The Atheist Experience 29.22 with Secular Rarity and Jmike

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, everybody, there is a new direct line of communication
to God. Yes, folks, that's right. There is a new
pope of the Catholic Church. And his name is Robert Prevost.
Now you may know him as Leo the fourteenth, but
to me, his name is Robert Prevost, mainly because I

(00:21):
just think it's kind of funny to have a pope
named Bob. That being said, I would like to highlight
a message he delivered back in twenty twenty three. He said,
our work is to enlarge the tent and let everyone
know they are welcome inside the church. I love it, Bobby.
So let's just take a quick look and see how

(00:42):
his holiness is doing. Let's see here, ah yes. In
the same year, he said, quote ordaining women doesn't necessarily
solve a problem. It might make a new problem. That's fascinating.
So a large tent, but one that specifically stops right

(01:02):
before women in leadership roles. I'm sure it's a mistake.
I'm sure it's just a mistake. So let's check it out.
Let's go back a little bit further here. Ah yes.
If we go back to twenty twelve, old Bobby Lyon
expressed concern that Western culture was promoting beliefs and practices
at odds with the gospel. Specifically, he referenced abortion and

(01:27):
quote the homosexual lifestyle and alternative families comprised of same
sex partners and their adopted children. Wow, Bob, wow. So
once again a large tent, but not one large enough
for LGBTQ people and their children. Now. To be fair,

(01:48):
he is in favor of helping migrants. He does believe
we should do more to protect the climate, and he
is in favor of vaccination. And those are all very
good things. And I know that already there are some
in the Christian nationalist camp here in this country that
have labeled this pope as woke or leftist or whatever

(02:08):
that I don't care. It doesn't matter to me. What
matters to me is this, Is he a humanist judging
by his stances on women's rights and LGBTQ rights. I
don't think so. And I don't think that any of
us who take the label humanist should celebrate this man.
If you disagree, call us, because the show is starting

(02:31):
right now. Hey, everybody, welcome, Welcome. Today is June first,
twenty twenty five, Happy freaking Pride month, you guys, I
am your host secular rity, and joining me today is
the always amazing J Mike. What's up? Brother?

Speaker 2 (02:51):
It makes me mad. I had my button ready and
I didn't grab it, and I now I'm going to
be fumbling around for it. But I have a little button.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
That's okay.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
We will even be able to see it with my hair.
You would, I can just lied. I guess that's also
not necessary as fishing conditions for humans, and my imagine
to live about something like that, well.

Speaker 1 (03:09):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, no.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
Pope, Pope Bob's territory.

Speaker 1 (03:13):
That's right, that's right. You don't you don't want to
be you don't want to be with Bobby. I really,
I I am. I've probably even already said this on here,
but I'm really looking forward to sausage being considered fine
during Lent for Catholics. I'm excited. They're not supposed to
be eating meat on Fridays during Lent, you know, like

(03:35):
they're supposed to stay away from that. But I'm hoping
the Pope comes out and it's just like, you know,
sausage is fine, you know sausages. He's from Chicago, right, yeah,
come on, I mean why not? I don't see. I
don't see what's wrong with it, but hey, let's make
sure to keep women and queer people out of the church. Right,
isn't that great? I mean, I look, here's here's why

(03:56):
I'm saying this, and I'm going to do the things
here in a second. I've got some things. I got
to go through. Gott to tell you some stuff, folks,
and we got some great calls. We're going to go
right into him here in just a minute.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
The opening is not enough.

Speaker 1 (04:06):
Yeah, here's my thing. Okay. I understand that Pope Frank
just died not long ago, Okay, And I'm not somebody
that likes to just say terrible things about dead people
left and right. But one of the things that pissed
me off the most about the time that he was
the Pope is that people were saying, left and right,

(04:29):
how much a supporter this man is of the LGBTQ community,
of women's rights in general, of human rights as a whole.
And I think that is disgusting. I do not believe
that we should be considering these individuals as as part
of the humanist camp. They're clearly not on so many levels. Sure, sure,

(04:52):
they have finally come around to understand the basics of science,
that's cool. But if you're still out there promoting hate
and violence towards LGBTQ people and their children and women,
and yeah, I just I'm not with it, man, I
just it is not freaking humanist. So if you think
I'm wrong, I mean again, you know what to do.

(05:13):
Call us, yell at us. Maybe you can provide a
good argument, but I'm gonna bet there's a fallacy involved.
But before we go grab any calls, let me tell
you that The Atheist 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

(05:34):
if you would like to support the show, there is
a very very easy way you can do that. You
can just send a super chat. It can be from
any amount. It could be like ninety nine cents I
think as low as or all the way up to
like thousands of dollars. If you give one thousand dollars
super chat today, despite what the crew says, I will
just take my clothes off live on air. I'm already

(05:57):
getting I'm already getting messages for that. They're not might
do that, they might I be.

Speaker 3 (06:02):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (06:02):
I feel like for a thousand bok they take the money,
be like, can I get my money back?

Speaker 4 (06:05):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (06:06):
That's true, that's true. You know what, if you send
one thousand dollars super chat, you can dictate what the
hell I do.

Speaker 2 (06:13):
That's yeah, Yeah, that is that too.

Speaker 1 (06:16):
Am I like pouring myself out too much? That's bad.
I should probably should probably raise that in.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
But we do.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
Already have super chests coming in, so I'm gonna mention them.
We've got one ninety nine from Jonathan France saying cubes
to you and also your spirit and cubes to you
as well. Jonathan, I appreciate you as always. And ten
dollars from Miranda Rensburger, been a member for one year,
saying Happy Pride Month. No one's existence is a sin.
If your God tells you otherwise, stop worshiping that God.

(06:44):
Hell yeah, Miranda, I fricking love that. There are other ways,
by the way, that you can support this great place
and it costs you nothing. Like the video, subscribe to
the channel, do the notification thing, and just comment below
like it takes like five seconds. Like you can just
say things like gosh, yes, are I wish you would
grow that beard out again? Or gosh, j Mike, shave
your beard. You know, if somebody sent somebody sent a

(07:07):
bunch of money, we'd consider that, Like if you sound
like a fifty dollars super chat, like we'll think about, yeah,
you know, going or shaving.

Speaker 2 (07:14):
Yeah, it'd be it'd be it'd be easy. I mean
it'd be easy for the incentive there. Now you mess
with the locks, Oh yeah, I have to feel out
a way to like sew it to the beanie. So
I just kind of pretend right right, like everywhere I
go I have either this or the black one on
like always anyway I could. It could people wouldn't notice

(07:34):
until you know, I go to the pool or something.

Speaker 5 (07:36):
Right.

Speaker 1 (07:37):
What about like what about like uh like like straightening
your hair or like braiding it real silly or something
in my hair.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
In high school?

Speaker 1 (07:44):
But yeah, talk, okay, okay, okay.

Speaker 2 (07:47):
That was that was always a metal core was a thing. Man,
it was a big thing. And I was I was
an emo kid. I guess I don't know. I was
like orderline metal emo kid.

Speaker 1 (07:57):
Yeah, what about what's what do they call of those
those liver these spikes you know where it's just like
your hair is just like straight up and down.

Speaker 2 (08:03):
That's cool. That's that's cool that I can do that.
That's really cool.

Speaker 1 (08:08):
All right, Well you know what to do, folks, if
if you if you want, uh, just send in sending
a super chat Jamike and I'll read it and maybe
we'll have some weird hair next time we are on.
But I'll tell you not that.

Speaker 2 (08:20):
There's anything wrong with straightening your hair. If you're.

Speaker 1 (08:24):
For it didn't look good for you.

Speaker 2 (08:26):
It's very forced. Look, yeah, very force.

Speaker 1 (08:29):
No, I get it, I get it. I've had braids
in my hair before, like pigtail braids, you know. And
again I just I could not pull it off. I
was not it was not attractive in my opinion. So
but hey, again, if you send money, uh, you could
make us do stuff like that. So I don't know,
think about it or just enjoy the show. I don't care.
We're gonna take a call, so we're gonna go out

(08:50):
to We're gonna go out to India. We are talking
with Surah Key. Him is an agnostic and wants to
talk about the existence of supernatural beings. Well, that's what
we're here for. What do you got for us today?

Speaker 6 (09:02):
I think religion will not exist without the power of
supernatural beings.

Speaker 1 (09:08):
Yeah, why why do you think supernatural beings exist? What
is the reasoning that you you use?

Speaker 6 (09:14):
Religion is existing?

Speaker 1 (09:15):
So because religion exists, you're saying supernatural beings exist.

Speaker 6 (09:19):
Yes, they're the force creator.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
Why why do you think that due to the existence
of religion alone that that gives us a positive an
indicative statement as to whether or not supernatural beings? Is
it just because the religion's posit that those things are real?

Speaker 2 (09:35):
And are we getting you right so far?

Speaker 6 (09:36):
Just to be sure, yes, without their power, I think
religion will not exist to so you're saying because women
are very intelligent?

Speaker 1 (09:46):
Uh huh. It just helped me if I'm if I'm
on the same page here, sir, And if you can
just get a little bit closer to your microphone for us,
it's a little a little muffled, but it sounds like
to me what you're saying is because we have all
these stories of these people talking about these supernatural things.
That is what led to the formation of religion. And
then because now that we have religion that is proof

(10:08):
positive that we do in fact have those supernatural things?
Am I am I following right? Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 3 (10:14):
Yes?

Speaker 6 (10:14):
Positive?

Speaker 1 (10:15):
Okay, I would say, and J Mike, please help me
out here. I would say that that is circular, man,
and that that is not a good way to come
to a conclusion. It kind of sounds like what you're
saying is because I have cake in my fridge, I'm
the coolest person in the world. I am the coolest
person in the world. Therefore, I've got cake in my fridge,
you know, I mean? Am I Am I thinking about

(10:36):
this wrong? J?

Speaker 7 (10:37):
Mike?

Speaker 1 (10:37):
Or is there is there something wrong here?

Speaker 2 (10:39):
I'm like really stuck on the Maybe I need clarification
because my brain's telling me like there's this couldn't be
your position, but it sounds like you're affirming that. So
are you saying that, Like if there were no religions,
there would not be any supernatural entities. I felt like
I heard you say something like that. You say that
I'm trying to see where these entailments are.

Speaker 6 (10:59):
I feel that the gods are jealousy of human beings.

Speaker 2 (11:03):
I'm sorry, I couldn't really hear that I feel.

Speaker 6 (11:05):
That gods are jealous of human beings.

Speaker 2 (11:08):
Why why should Like, I'm not really understanding why we
should think based on what you've said, that any supernatural
being exists. It just didn't sound like very good reasons
to believe that. Should we go over that first without
assuming that there are gods that are mad at other
people or whatever?

Speaker 6 (11:22):
No humans are actually they are. I feel that demons
are always intelligent to ask critical questions something unseen for.

Speaker 2 (11:32):
Some unseen force. Okay, I'm not I don't really don't.
Let's drop the humans stuff like the humans having religions
and all that stuff. I feel like this is just
muddying the waters unless it's really That's what I was asking,
because I don't know if it's like super crucial, I
can't believe that it would be. What independent reasons do
you think you have to think that a supernatural being
exists if they're just don't worry about the religions and

(11:53):
stuff like that? Is that? Do you do you think
you have another reason to think that that exists? Or
is it only because these religions exist? Like is kind
of short circuiting.

Speaker 6 (12:01):
The reason is that if humans follow all the logical
things then that will be like heaven. So I feel
that these supernatural forces are disrupting our intelligence and logical thinking.

Speaker 1 (12:15):
Surah, I don't want to be mean, I really don't,
but I do want to say this very directly. I
think you're using these words incorrectly, and I think what
you're doing is something that many of us do, especially
in this space, because a lot of this stuff is
a little bit squishy and wiggly. And what happens is

(12:36):
in that wiggle we start, we start to put these
other terms in there, and we go, yeah, there's a little.

Speaker 8 (12:44):
Bit of wiggle room with love, a little bit of
wig room with God. There's a little bit of wiggle
room with rationality, there's a little bit of wiggle room
with heaven. But the problem is the more that we
wiggle those terms, the more meaningless they become. And for
some of those terms, I find that when we really
box them in, we have a pretty damn good understanding

(13:05):
of what it.

Speaker 1 (13:06):
Is like love, for instance, or justice. I think those things,
while not tangible like this water bottle, they are concepts
that with a little bit of wiggle yeah, but too
much makes them difficult.

Speaker 7 (13:18):
Right.

Speaker 1 (13:18):
But when we do these things like heaven or God
or spiritual these types of things, the supernatural beings, I
don't feel like I don't feel like anybody has a
really good definition of what those are. So if you
could help me out, let's try to lock this in
as much as we possibly can and prevent that wiggle
and squish. Okay, when you say supernatural beings exist, what

(13:42):
do you mean by that? The three words supernatural beings exist?
What does that mean to you?

Speaker 2 (13:49):
Yeah, because that's where I'm at. I'm wondering how we're
using terms.

Speaker 6 (13:52):
Right, something beyond the human system.

Speaker 1 (13:55):
So if it's beyond human perception, if it's really beyond
human person, surah, is it capable for you to ever
understand what it is? Can you really ever have a
grasp of the characteristics of this entity?

Speaker 2 (14:10):
I don't. Yeah, I don't think I can perceive of
like the world's population. That doesn't make the world's population supernatural.
It's like beyond my ability to perceive it, right, Like.

Speaker 1 (14:19):
That's the other side of it. I think if we're
if we're actually taking the stance that there is that
we are fundamentally barred from comprehending a certain concept or
a certain entity or type of existence.

