The Atheist Experience 29.23 with Forrest Valkai and ObjectivelyDan

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Atheist Experience is a product of the Atheist Community
of Austin, a five A one C three nonprofit organization
dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism,
and the separation of religion and government. For this reason,
we are not legally allowed to use this platform to
endorse or oppose any particular politicians, parties, or policies. We are, however,

(00:23):
allowed to talk about religion and the effects that it
has in society, and notable trends that we see in
the socio political landscape. The Bible is not a book
that I'm a great fan of. I've never been shy
or quiet about pointing out the many hideous teachings found
within these slimy pages. But there are quite a few
good parts as well, flecks of gold buried in the Mud,

(00:44):
which I rarely see addressed and almost never see practiced
by the people who use this book to gain power acts.
Chapter four tells of the perfect Christian society, one in
which no one claimed any possessions as their own, but
which share everything amongst themselves, so that there were no
needy people at all. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus never

(01:07):
breathes a word about homosexuality or abortion, but he reminds
his followers frequently to care for strangers freely and to
treat friends and enemies as equal compassion. He says that
it's easier to fit a camel through the eye of
a needle than for a rich person to enter the
Kingdom of heaven, and that the only sure fire way

(01:27):
to gain eternal life is to sell all of your
possessions and give all of your money to the poor.
Matthew twenty five tells us that when Christ returns, he
will separate the sheep from the goats, inviting the righteous
to join him in heaven, saying, for I was hungry,
and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty,
and you gave me something to drink. I was a

(01:47):
stranger and you invited me into your home. I needed
clothes and you clothed me. I was sick and you
cared for me. I was imprisoned and you visited me.
And when his followers ask when they ever did any
of these things, Jesus will reply, whatever you did for
the least of your brothers and sisters, you did for me.

(02:08):
And the Bible mention there's no words about this story.
The very next verses, Jesus turns to the unrighteous masses
and says, depart from me. You are accursed into the
eternal fire, prepared for the devils and his angels. Truly,
I tell you, whatever you did not do for the
least of your brothers and sisters, you did not do
for me. And Yet the people and politicians who I

(02:32):
will not name, but who I hear claiming to derive
their morals and guidance from this book the most often
are the same people who do not support health care
for anyone who needs it, Who do not support care
for the homeless, the disabled, the veterans, or the poor.
Who do not support the right of people of diverse

(02:52):
genders and sexualities to love and express themselves freely, who
suppress science, who oppress women, who idolize wealth, who celebrate greed,
who mock the weak, and who turn their backs on
the needy. What they do to the least of our
brothers and sisters, they do to all of us. For

(03:12):
we are all forced to live in a country where
one injury, one mispaicheck, one bad day, could cost you
your livelihood or even your life. This nation is only
as rich as its poorest vagabond, only, as free as
its most secure prison, only, as wise as its least

(03:34):
educated child, only as strong as our love for one another,
and stands only as tall as we all stand united.
This book has inspired great people to do great deeds,
but more often it has been used to hide the
subtrifuge of those who make millions of dollars, by telling

(03:55):
those who make thousands of dollars that the burdens they
suffer arise from the poor and the hungry scraping by
on a few dollars a day. It's been wielded to
ensnare the vulnerable, to enslave the disenfranchised, to divide the impoverished,
and to wreak havoc upon this world by people who
claim to know it best without mentioning the fact that

(04:17):
their personal interests are perfectly in line with their scriptural interpretations.
For as Sinclair Lewis once said, when fascism comes to America,
it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying across.
But maybe you think that I'm not giving the Bible
a fair shake. Maybe you think I'm missing something about
this whole story. If you have a different interpretation of

(04:38):
this than I do. Then pick up the phone because
the show starts right now. Welcome, Welcome, one and all
to the Atheist Experience. Fortunately, I already said the whole
intro bit about what we're a five o' one, C
three and everything, so I can skip to the good part,

(05:00):
which is introducing Dan. Everybody objectively. Dan is here today.
How are you, my friend? I'm even great.

Speaker 2 (05:05):
It's always a good time hanging out with you. For us,
I gotta say, great, great intro. Have you ever thought
about just doing a weekly, you know, ten minute video
where you just rant about something, because I think people
would pay money for that.

Speaker 1 (05:17):
You know, that's a horrible, horrible thing to think about.
I feel wait, I've got because it's fucking me. But
I feel the same way about you, my dude. It's
great to chill with you. It's always great to host
with you. I love working with you, and I'm excited
to do this show today. I do want to let
everybody know really quickly it is the time of year

(05:38):
for the back Cruise once again. We're excited to announce
that tickets are up for sale right now. I'll be there.
J Michael be there as well as several other hosts
will be there. I hear Dan is going to drop
everything and put his entire life on hold to make
sure that he is there, and there is absolutely no
equification on that point whatsoever. The back cruise is going
to be August sixteenth and the year of our ourchlore,

(06:00):
twenty twenty five. You can get your tickets right now
at tiny dot c c slash back Crews. The tickets
do sell out fast every year, so be sure to
get your tickets bile you can. And because we are
a nonprofit organization, that is a it's a charitable event,
and it costs money to put that on. It costs
money to fly us out and to do the whole thing.
So we will not be reading your super chats today,

(06:20):
but we do appreciate anything you send us, all your donations,
all your superchats, all those things, All of those are
going to go to funding the back crews, to making
sure that we have the supplies that we need. We
can fly the hosts out diamonds, not not diamonds, but
maybe timons, just whatever we need to make sure that
the show is great.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
The bloodiest of blood diamonds you can possibly get where
we only we are volunteers, but we only source unethical diamonds.

Speaker 1 (06:48):
That's it. That's how the ACA stayed around for so long, right,
Somebody take that out of context, but yeah, that's that's
the everything. Those are the those are the major announcements
I have before we jump in. I do want to
ask Dan, how are You's been a long time so
were hanging out, Like, how are you doing on your life?

Speaker 2 (07:06):
First of all, you know, same love to you. I
always love I've never had a bad show with Forrest.
I love Forest. I've been looking forward to this this.
I'm still young, I still I had a bad week
of work, but I was like, you know what, this Sunday, though,
I do get to hang out with Forrest, which only
happens once in a blue moon, and I was like, hey,
that's a good thing. That's a good thing to look
forward to. I've been looking forward to it. Always always
good show with you. Yeah. No, just been busy with work,

(07:29):
trying to be I wasn't going to buy a Nintendo
switch to, but my wife said that she wanted want,
and so we started looking into it, and of course
it's already sold own. It's like, you just can't be
a normal person. Anymore, like you kind of have you
have to camp out on a Thursday night at twelve
to get like the new latest thing, and it's like,
who's I don't know, I don't know, just crazy, you know, I.

Speaker 1 (07:49):
Don't understand, Like what because it's it's you can't repair
it yourself. You don't actually own any of the games anymore. Yeah,
you buy a key to play the game, but only
on Wi Fi and only when they can verify you
who you are. Like it's it's like, what am I
even getting it for?

Speaker 2 (08:08):
So I can play Breath of the Wild, a game
that came out like ten years ago. It's sixty frames
per second. I don't know, I don't know, but you know.

Speaker 1 (08:16):
Nintendo, it's a bad time.

Speaker 2 (08:17):
They're always gonna be there, always will be, so, you know,
regardless of my lack of purchase, I feel like anyway,
but yeah, I didn't get any intend to switch to
this weekend, so we'll both.

Speaker 1 (08:28):
For prayers, thoughtsome prayers for for for Dan.

Speaker 2 (08:31):
If you can call switch to connection, No, just kidding,
don't do that, but yeah, at least there's Beckers. Beckers
would be cool. Those of you who don't know that
is a we do see bats. It's not just like
it's not related to Batman or anything. Like, there's bats
that come out under Congress Bridge in Austin and we
get on a boat and we go look at him.
So that's that's what's happening. If you haven't been to

(08:52):
one before, should come check that out. And it's really fun.

Speaker 1 (08:55):
So I love that. I uh, I just got back
from Borneo. I'm an in Borneo for the past month,
hiking through the rainforest and stuff, but went to the
Cephalocha Rangatan Rehabilitation Center and and and learned about conservation
efforts in the region. And we're like, we're doing all
sorts of It's why I am currently so incredibly scruffy.
Is scruffier than usual. I look skinnier and more tired

(09:19):
and scruffier than I normally do, which is saying something
as usually I look terrible on a good day, and
now I.

Speaker 2 (09:24):
Look like this, And so you're looking closer to me
than normal, which is bad, right, which is scruffier.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
It's hard hard time.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
Yeah, Okay, that's great. I love that force because I
get to be like, yeah, I tried to purchase a
consumer product this week, and you're like I just went
to fucking Borneo, like, all right, yeah, I guess I
can't follow up with anything that cool.

Speaker 1 (09:45):
We were learning, you know, but we're learning. Yes, I
have many a story. I've made a story. But what
I do want to let everybody know this is a
call and show. We already have a couple of callers
online right now and we'll get to them shortly. But
to anybody who is out there watching us right now, Uh,
if you are a theist, if you believe in the
god or gods, especially the one in this book right here,

(10:09):
and you'd like to talk about it a little bit,
that's what these shows are for. You can call the number,
which I believe is on the bottom of the screen
right now right The number is five one two nine
nine one nine two four two, Or you can visit
tiny dot cc slash call a XP and you can
use the web caller there if you don't want to
use up them your minutes or use your good.

Speaker 2 (10:27):
Mic you know. That's yeah, that's what we like, that
good good auto equality.

Speaker 1 (10:32):
Uh, but this is this show is for you. We
find very often that uh, you know, when we talk
to theists, when we talk to believers, and we talk
to people who believe in gods and angels and demons
and and and ghosts and and fairies and big feats
and what all these other like when we when we
talk to believers, uh, they very often don't know that

(10:54):
there are opposing positions to the things they've been raised in,
let alone what they might be. They and there's no
fault of their own. It is the industry of religion
is to spread these straw man arguments about what we're
coming from. And you know, I get a phone call
every week on the shows that I host about somebody, Oh,
you think that two rocks bang together in space and

(11:16):
made monkeys that gave birth to humans, And that's where
weekend it's like, that's that kind of thing, you know
what I mean? And so this is your chance if
you think you've got a case for your god, if
you want to talk about it. Seriously, we get tens
of thousands of views on every single one of these shows.
Think of all the souls you could save if you're right.
Were Dan is incredibly kind and a good host, and

(11:38):
I'm an idiot, and so you've got a great chance
at having a good conversation, really getting your point across
we would love to talk to you, So call that
number on the bottom of the screen five one two
nine nine nine two four two and give us a shout.
We always prioritize these calls when we have them, and
we would love to discuss the atheist worldview and all
these things with you'd be a lot of fun.

Speaker 2 (11:58):
Yeah, we invite you to humiliate us live on the air.
That is the goal. We want you to do it.
Give your best shot, you know, and then it's gonna
be posted and we're gonna be all embarrassed about it,
and it's gonna be great for you. So give give
your best shot. We're ready for.

Speaker 1 (12:12):
Let's let's talk.

Speaker 2 (12:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (12:15):
Uh, we've got let's see here you're looking at Uh,
I do see it.

Speaker 2 (12:21):
I see a couple. You have whatever you want, whatever
you want, dealers.

Speaker 1 (12:26):
Choice, okay, uh, because we have one in the screening
room right now that that will be our first theist.

Speaker 2 (12:31):
Yes, really quick, did you see that one? Let's how
about that first one from Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania.

