children.

Speaker 2 (01:21:25):
Yeah, that's what I'm gathering from the book. This God
does not like infants at all. He's got piles and
piles of dead babies my conscience six one six, Thanks
so much for the superchat. Two of my favorite content creators,
smoke something, sit back and learn, happy to teach. Thank
you so so much.

Speaker 1 (01:21:44):
And that's when Evan rock big w thank you for
the superchest, says Doug keeps me rock hard all day.

Speaker 2 (01:21:49):
Should I call a doctor? Well, I you know, I
don't really know.

Speaker 1 (01:21:55):
Actually I'm not a doctor, but I do know like
if you look at the warnings label of the bluepill,
if it's for more than four hours, you might want
to seek advice of a doctor.

Speaker 2 (01:22:05):
So it's all I can tell you. This is not
medical advice.

Speaker 1 (01:22:09):
And with that we've got Michael from Florida ready to
come in. Michael, I think is an agnostic, and the
call screen says, how do you personally deal with videos
of supernatural events like haunted houses?

Speaker 2 (01:22:24):
For example? Well, welcome in, Michael.

Speaker 1 (01:22:27):
Can you maybe elaborate a little bit more on what
you're suggesting? Are you just asking us, like, how do
we deal with supernatural phenomenon that we actually can observe?

Speaker 3 (01:22:36):
Well, first of all, hi, guys.

Speaker 5 (01:22:38):
Second, well, well, the thing I'm really getting at is well,
as opposed to depress us a little bit, I'm sort
of in a deconstructing place, and usually when I'm sort
of interacting with I guess all the different way that
Feists support their religions, particularly Christianity as raised christian the
stuff what comes like scripture or whatever because of certain

(01:22:59):
resources like thiscision, pot or whatever. I've always kind of
come to see those that's, you know, perhaps weak, if
not a little bit more abstract in terms of how
people tried to like prove the Bible's truth via scripture
or history. But I suppose what I'm getting at is
that when it comes to like I don't know, either
people giving accounts or even sometimes I seem like videos

(01:23:19):
where like I don't know, like things are moving by
themselves in a room or something to that effect. That
is always kind of at least imposed upon me as
one of the more difficult things for me to, I guess,
get over or or not get over. But like, you know,
I don't want to say explain a way because I've
always tried to make sure that I'm not being you know,
cynical as opposed to skeptical. And so for instance, I
saw this video not too long ago of you know,

(01:23:41):
something like the capture was like, you know, oh, smudging
gone wrong. You know, people tried to like warn off
Egls spirits with burning stage and you know a lot
of Christians will of course call that like you know,
that's that's demonic, that's that's new age as a cult,
that's whatever. So this guy was trying to like smudge
his house, I guess, and you know, like across on
his wall like all sort of like heard upside down

(01:24:01):
and then the cat like the covered door opened and
you know, something's cell over or whatever. And of course
the guy was like getting really scared, and you know,
in my mind I was trying to think, is this
a fake video? Is this AI is this or is
it genuine? And you know, in my mind that that
usually comes across as I don't know. I suppose sometimes
I feel like I'm I can't just like always, I

(01:24:23):
feel like I can't always just lean on oh this
is a fake video or this is like that almost
makes me feel like I'm being like I'm plugging my
ears and my fingers and saying lah la la, I
don't see it.

Speaker 1 (01:24:33):
I think personal experience with the supernatural is already weak evidence,
but secondhand personal experience is even weaker. Like it's weak
enough to say that, well, listen, I experienced something and
I don't have an explanation, therefore it's supernatural. I think
it's one step removed from weak to say, well, I
I know a guy, is something supernatural happened to him

(01:24:56):
that was unexplainable. It's even weaker to say I saw
a vide of a guy that I don't even know
that something happened to them that seems supernatural because there's
no explanation for it. So like there's three steps removed
from even like a bad justification for a belief.

Speaker 2 (01:25:12):
Yeah, I mean, that's that's kind of where I'm at
with it. I think if I were to see something
like this, my go to response whenever I see something
that can't be explained, something like appealed to a supernatural
I ask very simply, do you have any peer reviewed
evidence that indicates that this is a real phenomena. If
it's a real phenomena, then it should be studiable, and

(01:25:35):
if it's common, then it should be studiable. Right Like,
we should see credible sources. We should see these accounts
coming from people who aren't like already a part of
the religion. I'd be willing to bet that if you
dug into the actor, the producer of any of these videos,
if you follow the money, you will find that it

(01:25:56):
is funded by some like pro Christian, protheis pro spiritual group.
You know, it's not some group of atheists that's out
there producing these videos.