Speaker 7 (14:32):
Right.

Speaker 1 (14:32):
I genuinely think it is quite silly to then take
the next step and say, but here's all the shit
I know about it, right, because we've already said from
the beginning we cannot perceive it, right, we don't have
that ability. But the other side of that is exactly
what J. Mike said, which is when we actually think
about that statement and try to put it into practice

(14:53):
in the world around us, we come to find out
that there's quite a lot of things that we don't perceive.
I am, I'm willing to put ten dollars on it
right now that at least fifty percent of the people
watching this video, whenever the heck they are, do not
have a full comprehension of what goes on in their car.

(15:13):
They cannot perceive of the intricate design and engineering that
allows them to travel hundreds of miles on a day
to day basis. And yet there is nothing about vehicles
that are supernatural. So is there any way we can
we could just try to shore this up a little
bit for assure us, so that we can all understand

(15:35):
and beyond the same page what we're talking about.

Speaker 2 (15:37):
Yeah, So like to find what beyond our human perception
is so yes, because otherwise I'm going to give cases
where the proposition you're giving me is just clearly false
or there's not a substantive disagreement because the way you're
using language picks out things that I agree exist and
they might be beyond my perception. But if I'm a naturalist,
I think those things are natural things. So it just

(16:00):
seems like we're using language weird. It seems like there
would be an identical proposition we disagree with, like unless
beyond human perception means like otherworldly, not like I mean,
that's gonna get circular if you say non natural.

Speaker 6 (16:12):
I guess you can't find them, but they can't find them.

Speaker 2 (16:16):
Okay, Well, hey, right, Sarah.

Speaker 1 (16:19):
I appreciate you calling, and I think you and I
have spoken before, and I think you'll probably call again
in the future, but I genuinely hope that the next
time we talk we can actually have a conversation because
so far and J Mike, you tell me if I'm
just jumping the gun on this, and I'll defer to you,
but I genuinely feel like you and I have thought

(16:42):
about the things that Suah said and tried to synthesize
them into something and put them back out there to
progress the conversation. And I kind of feel like we're
just getting pabulum and bullshit lines from Surah. Is that
where you feel or.

Speaker 2 (16:56):
Yeah, I mean yeah, I just I'm trying to you know,
the failure can be on my part or maybe a
language issue here, but I'm leaving like I always want
to leave that open, but I don't know that i'd
be productive.

Speaker 1 (17:07):
Yeah. Yeah, So so I'm gonna let you go, but
I do hope you you call back in and I
hope next time that we can actually engage in in
some of these things a little bit further. So I'm
gonna drop you real quick, uh shamelessly, and we're gonna
we're gonna pick a new call. But yeah, look, I
and I I say this.

Speaker 2 (17:25):
Not just hey, good thing I'm kind of worried about
right now.

Speaker 1 (17:28):
Good come for us? Uh No, I look, this is
not just to the believers. This is to the non
believers too, right, Like, if you actually are intending to
engage in a conversation, then you need to engage in
the conversation, right. I understand that you may have that badass,

(17:48):
fucking one liner that'll just shut everyone. I get it, man,
guess what we've all got it. We've all got those.

Speaker 2 (17:55):
But those those, god, those don't exist. And I'm going
home now.

Speaker 1 (17:59):
Right, I mean right, drop that fucking mic. But the
goal should be, right, the goal should be for us
to actually engage in dialogue and not just attempt to
just pull out that fucking one line to stop the conversation. No,
keep the conversation going. But if we don't have people

(18:20):
coming back at us with the same energy, then that's okay.
We will go on to somebody else that does. But
let me read some things here first. Let me just
double check. I gotta scroll down. Ah, yes, I thought
we had one. We've got a dollar ninety nine coming
from Antoinette Baker. Thank you so much. Antoinette sen in
a super chat saying the magic Man in the sky

(18:41):
can't stop Pride Month, and that is so frickin' true.
I don't care what Bobby says.

Speaker 2 (18:47):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (18:48):
But I should also tell you that if you are
in the Austin area, you need to be following the
ACA on meetup so that you can keep up with
all of the community events. You can see what is
going on at tiny dot CC slash ac a meetup
Philosophy under the Stars game nights. There are weekly watch
parties at the Free Thought Library. You can get there

(19:08):
at noon and hang out and watch talk Heathen in
the Atheist Experience with a bunch of local heathens and
have yourself a blast. I've heard that sometimes there is food.
The last time I was there, they explicitly lied to
me and told me that there was pizza, and there
fucking wasn't. So I'm still a little bummed out about that,
and cry myself to sleep every so often. But anyway,

(19:30):
we are now going out and.

Speaker 2 (19:31):
Men are working out to like get something set up
for the philosophy on Wednesday, since I'm missed in Atlanta. Yeah,
and try to do like a zoom thing or whatever
whateverything we'll use or whatever. Wednesdays. There's live pinball league
that I was in phone Wednesdays every that shut down
because yeah, there's some weird lot of tax thing I
think that leaked into like arcade owners and oh my god,

(19:53):
very frustrating. Yeah, now my Wednesdays are a little bit
more open, so I'm hoping to do that, like, if
not every week, like every other week or.

Speaker 1 (20:00):
Something like that we can jump make that word so well,
if y'all I mean, if y'all are paying attention. That
sounded like if you go hang out with the A
C A uh in person, you might get to hang
out with J. Mike every so often while the talk philosophy.
That is not a bad way to spend your Wednesday.
But we are going to go out to Norway and

(20:21):
we are going to talk with Eric. He him and
wants to talk about criticizing faith. So that is, uh,
We're we're here for that man. You're chatting with Secularity
and J Mike. What you got for us? Eric?

Speaker 9 (20:32):
Oh yeah, hello, Yeah, it's just the Eastern hemisphere.

Speaker 10 (20:37):
It's a bit hard to get onto the show here.

Speaker 1 (20:40):
Finally, for sure, for sure, I've drink the down here.

Speaker 11 (20:44):
If I could read off what my thoughts around it, uh,
if I'm to read it to us, sure, So I
written I doubt whether it's fair to use the reason
as a way of to criticize people. He used faith
to just questions that neither neither reason nor faith can
actually answer, like life beyond death. I'm not questioning what

(21:05):
people believe, but rather the method they used to approach
big unanswerable questions? After all, who am I to tell
someone who relies on faith that if you go beyond
faith and use and use reason in situations where reason
itself can provide a definite answer, it either In fact,
when I use reason to justify reason, I'm not doing

(21:27):
this a similar thing to what people of faith to
I'm relying on my own chosen method without being able
to prove that that's the only valid way.

Speaker 1 (21:36):
So isn't it? So?

Speaker 5 (21:37):
Is it really really justifiable to use reason to critique
faith as a method when we both have their own
when we both have their own limits that neither can
fully answer.

Speaker 1 (21:47):
Yeah, I think I think this is this is this
is a great, great thought, Eric, I really appreciate you
bringing this. I know I definitely have some thoughts on it,
but I sorry, Krube, I was just going to kick
it over to Gamike. Jamike, do you have anything you
want to start off with?

Speaker 2 (22:04):
Cecul there's always so sweet. I do have a lot
of things. I mean, so like the one thing, there's
two things that stuck out. I'll try to be quick
because I want to be fair to both people here
in the audience, not waste everybody's time. So like I
think of things like the I would say this is
wrong with the Munchausen's trilemma, right, Like, either things are
gonna be a dog stop at the stopping point. It's
going to be like dogmatically asserted, it's going to be

(22:26):
reasoned in circularity, or it'll have some like infinite regression
of you know, like a kid asking why why why?
I'm just giving explanation, explanation, and so like two things
I think. I mean, well, one, I mean if we're
all in this same boat with that, I mean, then
there's at some point we kind of yeah, I mean,
I don't really buy into this. I need to know
that I know, which is called the KK principle and epistemology.

(22:48):
I don't like buy into that kind of stuff. Some
people might. I think that invokes an infinite regression and stuff.
So I think there are ways that you can look
at different theories and views, compare them out, and go, well,
the most epistemically humble view I can take is the
one that takes the most least amount of commitments and
gets the most explanation out of that. And I think
everybody is free to do that. And I think we
can actually point out when we do this process, which

(23:10):
view makes more commitments and less. So with that out
of the way, because I think there are ways to
come to certain positions without having to get stuck in
the mud, so to speak. The one thing I want
to say about the reason thing is that I'm using
a tool. And if somebody is saying that they can
build this infrastructure while me and secular are over here
building these houses, you know, with this tool that we use,

(23:32):
and we build neighborhoods with this tool, right, And I
look over at yours and you come over to me
and you're like, you know, there's this other tool that
you can use to build these houses in these cities.
And I'm like, oh, okay, great, well what is that tool?
But then the person can't like show me what it
is or take me to home depot and find what
isle it's in. When they come at me with that,
I'm just honestly inquiring on how they would get to

(23:54):
their position if they're not using this tool reason right.
But then it's also like they're standing on my buildings
and my infrastructure and like screaming from the top of
it like there's this other tool, but not showing so
it's not an issue of like saying you don't have
this other methodology. At the start of this conversation, I
gave one comparing theoretical virtues, right and doing more of
like this, because I don't think you can do much
with metaphysical beliefs and stuff, right. I think we're kind

(24:15):
of shit out of luck. So here's one method. It
might not work very well. But what I get on
the other side is not somebody doing what I'm trying
to do at the beginning of that, which is offering
me some way to figure out that whether or not
that proposition is likely to be true or likely not
to be true. If they just insist it's faith, it's
really to me they're just kicking rocks in their lot,
being like, there's another tool you guys can use, we
just don't want to use it. And I'm like, I've

(24:36):
asked you, all right the second let's keep building like
this guy's wasting our time.

Speaker 1 (24:39):
You know.

Speaker 2 (24:40):
That's the way that I see it, And I think
there are ways that you can offer this people in
philosophy of science or whatever do this, or outside of
philosophy do this, and yeah, So that's kind of where
I stand. It's just a point of inquiry and then
criticism when you don't have anything.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
Yeah, what do you think on that? Eric, I'll let
you shout back a little at us.

Speaker 5 (24:56):
Yeah, so I respect what you're saying.

Speaker 11 (25:00):
The only thing I don't know a lot. The only
thing I've read Kirkey.

Speaker 2 (25:03):
Guard and uh, I don't worry. I don't even worry
about philosophy stuff. I shouldn't even bring that into it.
I just yeah, I'm just as a way to give
a method, Yeah, as a way to offer up here's something,
and people might not be familiar with comparing theoretical virtues,
commitments and explanatory breadth and depth, kind of like a
souped up Oukham's razor.

Speaker 3 (25:21):
Right, But I think that I think the problem I
would say with you, or maybe not the problem with
your explanation. But whenever I think of what you're saying,
we're still if we imagine a bubble, we're still just
talking about a framework within the bubble. And the problem
with that is that it doesn't really have to do
with faith either.

Speaker 5 (25:41):
It's just how to build a world?

Speaker 3 (25:43):
Do you I don't think we I mean now.

Speaker 2 (25:46):
But look, hold, but do you not agree?

Speaker 1 (25:48):
Do you know.

Speaker 2 (25:48):
I started to interrupt you, But do you not agree
that it would be pointless to have conversations with somebody
if they don't play the same rules of the game
that you're playing, right, Because like, yeah, I agree at
some point, like like like, look, chess could be any way.
It could fucking want to be. We can make it
anyway with any rules. It could do this or that.
It could jump up in the sky and fart out fire.
I don't know, it could do. We can make up

(26:08):
stuff what we want, Like I mean, I guess chess
pieces can't do that. It's bad. Example, I could jump
up and fart and be like ah king me. Or
I can make up these rules. We come to agreed
upon rules in the game. We don't question, like like
I mean, it's good to go at this metal level
and question this stuff. But when I talk to people,
they generally buy into these rules of the game, and
I don't actually have to have this meta conversation with them.

(26:30):
I just have to follow them around for a day
and point out every time that they stick their foot
in their mouth right every time, because they're gonna invoke
these kind of principles, They're going to use induction they're
gonna use all the same stuff, and they can do
the philosophy game of like this, but how do you
know what reason kk principle? How do you know your reason?
You're using your reason to reason? They can do that,
but they don't do that in their life. They never

(26:51):
go and do that. And they say they know things,
and they say they believe things. And so there's some
game that we are playing, and I'm not interested in
playing a game with somebody that's gonna stand up far
in my face and say, king me, this is not
a very interesting game to me. So that's just where
I stay.

Speaker 1 (27:04):
And just to build off of that real quick, Eric,
because what J Mike was talking right there is exactly
where I was going to go. Is this idea you
had mentioned? You know, who am I to tell people
you know about their faith and the reasons they're using
and blah blah blah. Well, I think what you are
is an individual who has values, right, just the same

(27:25):
as J Mike and I have values. Now, Jmike and
I might might take the stance that those are entirely
subjective like that, you know, at the end of the day,
there's no real like outside of human cognition reason that
we should want to be consistent or anything, But this
seems to be something that we all give a crap about. Man, Like,

(27:46):
we want to know that the person that we talked
to yesterday is going to stand by their statements and actions, right,
and that tomorrow they're just not going to turn around
and be somebody completely different.

Speaker 5 (27:57):
Right.