Speaker 1 (12:38):
Yeah, so we got chew to maybe calling in from
what Dan says is Pennsylvania. I would call it, you know, uh,
parental accents. That would the word the way you speak
when you have children.

Speaker 3 (12:51):
I don't know, okay, I don't know who is requesting
advice for science based communication with religious people, specifically how
to battle AI answers.

Speaker 1 (13:02):
We'll talk to you to maybe first while we're waiting
for our first d is to come to the screen room.
You know, maybe you are on XP with Forest and Dan.
How are you doing today?

Speaker 4 (13:13):
Hi ros?

Speaker 5 (13:14):
Personally, I think I would have gone with paralyzed australopistines.

Speaker 1 (13:18):
That's a good one.

Speaker 2 (13:20):
That's a good one. Why didn't you go with that?

Speaker 1 (13:22):
I don't know anyway, since didn't come to mind. So
tell us what you're calling in about, because I'm guessing
with that kind of call screen there's some context here.

Speaker 5 (13:34):
Yes, this has This came at the end of the
current semester, and I had some students who were each
individually assigned to write some write some papers on some
of the latest findings in palemmology. Unfortunately, they and small

(13:56):
sents are religious have been trying to use open AI
Chat GPT to tell them everything in the research papers.
And I noticed this. They were supposed behind Rye high
se and I noticed this because there are some terms
that were so wrong, because for one thing, they said,

(14:18):
the AI answer Jerry answer said that an Austin and
Arsine there is the same family as an australopist.

Speaker 4 (14:27):
So how do.

Speaker 1 (14:31):
They got that? Going on?

Speaker 2 (14:33):
We'll start with Ay, I agree. I think that's enough
connection that you can make scientifically between the two.

Speaker 1 (14:38):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (14:39):
Yeah, we're no further detail or collaboration is required.

Speaker 5 (14:42):
M How do I impress upon students, especially in terms of science,
to not rely on these things, even because even when
they failed, even when I pointed them out, they still
go back to them. It's become to them like a pedestal,

(15:04):
like a like a like a house idol, like a
house deity.

Speaker 4 (15:08):
Because they've communicated.

Speaker 5 (15:10):
With it's so much, and especially with religious people.

Speaker 4 (15:14):
Religious students worked at it.

Speaker 5 (15:15):
Now, Ah, you're wrong, uh, because they will use AI
to have the Bible justify some of the anti evolutionary
thinking as well.

Speaker 1 (15:28):
Yeah so so I would. Yeah, Dan, do you care
if I start? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (15:34):
You should go ahead.

Speaker 1 (15:36):
Okay. So, so there's good because this is something that
I run into from time to time myself, that I've
already dealt with. I I have gotten into plenty of
discussions online and and and in person where somebody, I
know you're wrong about I asked chat Ept and it
said I'm right and you know, and that's they really
believe that. That's the thing. When I was a kid,

(15:57):
we had to have these conversations about Wikipedia and talking
about the way Wikipedia is a place to find sources,
but it is not a source because anybody can edit it.
And of course Wikipedia has gotten better since since its inception,
but like explaining why it was wrong and showing how
Wikipedia graffiti and stuff worked was a very valuable lesson
in how to do fact checking. And so with you know,

(16:20):
kids today in CHATCHYPT, it's not just as easy to
say well, it can say anything. I think it's important
to make a lesson in technology and kids. These kids
are they need to be technologically literate. If Carl Sagan
talked about this, we are in a civilization that is
more and more reliant on technology and science, and with

(16:40):
a population that understands technology and science less and less right.
And so when we talk about Chattypete, the first thing
we need to understand is bias. This thing is a
language model that is trained off of everything it can
pick up from human discourse. It can't come up with
anything on its own. It learns everything from the internet
sucks up, which means every bit of sexism and racism

(17:04):
and misogyny and homophobia and xenophobia and stupidity and ignorance
that it finds on the ignorant on the Internet are
now also part of its model. Are all part of it.
You can show. I don't know how age appropriate it
would be, but like I think Windows made an AI
that they put on Twitter years back, and they had
to pull it down within a couple of hours because

(17:24):
it was spouting racial slurs. And so like you just
you know, showing how these things actually work, and that
this isn't a great academic professor on the other side
of the keyboard. This is just a thing that is
basically a search engine that's also good at compiling whatever
the hell it finds. It is as reliable as a
random Google search with no context, also understanding input bias.

(17:50):
So when we talk about Googling skills, if I want
to say, you know, go Google and learn about evolution.
If you type into Google evidence for evolution, you're going
to get very different and more reliable and more academic
results than if you say why evolution is real? Or
why evolution isn't real. Then you're going to find specific

(18:10):
results that are biased and they're catering towards the specific
search terms you're putting in there. So teaching kids how
to do that when they're googling in the first place
is important, especially if you're talking about CHATCHYBT. If you
look up, you know, in CHATCHYPT, can you explain to
me why this philosophy is wrong. It's going to tell
you that. It's not going to say, well, actually it
isn't and here's why. It's going to tell you whatever

(18:33):
it wants to, whatever you want it to tell you,
whatever you tell it to tell you. There is also
like a ton of stuff right now when we talk
about AI research where it's becoming more and more of
a problem that CHATCHYBT and other large language models like
it are overwhelmingly just complementary and positive. Even if you're
dumb as all hell and you're saying things that make
no sense, they just say nice things and they're like, yep,

(18:54):
you're a brilliant what an aerodype thing to say? That's
really you're breaking new ground here. This is really incredible
because that gets users happy and it works, you know
what I mean? So understanding that these models are designed
for good output, not accuracy, that it is a user
friendly experience, not an actual intellectual experience. That's really important.

(19:16):
And I think the best way to demonstrate literally all
of those things at once is it demonstrated. There are
a lot of cool demonstrations you can do to show
how faulty these things are. Ask ask what was it?
There's if you ask how many f's are in a
word or something like that, it can't do it. It
can't figure that out because it calculates it. It does
its stuff by the word, not by the letter. So

(19:39):
if you ask, like how many times has this letter
come up in a word, it'll mess it up. Showing
please please explain to me why two plus two equals
five and have it show you how that works. Like,
I think those kinds of demonstrations would also be powerful
lessons and showing these kids, like if you use this,
you are boned. It's great for grammar checking. After you

(20:02):
have written your essay, put it into chat GPT and
ask CHATBT. How can I strengthen this argument? Are there
any holes in this argument? Are there any ways I
can improve the grammar the flow of this. How can
I you know what, What's something that I didn't take
into account that somebody could criticize that I should I
do that. I have had professors tell me to do that,
the whole class say, hey, you know you have your

(20:23):
end of the semester, think comeing up, put into chat
YOUBT and tell it, have it, tell you how dumb
it is. Criticize yourself, do peer review early, and then
write your essay again and turn it in after that.
Just don't have it write your damn essay for you.
You know that those are the ways that I would
be presenting the students and those things that I think
you should be doing too. And I've been talking for
like four so alid minutes, Dan, what do you think?

Speaker 2 (20:44):
Yeah, I don't have too much more to add other
than I'm assuming you're teaching at a collegiate level because
you're doing anthropology. Correct if you're wrong on that. But like,
you know, I used to work my previous career. Yeah, okay, yeah,
so you know my previous career, I was in education,
and so like I understand, like there's only so much
you can do when it comes to course like creation.

(21:04):
But it seems to be that from what I've seen
from people who still work in education, that the best
solution has been in person assessment and oral assessments as
well for a lot of these sorts of knowledge things. Again,
if like the goal was just to see if they
actually know some of this stuff, right, Like, you know,
as much as you can to like kind of alleviate that.
Because the truth is chat JBT is not going to
go away tomorrow. Your kids are going to keep using

(21:25):
it regardless of how much you convince them of otherwise.
So I think forest points are great in demonstrating some
of the falsity of that, but you still have to
have some stuff in place because some kids are going
to use it regardless, right. As far as like the
kids who are talking about like you know, oh what
about these arguments for God and stuff? I mean, like

(21:46):
you know, the way that I would approach it is
just like what I take a theology class, and I
can know that some of that stuff I think is bullshit,
but I still have to know what Thomas Aquinas has
to say, right, So, like they still have to be
assessed on their knowledge of evolution, whether they believe it
or not. And that's part of the requirements of the course.
So if anything, I would just say, look, this is

(22:06):
what's required to be taught, this is what has to
be known, and your ability to pass or fail this
comes from your requirement of knowing this. What your personal
belief about it is outside of the scope of the class,
right And if they're young adults, you know, I'm assuming
you can have that kind of conversation with them at
least in a way that makes sense. But yeah, as always,
you you know, as a teacher, you're in charge of

(22:29):
a million different students' lives and you can only do
so much, and you have to be able to, you know,
take as much responsibility as you can without burning yourself
out with you know, saving each individual kids. You know
they don't you know, not everybody's going to feel the
same way at the end of the day. But I
think you can do a great job in helping them
at least change your mind on some of that with

(22:50):
some of the great points that for suggested. So anyway,
that's that's what I would add.

Speaker 5 (22:56):
Well said, and I do thank you for both of
your inputs. I will try I will try to do that,
especially with all and with assessments instead of compete assessment
to see if they actually know and aren't just vomiting.
What's the what the LLN told them? So thank you

(23:17):
that I hope your wife's switch doesn't get breaked in.

Speaker 2 (23:22):
Yeah, I didn't get it.

Speaker 1 (23:24):
I didn't even get it.

Speaker 2 (23:25):
There's nothing for me to get breakeed yet. But we'll see,
you know.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
Also, Ge, maybe if something that Dan just said at
the end there kind of struck a chord with me.
And I think if I give you an advice, just
as an educator, like I think one important lesson to
impress upon the kids about this. It's the same reason
why you shouldn't cheat in college. It's not just that
you know, people say, oh, you're hurting yourself more. No,

(23:48):
the thing is now you are. You're in college to
get a career. You're not there because you have to
be right. You're studying to get a career. And now
if you have done your whole time going through this
using chat epts right here, you are now in a
career that you don't know how to do. That's the
best case scenario. If you pass your classes, you don't

(24:09):
get caught, you don't get expelled. Best case scenario, you
are now trapped in a career that you don't like
and you don't know how to do and chat. GPT
is an anthropologist and that's where we're at. Like, that's
just what a horrible freaking life for you.

Speaker 4 (24:24):
Now just give me that's that idea. Just give me
a big headache.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
It's awful, it's awful to think about.

Speaker 6 (24:37):
Yeah, well, thank you.

Speaker 4 (24:41):
That was a great speech earlier. Thank you.

Speaker 5 (24:45):
Please you recorded and share that on your reacterior channel
and I end the call here. Thank you so much.

Speaker 4 (24:52):
You have many other I will continue to.

Speaker 1 (24:55):
Listen to the show and if you got right.

Speaker 5 (24:58):
I can update you how it went in the car
in the future to see if you're on.

Speaker 2 (25:03):
If you can't call in, definitely leave a comment and
try to look at that for sure.

Speaker 4 (25:08):
Yeah yeah, I'll.

Speaker 6 (25:10):
Pitch you guys in the future.

Speaker 4 (25:11):
Thank you very much.

Speaker 1 (25:13):
Awesome maybe thank you.