Speaker 5 (01:26:07):
Yeah, because you know, I, like I said, usually my
mind also starts to suspect that, you know, there could
be genanigans the foot, like you know, people doctoring videos
or people setting things up in order to you know,
it's sort of like a propagandistic kind of way support
their their dogma with you know, twenty evidence. But then again,
it's like, sometimes I fear that I'm being cynical and

(01:26:27):
always leaning upon that as a sort of like way
to explain away what I just looked looked at.

Speaker 2 (01:26:33):
I don't think it's cynical. People lie all the time
on the internet. I'm just gonna need some evidence that
this isn't to lie. I think that that's just like reasonable.
You know, you should have really high credence that the
laws of physics are true, and all of what you
described would just be violations of the laws of physics.
This doesn't require like evidence, This requires like incredible evidence.

Speaker 5 (01:26:56):
Okay, So then like even even like I' pretty sure
you guys have either personally heard multiple people give accounts
or testimonies of supernatural things happening and whatnot. So is
that usually where is that kind of based on where
your mind goes. It's like, you know, the request for evidence,
of the demand for evidence or like you know, strong
evidence to substantiate what they're saying. Do you think that

(01:27:19):
there's any there there when it comes to like the
sheer volume of testimonies that happens that that goes on
with supernatural events.

Speaker 2 (01:27:26):
So I'd approached this like a couple of different ways.
So the first thing to know about like spiritual experiences
is that they're culturally dependent.

Speaker 3 (01:27:35):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (01:27:36):
People who are Hindu experience Hindu gods. People who are
Buddhist experience like Buddhist experiences, people who are Christian experience
Christian experiences. The experience that you get is going to
align with the culture that you reside in and the
things that you already believe. That holds true to near
death experiences as well. The second thing to know is

(01:27:56):
that spiritual experiences involve activation of a part of the
brain that's literally associated with auditory hallucinations in people who
have like schizophrenia for example, or like temporal lobe epilepsy. Additionally,
some people have literally given themselves like schizophrenia from believing

(01:28:17):
in these and like focusing so much on their religious experiences.
There was this one case of an individual I think
he was in like Latin America, but he prayed for
his father to get better from a disease, and his
father did get better, So he formed a connection in
his mind between his act and his father getting better,

(01:28:37):
and he spent so much time focusing on it that
he developed clinical schizophrenia. You should just have like really
high credence that spiritual experiences are naturally explainable. There's also
certain like philosophical arguments that I'm privy to say that

(01:28:58):
God causes these spiritual experience and says, if God's that
set of time, he can't do that. Prior to God
causing a spiritual experience, he wouldn't hold the belief that
he has caused the spiritual experience. But after he causes
the spiritual experience, he would hold the belief that he
caused the spiritual experience, which means that God goes from
not believing that he's caused the spiritual experience to believing

(01:29:19):
that He's caused the spiritual experience, which would just be
a change. And if you're out a set of time,
you can't change. So I guess I don't know. That's
like kind of a wide variety of ways I might
respond to spiritual experiences.

Speaker 5 (01:29:30):
Okay, because I know what this is. Many months ago
I called an experience about I guess my struggle with like,
you know, people like I'm not sure if you've heard
of doctor Richard Gallagher. He wrote the book in Demonic Foes,
where you know, he's a board sci fi psychologist and
he's you know, talked about it. He's pat made a
career of talking about how he accompanied exorcists, like Catholic

(01:29:55):
exorcists and like, you know, unexplainable uh uh events that
he is sure is proof of demonic possession. And you know,
he talks about how they would always like he, as
a psychologist, would always like confirm that these people are
not just merely affected or afflicted by a psychological illness
or condition, so that you know, it could then be

(01:30:16):
confirmed that okay, something actually spiritual is going on here.
And of course the kinds of proofs usually were something
that you know, the I think the Catholic Church, not
that I wasn't raised Catholic, but I'm just speaking to
what he said, how they are they cite certain things
as proofs of the demonic presence, like hidden knowledge or

(01:30:36):
supernatural strength or whatever. And I suppose hidden knowledge was
usually one thing that that seemed to like really show
that there's something really genuine happening. But then something that
I came across, you know, I was kind of going
on a rabbit hole looking at videos about like people
either trying to debunk tales of demonic possession and people
affirming it, and then I came across a YouTube video

(01:30:58):
from the channel virtual I believe it's me, man, where you.