Speaker 1 (27:58):
If that was how you in aged regularly in your life,
you would probably lose all of your friends and family
because that is not a reliable way for us to
get to conclusions, right. And So I think I think
you do have the ability hang on just a second.
I'll give you a second to talk, just a moment, Okay, Eric,

(28:18):
I think you do have the ability to tell other people, hey,
your method is incorrect based on their standards. That is
what I think is the most powerful thing what you're doing.
And what I try to do here is not to say, like, hey,
my just totally subjective, arbitrary way of living life and
coming to conclusions. No, what I'm saying is exactly what

(28:41):
J Mike was saying a second ago. If I follow
you around every day for the next week, I'm going
to find fourteen billion instances where you refuse that methodology
that you are now claiming is the solid justification for
your conclusion that I think we are all in a
boat to do.

Speaker 2 (29:01):
We are lady, something like someone you know lied to you.
You're not going to go up to them and do
the meta thing on like, but how what's the reason
of the reason, how do you know? And then do
the flo You're going to just inquire about the reasons
they think their friend lied to them and go, well,
I'm not going to talk to them. You won't do
the meta stuff on that. So that's why I just
don't think it's practical when people do that. It's not
how the world really works.

Speaker 1 (29:19):
Yeah, but we'll give you a second here to shout
back at us. Eric, we know you're talking a lot.
Go ahead.

Speaker 3 (29:23):
Yeah, no, No, I suppose I suppose the way I
praise the question.

Speaker 11 (29:29):
I suppose you guys are right. I think if I could.

Speaker 12 (29:32):
Slightly do the best, I think take your time, well,
if we, if we, if you, if you just recent
within this bubble, and that helps us, and I would
agree with.

Speaker 11 (29:45):
That, like you just you just said, I is there
any I think I have a vast interest in seeing
how far can we take this can we take it
outside the bubble and it's so.

Speaker 2 (29:57):
Where I mean, that's interesting, that's that's your passion to do.
That's an interesting philosophical projects. What you're going to do
is it like go read some epistemology and name the
epistemologist who's just stumbled on the like these solutions for
the problem of the criteria. And once you get into
like a lot of these issues, you're gonna go, wow,
I don't know anything, Like there's all these problems. I

(30:18):
just fail to think that this is the case. Like
I think what the problem is when you do this
kind of bubble thing is there's this like language game
that's being played at all times where you're mapping on
things that you're doing, and there's like, for my view
is like a you know, I guess you call it
a naturalist or I don't think there's any non natural things. Right,
once you understand things at the level of the brain
and what's going on, Like if I know what the

(30:40):
electric like, I'll probably all the kind of science nerds
are gonna get mad at me here for butchering this.
But if I know, like you know, these photons are
hitting this object and I have this the surface of
the object and the wavelength of the light or whatever.
If I understand that term or like redness, like this
desk is red and that apple is red, and I
use this thing like redness, it's very easy to be like, oh,

(31:02):
there's this thing and objects redness that shared between them.
And but once you actually understand what's going on in
the world, the mystery goes away. I don't need to
add this like extra thing onto it, right, the mystery
just kind of goes away. I think a similar thing
happens when we talk about like knowledge or truth, Like
I don't think there's this special thing like truth out
in the world. I think if we made a statement

(31:22):
like everything that SR says is true, if that was
a real world we live in, he just happens to
report all true facts all the time. If for some reason,
all of a sudden, we didn't have access to the
truth predicate, I couldn't use truth in this statement. I'd
have to go SR believes grass is green, and he
believes the sky is blue, and he believes this, and
he believes the Pope Bob, and he believes this, and
he believes that, and I'd never be able to quantify.

(31:43):
I'd never be able to say this one thing SR.
Everything that SR says is true. So we do things
with language that help paraphrase things that otherwise would take forever,
like the electromagnetic spectrum of light or whatever right now.
Similarly with knowledge, something like knowledge, it's crazy to me
when I when I look at all of these or
like real like you know, getting really deep behind these bubbles.

(32:05):
I have like two choices, Okay, we really don't know
anything and we're not like we're just totally screwed existential crisis.
Or I can do what I think what you should do.
Look out in the world and look at examples of
people claiming to have knowledge or beliefs or reason, and
when it's going to be very hard for me to believe,
like the grandma down the street who was like, yeah,
I know, I'm walking my dog. It's very hard that
when I go, what are the necessary sufficient conditions of knowledge?

(32:26):
And how do you how do you solve the problem
with the criteria? Lady when she doesn't like looks at
me like I'm crazy and goes on her day like
if she can't answer, that doesn't follow that she doesn't
have knowledge, right, right, it's this weird thing of trying
to map onto the territory, and our maps are real sloppy,
they're real shitty. We're not very good at it. And
so what I think is like these apparent epistemic problems
or these reason problems, they might be there, but I'm

(32:48):
not willing to like get on the ship until I
kind of look at the cases and then go, is
this the same thing that's going on with when I
use truth as the predicate to quantify over statements? Is
this the same thing I do when I say redness
quanta buy over. That's the kind I hope this is
making sense, But I think we play language games a
lot and they create like not real problems, right, they're

(33:08):
like illusory.

Speaker 1 (33:09):
Yeah, I agree. I think I think some of this
stuff really goes away quickly when we when we again
we stop allowing these words to wiggle as much as
we we let them sometimes. But Eric, give us, give
us a give us your thoughts, man, and uh and
we'll we'll probably wrap up here in a second. But yeah,
what do you think about all this? Yeah?

Speaker 11 (33:27):
No, I guess what you guys said.

Speaker 3 (33:30):
And maybe, like I think the huge outlawyer is that
I seem to have an interest in in this kind
of weird niche corner that I would like to explore more.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
But I I, yeah, don't let me take you away
from that because it is interesting. I just I just
have gone down that route, and I'm just like, I
feel like I'm wasting my time because it's just clear
to me that I know things or believe things, don't
have reasons for them.

Speaker 11 (33:53):
Right, what's the reise?

Speaker 3 (33:54):
And you're going down that rabbit hole because eventually, I
don't think.

Speaker 11 (33:57):
I don't think it's going to lead to anything but
wondering a U.

Speaker 2 (34:02):
Just real I'm sorry to interrupt you. Do you think
that there's anything over and above like someone giving you
the reasons why they believe? Because I think like this
knowledge stuff that it's all confused, Like when you ask
somebody how you know something, are you really doing anything
more than what is the reason why you believe it?
It's really all people are doing. You're right, Going further
than that just seems like what are we expecting, Like
what's over and above this that's supposed to be achieved?

(34:22):
That's what seems like people are chasing their tail and
doing this really weird move where I'm like in the dialectic.
I just want to know what reasons you have to believe,
and then I my mind is going to have assist
with that those are good reasons, and you are. We
are totally not the world on the outside. We're driving
the car. We're not looking at the car while we're
driving it from the outside, so you know what I mean.
So it's just kind of a weird thing. I feel

(34:44):
like we're expecting something that in principle just seems odd.

Speaker 10 (34:47):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (34:48):
Yeah, yeah, well, Eric, thank you so much, and go ahead.

Speaker 2 (34:51):
Yeah, sorry I cut him off.

Speaker 1 (34:52):
I'm no, no, no, it's okay, it's ok go go ahead. Eric.

Speaker 11 (34:55):
Do you have any do you have any recommendations of
what I could read regarding my interest?

Speaker 1 (35:00):
I don't know much.

Speaker 2 (35:00):
Well you can, yeah, I mean, like look into like
one thing if you want to just just fuck your
mind for a little bit, is if you've heard of
the problem of the criteria and then look at the
particularist and like methodist types of responses. There's someone that
I know named Troy's got a video out somewhere where
he kind of goes over his views on it. I
don't pretend to understand a lot of that stuff. But uh,
but yeah, I get, I get kind of my brain

(35:21):
goes wild after that. Maybe that's why I have the
view I have. It's easier for me to say that
I don't know, but I mean, this is genuinely what
I what I think.

Speaker 1 (35:28):
Yeah, so yeah, yeah, and uh and Eric, again, neither
of us, neither of us want to push you off
your path. We think you investigating this further and trying
to get maybe a new type of epistemology, maybe just
shore up some of the ones that are there. Whatever,
We're we're big fans of that idea. And so you know,
if if you do make any really cool progress and

(35:50):
you want to talk about it, come back, give us
a call. If you go through this venture over the
next few months and just find it all completely worthless,
call us back then too. I mean, I'm sure we'll
have a good discussion. So but we we are gonna
grab some other calls, Eric, So thank you so freaking
much for for giving us a call, man, and I
hope you call back. I appreciate that. I always love

(36:12):
I always love people that are interested in exploring these
concepts further. Yeah, man, because like it is very highly likely.

Speaker 8 (36:22):
I know. J.

Speaker 1 (36:22):
Mike was giving me very very great praise a second ago,
saying everything that I say is true. He is correct,
by the way, And I will just make the statement
that I do sometimes get things wrong. So I mean,
you know, I don't know. It's weird. What what kind
of weird paradox are we in now?

Speaker 2 (36:40):
We do have so miss the kind of weird mashup
of a lot of things there. Hopefully cood you can
plan a like percent and I don't know, email me.
It was all I'll explain it because I rushed through it.

Speaker 1 (36:52):
Yell at us in comments if you so choose. But
we have a couple of super chats I'm will read
and then we're gonna grab some more calls. We've got
five dollars from Isaiah s saying people are so silly.
Pride comes before summer, not before a fall. That's that's right,
that's good.

Speaker 11 (37:09):
I like that.

Speaker 1 (37:10):
That's funny. Uh, we've got in Glaba in Glaba, Yeah,
it's a good name, five pounds, saying The thumbnail showed
SR and J Mike hugging very romantically. I sincerely hope
you guys are a couple now. Love from an Italian
in Scotland.

Speaker 2 (37:28):
What they don't know is that when we were in
Austin together, we were living together briefly and we were
just we were like at each other all the time.
God believe you get on my Space. Right before that photo,
like Greg and Verne, they were like, you have to
pretend that you guys really like each other, and like
it was really hard. So they eventually just had to,
like I had to like hug a post and he

(37:49):
hugged a different posts and they.

Speaker 1 (37:51):
Yes, it was. It was green screen entirely. Yeah, this
this kind of back and forth that we have is
entirely work related. You know, the moment the cameras are
off and and and y'all are.

Speaker 2 (38:04):
No behind this. Just to pull back the curtain, people
will know like me and Seculer have a have a
great time. We're right out, so we'll go forward to
it again.

Speaker 1 (38:12):
Yeah, yeah, it'll be really it'll be really really good.
I know that it hasn't been announced just yet the
dates and uh, but you know the bat Cruise is
gonna be happening to be so yeah, we're gonna be
happy with them.

Speaker 2 (38:25):
I don't know, you can tell I've never been clubbing
to me.

Speaker 1 (38:29):
Yeah right, yeah, yeah, I just kind of stand there
with a drink in my hand. Doctor but whatever. Uh.
But yeah, you'all be paying attention because the moment that
gets announced, you're gonna want to grab your tickets because
they sell fast. Uh.

Speaker 2 (38:41):
We do have one more.

Speaker 1 (38:42):
Super chat and I'm gonna read that and we're gonna
grab this theis call, So Roger, hang on, we are
coming right to you. We got twenty dollars from that
God Fox. I like that name. All this talk about
the host today and that thumbnail and the sweaty prophet
stuff in chat. I am very aroused. That is what
our super chatter has said. That God fucks.

Speaker 2 (39:03):
I wonder if that's like a Silicon Valley reference. I mean,
I know it's probably in several different things, but that
was the first, and that was like, that's funny. Well,
I love it.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
I hope you guys are having fun in the chat. Look,
I am not going uh to yuck anybody's yum. And
if this is how you get your rocks off, uh,
then you you just you just keep rocking. I guess
we're gonna we're gonna take a call before the crew
yells at me even more. We're going out to New York.
We've got Rogen, no pronouns given, and we uh talking

(39:36):
with a theist wants to ask about the science based
reasoning for the lack of God's existence. We Hey, Rogen,
you're talking with SR and J Mike, are we? Are
we right? Is that is that kind of what you're
asking about today?

Speaker 13 (39:47):
Yeah, yes, that's exactly what I'm asking for having.

Speaker 1 (39:50):
Yeah, thanks, thanks for being here. I'll give my kind
of thoughts real quick, and then I'll kick it over
to J Mike and then we'll we'll give it back
to you so you can tell us how we're wrong
or whatever. But if somebody comes up to me and
asks this question, like, hey, s R, what's the science
based reasoning for the lack of God's existence? Honestly, the
first thing that I'm going to say is, well, there
may not be one. It kind of depends on what

(40:12):
the version of God you're talking about. So I think
that's a really important place for us to start. There
may be a logical reason, you know, as opposed to
a science based one, but it really all depends on
the version of God you're talking about. But yeah, let
me kick it over to j Mike, and we'll give
it right back to you. Rogen.

Speaker 2 (40:28):
Yeah, my views don't don't really. I mean, I'm taking
most people to say that that's not like a scientific project.
But I guess my view is just across the board.
I would just want to look at the kind of
commitments term usage, the predicates you need to describe the theory,
all this kind of extra stuff, and then compare that
with competing theories, and so I've just settled on it.

(40:52):
I mean, it's weird to say naturalism because defining stuff
like that it's really weird. But yeah, like a the
way that I've taken, like Christians to be using the
term separated from God and angels and stuff like that,
is this like cause of reality starting at T equal
zero in my view or something like that. I'm just
going to compare those views to that kind of a view,
and so I my I just have more of like

(41:14):
a positive argument, like depending on what we're talking about,
and be like, oh, okay, I think my view can
actually better explain that data, and you can just shave
off the God's part and so you're left with this view.
Hopefully that makes sense. I think it was a bad
way of explaining it.