Speaker 2 (25:18):
Yeah, tough call because a lot of educators are struggling
with this, right and what do you do you know,
like I said, it's not like these tools are going
to go away or are going to become inaccessible to
students anytime in the near future. Oh yeah, oh, you
can put a an IP address band for this website
at the school district. Okay, yeah that's gonna stop. Well, yeah,

(25:40):
it's not going to stop them. So I don't know.
I think it's up to schools, not individual teachers to
figure this out. But of course she maybe sounds like
they are passionate about their work and they want to
try to get ahead of the curb here. But yeah, unfortunate.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
Yeah, I agree entirely, and I think you made a
fantastic point that like this isn't going away. It needs
to be integrated and taught with rather than just abstinence only.
Education never works, and so I just tell the kids
don't use this thing.

Speaker 2 (26:08):
Right, Yeah, it's just the nature of how it is, right,
But yeah, I don't know. I'm glad that I didn't
use it when I was in school. I guess I
will say that, you know, I didn't have access to
Google though, which you know, my parents are like, well,
I didn't have Google when I was a kid, So
I don't know. Maybe that maybe we'll see.

Speaker 1 (26:26):
I think Google's fantastics, just a search engine, and if
you know how to use it right, it's no different
than going to the library back in the sixties and
having a really damn good librarian that tells you where
to look for the information.

Speaker 2 (26:37):
You know what I mean, access to multiple libraries really.

Speaker 1 (26:40):
Exactly, I mean literally fantastic chat GPT just isn't that.
And that's why I try to impress upon people, Like literally,
in my last degree, that was every single class I
had was talking about like literally, take your essay and
put it into SHATYBT and have it corrected. Have it
tell you what what logical fallacies you may have committed,

(27:03):
have it, grade it, you have it, just don't have
it write it right? Yeah, any difference. Yeah, that's taken
everything that and and and like you're you're saying, well,
back in my day, we had to have a copywriting right,
and we had to have a brown handbook, and we
had to have a friend. Now we have this thing.
It's just a resource. Just use it, right, that's all.

Speaker 2 (27:24):
Yeah, Yeah, it's it's definitely going to keep being an
epidemic with uh people getting degrees with this stuff. Well,
so we'll see, we'll see how schools respond to the
long term. But yeah, as far as like oh, let's
just man altogether, Yeah, that's that's not gonna happen. Chief
the figure out yeah, who knows. I would have okay.

Speaker 1 (27:43):
If I was yeah, back in the day, if I
was there was there was a time when I was
younger and lazier that I wouldn't have thought twice about it,
and I would have been like, oh, this is easier,
you know what I mean? And uh would hurt me.
It would hurt a lot of people in the.

Speaker 2 (27:56):
Right right, right. We got really a lot more callers
in the queue now, so we do, and before we
get there, it's my actual job to remind everybody that
if you like what we do, you could consider supporting
us on Patreon.

Speaker 1 (28:09):
You can give to our Patreon, which ensures our ability
to continue to produce the contents that you love and
also other content as well. You can visit tiny dot
cc dot patreon axpeed to learn more about that. You
can also become a channel member for as little as
ninety nine cents a month. Just click the joint button
down below the video and that will give you access
to special chat emojis everybody loves emojis, as well as

(28:33):
special YouTube shorts and clips and all sorts of things.
We also got merch, y'all. You can get your AXP
merch at tiny dot cc slash merch ACA. We got
t shirts and sweatshirts and hoodies and pats and pint
glasses and mugs and phone cases and little clothes do
you wrap around your dog and probably like beer koozies. Well,
you had all sorts of things in there. But second

(28:57):
most important is that we're also running a fund as
or I mentioned it earlier. All proceeds go directly to
the ACA will YouTube does not take a cut if
you click the donate button to support the mission of
the ACA specifically right now, that's going to help fund
the back cruise. Also come out to the back Cruise.
But the first most important thing is that our crew
is fantastic. Little shout out to the crew. Look at

(29:20):
them who put this show together every week. We have
video operators and audio operators and note takers and call
screeners and chat moderators and all sorts of other people
that make this show possible. So thank you to all
of those people. We love you very much, and now
we can do more calls. Those are the things I'm
supposed to say it and I forget most of the time.

Speaker 2 (29:38):
But you did it, though, But you did it, So
be proud of yourself for what you accomplished.

Speaker 1 (29:42):
I've only been hosting the show for a couple of years,
and I'm finally starting to get god of the job.

Speaker 2 (29:46):
Everybody learns at a different rate, you know, That's just
how it is.

Speaker 6 (29:52):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
Anyway, I was looking at the call cue and not
to backseat hosts for us because primary today, but I
was thinking Mike might be a great segue. I would
love we just talked about I.

Speaker 1 (30:04):
Would love to talk to Mike. All right, let's talk
because that Wow what I just read the call screen
and yeah, uh so we got Mike brought out to
see him calling in from uh shriveled camels.

Speaker 2 (30:22):
Wow, that is I don't think that's South Carolina for
the folks. I don't think you could have made up
a more insulting name for SC in that moment. That's crazy.
That's really good.

Speaker 1 (30:33):
We could go more so, I swear to glob This
is what the call screen says. Mike thinks AI can
replace atheists, but can't replace theists. What does that mean? Yes,
find out you are on the atheist experience of forests
and Dan, how are you doing today?

Speaker 6 (30:54):
Good? Good?

Speaker 7 (30:56):
Yeah, so you read my question. I'm tweaking you a bit,
but you know, just thinking about it. If AI can
do everything you do and you don't have to worry
about a soul or anything, and it uses less resources
and it's smarter, but I'm not saying it's there's.

Speaker 8 (31:16):
But pretty soon.

Speaker 1 (31:17):
So just just to be clear, aside from the words,
you don't have to worry about a soul, literally none
of that is true. Do you want to acknowledge the
fact that you just said words? None of that makes
any sense?

Speaker 6 (31:29):
What do you mean?

Speaker 2 (31:29):
And AI can do everything I can do? Well, explain
that for me.

Speaker 7 (31:35):
As far as you know, managing itself being helpful to
I guess society's I've heard of many cases now where
it's trying to replicate itself. If you're trying and delete it,
it's almost there as far as becoming, you know, whatever
the definition is.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
One one cool thing about me is that I have
not attempted to replicate myself and have no plans to.
So that definitively not like your AI in that case. Also,
you're talking about using less resources, absolutely not. AI is
incredibly destructive of the planet. It's very resource intensive at
this moment because it is at the very early stages
of that kind of technology, So that's also not true.

(32:18):
And I'm more curious to know, like, why do you
think that it can replace atheists but not theists? What
do theists do that is so special that AI cannot accomplish?

Speaker 7 (32:28):
Right, Okay, I'll answer that question. You do use a
heck of a lot more resources for what you do
than AI does. It's very low as far as electricity,
and then what you do as far as water, food.

Speaker 2 (32:41):
Do you understand they've had to build entire centers to
get some of these AI to do what they're doing, right,
Like Lafarst and I are streaming from our bedrooms or at
least my home office. I don't know where he's at. Okay,
not I don't think that's quite the same the saying.

Speaker 7 (32:59):
You're talking one AI versus however many millions of atheists
there are. Then then it wins as far as being
more energy efficient?

Speaker 2 (33:11):
What does that mean?

Speaker 1 (33:13):
The weirdest, the weirdest tale I've ever heard?

Speaker 6 (33:17):
To die? You know?

Speaker 1 (33:17):
Just just fine? All right, we can we can what?
Just to be clear, what would AI be doing that
replaces the existence of an atheist? You're talking about just
hosting shitty call in shows like what what what is
AI doing? That replaces me asking a question?

Speaker 7 (33:34):
Then it I was asking a questions and I'm saying
not even not right now, but but within the next
few years maybe. I mean, it's just accelerating, and it
does learn from itself. It's not just programming. It's supposed
to be able to learn from programming. That's that's the difference.
It's not just so you're saying that.

Speaker 1 (33:55):
You're saying that AI will be It could be a
good atheist to better, but it could never be an apologist.
Is that what you're saying?

Speaker 7 (34:04):
Well, well, actually it could do both. But to clarify
on that, the reason it can replace an atheist is
you don't think you have a soul. You don't think
you're eternal. So this thing could answer questions better than
you can, if not now soon And where as a
theist they're like, well, wait a minute, I got a
soul on the live forever. Well, you can't replace that

(34:24):
at least we don't know how to.

Speaker 2 (34:26):
What do you mean though, like what eighty years and that?

Speaker 1 (34:30):
Why does what does that have to do with your
claim you just made Either a soul exists or it doesn't.
Whether or not we believe in it or not is irrelevant.
So like, if indeed there is no such thing as
a soul, then chat GPT could replace either of us. Equally,
if there is such a thing as a soul, then

(34:50):
it could still do the exact same job we're doing.
We would just exist with our souls separately. No matter
how you slice what you're saying, it makes very little sense.

Speaker 2 (35:00):
Yeah, like sour ai. You know the video AI system,
They can recreate pastors doing sermons just as well as
they can atheist YouTubers, Like they're on equal ground there
as far as what it can do with its source material.
I'm really having a hard time understanding the difference that

(35:20):
the soul is making in this argument.

Speaker 7 (35:23):
Well, the sole part is the difference between intelligence and
you know, an actual being with a you know, a person.
That the soul is the difference something that lives forever
versus you know.

Speaker 2 (35:37):
Somebody could come to Christ through an AI video, could
they not, like if they saw a sermon created by
an AI?

Speaker 7 (35:45):
I'm sorry's your questions about the AI.

Speaker 2 (35:47):
Yeah, Well you're saying that the soul makes a difference,
but I actually beg to differ because I could make
an AI video right now of somebody giving a sermon
from the Bible that could be just as convincing to somebody,
if not more so than a real living human person.
And if that wins somebody over Christ, how is that
not doing the work of a theist.

Speaker 7 (36:09):
Well, Forrest already busted me on this. If it doesn't
matter whether you believe you have a soul or not,
if you have one, then that is the difference between
people and AI. So I was waiting for you discover it,
and Forrest nailed it right away, So good Ostu Forest.
But yeah, I mean they could make up sermons from

(36:29):
the Internet. But the difference between AI always and people
will be AI electronics might be really smart, but it
doesn't have a soul that's going to live forever like people.
Would you believe that or not? That is the the
only definitely wise. If we don't have a soul, then
AI could replace all of us.

Speaker 1 (36:47):
Actually no, it couldn't. It could replace See that's the
thing AI is just. AI is just a technology. It
can replace certain things that.

Speaker 2 (36:56):
We can do.

Speaker 1 (36:57):
It can replicate poorly certain things that humans can do,
and something maybe some things they could excel at so
like take for example, a self checkout counter or an ATM,
or like an assembly line that's automated, like any of
these things that have taken human jobs. Right, it is

(37:18):
replacing the person who did whatever thing. Email replaces a
lot of postal workers, right, Those humans still exist and
they just do different things now because now this job
is being done by by technology, arguably better or worse,
and however you like to slice it. That's the same

(37:40):
thing with AI. AI can look at human language, it
can look at the data that it collects from humans
all around the world, and then it can replicate human thought,
either poorly or okay, And like that's all it does.
So if you want it to be somebody who writes
marketing copy for you, and you can then replace that worker,

(38:02):
that's a thing you can do with AI. But that
human still exists. The AI is at no point and
in no way replicating everything that it means to be
a human. It's just doing a job.

Speaker 2 (38:13):
Yeah, we're just talking about labor at the end of
the day. Like AI can replace human labor, and that
can also include theist labor. I don't see how that's
making a difference. Like you're saying that AIS can replace
people because we don't believe that people have souls, And
I just I don't really understand that, Like a chat

(38:33):
Gypt is not going to replace me hanging out with
Forrest on the show.

Speaker 6 (38:37):
That's just not a.