Speaker 2 (01:31:02):
Get too far on a new topic.

Speaker 1 (01:31:06):
I think the demonic possession one is actually kind of important,
and I'll tell you why, because I've never seen and
as far as I know, there's never been a documented
case of an atheist being possessed by a demon or
a spiritual entity. Every person who's ever been demonically possessed
or spiritually possessed was a believer somehow in a religion

(01:31:28):
or in.

Speaker 2 (01:31:29):
These particular entities.

Speaker 1 (01:31:30):
Right, So it seems to suggest that these are psychological phenomenon.
And I think this is a really good example of
this type of thing is Jerusalem syndrome. It's this really
interesting syndrome where people are so overcome with religious conviction
upon making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem that they begin to
believe that they are manifesting as some sort of individual

(01:31:52):
from the Bible. The most common is Jesus. A lot
of people, about one hundred people a year are hospitalized
with Jerusalem syndrome, believe that they are the reincarnated Jesus
once they get into Jerusalem.

Speaker 2 (01:32:04):
But this never happens to atheists.

Speaker 1 (01:32:06):
It only happens to people that are participating in these religions.
So if I saw that there were cases of atheists,
people who grew up in Buddhist China that were found
themselves possessed by, you know, demons of the Christian variety,
then I'd be like, well, this is really interesting, but
we don't really see that.

Speaker 4 (01:32:27):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:32:27):
Likewise, right, Like, if I if I saw like a
report of like a like a Buddhist monk in like
the two hundreds who underwent a possession and said stuff
about Jesus, a person he's never heard of before, damn,
maybe that would be good evidence. Although maybe it wouldn't
because it would be from like two hundred. But you know,
if there was, like if there was like truly it

(01:32:48):
was like well documented, like damn, that would be good evidence.
There's nothing that's even in the same galaxy as that.
Though it's also true and not to pile on, sorry
to pile on, Mike.

Speaker 1 (01:32:58):
It's also true that people who experience episodes of psychosis
often have religiously themed psychosis. And I'm thinking of someone
just recently who unfortunately self unalived during a period of psychosis.
A friend of one of the husband of one of
my friends self unlived during an episode of psychosis.

Speaker 2 (01:33:21):
But every time he was off his meds.

Speaker 1 (01:33:23):
And began to experience his episodes of psychosis, they were
always religious in nature, and that is very commonly, That's
a very common thing to happen, and I think Ian
has mentioned it before. There's a really big correlation to
people with front temporal lobe abnormalities and people who have

(01:33:45):
religious incursions.

Speaker 5 (01:33:48):
Okay, well, you know that was one of the things.
I know, what thing you guys mentioned earlier about how
social experiences are usually very culture related. Like I said,
I came across this this other YouTube video with this
this uh gentleman from the On the Run vir show.
He was interviewing a Buddhist exercist, which is kind of
the first time I had heard of that, and like
a lot of things that he was saying sounded very

(01:34:09):
similar to the Catholic gentleman that I mentioned earlier with
respect to like proofs of a spiritual entity, a flicking
at pursa, something like that. And so I do understand
that as well. But I know one time when you
guys mentioned you never heard of an atheist who was possessed.
There was I forget his name, but there was a gentleman.

Speaker 1 (01:34:29):
Buddhists don't like believe in demonic possession like you like
maybe you think Buddhists generally like non theistic.

Speaker 5 (01:34:38):
Right, But I know when you mentioned that you'd never
heard of an atheist who was possessed, there was a
gentleman I forget his name, but he was doing a
web series I think or a TV show where he
was kind of going around the world kind of like
proving the ridiculousness of different religious claims or whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:34:56):
Like.

Speaker 5 (01:34:57):
He even went to like a football team I think
in Australia that believe the recurse by African shaman and
then he underwent like the ritual to undo the curse
and then the football team still lost anyway, or you know,
things like that. And then I think the last person
he went to was the you know, I suppose famous
semi famous exorcist Bob Larson. And then, uh, you know,
at least in the whole exorcism ritual that Bob Larson

(01:35:20):
was doing, the guy who's an atheist he started like
you know, like you know, rowling or whatever. It was
nothing particularly supernatural with respect to the presentation of it. Like,
you know, I suppose that could easily have been someone
having this sort of mental episode. But I don't know
that that was strange in that this guy who was
like a skeptic and he's kind of spent all this
time kind of trying to like debunk all these various

(01:35:42):
religious claims or whatever from various faiths, and then when
he comes across his exercist, all of a sudden, he's like,
you know, growling and rolling his eyes back and all
this sort of stuff. So I don't know. It's like,
sometimes I suppose what I'm getting a can trying to
tie this back to my original question, which is when
I see like all of these different either stories or
even videos of strange things happening that obviously CUS will

(01:36:05):
attribute to spirits or demons or God or angels or whatever.
That's kind of the thing where I'm wondering, am I
being you know, obtuse in just kind of like I don't.