Speaker 1 (41:26):
But yeah, I was following you got you got kind
of two different takes on that. Rogen What what do
you think? What are your thoughts?

Speaker 13 (41:32):
Well, So I do want to let you guys know
I do have an open mind like I am, but
I do have an open mind. So I don't want
you to think I'm just going to definite thinking your
eys are saying.

Speaker 14 (41:41):
I think you defined it very well that we do
need to identify what we consider God. And I'm Christian,
but I do recognize a lot of the Christian things
are not approvable. So I'm going to act like oh
Jesus birth day was on the story twenty different and
anything like that.

Speaker 13 (41:57):
That's just unrealistic.

Speaker 9 (41:58):
But so my personal reason for why I believe.

Speaker 13 (42:04):
That theism is just by science. Also, I don't know,
I know you guys said there true to Thanks for
you guys.

Speaker 14 (42:12):
I kind of use logically and scientifically interchangeably.

Speaker 1 (42:15):
So that may be okay, real quick, real quick, Roger,
I don't I don't want to interrupt too much. I
want to I want to hear what you're saying because
I think you're about to go into something really good
that we can we can really hash out. I appreciate
that clarification about how you use logic and science kind
of interchangeably. I do think it is worthwhile for us
to keep those concepts separate and not allow for that

(42:39):
wiggle because I think J. Mike and I when we're
talking about logic, right when we when we're using that
terminology in these conversations, we we really are talking about
like formal logic. We really are talking about like syllogisms
and stuff, and like obviously science utilizes you know, logical

(43:01):
formations and stuff. But when we go when we go
into the realm of science exclusively, we're talking about that
whole thing about like making an observation, getting the hypotheses,
and like testing the data, you know, peer reviewed, you know,
double blind studies, all of that, test tubes and beakers.
That being said, thank you for the clarification, Rogen because

(43:22):
now when Yeah, novel predictions absolutely that.

Speaker 2 (43:26):
When he says the scientific thing, God, I'm just like, well,
if it's a scientific enterprise, then I'd be curious on
what the novel, what's the expectations, Like, what's the novel
predictions based on God? I don't think you can do
that unless you start like inserting a whole bunch of
desires and beliefs and characterizations, and then it becomes very like,
not very impressive. Why the money stealing fairy best explains

(43:47):
why my money is missing? Because we've put these desires
to steal money in nice being, you know what I mean,
it starts to become a little less interesting. So I
don't know if you want to take it or if
he wants to respond, but I'll plant my flag is
I'd be curious if you if you have novel predictions
on the view, if it's some type of scientific enterprise,
because I think that's what's supposed to be expected. But
I don't know, and I think that's what you're saying, and.

Speaker 1 (44:06):
I think that was kind of where you were. You
were about to go Rogin. So I'm gonna let you
go what, Yeah, what what are those kind of those
reasonings that that you're using and if if you're using
that science, yeah, what what are those What are those
brand new predictions you're you're looking for? Right?

Speaker 13 (44:22):
So I'll try to make a more pure delineation. It's
just in my head, it's just all the same thing.

Speaker 2 (44:28):
But I'll try to get sure.

Speaker 14 (44:29):
So the specific there's two specific scientific laws that I'm
thinking about, and one of them is conservation of math
and the other one is a spontaneous generation. So I'll
go into those very briefly because of spon right, So okay,
on Firs. Spontanish generation is basically it's basically the idea

(44:51):
that nothing could come from any nothing. That I'm sorry
that something cannot come from nothing, so you have to
produce something.

Speaker 2 (44:58):
So that's just fin Yeah, but yeah, but that that
is like that's kind of like talking about the nothing
from something thing is such a waste of time. And
here's why. Like, if I just believe that the universe
was infinite to the past, don't have that problem. If
I think that the universe began to exist at tea
equals zero. But it's necessary that that T equal zero.
Like what I mean by necessary necessary here is that

(45:20):
all of the ways that the world could have been,
it starts this way with T equal zero. Right, It
starts with natural causal reality at T zero. Okay. Now,
in that view, there isn't anything prior because all worlds
that could have started start that way, and there isn't
a prior moment that is the beginning to say it's
prior would just be like nonsensical, right, because that's the beginning.

(45:43):
So there's a view that has like okay, here's a
way to say it, like it doesn't come from anything, right,
there's not a state of nothing. The same way if
I said, like, there's no one at my door, I'm
not saying there is a no one at my door.
I'm saying that there isn't any person that satisfies the
conditions such that there is a person at my door.
And the same thing, I'm saying, there isn't a state

(46:04):
of which that satisfies the conditions that the initial state exists.
The initial state exists necessarily, and that's going to be
a very non objectionable move when I'm talking to theists,
because they do the same thing. They place the same
necessity chip on their god. Right, So I'm just trying
to parody the view. I'm trying to parody the view
and show that my view is going to make way

(46:26):
less commitments and it's going to explain the data at
least equally as well, but if not better. That's that's
kind of my whole mo.

Speaker 1 (46:32):
Yeah, what do you think?

Speaker 13 (46:33):
So I think it cannot be dismissed, and the reason.

Speaker 2 (46:37):
Stata, what do you mean it can't it can't not
be dismissed. Hold on, I'm offering you a view that
there isn't a state of nothing. So if you have
worries about that and that goes into your argument, I've
just gave you an undercutting defeater for that argument. There's
a position that holds the proposition gods do not exist. Right,
that's the view I'm holding, some type of metaphysical naturalism.

(46:57):
And then you are pointing out this thing, but I'm
giving an undercutter feeding the feeder for that. That's not
a view that's entailed by atheism. I just gave a
view two views that don't entail something coming from nothing.
So this would be like me talking about a pepsi
right now. It's a waste of time. Right, there's nothing
to do with anything. And before we go on, I
want you to acknowledge that point, because I'm I will
refuse to move on to any other point till we
until we acknowledge this point.

Speaker 14 (47:18):
Right, No, I see the point.

Speaker 13 (47:19):
I just don't so the point that you illustrated.

Speaker 2 (47:22):
Can you repeat back my point as best as you can,
because I just want to make sure we understand each other.

Speaker 14 (47:30):
So you illustrated a world of de Braserve where the
beginning is just the say of the world just being
so there needed to be nothing that had it.

Speaker 13 (47:38):
So I do see what you're saying. Did I get
that right?

Speaker 2 (47:42):
That's true? That is right, it's good, it's accurate. It's
just that I have this qualifier that So, like, let
me ask you, do you think that God could have
not existed, like it was possible for God to fail
to exist at the beginning or eternally right, it could
have been a world without God? Or do you think
it's necessary that God must exist? Just so? Just so
I can get a slight understanding on your view before I.

Speaker 13 (48:01):
Go back to mind, So I would say God must exist.

Speaker 2 (48:04):
Great, that's necessity.

Speaker 7 (48:05):
Great.

Speaker 2 (48:05):
Yeah, So notice how in all possible worlds the world
starts out with God and then he either decides the
creator does it. There isn't a state of nothing prior
to God, right, I mean, well, in yours you have
this initial item maybe he's eternal or something like that,
and that's fine, but then you have an infinite regression.
So there's not gonna be an issue with an infinite
regression on the other view that I offered. But notice
how in both those views, God exists no matter what.

(48:27):
The initial state exists no matter what. So if you
turn around and ask you, but did it come from nothing?
You're asking me for a what, And I'm going you
either an understanding or you're pulling my leg. So I
want to are we clear that this whole something from
nothing thing is like a red herring, has nothing to
do with like showing that you like atheism isn't true
or that God exists, because it's just both of our

(48:48):
views don't have this, so there's no point of talking
about it.

Speaker 13 (48:51):
Right, So I definitely fully disagree, and I'll tell you why.

Speaker 2 (48:55):
Okay, Okay, this is a very very very hard burden
for you to meet.

Speaker 13 (49:00):
I'm just talk ton't of course.

Speaker 2 (49:02):
Yeah, sorry, I'm getting excited because I can't believe somebody
would take this.

Speaker 7 (49:06):
No.

Speaker 14 (49:07):
No, I love to have this conversation because I've honestly
been looking for a scientific justification.

Speaker 13 (49:11):
I couldn't find it. So I'm very glad I ran
you guys.

Speaker 1 (49:13):
Yeah, go for it.

Speaker 2 (49:14):
I'm not providing signs of justification. I'm just trying to
undercut your what your initial reasons are. They're just trying
to show that they're they're they're kind of like talking
about a pepsi. It just they don't just has nothing
to do with anything you.

Speaker 1 (49:24):
You said Rogin that you disagreed with with what J.
Mike was just laying out. I would say, in large part,
Jmike and I are on the same page here. So
so yeah, what what is that? What is that pushback?

Speaker 2 (49:37):
Like?

Speaker 1 (49:38):
Why why is everything that JA Mike just said not
not actually getting at the importance of of what you're
talking about or whatever? So yeah, give us that.

Speaker 14 (49:47):
So again, like the idea of Fontanish generation, it basically
says that the natural university it is could not have
made itself. So the idea that he was saying where
the universe has existed, it doesn't makes sense of in
the confines of what's capable and the natural universe to waited.

Speaker 13 (50:04):
So so what I'm saying that God is is a
force outside.

Speaker 14 (50:09):
Of the laws of the natural universe. I don't know
what's before him. I didn't know it's after him, But I'm.

Speaker 13 (50:13):
Just saying what he is is whatever could set the
universe in.

Speaker 1 (50:16):
Motion or differ. Okay, So so let me let me
point out something that you said right at the beginning,
and I hope this is clear and and as clear.

Speaker 2 (50:26):
As my face.

Speaker 1 (50:27):
Yeah, yeah, right, yeah, I know, I know you're like
you're like disappearing right in front of us. But so
one of the things that you said right at the beginning,
rogen was you said that the universe couldn't have like
made itself from itself.

Speaker 11 (50:44):
Right?

Speaker 1 (50:45):
Do you do you understand why that falls foul of
the same thing J. Mike was just presenting a second ago,
because what you're doing in that scenario is already accepting
that there was a state of existence before time equals zero.
That's what J. Mike was saying. So the idea that

(51:06):
the universe came out of itself, or the universe made
itself or anything like that, that's not entailed in our
views here. That is not something that we have to
contend with, right and honestly, in your view, you don't either.
This is not something that anybody in the conversation actually
has to account for. Does that make sense? So I

(51:28):
see what you're.

Speaker 13 (51:29):
Saying, that I'm talking about something complete. That's what you
get to think.

Speaker 2 (51:32):
I do think maybe so, so maybe you go ahead,
But if you're if I can just real quick, were
you not? Like when you started, you had talked about
this something coming from nothing thing, and I stopped you
immediately because I was like, this is like talking about
a cat walking down the street. We don't need to
talk about it, because like if I have a view
where it doesn't like this, you know, atheism doesn't entail

(51:54):
something coming from nothing, and I can give you this
this view, there's no God. The initial state of the
universe starts at to equal zero, Right, that's the beginning
of all causal reality. Right, Maybe it's just a quantum
wave function and T two is when the universe starts.
I don't know, right, there's a lot of different ways
you can do this. Or I have something in non
metric time, right, like a listena has this view about
anecessary quantum wave function. I don't pretend to understand that view,

(52:16):
so I'm not going to try. Or I could have
an infinite regression. But either one of those views don't
have You could be an atheist. You could say there
was a state of nothing and something came from I
don't know what somebody's even saying when they say that, Yeah,
but do you understand that, like, am I getting you right?
That this is an important part of your argument?

Speaker 10 (52:33):
Yeah, it definitely is.

Speaker 14 (52:34):
So in terms of your argument, I'm not I don't
think it's scientifically viable.

Speaker 2 (52:39):
That that's what I'm saying because yeah, but so h yeah,
but nobody, nobody holds that view. I mean, do you
believe me when I'm an atheist and say I don't
think something came from nothing? Do you believe me when
I say that? Do you think it's yeah? Yeah, Okay.
Now the separate question is whether I know it or not.
Maybe there's this entailment from atheism to something coming from nothing?

(52:59):
Do you hold that view? Because maybe I don't believe it,
but maybe it's an unnoticed entailment you're wondering if you
can realize. Because that's your burden. Your burden is to
show that the propositions that are like the propositional attitude
that someone takes that I don't believe in God or
my position gods do not exist, that they're somehow from
either one of those entails. That you believe something came

(53:20):
from nothing? Is that your view, because that's false if
you do true.

Speaker 14 (53:23):
Not necessarily I don't pigeonhole anyone into any particular category,
whether to heartheist, or and.

Speaker 2 (53:29):
This point in principle cannot be important. If you answer
it that way, then imprinciple, this point cannot be important
because you've conceded there's no logical derivation you can make
from those propositions to the existence of or saying that
something had to come from nothing. So thus it's not
an important point because I'm somebody that's not going to
have that view. You don't have to contest against that view, right.

Speaker 1 (53:50):
There may be be that you have. There may be
some believers or non believers out there. In fact, I'd
be willing to say there definitely are that would take
that view, that that something can come from nothing or
that something did come from nothing, But it is not
necessary for an argument from a non deist perspective, and

(54:11):
it definitely isn't a part of the arguments that Jamike
and I are talking.