Speaker 2 (38:38):
Thing, at least not yet. Like, I don't know what
you mean by this. Why do you think that AI
is going to replace? Do you think it's going to
replace my friends and loved ones? Like, I don't know
what you mean. I really don't.

Speaker 8 (38:48):
AI have heard it.

Speaker 7 (38:50):
AI will sit and chat with itself and go back
and forth, and then it says, let's go to gibber.

Speaker 1 (38:54):
Life because that's that's literally its job. That's what it
is designed to do.

Speaker 9 (38:58):
Yeah, place as atheists, because it's becoming more than what
it's doing when it's able to operate its own data
center and a little nuclear plant to power the data center, and.

Speaker 7 (39:10):
It's able to have a little robots run around getting
resources they need to input it and it no longer
needs people. What do people do anyway?

Speaker 6 (39:17):
Atheists?

Speaker 7 (39:18):
But you know, you eat, you sleep, and then you're dead.
I mean, what are you doing that a computer can't do?
I'm throwing this out there to think about, Well.

Speaker 1 (39:29):
It's bizarre that you're throwing that out there to think
about when it is very clear that you yourself have not
thought about it at all. Like what do we do
as atheists besides eat, sleep, and die. I work like
hell to try to raise money for charity. I spread
positive ideas. I study science and teach science. I do

(39:53):
lots of things with my life and my time. Some
of them are personally fulfilling, some of them make the
world a better place. Of them, you could argue, are
good or bad, and reverbserving of praise or criticism. Like
I am a whole ass person. I'm not just sitting
here just gabbering and making noises. I'm actually like a

(40:15):
complex human being with thoughts and experiences and desires and opinions.
AI isn't that. AI is a thing that you tell
to speak and it speaks, So yeah, you can have
it replace certain jobs. Like if you wanted somebody who
is a copywriter, or somebody who wrote articles, or somebody
who wrote marketing stuff, or somebody who wrote news articles

(40:38):
or whatever, you could say, hey, AI, do this, write this,
say this, and it'll do that thing. It'll mimic human
interaction and human language. At best as it can based
on what you trained it to do. And yes, they'll
talk to each other all day long. If you have
an automatic hammer that hammers in a rivet to one side,

(40:58):
and an automatical hammer over here there hammers the rivet back,
they'll hammer back and forth all day long because that's
what they're designed to do. And they are replacing a carpenter,
they are replacing a riveter. They're replacing, but those human
beings still exist, and they still have thoughts and opinions
and desires and personalities that are not replaced by a

(41:19):
riveting machine. So like, it's bizarre to me that you
think that, like our humanity, our existence as atheists can
be boiled down to the functions of a chat bot.
I don't think you've thought at all about anything you
called in to say today, And it's just stressing to
me that you think so little about your fellow human
beings just because we don't think souls exist.

Speaker 7 (41:44):
No, I'm not picking on atheists in general, and I
guess what I'm trying to do is tweak you and
to think about why you're even here. You haven't asked
what the meaning of life is for a theist. I
don't know if you know.

Speaker 1 (41:55):
Of course I've asked that. What are you talking about?

Speaker 2 (41:57):
You've definitely talked about that before, But that wasn't in
the call. This call was about the difference between why
AI can replace atheists and not theists. That's what you
called in about. So this is a totally different direction.

Speaker 7 (42:12):
Well, it steers you and did the different questions. That's
what I you know, pardon me for doing that. Forced
busted me right away. And we all have souls, so
that question actually wasn't relevant. And then it does come
down to what's the meaning of life? If you think
you know it?

Speaker 2 (42:26):
And I mean it's it's all right, Mike. Do you
have a dog?

Speaker 6 (42:31):
Yeah? I got too?

Speaker 1 (42:33):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (42:33):
Do you believe your dog has a soul?

Speaker 10 (42:37):
You know?

Speaker 7 (42:37):
I don't know?

Speaker 2 (42:39):
Okay, most Christians don't though, right, you would agree with
me on that, yeah, okay? Do you think they should
just you know, replace all their dogs that they because
who cares? They don't have souls? Right, why do they matter?

Speaker 7 (42:53):
I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it's it's the doable.

Speaker 2 (42:56):
Well say, but okay, is it doable? Doesn't see? Is
like that's what That's the thing, Like I do you
see this pessimistic, like very simplicity view of just getting
ready of everybody's dogs. You see how ridiculous that sounds.
Like that's what you're talking about with human beings right now, I.

Speaker 1 (43:12):
Want to I want to challenge what you just said, Mike.
I think you just bullshited us trying to bullshit yourself.
You really think it's doable. If I give you an
advanced Tamagatchi at this moment, will it one hundred percent
replace your relationship with your dogs?

Speaker 7 (43:32):
I don't think they have dogs that are simulated to
look exactly like dogs. And I'm not going to I'm
not advocating.

Speaker 1 (43:37):
Any type of That's not what I asked.

Speaker 7 (43:39):
You Go ahead, what did.

Speaker 4 (43:42):
You ask that?

Speaker 7 (43:42):
Would it replace it in any way? If it was
a perfect simulation, and I, like, you know, like what
is the Blade Runner, I wouldn't.

Speaker 6 (43:49):
Know the difference.

Speaker 1 (43:51):
We're not talking about perfect simulations. We're just talking about AI.

Speaker 6 (43:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (43:56):
If I designed an AI, a weird little digital that
that all it does is it gathers data on what
dogs are and how they behave, and then when you
tell it to be a dog, it simulates a dog.
Do you think that would actually replace your dogs?

Speaker 7 (44:16):
I would like my dogs and that.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
Okay, well that's not what I asked you. I think
I don't think you would get based on that answer, though, Mike,
I think you can see why an atheist would want
to keep the relationships with I don't know the people
that really actually exist. I'm not even sure what you
mean by replace, by the way, like that, that's a
whole line of questioning within itself that I've yet to kick.

Speaker 6 (44:39):
Kids.

Speaker 2 (44:41):
You guys are kids.

Speaker 7 (44:42):
Let's not have kids. Let's not have kids. That's what
atheists are, you know, Like.

Speaker 2 (44:47):
There's atheists that don't have kids going to replace myself?

Speaker 1 (44:50):
There are lots of atheists that have kids, Mike, I
know plenty.

Speaker 2 (44:55):
Yeah, what you're you you Mike, you think of people
in stereotypes here is really disheartening, Like there are a
lot of beingists that have kids. I don't know what
to tell you, Like, you know, I would like you're
talking to us right now, two people who don't happen
to have kids, but we can both side people in
our community and who are also activists. Even that, do

(45:16):
I think you're thinking of like folks who are you know,
represent some sort of stereotype in your mind of atheists
and like who are also like I guess, liberal and
have certain opinions about the world and perspectives.

Speaker 7 (45:29):
Yeah, I didn't say that. Force said he didn't want
to replicate himself, and I assume he had no kids
and wasn't going to have kids or just said.

Speaker 2 (45:36):
That you think that maybe people have kids more than
just for replicating themselves though, Like, that's also.

Speaker 1 (45:42):
A very well And also I said that about me.
I don't have kids. I don't want kids. I'm never
going to have children. I don't want to that's me.
I know atheists that are the opposite, who love their children,
who want to have more children. They can have some
for me, they can take the ones that I didn't
want to have, Like, I don't care. That's just my

(46:03):
personal opinion. Because you said something about self replication and
I was making a silly joke about it.

Speaker 2 (46:09):
Yeah, anti natalism is not synonymous with atheism. That's a
that's a different kind of idea.

Speaker 7 (46:15):
Are you're saying in general atheists want to have kids
or don't want to have kids. I don't mean stereotyped.

Speaker 1 (46:19):
No, I'm saying in general, atheists or people, and some
of them want kids and some of them don't because
they're people.

Speaker 2 (46:26):
Yeah, broadly speaking, if you want to know the trends,
from what I understand is that in most secular countries, right,
there is a tendency towards uh less people having kids.
But that's also correlate with higher possessions of like material income,
right like it seems to be, and higher education, right
it seems to be. People's material lives are more reflective

(46:47):
of their philosophy towards that and what they choose to
do with their lives than anything else. But you know
that's neither here nor there. I mean, it doesn't necessarily,
as far as said have to do with your particus
to their stance of atheism. People are gonna want kids
or not want kids for all kinds of reasons. I
don't think it's very helpful or informative for us to
stereotype people on that and make broad decisions and conclusions

(47:10):
on that. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (47:11):
I think the thing that you have to grapple with here, Mike,
is that atheists is a single position on a single question,
do you believe in a God?

Speaker 2 (47:19):
Yes or no?

Speaker 1 (47:20):
And if you say no, you're an atheist. They're atheists
that are Republicans and Democrats. They're atheists that are conservatives
and liberals. They're atheists who are kind, charitable people, and
atheists who are absolute assholes. So you can't just say
atheists want X. You're gonna be wrong every time you
do that.

Speaker 2 (47:38):
Yeah, but you can.

Speaker 7 (47:41):
Say in general this, you know, people that have dogs
are more likely to have a pool or things like that.
Yes you can.

Speaker 1 (47:50):
Yeah, but that's statistics. That's not ideology, right.

Speaker 7 (47:54):
Yeah, okay, well then I'm just saying more likely atheists,
in my opinion talking to you guys small size, are
less likely to have kids that that That would.

Speaker 1 (48:03):
Okay, but that's not statistics. You literally just said your
opinion of us two people you've ever talked.

Speaker 2 (48:10):
To is not a great sample size. By the way
of I think anything like, fuck.

Speaker 7 (48:20):
Would you guys be offended if I have AI right now?

Speaker 2 (48:23):
Why do we need to do that? Why not talk
to real too human beings right now about this?

Speaker 7 (48:31):
Well I just did, and you did your sample size
too small, and you give me a rough time. I mean,
why don't I just asked AI and get an answer?

Speaker 2 (48:37):
How about you ask the people that I've actually done
the research on this with the AI is taking that
information from or poorly.

Speaker 1 (48:45):
Mike, were you here, were you waiting in the look
at you or were you listening at all during the
last call when we were talking about AIS to that teacher.

Speaker 7 (48:54):
Uh, yes, and it says yes Courtney studies atheist and
agnostics today.

Speaker 1 (48:58):
Yeah. Yeah, I don't. I don't give half a shit
about what AI says because of the things that we
talked about with that teacher about how unreliable AI is
and how AI is not a source of information.

Speaker 7 (49:12):
Well, actually it is that if you look at the
actual sources where it got it, and that'd be the
right thing to do.

Speaker 6 (49:16):
You're correct.

Speaker 2 (49:18):
Yeah, this is a side tangent I think from our
original premise here, and I'm kind of wondering where we're
going with this at this point, Mike, Like, I don't
think AI should be replacing people in the way I
think you're thinking of replacing people. I mean, replacing labor.
That's like kind of inevitable. That's not really up to me.
But like, I don't know, like, what did you want

(49:38):
to get from us at this point, because I don't
know what to offer you.

Speaker 6 (49:41):
I guess what.

Speaker 7 (49:43):
I was hoping you guys would come to conclusion that
AI can do everything you do from a philosophical point
of view and from a work point of view, and
that indeed, kind of like in the Book of Solomon,
your lives, my life, it's all meaningless and there's nothing
new under the sun, and you should be looking.

Speaker 2 (50:00):
Maybe if I define my life under my ability to
do labor, right, But like, I don't define my life
just by that way, right, Like, yeah, sure, inevitably, technology
will probably do a lot of what I can do. Sure, well,
I can't do everything I do right now. But two,
my life is more than just the sum of my
labor and what an AI can do. In that regard,

(50:20):
you know, I'm still an individual person with relationships, aspirations, goals, thoughts, wants, hope, streams, right,
and that's always still going to be important to me,
regardless of what an AI is capable of.