Speaker 1 (01:36:17):
Know, like that, I don't think you're being up to
So I think you want to believe, like when these
people are reporting these things, you want to believe that
they're true, and you're likely to give them more weight
than what I would give them. But to me, they
sound more like psychological states. And this is one of
the reasons why psychology is such a tricky field because

(01:36:38):
duplicating psychological studies is notoriously difficult, Like a group can
do a study and then five years later someone can
do an identical study with the same parameters and get
different outcomes, because the psychology of the mind is such
a tricky thing to replicate. Right, But what we do
know is that, like people have experiences a lot, and

(01:36:59):
a lot of them are religions in nature, some not all.

Speaker 2 (01:37:02):
Of them, but many of them.

Speaker 1 (01:37:03):
Right, Even someone who may not participate in the religion
might have a religious psychological phenomenon. So the question I
would ask then, is what test can we do to
investigate this phenomenon to see if there's anything behind it,
Because if there's no way to test it and it's
not reproducible, and it's not only is it not reproducible,
but it's not even something that like has a common mechanism,

(01:37:25):
like we can't cause it to happen. If we're completely
unable to reproduce the results in like a controlled environment,
it sounds to me then like it's a psychological phenomenon.
I guess that's all I have to say about that, Okay,
we're kind of running up on our time limit. Unfortunately
we can't talk any longer, but I appreciate you coming up, Michael,

(01:37:46):
Thank you, Sures.

Speaker 2 (01:37:47):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:37:47):
I mean they're valid questions. I remember when I was deconstructing,
trying to figure out, you know, what do I do
with this paranormal phenomenon? Right, And it's hard to know
when you're when you're in a religion and you're trying
to figure out what's true and what's not true. You
try to hold on to everything you can, and sometimes
you're like, well, shit, these sound like they're legitimate. Kind

(01:38:09):
of hold on to these, and I think it really
the best answer is no, you shouldn't.

Speaker 2 (01:38:14):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:38:17):
We've got one more super chat from Jam and Jay.
Jam and j thank you so much for the super chat.
Gemen says, Mike, who decides these are unexplainable events or
these events are unexplainable, that's a really good question.

Speaker 2 (01:38:30):
We didn't really get to that, but I agree with you,
Jem and J.

Speaker 1 (01:38:33):
I think medical professionals would probably have a different opinion. Typically,
that's not to say that you can't find a medical
professional who thinks that they're supernatural. Obviously, you always find
some people, but I think overall, the medical community and
the consensus of the medical community is that they're not
supernatural phenomenon, and so I'm definitely willing to agree with

(01:38:54):
the medical professionals on this.

Speaker 2 (01:38:56):
Yeah, but with that, I think that concludes the show.

Speaker 1 (01:38:59):
We went, we went along today. We did a full
two hours. Thank you so much everyone who's been with us.
Thank you so much, Ian for joining me on the screen.

Speaker 2 (01:39:06):
Thanks so much for having me. This was a blast.

Speaker 1 (01:39:09):
Absolutely, And guys, make sure you're following in on TikTok
and on YouTube. Just google slash YouTube, slash TikTok. Allegedly Ian,
he's the only one. He's one of a kind. You'll
find him. And if you are, if you don't already
know my face, you can find me at Deconstruction Zone.
So thank you so much for being here everyone. It's
been a pleasure. We'll see you next week at four

(01:39:30):
thirty pm Central time or five thirty Eastern Centder time
on the Atheys Experience.

Speaker 2 (01:39:37):
Glad we start stop around. You watch Talking and Live
Sundays at one pm Central. Visit tiny dot c c

(01:39:59):
slash y A T t H and call into the show
at five one two nine nine one nine two four two,
or connect to the show online at tiny dot c
c slash call th

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Atheist Experience 29.18 with Justin and Allegedly-Ian ​2025-05-04

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

The Atheist Experience 29.18 with Justin and Allegedly-Ian 2025-05-04

Stuff You Should Know