Speaker 2 (54:16):
It's like if I said, all theists must believe that
that God like committed dacide in the act of creation
and no longer exists. So the proposition you know, God
created us is true, but the atheist a right God
doesn't exist because he no longer exists someone to be like, Yeah,
but I don't hold this view that God like like
committed dasides. So if you're mounting some argument against that,
like you're leaving me out. You still have all of

(54:37):
your work left ahead. And that's what I'm trying to
explain to you. Like, even if you successfully showed this
thing that something can't come from nothing, I'm going, hey, buddy,
I'm still here. You still have to talk to me
about this and all the other atheists that don't.

Speaker 1 (54:47):
Agree with that.

Speaker 2 (54:48):
Right, it just doesn't. It won't do any work for you.
It only do work on this very small level of
people who like aren't thinking very much. Right, those are
easy targets, right, So.

Speaker 14 (54:57):
I see what you're saying that my point is moot
because it doesn't affect you guys. But the reality is
that I have to make a consistent argument. So I
can't just say the parts that because if you cut
up any argument then you could find cracks in the
Armis I need to make a full in collect argument.

Speaker 2 (55:12):
No, If I have an argument with premises in it
and someone goes that premise is redundant, or you have
a premise about cats, being cute and has nothing to
do with this argument. I can cut out that premise
and just make sure that the form of the argument
is formally valid, and then it'll preserve the truth of
the conclusion.

Speaker 1 (55:29):
Yeah, I don't think you're I don't think you're being
inconsistent by not discussing this and providing an argument for it,
because in all reality, it just doesn't sound like it
is part of your argument, and at the very least,
it definitely isn't what we're discussing.

Speaker 2 (55:43):
We would be like adding pepsis to your argument now,
and then when I called up pepcis have nothing to
do with it, you'd be like, yeah, but I can't.
All of it will crumble down with me.

Speaker 1 (55:50):
Maybe, but I really.

Speaker 2 (55:52):
Suspect that's not going to be the case, because I
don't think this thing links to anything else. I think
it's a giant red herring.

Speaker 1 (55:57):
Yeah, now, we could we could push back a little
and argue that actually the concept of ex nihillo creation,
spontaneous creation, whatever, something from nothing, that that is something
that is entailed in the Abrahamic view of God. Right,
we could make that argument from our side, But to

(56:17):
be honest, like, I don't even think J Mike and
I would go down that right. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (56:22):
I thought about it because I was like, in my head,
I was like, if he's Christian, he's going to have
some view. It's not like God has this celestial Plato
that's internally been existing always next to him. He's got
to create it from nothing, like there's not a thing
that he uses to create it, but from no thing.

Speaker 1 (56:35):
But at the end of the day, right exactly, And
at the end of the day, it just sounds like,
at the very least all of us, you know, this
just isn't something that actually moves the needle really big
either way for us. You know what, I would love though,
rogen because we do we do still have a little
bit more time. We've got a couple of other great calls,
and we are going to get to him in a bit.
But I'd love if we could just a few minutes

(56:58):
just kind of hashing out. It sounds like you have
some maybe scientific based or or logical, you know, reasons
that that you accept the existence of the Christian God,
and I'd love if we could just kind of toss
those around for a few minutes and see if maybe
we make any progress. So, if you have anything. You know,
hey man, this is my reason. You know they did
this study or here's a logical argument. We we'd love

(57:20):
to tackle that real quick.

Speaker 14 (57:21):
Well, I will say I am a Christian, but I
also did say I'm not trying to just fight a
Christian God.

Speaker 1 (57:26):
I'm just trying to say God find sure.

Speaker 11 (57:29):
But that.

Speaker 2 (57:32):
Propositions it does.

Speaker 1 (57:33):
So here's here's my problem when when people do that. Okay,
and we can go that route if you really want to,
after I explain this rogen my problem is that in
both scenarios, you have characteristics and criteria of this of
this concept or entity that you're trying to describe. And
in this scenario you're giving us essentially this really really

(57:58):
hardcore specific thing. And then you're giving us this like
really wishy washy vague thing. And when we push back
on the real hardcore specifics, you retreat back to the
wishy washy vague that is known as a modern Bailey.
And I think when we actually believe something and hold
something to be if I told you I was gonna

(58:19):
make an argument for Bigfoot, I believe in Bigfoot's existence
in the United States Eastern Northern Woodlands, Okay, and then
you go all right, s R. Make an argument for Bigfoot,
and I go, who, hang on, hang on, I'm not
making an argument for Bigfoot specifically. I'm just making an
argument for you know, different hominoids that are outside of

(58:42):
our current understanding of you'd kind of feel a little
you'd kind of feel like you were you were doing.

Speaker 2 (58:50):
Just like some phenotypic Okay. It is one of those
things where like I want to be charitable to this
kind of view, and I'm want to let you speak.
I'm sorry I'm being so rude about this. There is
a problem I have when I talk to people about
this that I feel like I'm in the waiting room
to the next waiting room, to the next waiting room,
and I never see the doctor because we focus on
this like tiny vanilla, austere version of God in the

(59:12):
corner of the room. But like when I'm doing my view,
like I mean, this isn't about me, It's just something
in my head that goes off as like I'm trying
to compare the views, and it's best to put as
much of the view on the on the table to
know if I'm not being like doing this too early,
like you know and just going oh, Okay, my view
is simpler. But it's like, wait, I haven't talked about

(59:33):
the incarnation and the trinity and maybe all this stuff,
mister natural's you need this to explain the data, Like
I haven't heard about it yet, So I feel like
you're it's just you do yourself a disservice. No, I know.
I'm just like, we'll go on the as I'm doing
something I probably shouldn't, so fairness to you, I'm just
I'm kind of I'm just agreeing with with secular here
that I think focusing on this, Yeah, that focusing on

(59:54):
this kind of vanilla, austere version of God is kind
of dishonest to yourself because it's not the God you
think exists and strips itself away from certain properties and
gives it no set of like desires that you think
it has. And it's very hard to even know it's
even being expressed when you dump, like not dumb it down,
but make it this very vanilla thing. It's just it's
really hard to know it's being expressed. So it also

(01:00:14):
is not it's also like not gonna be a favorable view,
but yeah, we can just you can just go ahead
with you scientific evidence.

Speaker 7 (01:00:19):
We'll give you.

Speaker 2 (01:00:20):
We'll usually talk about the things you really believe it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:23):
I agree, I agree, I would love that too. But Rogen,
here's what we're gonna do. Because I know we've been
talking a lot, man, and there's a little bit of
a delay on these things, and so you know, sometimes
it it can be hard to get your thoughts out.
We're gonna give you sixty seconds from the time that
I finally shut up. I'm gonna say, go Rogen, and
then the sixty second clock will go up, and Jamike
and I will be quiet that whole time. But the

(01:00:45):
moment that sixty seconds is up, we are gonna We're
gonna come in and we'll we'll we'll respond and stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:00:50):
And I'm gonna work on a version of naturalism where
I don't talk about any of the stuff that I
do that later on for some reason.

Speaker 1 (01:00:56):
Yeah. So so we we're gonna give you that time
so you can lay out a case for us. If
it's science based, if it's logic based, whatever you like. Rogen,
but we we are going to give you that uninterrupted
sixty seconds. Okay, so you can go now, Rogen, So
I'm just.

Speaker 13 (01:01:10):
Gonna summery is really quickly. The scientific reason where I
believe God exists is.

Speaker 14 (01:01:14):
Because the world cannot have been created from nothing or
from something of itself according to the natural rules of
the of the universe, and of physics and of Cameracan biology.

Speaker 13 (01:01:23):
So whatever made the world to be starting or the
first mover that has got that?

Speaker 11 (01:01:27):
That was an argument, And just to.

Speaker 14 (01:01:29):
Quickly address everything you're saying the logistics. I would love
to call back and talk about why I would like
to just find a Christian God, but I have to
respectful if everyone's time and everyone's opinions, that's fine talk
about Yeah. So I mean, I'd love to call back
and talk about that, but you know, I'm just trying
to be respectful to the logistics of your.

Speaker 13 (01:01:47):
Showing of the other college. So yeah, I'll come back
and I'll definitely talk about that. But you know, I'm
not trying sure to just act like, oh, I'm not
going to talk about that.

Speaker 1 (01:01:55):
But sure, sure, you're at you're, you're, you're you're at
the last few seconds there, so we'll just we'll just
go ahead and jump in. But yeah, no, no, I
just want to say that I think I don't think
there is a scientific study that has currently been done
that gives us the ability to actually determine whether or

(01:02:20):
not the universe could create itself, whether or not nothing
really is a thing, whether there is something outside of
the laws of physics or reality or anything. I don't
think there is anything scientific currently that has been positive
or actually run that that could give us that solid justification.

(01:02:43):
Scientific studies don't give us one hundred percent absolute definitive proof, right,
But what they do is they point us very fucking
hard one direction or the other. Right, That's what a
good That's what a good study does, That's what a
good hypothesis. But I truly am unaware of anything whatsoever

(01:03:04):
in that realm that that gets us to the conclusion
that you just mentioned. What I can say is, and
I know you told us this earlier, that you interchange
logic and science and no worries there. That's why I'm
That's why I'm moving into this with you. Rogen. I
do think there are logical arguments that could be presented
that that could potentially get us there, But I gotta

(01:03:24):
be honest, I really feel like J. Mike and I
dealt with those pretty well right off the rip. If
if we just take the move in the logical argument
that we do not accept that nothing is a possibility,
then the argument is done, right, it has nowhere else
to go.

Speaker 2 (01:03:43):
We could then go to say that I follow it,
because it could equally just follow that the initial state
of the universe explains why something doesn't come from nothing
because exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:03:52):
Exactly, and so so if we took that stance, then hey, man,
no worries. This is great. This is a great cause
conversation to have, right, But truly, it kind of sounds
like this just isn't something that that really does matter
one way or the other for for us and our arguments.
J Mike, you want to wrap up.

Speaker 2 (01:04:15):
I want to quick and I actually want to be
charitable like to something you said, because maybe I missed
the part with the scientific and logic thing. I wasn't
tracking as much there because the first thing I wanted
to say before he said that was that this isn't
a scientific argument argument.

Speaker 1 (01:04:27):
Yeah, he said, he uses logic and science interchangeably.

Speaker 2 (01:04:30):
So yeah, what we would be doing is you would
have to be like, I mean, there's like it's money,
because you could be saying like, look, I'm using things
that like in the sciences and I'm forming this deductive argument.
There's a lot of ways that this you can mean
by saying it's a scientific argument, or you can mean
it in a way that I am thinking someone might
do where they're like, oh, I can make these novel
predictions and we can like find God in the universe. Now,

(01:04:52):
like probably different camps of people people are like, you
can't do that, but I can use you know, science
to show it's more likely that a god's responsible for
this or something like. They can try to do that, right,
They're gonna end up being like philosophical arguments on like
fine tuning or in your case, something you know what
explains why there's something rather than nothing. But that is
explained on three views that we've offered theism. It's explained

(01:05:14):
on the view that the beginning of the universe is
necessary or even brutally contingent. I guess in some worlds
maybe there is just nothing, right, I don't know, but
or there's this infinite regression of previous states, right, And
on either of those views, you don't get. It just
doesn't follow. Like if you're like one, there's a it
seems like it's question Meggan, because there's someone that made

(01:05:35):
this and that assumes the falsity of someone like my view,
because I don't think there's someone that made this now
that language might just be like how did this come
about or something like that. But this argument is not
going to it's not going to get you there. I'd
look into into, like other arguments that the theist philosophers
have proposed to kind of see where this one stacks
up against them. I don't think I've never heard of
really a good argument. They might exist, but I wouldn't

(01:05:57):
put this in the camp of a good argument. In fact,
with no offense, I would say this is a bad
argument because it doesn't do what it purports to do.
And I think if I tried to like form this
in it would just be like formally invalid or just
one of the other the conditional statements is going to
be dubious.

Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
Yeah, yeah, and I'm with that too. Rogen. I am sorry,
but we are gonna just drop you like a hot rock.
But that's only because we we've been talking for about
thirty minutes and we got other callers. But dude, right right,
this was really really good and we really appreciate you,
so please give us a call back in and hang
out with us. In the future and let's yeah, let's

(01:06:32):
hash it out. Let's get to the Christian God and
figure out whether or not that that is true, whether
it's logic or scientific. We we love the conversation, so
thank you so much, Rogen, We really really appreciate it.
This person has been waiting on the line for a while,
so I am going to try to get them in
real quick. We are going to Mexico. Rosta man he
him has a question for j Mike about metaphysics and ontology.

(01:06:54):
So this is for you, J Mike. I want to
try to get this in before you got a bounce. Hey, Rosta,
you are talking with s Are and Jamike.

Speaker 2 (01:07:00):
Can't promise I'll have much here.

Speaker 9 (01:07:03):
Got the best here on the internet with these two hosts.

Speaker 2 (01:07:05):
I'm telling you that, thank you. Yeah, metaphysically the best
whatever that means. I'm just don't trying to understand what
metaphysically this really means, as it's used by so many
different ways.

Speaker 9 (01:07:16):
I'll keep only have eighteen minutes, and let's get to
the two c s calls.

Speaker 2 (01:07:21):
Yeah, no, take it, take your time. We got Scott
to come in and s some calls or over the
secular can go so yeah, nowhere is take it, take
your time if you that's all right.

Speaker 9 (01:07:28):
I'm equally confused. Let me give a quick background and dream.
I talked to you briefly once on after show on
Discord kind of picture brain and brain a little bit.

Speaker 2 (01:07:38):
But okay, I'm a.

Speaker 9 (01:07:39):
Software developer and electrical engineer also and also in college,
you know, I had courses in logic or a course
lock you.