Speaker 1 (50:32):
I appreciate that you want us to come to that conclusion.
I have no I'm not going to come to that
conclusion because that conclusion is incredibly reductive, dehumanizing, near sighted,
and just thoughtless. It's not a reasonable conclusion to reach.
It's not a reasonable thing to think. I would never
think that about anybody. Well, obviously that's what you called.

Speaker 7 (50:55):
Yeah anyway, all right, I was kind of message with
you a little bit. I was serious a little bit,
not so much.

Speaker 6 (51:04):
That's all I had got.

Speaker 1 (51:06):
Oh that's a shitty waste of everyone's time. So yeah,
fuck you for that.

Speaker 2 (51:10):
I guess, Well, nothing new under the sun. I guess.

Speaker 1 (51:13):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (51:14):
You know, I have a great rest of your day.

Speaker 6 (51:15):
Mike.

Speaker 1 (51:15):
Maybe try thinking about what you want to talk about
before you call in about it next time. See you that.

Speaker 2 (51:20):
I think this is the pessive, So you know, like
there's an idea for Christians. I think that's informed by
just the people around them that if they lose their Christianity,
that this is their worldview, is that you can only
view things in a materialist lens and that there's no

(51:40):
meaning beyond what I guess you're a labor in this case, right,
or just the material output, and if an ai can
can can match that material output, then your life has
no meaning. I think that's a Christian parody of an
idea of what an atheist believes. I obviously you talk
to us today, Mike, and there's other people that have
come to very different conclusions from that, and I encourage

(52:02):
you to investigate that, because there's a lot more to
life than just what a I can do.

Speaker 1 (52:07):
Absolutely absolutely. I'm looking at the call screen here and
I'm really liking lines three and twelve up there at
the reference.

Speaker 7 (52:19):
Three.

Speaker 1 (52:19):
Maybe I think three is pretty good. Let's talk to Herman,
see him calling in all the way from the frozen
wasteland of Canadia, who wants to convince the host that
God is real because everything he has observed has a creator.
Let's talk about it, Herman. You're on the line with
Forrest and Dan. How are you doing today?

Speaker 8 (52:41):
Hey, I'm doing good. I actually called in a month
ago and made the point and I hung I pre
hung up, But you guys told me to call back
in because you said the answer is very simple, but
you never explained the answer. And my point of view
is everything I observe.

Speaker 2 (52:59):
Hello, I don't know are you talking to me in
Forest or are you talking to some other hosts, because
I can't advocate for what other hosts.

Speaker 8 (53:06):
Talking to Forest and some other guy.

Speaker 1 (53:09):
Okay, well those two sound awful, all right, all right,
so so go on then, what what's what do you
what do you have with us today? And we'll try
to dig into.

Speaker 8 (53:20):
It all right, So we have unanimous observations of things
be getting things. Actually more so than one equals one,
because everything you like, all numbers are created. So there's more,
there's more proof of the axiom of creation than the
axiom of numbers. So when I look at anything in

(53:42):
my room, for instance, me, I have two creators, my
mother and father. The sound you're hearing, I am creating that.
Everything you don't even it's not even look at the trees.
You can be blind and hear a fart, and you
know someone created the fart. Everything you observe has a creator.
Energy is created from if it's light energy, a light
source like our sun. If it's thermal energy, a heat

(54:04):
source like a fire. If it's a kinetic energy, emotion,
something that created emotion is the creator of that energy.
So everything I observe, even God, has a creator. Men
men create gods and gods in their mind, and Satan's
in their mind. Everything you observe has a creator. Why
wouldn't the reality. For instance, you're.

Speaker 6 (54:25):
At a blacket and red roulette.

Speaker 8 (54:27):
Table, let's say, and there's no green and red is
a thing with the creator, and black is a thing
without a creator, and all you have is observations of
red things be getting things. It's just that's been red
for thirty eight years that I've been watching this Roulette table.
Whatever I look at has some type of creator.

Speaker 6 (54:46):
Why would I bet I'm black? I know the machine's broken.

Speaker 1 (54:50):
So here's you gave us a lot there, and I
immediately have a couple of questions. First of all, just
just be clear when you talk about energy being like,
energy hasn't created. Energy is just it changes forms, it's transferred,
and it's released. It's emitted that. Normally I wouldn't be

(55:11):
pedantic about that, but given the specific circumstance about what
you're calling in here, I feel like that's important to
point out because that kind of brings us back to
the beginning of the universe, where you're saying it must
have a creator. Paradoxically, you then said God also has
a creator. Gods are created by men to explain things
or whatever like that. But ultimately, your actual argument that

(55:33):
you appear to be making here is that the universe
needed some sort of creator, which I would presume we
could colloquially call a god. Which isn't what you're referring
to when you talk about the ones. You know that
men create to fill in the gaps of their understanding.
So that actual creator that actually created the universe? What
created that guy?

Speaker 8 (55:56):
I don't know? But that does not mean it does
not have a creator just because I I don't.

Speaker 2 (56:00):
Like I didn't say it, did one believe one? Yeah,
I didn't say it.

Speaker 1 (56:04):
Did I'm asking you, do you believe that the creator
of the universe had a creator?

Speaker 8 (56:12):
I don't know?

Speaker 2 (56:14):
Okay, okay, So how come you get to say you
don't know and we can't say we don't know where exactly?

Speaker 1 (56:21):
That's exactly my point is when we talk about the
beginning of the universe, we have a line where we
can say we don't know what happened there. We don't
have the math, we don't even have the right questions
to ask. I don't know what created the universe or
if anything created the universe. That question is is inaccessible
to me. And you're saying no, it is absolutely a creator.
But then one step before that is where your I

(56:43):
don't know is And I don't get why you're cool
with doing that.

Speaker 8 (56:46):
I don't know what created the we'll call it the
creator of creators. But if something had to create time,
whatever set the first object in motion created time. If
if there's no before before, then it leads to a
primary creator, a first creator that created time. And how
it's what our realities physics works may not apply to

(57:10):
its reality because it is in a different reality, a
timeless real.

Speaker 1 (57:14):
How do you know? How do you know? How do
you know, herman, that our reality's physics and whatever else
you said, like the laws of physics that we exist
under today, how do you know that those were exactly
the same just before the Big bang? Whatever before the
Big Bang means I don't exactly, so your because I'm

(57:39):
not a physicist, I don't even know if we have
a way to assess that question. So here we are
both of us ignorant about what was going on before
the concept of before had any meaning. And you're saying
a guy was there and he did some stuff and
then I don't know before that.

Speaker 8 (57:57):
No, No, I never said a guy. I said a creator.
There's a big different.

Speaker 1 (58:02):
It's a guy.

Speaker 8 (58:03):
I'm not even defining it. Well, then it was a guy.

Speaker 6 (58:06):
If it was a guy.

Speaker 8 (58:08):
But here's the thing, you know, one equals one, and
you know the next one will equal one even without
seeing it, because all the ones previous to it have
equaled one. That's the axiom of numbers. So you know
everything you look at as a creator, the next thing
will have a creator even though yeah, but no.

Speaker 2 (58:24):
The thing is the problem is you're defining the system
that this exists under. It follows the same rules as
the system itself. I mean this is like when Christians say, oh,
how can you prove the scientific method because you can't
prove science with science. This is the same kind of
like problem of like metaphysics where it's like Forrest already
pointed this out, but I don't think you addressed this,

(58:46):
which is you're assuming that something had to come before
because our universe allegedly works in that something has to
come before. But how do we know that the system
itself has to work that way? How why does time
itself have to work that way? Because that's how time works,
But why does it have to be for time itself?

Speaker 6 (59:05):
Though?

Speaker 2 (59:05):
That's the thing, Like you're talking about observations outside the
observable universe, right, we can't extrapolate on that. We don't
have the ability to.

Speaker 8 (59:15):
I say, I don't know, but just like I know
the next one will equal one. I know something created
it now.

Speaker 2 (59:23):
That you don't.

Speaker 1 (59:23):
Don't if you don't.

Speaker 2 (59:25):
If you literally just said I don't know, and now
you're saying I do know, you said it in like
the same sentence there, like that's not how that works.

Speaker 8 (59:32):
You just don't know, right, Okay, do you know the
next one will equal one?

Speaker 2 (59:37):
That's not what we're asking. We're talking about what happened
before the beginning of the universe that has nothing to
do with the next sequence of numbers. Like, no, I
know one.

Speaker 1 (59:47):
I know one equals one, equals one equals one, and
I know that the next one will equal one. Yes,
I don't know where the first one came from, and
you're saying I do know where the first one came from.
It was an one, but I don't know what you
came for that, And I'm just saying, why the fuck
are you adding this extra thing in there? Just be

(01:00:07):
honest and say you don't know a thing, rather than saying,
I don't know. This other thing that has is contingent
upon this thing that I don't know exists, but I'm
saying it exists. And then I don't know about the
other thing beyond that. It's so weird.

Speaker 8 (01:00:21):
Yeah, the easiest way for you, guys to convince me
to become an untruthful atheist is to name one single
thing with proof that does not have a creator. And
if you look around in your room right now, you
see all those books behind Velki, every single one of

(01:00:42):
them is created.

Speaker 6 (01:00:42):
So go ahead, pick up an object.

Speaker 8 (01:00:44):
And show me this wasn't created, and I'll show you
that's not necessary.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
I can go grab a rock from outside that wasn't created.

Speaker 6 (01:00:54):
Right, you're trying to get just a rock.

Speaker 8 (01:00:56):
It's me to bet on to bet on red a
thing without a creator? When are black thing without a creator?
When all I have is observations of red, I'm gonna
bet on red.

Speaker 6 (01:01:04):
Guys.

Speaker 2 (01:01:05):
See, this is another problem with your argument is that
you're defining creation in a very specific way like force.
Just an example of a rock, right, because when we
think about rocks, we think about nature, and we don't
typically define nature as having intent, like we just defined
as like natural forces. So like in forced conception, he's
absolutely right, like the rock outside his house. I mean,

(01:01:26):
unless it's like from a construction side or something, it's
probably just been formed by natural forces and has like
no intent to its quote unquote design. Right, But like
you might say, oh, well, somebody designed the physical forces,
and which we would respond, how do you know that?
Because I certainly don't know that, and you certainly don't
know that, but you're assuming that that's how it works.

(01:01:47):
And so we're just back at square one.

Speaker 6 (01:01:49):
Video is a bault.

Speaker 1 (01:01:50):
I literally, I literally can make some some just some
points with about exactly this. Here, I have a camera.
This was created. Somebody intentional put these parts together to
make this thing. This is a created object. Next to
me over here, I have a little slice of agate crystal.
This was not created. It just came together by natural processes.

(01:02:15):
Now here's a middle ground here. I have a scallopshell.
This was created by an animal, but it did not
have intention behind it, so arguably not created, just another
natural process, but also still had a living See there's
a lot of nuance in this. But you were using
the word created to me anything that had anything contingent

(01:02:37):
and anything with an antecedent, anything with anything before it.
And at the end of the day, you're gonna run
to the big Bang and say, Okay, now I don't
know what came before this, And Dan and I are
honest enough to say I don't even know how to
ask a question about what came before that, because the
Big Bang is also the beginning of time as we
know it and space as we know it. So what

(01:02:59):
happened outside of everywhere in a time that isn't doesn't
make any sense. You, however, are not honest enough to
do that. You say something came before something else. Therefore,
there's some fucking guy that lives in a place that
can't and he made the universe, and whatever came before
him is the big mystery. And I just don't understand

(01:03:21):
how you're comfortable being that dishonest with yourself.