Speaker 2 (01:07:46):
Can't, you can't, you can't know the hardware, and then
say also, I can't put myself in that camp with you.
I can't even get my webcam to turn on.

Speaker 9 (01:07:54):
Yeah, from CS and double A training, you know, I
know a lot about truth.

Speaker 2 (01:07:59):
Table log Oh awesome, that's great.

Speaker 9 (01:08:01):
All for domain. But I can thank the Precepts for
the last year if I can thank them for anything
to kind of pick my interest in philosophy, which I
never really had as a you know that brain engineer,
and so I've developed that and J Mike and also
s R and you other guys that everybody does atheist
shows are you know, from precept falls and it's all

(01:08:24):
you know, you're going to have to deal with logic
and philosophy on a certain level.

Speaker 2 (01:08:29):
So it's funny how they don't. They don't really know
it though. They're like the worst at philosophy, So that's
they're like literally like across the more the worst.

Speaker 9 (01:08:39):
So as I was learning a little bit more about it,
and intuitively, you know, I thought, well, ontology. As I
learned more about ontology, none of us have a direct
access to ontology, you know, I was looking in the
SEP after that, I was kind of surprised. But wait,
ontology that's a subset of metaphysics. I don't they call
it general metaphysics or something like that. When I back,

(01:09:00):
often thought about it a bit and intuitibly, I think
none of us have direct access to anything onto logical
It makes sense to me that intuitively that that belongs
in the super set, you know, umbrella of medicis and god, yeah,
am I going about it the right way?

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
Is that?

Speaker 10 (01:09:16):
Why?

Speaker 2 (01:09:17):
Well, actually I actually have a question for you on this. Well, no,
I have a question for this, so like because maybe
I'm I want to make sure I'm like picking up
what you're putting down. Like so if like you hear
like these kind of like metaphor like debates on like
philosophy of mind, so like physicalism, idealism, property dualism, substance alism,
like those kind of things. Are you telling me you're
kind of like you're kind of looking above this and

(01:09:38):
going like you kind of you all are kind of
staking your claims here in a weird way. But it
seems like you equally just are like limited on like
defining physicalism or this mental property stuff. It's are you
like kind of pushing back on the way that those
are categorized and and like very skeptical about that as
I'm curious if that's you're route, not necessarily.

Speaker 9 (01:09:57):
But if I learned about you know, noma lism and
physicalism and yeah, not an ideal with this, but conceptually, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:10:04):
I'm just wondering if you're like pushing back on these
like carvings and stuff entontologically.

Speaker 9 (01:10:09):
So I'm not pushing back on it. J Mike per Se, Yeah,
not at all. Still trying to study more, but I'm
not going to really categorize. We can bleed over to
different categories. So I could be a nominalist and still
you know, be in to think axiomatic principles are real
anyway in an acciomatic way. But no, let's say, you know,

(01:10:29):
I'm not pushing back on it, especially because I'm still learning, right,
so I don't want to take any.

Speaker 2 (01:10:34):
I suspect you might. I suspect you might push back
on it. I mean I do. I I find a
lot of the way that these things are carved up
more more times, the more time goes on that it's
like it's not really clear what's being expressed. It's like
this really easy way to box you kind of in
and get a vain kind of idea of things. Maybe
there's something more substantive in the physicalist idealist kind of
debate or whatever. But the reason why I'm doing it

(01:10:57):
like dubvious about this is because like when I go
to compare the views and I want to know what
views better, I think the point that we compare on this,
like philosophy of mind stuff is input of perception. What
explains like, just as an example, like what explains why
I'm seeing a tree rather than a bush. Now, if
you're a quote unquote like physicalist or whatever, you're gonna
or an identity theorist, you're gonna be like, well, there's

(01:11:17):
an actual external world. There's actually a tree. I have
neural processing. It furnishes my content. There's this nice relationship.
Somebody has some mental disorders or like you know, schizophrenia,
or like they hallucinate or something like that, it'll explain
at the level of the brain why they see this
rather than the stuff we see, and you get this full,
nice explanation. I when I talk to idealists, I've started

(01:11:39):
to become like dubious about this that I'll talk to
people who are like analytic idealists, the Bernardo Castrip types,
and it's not clear that there's actually any difference between
our view because I'm like, oh, you're an idealist, so
you don't think there's like an external world. There's just
these like mental representations, and it seems like you get
into this weird skepticism. They're like, no, no, no, no,
I do believe there's an external world, right. There are
these mental stuff and they furnish our content. The tree

(01:12:01):
furnishes my content. That's why I see that. But I, okay,
when we drop the labels like idealism and physicalism and
I give you kind of the story of neural processing
and a tree furnishing my content, that's what I'm talking about.
And if there isn't a substantive difference, then it my
The thing that I become skeptical of is like how
we use these kind of ways of categorizing beliefs that
it makes it feel like we have some real substantive difference,

(01:12:24):
but I don't really know that there is. Now Obviously
most idealists, there's clearly something going on that I don't
believe in because they think that, like, there's just this
mental content, right, and they can't explain why it's that
way rather than another way.

Speaker 9 (01:12:34):
I think, unless I'm looking at it or something like that, yeah,
or you like.

Speaker 2 (01:12:39):
The Berkeley yeah, and you get me these weird skeptical scenarios.
But I get really weird about when I'm like, oh,
I can't even use my I can't even use my
objection that I usually use against idealists against this guy,
because it sounds like he's saying all the same stuff
I'm saying, but he's using the term idealism or analytic idealism.
And that's where I start to become like kind of dubious.
On certain ways. It's cashed out and I'm like, Okay,

(01:13:00):
the label like me calling me this or that, I'll
just explain to you what I mean.

Speaker 13 (01:13:04):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:13:04):
As a nominalist. I'll just tell you what I mean,
and like if you listened earlier in the call the
redness example or the truth predicate example I gave. Those
are examples I would give them why I'm a nominalist.
I don't need to, like give an argument necessarily. If
someone really wants to, I can give that, but I
can explain what I mean and why I believe what
I believe, you know, and I don't need to. Like
I'm trying to use less of these terms, and I
think the audience is like celebrating, like fuck yeah, because

(01:13:26):
it becomes a little bit weighted down of nothing, of nothing,
there's really nothing there. Sometimes yeah, well you.

Speaker 9 (01:13:33):
Know, philosophy and philosophers are fucking a lot of this up.

Speaker 2 (01:13:37):
Yeah it sucks.

Speaker 1 (01:13:37):
Some of them are great.

Speaker 2 (01:13:39):
Yes, yes, I say five percent of metal is fucking awesome,
but ninety five percent of it sucks.

Speaker 1 (01:13:45):
Unfortunately, sometimes people get a little high on their own farts,
don't they RASTA But we appreciate your man, we are
we are gonna let J Mike get out of here
in just a minute, so we're gonna let him say by,
But thank.

Speaker 2 (01:14:01):
Did you have? Like I went just real quick to
make sure there wasn't anything that, like I talked completely
over you on I'm so fucking bad at it. I
gotta be better. But did you get did you say
your piece last time?

Speaker 9 (01:14:12):
You were in a little more reserved, So no, I'm
building up my knowledge. So I just want to get
a little foundation to Mike sr.

Speaker 2 (01:14:19):
You guys really awesome, got me some.

Speaker 9 (01:14:21):
Things think about, and I'll call back and we'll talk
a little bit more about this.

Speaker 10 (01:14:24):
I appreciate you.

Speaker 2 (01:14:25):
I'd love to get more of a personal connection, maybe
through email or something, and we can. No one's taking
me up on these offers. As I knock my mic
off my desk. No one's taking me up on these
offers that well, So I think it's still you can
have j Mike at Atheist Hyphencommunity dot org. But one
of them has kind of my full name, and I
don't I like my private life and stuff like that,
so I try to keep that out.

Speaker 1 (01:14:47):
The crew can put up that email I know on
the screen, and I believe it is uh uh what
the a c A TV at Atheist dash Community dot org,
tvsist at Atheist dash Community dot org.

Speaker 2 (01:15:00):
The easiest way to yeah, and the easiest way to
get to me is underscore J Mike on TikTok. If
you want to hear debates that I'm in, that's usually
where I'm at debating and and uh, you can join
the panels and we can have a great time.

Speaker 1 (01:15:12):
Yeah. Yeah, Well, thank you so much, Rosta. We greatly
appreciate your brother, and we are gonna thank you so much.

Speaker 2 (01:15:18):
I appreciate you. Man.

Speaker 1 (01:15:19):
We're gonna we're gonna move on, but before we do that,
we are gonna say a hearty farewell to our wonderful,
wonderful co host Jmike.

Speaker 2 (01:15:28):
It's something that Greg would have gotten mad at me for.
Don't get.

Speaker 1 (01:15:34):
Trouble, so uh, man, thank you so much for being here, dude.
And you know, we always love having you man. You
always bring a lot of really good stuff. And everybody
in the in the comments below say say nice things
to J Mike or or don't, I don't know, say
mean things to him. He's a big boy, he could
take it.

Speaker 2 (01:15:51):
Now. Yeah, sorry, sorry for for jetting out at seven,
but yeah, I'm doing it. Oh my god, I must say.
I'm doing it with Seth Andrews a few weeks. I'm
doing the show with Seth and Edges in a few weeks. Ay,
that's right, So I am going to try it, Like
if Seth as long as Seth stuff the endurance, so
I'll try to make up for it on that one.

(01:16:11):
I'll talk to Seth before and be like, how how
much time you got?

Speaker 1 (01:16:14):
Man?

Speaker 2 (01:16:14):
I'm gonna guys heard it? How much I can I
can milk you?

Speaker 1 (01:16:16):
You guys heard it? Jay, Mike's agreeing to do a
twenty four hour AXP episode solo.

Speaker 2 (01:16:24):
The crew and the crew is love. Actually, you know what,
before I go, if I can, can we show the
crew and how awesome?

Speaker 1 (01:16:29):
Hey, that's a great idea. Let's see if we can
get those wonderful people up. They are constantly behind the screens.
They do all kinds of stuff like video operator, audio operator.

Speaker 2 (01:16:41):
Live streams for US live Street. That's right.

Speaker 1 (01:16:46):
You can see the thrill and excitement on each one
of their faces for that new job that they have
been fallen told for. So uh seriously, though, that crew
is amazing and is a whole bunch of people, and
there are a bunch more people that are doing work
all the time that weren't on the screen there, So
thank you so much. To everybody, J Mike, thank you brother,

(01:17:07):
and we're gonna have to do this again. And yeah, man,
until then, I guess, I guess get the fuck out
of here.

Speaker 2 (01:17:14):
You get You're in good hands, my brother, Scott's great Scott.

Speaker 1 (01:17:17):
Yeah, thank you, Ed, have a good away, brother. Yes,
we are gonna, of course bring up our wonderful, wonderful
backup hosts we have with us today. Somebody I'm sure
you're familiar with because he's always here making phenomenal argument.
Scott Dickey is in the house with us, my brother,
are you around? Are you here, Scott? Are you in

(01:17:39):
the room with us? Are you here? Scott?

Speaker 7 (01:17:43):
I'm I'm a spirit in the background right right.

Speaker 1 (01:17:48):
I can hear you. I don't know if if I
can't see you right now, but I believe that you
are in fact here. Hey, there, you are are.

Speaker 2 (01:18:01):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:18:02):
Up until the moment at which you popped up on screen,
that belief was unjustified. I just want to let everybody
know that even us skeptics and atheists sometimes we sometimes
get it wrong.

Speaker 7 (01:18:13):
But I'm glad you had enough faith to believe that
it was going to come through.

Speaker 2 (01:18:18):
That's what it was.

Speaker 1 (01:18:18):
I was just I was praying, I had my rosary,
I lit my candles all that ship.

Speaker 7 (01:18:24):
What happened right here?

Speaker 1 (01:18:26):
Proof We have a couple of other good calls.

Speaker 2 (01:18:30):
We are going to go to real Hurt.

Speaker 1 (01:18:33):
I think they're going to be nice and fun. So
we are going to head back out to India. We're
going to talk with Dave. He him Uhis wants to
wants to talk about undiscovered science. Well, hey, Dave, you're
chatting with s R. And Scott Dicky. What what you
got for us?

Speaker 2 (01:18:49):
Hey, hey, Dave, what's up? Yeah?

Speaker 15 (01:18:53):
So I believe that science hasn't been fully been discovered.
There are certain aspects of which are yet to be discovered,
and the effects, the kind of effects that those things
will have on our human soul and body and physical reality,
we don't know. Nobody knows because it's not out uptill Low.

(01:19:14):
It's all a secret by the government. They have their
own research that the coronavirus was one of the biological examples.

Speaker 1 (01:19:21):
Wait wait, hold up, hold up, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave.
We don't need to speculate and talk about you know,
weird conspiracy theories, right, Okay, Germs are real vaccinations one
hundred percent work. This is not in question anywhere in
the world. Okay, this is a well established fact that
we have actually known for thousands and thousands of years. Okay,

(01:19:44):
let's not worry about any of that. Let's go to
the thing that you called in to talk about. But
help me, okay, clarify for me, because I have two
I'm of two minds right now. There's one part of
me that thinks what you're saying is something akin to
a quote from a man named Arthur C. Clark. That

(01:20:05):
quote was that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
That quote is not saying that magic is real. It
is simply saying that once technology gets to a certain
level of sophistication is it is fundamentally impossible to figure
out the difference between that technology just working flawlessly and

(01:20:27):
us not knowing about what that technology is and what
people say when they talk about magic. That's one side
of it, Okay. The other side of it is something
called the God of the gaps, which is basically, hey,
we don't know this thing yet in science, God's that thing.
So help me out here. Which one of these routes

(01:20:47):
are you going or am I just completely off base
and there's a different route still with us, Dave, and I'm.