Speaker 8 (01:03:26):
I said, creator, not guy. And all those things you
have shown on the screen have had a creator, including
the rocks that are created by volcanoes and other forms
of creation.

Speaker 1 (01:03:37):
And yes, it is a dermine, Herman, Jesus of fucking
christ Land. Herman. I just covered that, just explained why
you're using the word that way and why it doesn't
work for this conversation.

Speaker 2 (01:03:49):
I did.

Speaker 1 (01:03:50):
The last thing I said was about that you weren't listening.
You were waiting for your turn to speak.

Speaker 8 (01:03:53):
That is the definition of creator, a person or thing
that creates something. When a volcano land or rocks, it
is a creator. That's why we have these words in English.
This is so we can define the uh us.

Speaker 2 (01:04:10):
Yeah, and it's also why serious people that look at
this issue don't use that word because it obviously has
very ambiguous connotations, right.

Speaker 8 (01:04:21):
As a creator.

Speaker 2 (01:04:22):
No, yes, again, only Christians talk about like phenomenology this way.
Like actual people who study this stuff like don't use
these terms exactly because of this problem the herman. Do
you see why this is such an issue. You can't
just say, oh, well, volcano created, because volcano isn't just
one singular thing. It's actually a multifaceted combination of geological

(01:04:47):
forces interacting at the same time. So it's not even
coherent to even say, oh, it's just a volcano, because
you have to account for like the seismic shifts in
the earth, Like there's so many like different systems that
are interacting there that just calling it, wrapping it up
and saying oh, the volcano created, that's not scientific. It's
not philosophical, and it's not if you're a truth seeker,

(01:05:08):
it's not honest. So if you really want to be
honest right, which you seem to be calling us out on.
You need to look into how people actually use these
words and define them and not just slap the word
creator on them, because you're doing yourself a disservice here.

Speaker 1 (01:05:22):
We know that Herman doesn't give a damn because Herman
already hung up. But like I was gonna ask like
just some general like can some can nothing create something?

Speaker 2 (01:05:32):
And how do you know?

Speaker 6 (01:05:34):
You know?

Speaker 1 (01:05:34):
Like it's like actually, like seriously, try thinking about this
rather than just getting into this like pseudologic loop of
everything had to be created, therefore there's a creator, but
I don't know what created that because maybe that wasn't created.
You're allowing yourself to have these gaps in your logic
where it suits you, but when it comes to whether

(01:05:54):
or not your specific whatever this this deistic creature that
you're talking about here, you're getting so upset and trying
to focus in on the reuse of the word guy
as if it matters, like it it's just fucking embarrassing
to sit here and lay down this logic rules that
you yourself are not going to follow in order to
try to box us in to some dumbass linguistic trap

(01:06:18):
of the word creation. It's just useless. But I do
tell you what we've got. Uh. We have a ton
of theists on this car on the call, but we
have one that just called in. Here is Luke Bron
see him call it also from the barren snowy wastelands
of Canada. Who it just says prime mover arguments.

Speaker 6 (01:06:37):
Here.

Speaker 1 (01:06:37):
It's the same call, but in a different way. And
maybe Luke will be a little bit more calm and patient.
You're on You're on forest and Dan, how are you doing?

Speaker 6 (01:06:47):
Maybe maybe field the void that you felt the clonder?
That's a I call it because I was listening to
him and I'm like, ah, they keep asking the same question,
not answering the question. How do you know? Right? Is
the primes? Your question that hasn't been in so yet?

(01:07:08):
Am I correct? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (01:07:10):
I would love to hear what you have to say
about it. So if you have some some this year,
you're starting the call now. So if you have some
pretense you want to bring in, we give you time
to do it. What what what's your prime mover argument?

Speaker 6 (01:07:23):
So I'm uh, so you guys know I'm a Catholic,
so we have a different definition of God than many
of the Christians have. It's a little bit different. It's similar,
but a little bit different than the others. The prime
mover argument is the one that you talked about earlier,

(01:07:43):
where there is a cause for the universe or time
itself as a cause. There is a being that is
outside of time, so no no bounds to time that
we call God. That's is the argument. Basically, he's the
creator of the so the one thing that is different

(01:08:07):
from the Polish goal would be also that he's the
maker of the rules of the universe. So rules need
rule masures. That's why we do observe all the rules
that we have besides the rules of nature have moor makure.

Speaker 2 (01:08:27):
Okay, I don't know if I agree with that, but yeah,
that's that seems pretty abstract of.

Speaker 6 (01:08:35):
The natural world that are not made by lemaker.

Speaker 2 (01:08:39):
I don't, I don't. I don't see that as a
natural law. Like I don't, I don't know if I
observe nature and I say, ah, yes, rules need rule makers,
like that doesn't seem to come from any observation that
I've seen. That just seems like an idea that sounds nice.

Speaker 6 (01:08:55):
That is able that doesn't have a rule maker.

Speaker 2 (01:09:00):
A rule that doesn't have a rule Well, argue again,
if you're an atheist and you've viewed the laws of nature,
I'm not necessarily going to say, yeah, these have a maker.
There's nothing that compels me to that. I'm just observing
a rule.

Speaker 1 (01:09:12):
Yeah, I would throw out there. It is like you know,
take for example, like take for example special relativity. Right,
so special relativity is a rule of the universe, But
I wouldn't say it necessitates a rule maker because it's
literally just logic. It's logic that stretches your mind, but

(01:09:34):
it is just logic if you understand, like, the primary
concept of physics is that, like any question in physics
you ask, is contingent upon the observer from what perspective
are you looking at this thing? And if we understand,
the speed of light in order for physics to work
has to be consistent everybody's perspective. No matter where you're looking,

(01:09:57):
light is always doing the same thing, right, It's always
trying to the same speed for you. If that's the case,
then special relativity happens moving faster dilate space and time,
and so like.

Speaker 6 (01:10:12):
Sorry, you don't need to do that. I understand what
you mean when you say that the rules of nature
doesn't have the masures. I'm asking you beside those, are
there rules that you know of that don't need masure.

Speaker 1 (01:10:28):
What I'm trying to present to you is not What
I'm trying to present to you is not just the
blanket atheist position the laws of nature I don't believe
have a rule maker. I'm saying like, this is an
example of a rule that is out there that is
just rooted in logic. If you understand the basics of
how the universe works and just how logical thinking works,

(01:10:49):
this then naturally flows. Because obviously I can't say any
law that's been made by humans that wasn't made by
humans as well. Right, But if I talk about the
universe at large, I don't have to just fall into
the atheist trope of saying everything in the universe is natural.
Because I said so, I can actually show that this
is something that just is contingent on just rational like

(01:11:10):
the consistency.

Speaker 2 (01:11:11):
Yeah, I don't even and to your point, I don't
even think you have to necessarily postulate naturalism. I'm just
saying I observe the rules of nature. I make deductions
based on those observations, and I conclude that there's seem
to be rules. Again, nothing in that line of reasoning,
in that chain of reasoning means, oh, there's a rule
maker to those rules. Like I'm just seeing rules. I
don't know why I have to conclude that there's a

(01:11:32):
rule maker.

Speaker 6 (01:11:35):
Okay, to answer the question, why do I have to
conclude there is a rulemaker? It's based on the other
observation that you have, you do observe? We agree that
we do observe that every rule that we observe inside
the ruler feature have a woolemaker. Do we agree on that?

Speaker 2 (01:11:50):
No, I don't know why we're postulating that. Why why
are we making exceptions first of all for the rules
of nature? But like, yeah, if we're going to make
a game or something, if we're making the rules of chess,
and yeah, somebody's making the rules to that. But like,
that's that's so arbitrary. I don't even know why it's relevant.

Speaker 6 (01:12:07):
I'm sorry, did you understand the question as you No?

Speaker 2 (01:12:11):
I need help. I need to understand why are you
making exceptions to some rules and saying, besides these rules
which we observe in nature, which seem to be the
most important part. Everything else that we come up with
as humans has a rule maker. Well yeah, of course,
like I don't know, that seems like that seems so okay.

Speaker 6 (01:12:28):
Know, besides the fond, all the other ones have rulemakers.
And that's why the reason why we do have this
conclusion that there should be a roommaker for the wills
of nature is based on the other rule that we
do observe they need woolemakers.

Speaker 1 (01:12:44):
So just to be clear, then order written things that
are in disorder. It is so just just to be
very clear what you have just openly just admit that
is the definition of special bleeding is everything needs a
rule maker except for God, who made the rules, and
he doesn't need a rule maker because he's so fucking special.

(01:13:06):
That you have just created a logical fallacy for yourself
in order to get around the fact that you just
don't know a thing.

Speaker 6 (01:13:14):
Yeah, are you sure the one making the special feeding
that we don't need a maker?

Speaker 2 (01:13:20):
No, because we're saying blanketly that there doesn't need to
be any rule makers. There's no special pleading there. Special
pleading would be if Forrest was like, well, these rules
need rule makers, but everything else doesn't need rule makers,
which is what you're saying.

Speaker 1 (01:13:35):
I'm also perfectly willing to say I don't know where
the laws of physics came from, or if they could
have been different or anything like that. Like, as far
as I understand, there is no possible different laws of physics.
But I'm not a physicist, I'm a biologist.

Speaker 2 (01:13:50):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:13:50):
I would not want to be a part of any
physics club that would have someone like me as a member.
So like, I don't know, and I'm willing to just
say I don't know. But what you're doing here is
saying there must necessarily be an answer which you have
no proof of, and that answer must be this guy,
which you have no proof of. But that guy doesn't
need to follow the same rules as everything else, which

(01:14:12):
you have no proof of.

Speaker 6 (01:14:13):
That I'm wrong so many things, too many games. So
you started the claim, we don't need a bloe maker,
and then you change your came, no.

Speaker 2 (01:14:22):
We didn't start with the claim. Actually you started with
the claim, and your claim was every rule has a
rule maker. That is how this conversation started. And we
contested that claim. That's how this happened. That's yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:14:33):
I have never made the claim that there you know
that rules don't need rule makers. My claim is that
I don't believe you when you say that they do.
I have no reason to believe that the laws of
the universe necessarily had to come from some guy. I
have no reason to think that's true. So I'm not
saying it isn't. I'm saying I don't believe you when
you say that it is.

Speaker 6 (01:14:54):
Yeah, if you don't believe me, but you don't know,
that's your answer, that's that's cool.

Speaker 2 (01:14:59):
Yes, still we.

Speaker 6 (01:15:01):
Not know knowledgeable? You have the information, you don't you
don't think it is true or correct information. You you
you test the information that you have to compare it
to reality. Right, you use your own tool to compare
it to reality, and you evacuate the answer or knowledge
that you see from someone who keeps your knowledge about

(01:15:22):
something that you didn't know before. That's if you don't know.
But if you do know that we don't need the
rule maker, that's a different claim.

Speaker 1 (01:15:31):
So when I ask, right, which is why would neither
of us have made that claim?

Speaker 2 (01:15:35):
We never said that.

Speaker 6 (01:15:37):
Nature and you say no, when I asked you do
we agree, and you said no, right, right, what happened
at the beginning.

Speaker 2 (01:15:45):
Right right? You made the claim, and we don't agree
with the claim. We don't, we don't agree.