Speaker 2 (01:20:53):
Muted the first one.

Speaker 1 (01:20:55):
Okay, okay, okay, So then let me let me just
go into that for a second and just say that
what that what that concept is getting at that that
Clark was expressing is not is not a justification for
accepting magic. Right. What he is saying there is that

(01:21:15):
because of the inability for human beings to differentiate between
super crazy, awesome advanced technology and magic, that honestly, it
just makes more sense for us to take the stance
of super advanced technology.

Speaker 2 (01:21:32):
So Arthur, Arthur C.

Speaker 1 (01:21:34):
Clark's quote, there is not a justification for belief in magic,
the supernatural, divine things or deities. Does that? Does that
make sense?

Speaker 10 (01:21:43):
Are you?

Speaker 1 (01:21:43):
Are you tracking?

Speaker 15 (01:21:44):
And what makes you think that it already doesn't exist?

Speaker 2 (01:21:47):
No?

Speaker 7 (01:21:47):
No, no, no, no no.

Speaker 1 (01:21:48):
That that can be a completely separate conversation. I'm willing
to go there, and I'll give Scott that because I
heard I've heard Scott's say some really great things on
on why he doesn't accept you know, magic and the
supernatural stuff. But are we at least on the same
page there with that quote from from from Arthur C.
Clark that I mentioned that what he's saying there is
not Okay, okay, okay, cool, So we're on the same

(01:22:11):
page there. But I do think that's a great question though.
I think that's an awesome question, Dave, Like, Hey, why
are you guys not convinced of this stuff?

Speaker 2 (01:22:20):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:22:20):
Scott, what do you think? Why are you not convinced
of magic?

Speaker 10 (01:22:23):
I would like to add, I would like to add.

Speaker 15 (01:22:25):
I would like to add that what makes you think
that it doesn't already exist? You know, because it already exists.

Speaker 10 (01:22:30):
That's what I think.

Speaker 13 (01:22:31):
It's already Wait what already talking about?

Speaker 7 (01:22:34):
Right though?

Speaker 1 (01:22:35):
Right you're saying magic exists. We're saying, hey, we don't
necessarily believe that. I just have one, uh, one clarification.
I would like to ask you, hang on just second,
Hang on just second, Dave. We'll get back to you.
Just Scott's got a question.

Speaker 7 (01:22:49):
Well, I'm curious just as to the way you're phrasing
your question or your your statement that undiscovered science is God?
Are you saying that and and this might and this
is related to what SR was talking about, but it's
looking at it at a slightly different angle. Are you
saying that there are things that science can't understand and
that God must be doing those things. Or are you

(01:23:11):
saying that there is science, there are things that we
don't understand and those things are God. Is this an
identity that you're talking about or is it an unknown causation,
because as Us pointed out, one of those two things
is literally just the God of the gaps, you know, saying,
here's a bunch of stuff we don't know, let's call
that God. Or are you saying that God must be

(01:23:34):
causing those things because like like you know, some some
science thing that we don't understand, like maybe dark matter
or something. We don't have a full we don't have
a really strong grasp of what dark matter really even is.
Are you saying that dark matter.

Speaker 1 (01:23:47):
Is is God?

Speaker 7 (01:23:49):
Like God is dark matter? Or God is causing the
phenomenon that we.

Speaker 13 (01:23:54):
Call dark matter causing the phenomenon?

Speaker 7 (01:23:59):
K Okay, okay, So why, I mean, why do you
think that?

Speaker 15 (01:24:02):
Because we can because we are our data collection entities
on this in this existence, this existence is the game,
and the game is pretty pre determined, so it's pretty doministic.
But the existence of game was caused by God.

Speaker 7 (01:24:15):
Himself and that's your conclusion.

Speaker 1 (01:24:17):
Right.

Speaker 7 (01:24:17):
What I want to know is, well, how do you
get how do you how can you assert that? How
can you support that statement?

Speaker 15 (01:24:24):
Because we are a bunch of data collection entity, We're
all a data collection entity that come here to this.

Speaker 1 (01:24:29):
How how does that get us? Let's hang on, Hang on, Dave,
Let's say let's just say for the sake of this,
like Scott and I aren't going to push back. You
are right one way you can you can describe human
beings or just life in general. Let's just say we're
data collecting entities. How does that How does that point? Like,
let's just take that as hardcore fact for a second.

(01:24:52):
How does that fact get us to the conclusion that that,
like God is real, like God is existent in the
world around us. What is it about us collecting data
that proves that God? Does that make sense? Like?

Speaker 13 (01:25:07):
What?

Speaker 1 (01:25:07):
What's what's that connection there?

Speaker 10 (01:25:09):
Yeah?

Speaker 13 (01:25:09):
So do you know ether?

Speaker 15 (01:25:11):
You know about ether?

Speaker 1 (01:25:12):
I've heard, I've heard it described. I'm not sure how
that that's going to make the connection, but I'm hoping
you can. You can tie it up for us.

Speaker 7 (01:25:19):
So you mean ether like the anesthetic? Or do you
mean like ether like the magical substance that the universe
is suspended in. Second one, yes, second one.

Speaker 1 (01:25:29):
Okay, all right, So how does that connect to the
us being data collecting entities and then that making God
an existent thing? How is ether the connection between those?

Speaker 15 (01:25:39):
That's how God looks into you and look through the world.

Speaker 1 (01:25:42):
And is that how how we're data collecting entities Because
God's looking through the ether into us.

Speaker 15 (01:25:47):
Everything in this like ether is everywhere and you can
he sees all of the reality through.

Speaker 1 (01:25:54):
So let's let's try again, Dave. I know that I
know that it can be difficult. I know that it
can be difficult to stay focused on this, especially when
I think we're not really clear on the terms that
we're trying to hash out. It sounds to me like
what you're saying is that human beings are data collecting entities,
and because of us collecting that data on a regular basis,

(01:26:17):
that shows us undeniably that a God must exist. Now,
I personally don't see the connection to that, just the
same as if Scott were to tell me, Hey, Elliott,
bees are a data collecting entity, and bees existing and
being a data collecting entity proves that unicorns fart universes.

(01:26:41):
I don't see the connection between those different things.

Speaker 4 (01:26:44):
There.

Speaker 1 (01:26:44):
You brought us you hang on just a second. You
brought us ether as being the connection. But I still
don't feel like we have made any progress on this.
So I want to start all over and I want
to go back to this. How does us being data
collecting entities show that a god must exist? What is

(01:27:07):
that connection? Help me out?

Speaker 15 (01:27:09):
Because since so we both accept the fact that we
are data collecting entities, right, we accept that. Sure, Now,
if any any data collecting entity, if I put it
or a particular frequency, like on a real frequency, like
a physical frequency, then that data collect the entity will
start behaving differently.

Speaker 1 (01:27:26):
You still haven't made the connection, Dave, you still have
let me. Let me help you out. And just just
for Funzie's sake, You're gonna hear a beat because I'm
muting you because I know you were talking through that
whole time just a second ago. I don't know why
you were, because when you're doing that, it's very difficult
to hear. So I'm gonna break this down real simple, okay,
real simple.

Speaker 2 (01:27:42):
Here.

Speaker 1 (01:27:43):
If I say to you, Scott, oh hang on, sorry, sorry, crew,
I'm so sorry. I know I'm tied that up, Scott.
I'm going to present you with something here, okay, and
I want you to help me out and tell me
if this makes the connection. Human beings are data collecting entities.
This proves that a God is real because God makes

(01:28:05):
data collecting entities. We know for a fact it is
true God makes data collecting entities. We are data collecting entities.
Therefore God exists. Does that at least make sense? Like,
it's a bad argument, it's fallacious on many many fronts,
but that at least has a through line for it,
whereas the other thing we've gotten so far Dave just

(01:28:28):
has been complete non sequiturs, Like is that fair? Like
if Dave said that to us, Scott, could we say, hey,
we've got the connection in a way.

Speaker 7 (01:28:38):
Yes, I mean, but in another very real way.

Speaker 1 (01:28:40):
You're putting the cart before the horse, right right, I
mean it is fallacious, yeah, but at least we understand
the connection, whereas currently I genuinely have no idea how
we get from us being data collecting entities to God existing.
And again we're not actually accepting that, We're just saying
we're granting it for the sake of this argument. So

(01:29:02):
we can move on. So one more time, Dave, I
really really want I would really want to know this connection.
So again, the example I gave was if you said,
human beings are data collecting entities. God makes data collecting entities.
We are data collecting entities. Therefore God exists like that.
That is fine, that is that's fair. It's still got

(01:29:23):
problems and we could touch on that, but at least
there is a connection.

Speaker 7 (01:29:27):
So I'm gonna set that we can grab on to
and discuss.

Speaker 1 (01:29:31):
Right, So I'm going to shut up for just a second,
but you're gonna hear a beat. It's loud. I'm sorry,
but now you are back on. What is that connection
for us? Dave, help us out, please?

Speaker 15 (01:29:43):
Yeah, it's fun for me.

Speaker 13 (01:29:45):
Sorry no, no, no, no, no, Dave. No.

Speaker 1 (01:29:48):
I fucking love that response, Dave. I appreciate fucking hell
out of that. Man. That was so incredibly honest, and
I think that is beautiful. I fucking love that you
said that. Man. So look, I'm not gonna I'm not
gonna hammer you anymore at all. I'm not gonna pressure
you or nothing. Man. All I'm gonna say is just
call us back, like rewatch this, right, see, listen to

(01:30:09):
it again. Go oh, you know what, I do have
this great fucking argument. Hell yeah, man, like and bring
it back to us, okay, like, that is absolutely that
is awesome that you said. You know what, man, Now
that I'm not I'm thinking about it. I'm not sure,
you know, perfect man, get back to us because because
well we'll be on. We'll be on again. We do
this show every week at four thirty pm Central Time.

(01:30:30):
So I'm gonna drop you real fast just because we
got a couple of other calls and I want to
grab him real quick, Dave. But seriously, Dave, that may
have been my favorite fucking call today.

Speaker 7 (01:30:39):
Yeah, yep, I agree.

Speaker 1 (01:30:40):
I appreciate the hell out of that. That is awesome.
And and again back to you know, I always love
to point inward before I'm before I'm pointing out word right,
and I want to say us too, man. If you
guys see us out there and we're not we're not
able to take that that epistemically humble stance there when
we truly don't know something. I mean, you hold our
feet to the far, you let us know. But when

(01:31:01):
we don't know something, it is the right answer to say,
I don't know, and let's go investigate.

Speaker 7 (01:31:07):
You'd be doing us a favor because that's how we
get better. That's that's how we get better.

Speaker 1 (01:31:11):
That's right, man. So with that, let's go to uh, Mississippi.
Real quick, we're going to talk with Tom. He him
as an atheist, wants to talk a little bit about
the Catholic Church real quick. Well, yeah, man, we got
we got a quick second for you there. Tom, you're
chatting with Scott, Dicky and s R. What what are
your thoughts on that?

Speaker 10 (01:31:29):
Well, heirs of all, it is gonna it's gonna be
really boring after the last two calls.

Speaker 1 (01:31:33):
Which that's all right, I just fine, I'm sure.

Speaker 10 (01:31:37):
Yeah. So you know, the thirty second round up of
the Catholic Church since Vatican too was Radican do produced
some genuinely impressive documents, but it didn't result in much change.

Speaker 1 (01:31:50):
Uh.

Speaker 10 (01:31:51):
That's always belonged to John Paul two, who who made
all kinds of apologies, who made all kinds of nominal
ecumenical outreach. Nothing much changed Benedict, Well, I think if anything,
he kind of drills things a little backwards. Francis looked
really promising, but again, nothing much changed. And it was

(01:32:13):
really obvious in his case because he would say something about, say, homosexuality,
that sounded very progressive, and then two days later, the
Catholic Church would come out with an official pronouncement walking
everything he said right back. So you know, prior probability
here would indicate that not much change. You know, that's
the highest prior probability, not much change. So when looking

(01:32:36):
at Poclio, I wouldn't be hopeful. And I think the
reason is that is that we're talking you a very
large institution with a very long and very deep and
very broad institutional memory, and no matter how amazing anyone
man is, they rarely make significant change in one lifetime.

(01:32:58):
I are there exceptions that make pretty impressive changes, I mean,
but actually shifting an entire church, I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:33:06):
Yeh, Scott, what do you think about that?

Speaker 10 (01:33:08):
Your question? That's just one quick thing. I would say.
The question that arises is is the Catholic Church appointing
people like Francis and Leo because they have a space
of progressive pope or because they actually would like the
pope to influence the Catholic Church and a progressive correction.

Speaker 7 (01:33:28):
Well, you're asking some atheists right, So you know we
would choose neither of those, right, Yeah, yeah, But let's
say let's let's consider that for an example. So, so
if there were a God, what would the way God
is selecting its pope, how would that reflect on what
God is doing? What can God do? Right? If God
is if God can do everything, then God can choose

(01:33:49):
the right pope. I mean if the popes that are
being chosen are not enough to make the changes that
are important. I mean Sr's opening comments to the show today,
we're all about the new pope and about how we say, well,
you know, we're going to see things happen now, and
he's saying, show me the money, right. I want to
see some real change. I want to see something really happen.
And that's just not something that's happened yet. So are

(01:34:10):
you saying that if there is a god, I'm assuming
that I don't know, it says I'm hearing that you're
an atheist. So we'll assume that you don't think that
there is a god. But is if there is a God,
couldn't God do a better job of choosing a representative?