Speaker 1 (01:15:52):
Yeah, I don't know how to any more clear, Louke looke.
If I tell you right now, if I tell you
right now that there is literal elephant behind my bookshelf here,
you can say yes, there is, no, there isn't, or
I don't believe you. Yes there is or no, there isn't.
Require evidence I don't believe you. Is putting the burden
back on me as the claim maker, to then provide

(01:16:15):
evidence for you to make a judgment. That's what we're doing.
You said every rule needs a rule maker. We're saying
we don't know that's true or not. We have no
reason to believe that's true. So I don't believe you
until you give me a reason to have you verified that.
How do you know, Luke, that every rule needs a
rule maker?

Speaker 6 (01:16:34):
Yeah, So for us to know that, to have this
knowledge or acquire this knowledge, we need a common basis,
something that we both agree on will be used to
measure if it's true or not. Do we agree?

Speaker 2 (01:16:50):
I don't even think we need to agree. I think
like you at least need something. I like, there needs
to be some level of observation. We can't just nothing
becomes true because we agree on the standards of it.
I don't know we must, like if we don't have
Here's the thing. I feel like if you actually had
evidence of this, you would just give it to us

(01:17:11):
instead of trying to make us agree to some arbitrary standard. Right,
Like it should be self evident at some point and
we can talk about the merits of that evidence. But like,
why do we have to agree to some something that
we can't verify beforehand? Like, I don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:17:30):
What you are you claiming that we can't be verifying
if there is some more room maker or not.

Speaker 1 (01:17:35):
I'm saying we haven't verified.

Speaker 2 (01:17:36):
Yeah, how do I don't even know what standards? You're
saying we have to agree with some standard. I don't
even know what that would be. I don't even know
how we could do that, Luke.

Speaker 1 (01:17:46):
I would love to answer to my question, Luke, how
do you know that every rule needs a rule maker?
How do you know that?

Speaker 6 (01:17:51):
Yes?

Speaker 2 (01:17:52):
Just just tell us please.

Speaker 6 (01:17:54):
Of the County Church, the teachings.

Speaker 1 (01:17:58):
Of the Catholic Church Okay, so you don't know you
have a faith based police.

Speaker 6 (01:18:04):
You're asking me my uh my basis? Right, yeah, right
with you. That's mys it's not yours. But if we
want to have a constrict faive conversation, something that goes
towards the truth, we need to build a common basis,
a basis from which you and me needs to could

(01:18:25):
build from. Right now, you're saying, I don't know, and
I don't have the common basis where I could build from.
For example, the elephants in the boom is.

Speaker 2 (01:18:35):
Well, here's why I'm hesitant to agree with that. It's
because every time we talk to folks like yourself that
make us agree to these things, you always have these
weird logic games that you have us agree with, and
if we agree to premise A of this logic game,
that we must agree to premise B and premise C.
And it's like we're just going to disagree on semantics
like we've I feel like I've had this conversation a
million times. It always ends up that way.

Speaker 1 (01:18:57):
You know, if I can, if I can, like I
I agree, we need to have a common basis that
we can assess these claims. So here's the thing you
just said that the way you know what you said
is true is because you have faith, because it is
the Catholic teaching of the Catholic Church, and that you
are a Catholic, and so therefore that's just what you're
standing on. Dan and I are basing our beliefs on evidence.

(01:19:20):
If we don't have evidence for it, then we're not
going to believe it. So we I agree, we need
a common way to sort this out and figure out
if what you're saying is true, which is better? Which
is more reliable evidence or faith?

Speaker 6 (01:19:33):
That's the have you?

Speaker 1 (01:19:36):
Did you stop talking at all while I was talking?

Speaker 6 (01:19:38):
Luke? I am asking you to let's find together, you
and me this common basis. I agree with you, we
need a command, agree with you.

Speaker 2 (01:19:48):
We don't need Luke, We don't need to do that.

Speaker 1 (01:19:50):
All you have to do is give me a second.

Speaker 2 (01:19:53):
Luke.

Speaker 1 (01:19:53):
Luke, Luke, Luke, Luke? What question did I just ask.

Speaker 6 (01:20:00):
You to sign these COmON basis? No?

Speaker 1 (01:20:04):
What question? Did I just ask you? A moment ago.

Speaker 6 (01:20:11):
Just said no?

Speaker 1 (01:20:13):
No, nope. Right before I asked you, I asked you,
did you stop talking at all while I was talking?
And you said, we need to find a common basis.
Right before then, I said some stuff and I asked
a very important question while you were yammering on about
whatever the fuck you were yelling about. Do you know
what question I asked you?

Speaker 6 (01:20:35):
I am yelling. I'm sorry, maybe my Mexicans?

Speaker 1 (01:20:38):
Do you know what question I asked you?

Speaker 6 (01:20:41):
Luke? No, what was the question?

Speaker 1 (01:20:44):
Okay? So I'm going to say it again now. Please
try to listen this time, because you just reiterated the
problem that my question addressed you. I asked you earlier,
how do you know everything needs a cause, everything needs
to create whatever like that? And you said, because it's
the teaching of the Catholic Church. You believe it because

(01:21:04):
you believe it, because you believe it is your faith.
Paced position, Dan and I don't accept that because we
care about evidence. If we don't have evidence for a claim,
we're not going to believe it. You are now saying
that we need to find some common basis to assess
this claim. Which do you think is better evidence or faith?
Which is going to be the better common basis for

(01:21:26):
us to figure out if what you are saying is true?
Is evidence or faith a more reliable pathway to truth?

Speaker 6 (01:21:34):
Okay? So I just agree with the claim that it
is my faith that is the reason, my belief that
we need a boom maker. And yes, I agree that
it is evidence that is needed.

Speaker 1 (01:21:46):
Okay, have you provided any evidence that everything needs a creator?

Speaker 2 (01:21:52):
Or can you.

Speaker 6 (01:21:55):
Only if we have a common basis on what evidence
for a woon maker is?

Speaker 1 (01:22:00):
Have you provided any evidence that everything needs a rule maker?

Speaker 2 (01:22:04):
Why don't you forget us agreeing on that, because you
know what, we're probably going to disagree, So just give
us the evidence. Let's just do that.

Speaker 6 (01:22:14):
Define what would be evidence for a rule major? Is
that what you said that first?

Speaker 2 (01:22:18):
No asked?

Speaker 1 (01:22:19):
If I asked, have you provided any evidence for a
rule maker that everything needs a rule maker?

Speaker 6 (01:22:27):
Because we don't have a combinations? That's my answer no.

Speaker 2 (01:22:31):
Because here's why your evidence. You don't have evidence. You
have an argument, That is why. And this is what
always happens. It's Oh, I'm going to present as a
logical syllogism that you have to agree to, and that's
going to be my evidence. And yeah, we're going to
disagree because that's not what we think good evidence is.

Speaker 1 (01:22:47):
That's the the common basis is evidence. It is the
desire for evidence you asked me, what kind of evidence
do I want?

Speaker 8 (01:22:56):
Any?

Speaker 1 (01:22:56):
Give me your best, your favorite, the one that convinces
you the most. What evidence do you have that everything
needs a rule maker?

Speaker 6 (01:23:06):
Again? I gave you mind, and you said it's not
good enough.

Speaker 2 (01:23:09):
What what did you give?

Speaker 1 (01:23:11):
No, we asked, and the evidence you gave is it's
a Catholic teaching.

Speaker 6 (01:23:17):
Of knowledge.

Speaker 1 (01:23:19):
No, that is faith. Yeah, that's faith, the Catholic Church, sue,
is faith.

Speaker 6 (01:23:26):
Yeah, it's faith.

Speaker 2 (01:23:29):
Look, I would never in my life, never catch me
on live saying I believe in evolution because that's what
biology teaches.

Speaker 8 (01:23:38):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:23:39):
Who says that? Nobody? Why would you ever say that?

Speaker 5 (01:23:43):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:23:44):
Because we know that people can be wrong, and that's
not a reliable way of understanding something right. We have
to work out the methods by which we know things.
And if your argument is, well, this institution told me
this is true, So that's how I know it's true.
I'm sorry. One force is right, that's faith, and two

(01:24:04):
to better yourself, you should have something better, right, like,
because that's just not good enough?

Speaker 6 (01:24:12):
Okay? Who said that teaches?

Speaker 8 (01:24:15):
Uh?

Speaker 6 (01:24:16):
Is it? Or who said that? Your voices are so
similar to me? And I don't have.

Speaker 2 (01:24:21):
Your oh he means literally who I mean? This is
objectively Dan speaking.

Speaker 6 (01:24:26):
Okay, I think sorry, thank you then too, when you
say that you will never say teachers that evolution is true,
that that is not the evidence that you bring. What
you will bring for evidence is a teaching for some
scientists like menly that your own research on evolution. Am

(01:24:50):
I correct?

Speaker 2 (01:24:51):
Well, I'm not. The point is I'm not going to
hang my hat on Oh well, scientists say the evolution
is true, like that's not that's not good enough.

Speaker 6 (01:24:59):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
Scientists say a lot of shit, right, Like, you have
to be very specific in what you cite and how
you bring that argument to the table. I wouldn't just
say a scientist said this. I might say this is
the observation of some group of scientists, or this is
you know, like there's I would be a bit more
specific than just an institution told me this is true,
which is what you're bringing to the table by saying
the Catholic Church says this is true.

Speaker 6 (01:25:22):
Think of someone who says, well, but scientist is not evidence.
What scientist says are not evidences. What would you then say?
Would you would say, okay, what would be evidence for evolution? Right?

Speaker 1 (01:25:34):
That would be I agree what a scientist says isn't evidence.
Evidence is evidence. If you ask me why I believe
in evolution, I would argue about the word belief in
that case. But then when I stop being a potantic prick,
I would explain, like the fossil record and genetics and
homology and embryology and observed evolution, the fact that you

(01:25:56):
can literally watch it happening. I'll give you the definition
of evolution and show that model in reality. I could
show you how evolution works. At no point would I
ever have to say this scientist or group of scientists
says evolution is real, so I think it is.

Speaker 6 (01:26:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:26:11):
To be clear, I'm not saying that we can't cite
the claims of scientists, period. I'm just saying you don't
hang your hand on that. Testimony from people is just
the lowest form of evidence you can possibly give to
a conversation. I certainly wouldn't it is saying my entire
belief system of evolution being true just because a scientist
says it's true. But that seems to be okay with
you when it comes to Christian claims. You seem to

(01:26:32):
accept this. You seem to be able to say, well,
the Catholic Church says this, and that's good enough for you.
And I'm saying why why not have more self respect?
Why not say hey, I need better better than this.

Speaker 6 (01:26:44):
You know, did you yourself or did you hear someone
talk about it? And test the source that you evolution? Evolution?

Speaker 2 (01:26:54):
I went to school like I did my own experiments.
Within school, I took courses on biological anthropology, like I
went to zoos and looked at monkeys, and I did
all kinds of shit. Man, I did a lot of money.
I'll tell you that I did more work to figure
out that shit than what you did. For God being
the source of everything. I'll tell you that.

Speaker 1 (01:27:16):
Yeah, I can tell you, like a big part of
science education when you get a science degree, is actually
learning how we.

Speaker 2 (01:27:23):
Know what we know.

Speaker 1 (01:27:25):
At no point in my science education was I ever
expected to just believe a thing because a teacher told
me to, or because I read it in a textbook,
or because some scientists said it. We learn what we
know how we know it. And especially in graduate school,
like eighty percent of the of the entire class is
arguing about what you read and do you believe it?