Speaker 4 (01:34:26):
Well that kind of.

Speaker 10 (01:34:27):
Gets into, you know, what might be internal criticism of
the church's position. I don't believe there's God. But what
I think is a little more appropriate here is the
observation that the Catholic Church is not a church soliscriptorum. Sure,
so for a church that is soli scriptorum to say, well,

(01:34:48):
you know, the Bible says some really bad things and
I think we need to think about that, they can
do that. I mean, Bishop Spam it was like the
archetypal let's question the literal with the Bible. But the
Catholic Church has the ability to say, hey, the Pope
is speaking excacera. He is communicating the actual word of God.

(01:35:09):
If God says, you know, LGBTQ, they're just people like
everybody else. They're cool, they could be priests, they could
be honest, they could be nothing. Uh, you know, whatever
the case I see or or we were wrong, we
are now insluting the strict policy that suspicion of child
abuse results in report to the police.

Speaker 1 (01:35:29):
Yeah, let me let me jump in, Let me jump in, Tom,
just because we got uh, we're we're running up on
time here and we're largely in uh you know, aggressive
agreements as I call it sometimes. But yeah, I think
I think You're right that the actions over the millennia
from the Catholic Church explicitly right, those are a great

(01:35:52):
indication that whoever the fuck the next pope is after
this one, not much is going to change. Like, thank goodness,
they finally came around to accepting that, like the Earth
moves around the sun. Super cool, Like glad that they're
finally on the sides of things like you know, understanding

(01:36:13):
gestation and humans, you know, and you know, the AIDS,
virus and stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:36:19):
You know.

Speaker 1 (01:36:19):
I'm finally glad that they they have have come around
to that very basic understanding. But yeah, I think in
large part, Tom, we're all on the same page. We
don't think this is an institution that is going to
be driving human rights or progress anytime soon. But man,
we are going to drop you real quick right here.
And I'm so sorry to be rude, but thank you

(01:36:40):
so much for calling us, and give us a call
back in the future and hang out with us. Okay, Tom,
we always enjoy talking with our atheist brothers and sisters.
But I am again rudely letting you go because I
have one other person I'm going to talk to right here.
We're going to go right into it. We're talking with D.
They them and Iowa, hey D you are chatting with
s R and Scott Dicky.

Speaker 4 (01:37:04):
R Hey Scott. Uh love the show today?

Speaker 10 (01:37:07):
Great?

Speaker 4 (01:37:08):
My original thought. I'd like to say that for the
after show because there's a couple of things.

Speaker 10 (01:37:15):
SR.

Speaker 4 (01:37:16):
You seem to be intent on breaking my brain.

Speaker 1 (01:37:20):
I'm sorry about that.

Speaker 7 (01:37:23):
We were talking because before the show, SR was like,
if D calls, I'm breaking their brain.

Speaker 3 (01:37:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:37:32):
Yeah, I believe that that is a revelation from Saint Scott.

Speaker 2 (01:37:40):
Thank you.

Speaker 4 (01:37:42):
Okay, the last couple of weeks you have kind of
snucky in a a I don't know what you would
call it, a logic problem Monchau's and Trim.

Speaker 5 (01:37:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:37:56):
Yeah, we talked about it today a little yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:37:58):
Yeah.

Speaker 10 (01:37:59):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:37:59):
And and I was kind of able to follow last
week and this week your explanation of it, but it
was still I was still confused, so.

Speaker 11 (01:38:09):
I googled it.

Speaker 10 (01:38:10):
Yeah, and that didn't help.

Speaker 4 (01:38:12):
That didn't help at all.

Speaker 1 (01:38:15):
It's a lot of big questions.

Speaker 4 (01:38:16):
Because yeah, because it seems to me, if I'm understanding
it correctly, it is not solvable.

Speaker 2 (01:38:24):
That seems to be.

Speaker 1 (01:38:25):
Yeah, that seems to be kind of where we're at
is the problem. And this is why I don't really
take very seriously the pushbacks and the arguments from the
believers when they say things like, well, logic can't answer everything,
or you know, you have to have something to ground
your logic, or science doesn't have all the answers that

(01:38:46):
type of stuff. Because we all, if if we are
honest and we are epistemically humble, right when coming to
our conclusions, we all have to bite the bullet that
we are standing on air that every single one of
these methodologies at their core does not have that hardcore,

(01:39:08):
solid bull's eye proof that everybody seems to ask for
all the time. Now J Mike said this earlier today
though in the in the you know, how do you
know that you know type of thing?

Speaker 7 (01:39:21):
Right?

Speaker 1 (01:39:21):
What he's kind of getting at there is I just
I don't really know that that's a thing. I don't
know that anybody can ever do that. You know, we
talk about this, this you know, solid one hundred percent
certainty as if it is attainable, But I just I
don't know that I have ever even seen an instance
where somebody shows me that it's possible. In large part

(01:39:44):
because of this that you're you're stumbling onto right here.
D at the whole, at the center of everybody's fucking
understanding of everything in the universe, there is this really
really deep black hole that apparently we just cannot seem
to get over yet. The cool thing, though, is that
just because that is the case does not prevent us

(01:40:06):
from actually understanding things about the world. It does not
prevent us from making progress on difficult, difficult scenarios. And
that's where that's where Jamike and I dive right into
the whole concept of Hey, you know what, let's evaluate
your system and my system. We both know at the

(01:40:28):
end of the day we're standing on air, so we
don't need to worry about that anymore. You have an
infinite regress. I have an infinite regress. You have presuppositions.
I have presuppositions.

Speaker 10 (01:40:41):
You know, you have a.

Speaker 1 (01:40:42):
Coherent system within itself. I have a coherent system. They're
all on the same equal footing. And what we do
from there is we go out in the world around
us and we attempt to put that understanding, that methodology
into practice, and we look and see what the ex
planatory value is and what other pitfalls arise if we

(01:41:05):
have one pitfall in our methodology and the other one
has five ours wins. That's the game. That's how you
play if if we both have one pitfall, but yours
has all of this inability to explain stuff, ours wins. Again,
that's the game we're playing now. I doubt that is

(01:41:27):
going to be the end of it. D I guarantee
you're probably gonna wake up in the middle of the
night over the next week and just be like, fuck,
what does that mean? How do we do this? Like
I don't understand that. Just keep reading up on this stuff.
It is weird, but I think it is something, honestly
that is super super cool and hopefully something that gives

(01:41:47):
us all a little bit of humility, right because when
we really do find at the end of the day,
like hey man, a lot of this, we are just
standing on air, right, We stand on the shoulders of
giants who stand on the show of giants, who stands
on some turtle who's standing on fucking nothing. That's apparently
the world we're in, you know, But that's okay, And

(01:42:08):
in fact, in fact, diving headfirst into that space I
think is the only way that you ever actually get
any progress there. So I know, I rambled for a
little bit d but hopefully we got we got something
out of that, and then yeah, we'll well, we'll just
have to keep talking about it.

Speaker 7 (01:42:25):
I would just add to that that, I mean, whether
it's a physical impossibility or maybe even a logical impossibility,
we can't have direct access to the foundational elements of
the universe. That's just not something that we are able
to do. And so we have to take things, we
have to consider things like sr was just talking about.
And that's where Akham's razor comes in too. We can

(01:42:48):
use that too. We sometimes it can be difficult to
compare two explanations of something, or it can be difficult
to compare, you know, to world views and that kind
of thing. But if one of them hold makes assumption
A and the other one makes assumption A plus some
other stuff, ye, then Okham's raiser pushes us one way

(01:43:08):
in that equation. And so when when we hear somebody
saying things like like one of our earlier callers, Eric said,
you know it's unfair to use reason when you're arguing,
when you're trying to criticize faith. Well, reason is the
relationship between truth values of different statements and so if
you're not concerned about the truth of the statement, then

(01:43:30):
then what can you use how can you how can
you approach that? And so in order to make any
kind of argument at all, in any way, using any
tools whatsoever, you have to start with some kind of
logical foundation there, just because as a practical necessity, we
can't have this this discussion unless we agree on things
like language and things like that. And so the same

(01:43:50):
thing goes for logic. If we're gonna if we're going
to make an argument about something, then we have to
have some kind of foundational basis to build on. Now,
we can't use that foundation to prove that the foundation
is correct and accurate, but at least we can have
the discussion, and at least we can move forward. Now

(01:44:10):
we have a pretty good track record I think of
using things like logic and reasoning in order to determine
the truth values of things. But that does not give
us the freedom to just say, well, all assumptions are equal. Okay,
all assumptions aren't equal. Some assumptions are necessary to even
have the discussion, and some are just superfluous that are

(01:44:31):
just there to support our personal you know, foibles or
beliefs or whatever, and.

Speaker 1 (01:44:38):
So clearly and and those assumption, some of those assumptions
clearly are false. They ruin the entire rest of the
system when we bring those in.

Speaker 7 (01:44:47):
Right, not only do they not have a proof, but
they also fail to at least come up to the
level of the things that we do feel like we
know exactly. And so it's worse than nothing really.

Speaker 1 (01:44:59):
Yeah, But but again, D, with all of that silliness
going on, right, with all of that crazy nonsense happening,
I still think I still think we can be justified
in our conclusions. I still think we can make progress
on very difficult problems and issues and come to a

(01:45:22):
methodology that more reliably leads us to truth than not.
And I think I think it has been expressed on
this very show for about what twenty nine fucking years,
almost almost thirty twenty something. I've been doing it forever,
So maybe somebody will finally listen in and think of it.

(01:45:45):
But D, thank you so freaking much for hanging out
with us. That was a great freaking way to end
this show.

Speaker 7 (01:45:51):
I appreciate you.

Speaker 1 (01:45:52):
I appreciate you being here. I am going to very
rudely drop you like a High Rock. So thank you
so freaking much. D you are and I'm so sorry.
I know I cut you off. I'm very very sorry,
and feel free to yell at me in the comments below. Hey, Scott,
it was really cool getting to do this with you,
like two weeks in a row man this last week.

(01:46:14):
So if y'all miss that, you want to, you want
a whole episode of Scott Dicky, you can go. If
you're looking for more Dicky in your life. Come on, who.

Speaker 7 (01:46:22):
Doesn't want that? Who doesn't want that?

Speaker 1 (01:46:24):
Right?

Speaker 10 (01:46:25):
Right?

Speaker 11 (01:46:26):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:46:26):
You could go check out last week's when's the next
time you're going to be on like Talk?

Speaker 10 (01:46:31):
He then?

Speaker 1 (01:46:31):
Or truth?

Speaker 7 (01:46:32):
I think you're going to be on Talk here than
two weeks from today. It's nice here, Yeah, nice, not
too much.

Speaker 1 (01:46:38):
Delay, very very cool man. Well, I I always love
hanging out with you. I think you have some really
really great arguments for stuff. Man, get you, Thank you
so much. Well for all of you wonderful people out there. Wait,
let me check real quick. I think there was a
super chat. We did have a super chat. I didn't
forget you. We've got five dollars from Uncle Freaky been

(01:47:00):
a member for one year and is saying, I just
love love, love, love, love love this community. I am
always celebrating not being a xenophobic, poorly educated bigot for
the love of hair. No, I love that. I absolutely
I think it is always a good thing to not

(01:47:22):
be bigoted and hateful. Right now, I agree with all
six of those loves. That's right, that's right, Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But guys, we are gonna wrap up tonight. We're gonna
all get the hell out of here, probably go have
some lunch or dinner or whatever the fuck we're doing.
But for everybody else, all of you wonderful people in
the audience, thank you, guys, like it is because of

(01:47:44):
you that that we get to do this and we
get to have a lot of fun, and you guys
help make this space, you know, the community that Uncle
Freaky loves so fucking much. So y'all are the reason
that we do this, and we greatly greatly appreciate you,
And of course, we greatly greatly appreciate the crew, despite
the fact that they are gonna yell at us afterwards,
because you know, we just can't we just can't keep

(01:48:06):
our shit in line. Scott, That's okay, man, You know
what happen.

Speaker 7 (01:48:10):
Don't lump me in with you on that one there.

Speaker 1 (01:48:13):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I was just trying to yeah, strengthen numbers,
all right, solidarity, solidarity, brother, Yes, I'll go down with
the ship.

Speaker 13 (01:48:21):
All right.

Speaker 1 (01:48:22):
Well, thank you all so freaking much. Go out, be heathenists,
be sinful, do what you do, and we will see
you here next week four thirty pm Central Time on Sundays.
Thank you so much, everybody, see you next time.

Speaker 3 (01:48:34):
Glad to stop already.

Speaker 11 (01:48:41):
Stop.

Speaker 1 (01:48:44):
Come on, I wasn't that bad. No, Greg, No, I okay,
that was bad. You're right, I deserve Well that's a
lot of cuss words right there. Oh god, no, that's fair. No,
I'm sorry, guys, I'm sorry. I can't mean to watch

(01:49:18):
Talk ee Than Live Sundays at one pm Central. Visit
tiny dot c c slash y t t H and
call into the show at five one two nine nine
one nine two four two, or connect to the show
online at tiny dot c c slash call th H

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 29.22 with Secular Rarity and Jmike

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 29.22 with Secular Rarity and Jmike

Stuff You Should Know