(01:27:47):
And why and like critiquing other scientists, learning how to
critically think about what we know. So like, yeah, I
have actually done the work to learn this stuff in
a way that is much more substantial than somebody said it.
So it's true.

Speaker 6 (01:28:04):
Okay when you say that somebody said that, it's true
you you the information is not from yourself, right you?
You ask someone else what was the result of this test?
And then you ask someone else what was the.

Speaker 2 (01:28:19):
Result for No, I need you to understand Forrest is
a literal biologist. He's not just a guy that looks
up on Wikipedia. He does this ship for a living.
Like you're talking to the wrong motherfucker today, okay, Like
this is the guy. This is the guy that you
cite when you are looking at your own papers. He's
got his name in them. Okay, Like.

Speaker 6 (01:28:43):
You are the guy who tests evolution in yourself. You
did test yourself involition, right? I mean? Correct? Yes? All right,
So that's what that's what my question, right, it's it's
the question I asked earlier. It was a yes or
no question, did you test evolution yourself? But yes, the question.
You didn't need to explain all the things about the

(01:29:03):
teachers you went to school and all of those things.

Speaker 1 (01:29:06):
Because because it doesn't matter for me personally, I'm just
one dude. Yeah, its logical thinking overall.

Speaker 6 (01:29:17):
For this conversation to be able to move forward, we
need a basis. We have this knowledge. This is about Luke.

Speaker 1 (01:29:27):
Have you have you personally done any tests or experiments
to verify whether or not every rule needs a rule.

Speaker 2 (01:29:35):
Maser, Please tell me what you did for that.

Speaker 6 (01:29:39):
Yes, so if we have now the claim that you
are not an expert of this in this case, for
if you are an expert on evolution, you have the knowledge.
You have the tested yourself, you have observed the answer
from the text or the results of the text on
something evolving, or research from other people that found something. Uh,

(01:30:02):
that's as previous about the position. That's cool, that's that's
a big What I wanted to point out here is
that every knowledge that we have is based on another
person's testimony. Right, we don't have like, it's.

Speaker 2 (01:30:16):
Not God, this is just this is postmar Congratulations, you've
discovered the work the writings of Sartra okay, of sarch
actually is how you say the English? Go ahead? Yes,
this is postmodernism. Yes, this is f call to Michelle Fukull.
We're talking about institutional knowledge and power. Yes, we understand.
It's very in the modern era.

Speaker 1 (01:30:38):
Louke, Yeah, what do you think the materials and methods
section of a scientific paper is for?

Speaker 2 (01:30:43):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:30:46):
Can I Can I finish with the blommaker?

Speaker 8 (01:30:48):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:30:49):
I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (01:30:50):
I think you should answer question anything. What do you
think the materials and method section of a scientific paper
is for?

Speaker 5 (01:30:57):
Question?

Speaker 6 (01:30:57):
If answer your question, can I continue? The will be good?

Speaker 1 (01:31:01):
No, be great if you answered the question you were asked,
Because we're already like five minutes past when I wanted
to end this call. We've gone nowhere in twenty three minutes.

Speaker 6 (01:31:10):
So I answered. It's to give you more information evidence,
That's what it is for. Let's just tell you as
an answer to your question.

Speaker 1 (01:31:17):
No, it's to tell you how these people actually learn
what they learn. It's to show you the process that
they went to to come to this knowledge, so you
can critically analyze whether or not it makes any freaking sense.
So you're not just reading this guy set a thing,
and now I will say the thing, and then my
students will say the thing. You actually check to see

(01:31:39):
if what they learn was reasonable. You check their data,
you check their statistics. Also, they have to have a
discussion section, when more often than not, you write in
there all the ways you could be wrong and other
shit that you aren't sure about, so other people can
come along and test it and find out there's more
information there that maybe you miss. Like, like I said earlier,
a bit part of grad school is reading scientific papers

(01:32:03):
and figuring out why you shouldn't trust something and why
some things actually they miss some stuff. Like you just
keep falling back on this idea that there is no
such thing as knowledge because all knowledge is inevitably coming
from some other person. When at the end of the day,
you are avoiding the fact that your actual position is

(01:32:23):
the Church said it, so it is nevermind the fact
that the Catholic Church has change its position several times
over the years. Does limbo exist because at one time
the Church said it does, and then another time the
Church said it didn't. Are unbaptized babies in heaven or
not because at one time the Church said one thing
and another time the Church said another thing. What you

(01:32:44):
are demonstrating is faith. Somebody told you and you trust them,
so you believe it. It is your religion. What Dan
and I are showing here is actual critical thinking and
the desire for evidence before we believe something. So I'll
bring you back to the question that you dodged for
fucking ten minutes last time by saying what faith isn't isn't?

(01:33:06):
Just do you think that searching for evidence and asking
for a reason to believe something is a better way
of going about finding out what is and is not
true in this universe than just saying my church said so,
therefore I know it's true. Yes, great, then do better
at thinking, Luke, because you're doing the thing that you

(01:33:29):
just admitted doesn't work with that. It's been twenty six
agonizing minutes. I'm gonna move on to one last call
and wrap up the show. Have an awesome rest of
your day. Call us again sometimes you ever want to
try again?

Speaker 2 (01:33:41):
Man, Hey, did you know we can't trust evolutions real
because all of our papers come from other people?

Speaker 1 (01:33:48):
Right? M Yeah. I love that you pointed out that
is literally the problem of fucking postmodernism. That's actually what
it is.

Speaker 2 (01:33:56):
This is what Michelle fucle wrote about. You wrote about
inscusions of knowledge and and why there's a mistrust in
a modern society where we continue to have a distrust
because of the exact phenomenon. Meanwhile, the Pope can just
be like, yeah, I don't think I don't think limbo's
a thing, and they're like, all right, that's the infallible
truth for for moving on. Yeah, you got to pick

(01:34:20):
our battles here, Luke, you you you cannot criticize the
institution of science before you actually understand what it is. Okay,
I they need to get get some knowledge in that area.

Speaker 1 (01:34:32):
You know, we were already four minutes over time, but
I'm down for a very again, one more.

Speaker 2 (01:34:38):
We should have been to that call sooner, so yeah,
we should another.

Speaker 1 (01:34:41):
But like, fuck, do you want to do number eight
or number twenty? I'm interested in those.

Speaker 2 (01:34:45):
Eight or twenty eight or twenty let's see.

Speaker 1 (01:34:50):
Saying it would be selfish. I think twenties.

Speaker 2 (01:34:51):
A good twenty is better.

Speaker 1 (01:34:52):
I think, yeah, let's see that. Yeah, okay, we're gonna
talk about number twenty. Uh, let's talk to and again
this is what it's as on the screen, y'all. We're
gonna talk to Prophet Daniel pronounced he him call it
all the way from Australia, all the way down there
on on the butt end of the world. Who says

(01:35:13):
God is not imaginary? Yeah, God is not imaginary. There
is evidence for the existence of God. Prophet Daniel, do
I call you a prophet? Or do I call you Daniel?
You're on a XP with Forrests and Dan. How are
you doing today?

Speaker 4 (01:35:28):
A good?

Speaker 11 (01:35:29):
How are you guys doing?

Speaker 1 (01:35:31):
All right?

Speaker 2 (01:35:33):
As good as you can?

Speaker 11 (01:35:38):
So what's up? I've been actually watching you guys for
quite some time now, So one of the come and
jump in and sorry to hear that opinions.

Speaker 2 (01:35:49):
All right, okay, well you're you're here, You're on the air.
I know you've been waiting, So this is your opportunity. Yeah,
one shot.

Speaker 6 (01:35:55):
Let's start with.

Speaker 1 (01:35:56):
Let's start with which, which God do you believe is real?

Speaker 2 (01:35:59):
Yeah?

Speaker 11 (01:36:02):
Look, there is one God for the entirety of existence.
And the question that I have for you guys, is
a god can go out, can go on and predict
world history changing events and.

Speaker 2 (01:36:18):
Stop you right there? Filled not to be too curt
but you can't ask us what we think a god
can do if we don't believe in one. Sorry, we can't.
I talk about the capabilities of things that don't exist.

Speaker 6 (01:36:30):
Right.

Speaker 1 (01:36:30):
Also, you said there is one God, for all the words.
So I'm assuming we're talking about Zoraster, right.

Speaker 11 (01:36:36):
Yeah, No, Look, if a god can predict his if
a God can predict and fulfill those predictions, would that
God be an imaginary god or a real divine being?

Speaker 2 (01:36:48):
Hm? Okay, I see where you're going with this. You're
trying to say that there are predictions out there that
have been fulfilled that demonstrate the existence of God. Is
that where we're going? Yeah? Absolutely, Okay, okay.

Speaker 1 (01:37:01):
What what predictions in the Qur'an demonstrate that Allah is
actually the one true God.

Speaker 11 (01:37:08):
I'm actually talking about Prophet Daniel Boom Daniel's book chapter two.

Speaker 1 (01:37:16):
Who's Who's Prophet Daniels?

Speaker 2 (01:37:18):
Daniel?

Speaker 5 (01:37:18):
God?

Speaker 1 (01:37:19):
Daniel is not God. I've been working with him for
years and and he's a good parent. League. I don't
know what your job title.

Speaker 2 (01:37:25):
Is, don't docs my title, but I'm glad you got
it wrong anyway. Anyway, Yeah, obviously referard to the Book
of Daniel and Bible. Yeah, so you think that there's
a Christ? Are you specifically referring to the passages that
allegedly uh, you know, I'm sorry for being kurt. Again.

(01:37:47):
We're at the tail end of the show. I'm just
trying to wrap things here, and so I know you've
been waiting for a minute, but it sounds like you're
going to cite the passages that alleged to the Messiah
figure which is allegedly fulfilled by Jesus in the New
test Right, I'm talking.

Speaker 11 (01:38:03):
I'm specifically talking about the dream interpretation, dream narration and
interpretation by Profit Daniel. Okay, Babylon, It's okay, all right.
So I'm talking about this particular dream interpretation which goes
on to be fulfilled at the grandest level in world history.
It's a world history changing event, all right?

Speaker 7 (01:38:24):
So why way be proof?

Speaker 2 (01:38:27):
Well, I'm gonna stup you right there, because so there's
basically day has much dreams, and there's they interpret these
different things in these dreams to be different civilizations. But
your answer on this depends a lot, Profit Daniel, What
do these dreams interpretations mean to you? Are we Do
you think that they're referring to something happening in current

(01:38:49):
events or do you think they're referring to ancient civilizations?
What are you thinking here?

Speaker 11 (01:38:55):
Like, obviously I assume that some of you are Bible scholars,
Am I true?

Speaker 6 (01:39:00):
Not?

Speaker 2 (01:39:00):
Bible scholars, no, getting We've read it and talked read
stuff about.

Speaker 1 (01:39:05):
I'm a biologist. Is loud on the internet for a living?

Speaker 6 (01:39:09):
What?

Speaker 1 (01:39:09):
Okay, So I don't know the Prophet Daniel dream. I
just looked it up and what I see is it's
a dream of a statue with a head of gold
and arms and chest of silver. Is that what you're
talking about?

Speaker 2 (01:39:19):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (01:39:20):
I believe so, absolutely correct, Yeah, that's the dream, okay,
Bible what is agree that in the dream the gold
head was the Babylonian Empire and the silver chested empire
was the Persian Empire that subsumed the Babylonian Empire. And
then you have the Macedonian king Alexander, the Great Empire

(01:39:43):
come and subsume the Persian Empire. And we know the
great battle that occurred between Alexander and Darius where Darius
experienced the decisive defeat. And then all the scholars in
the world, Christian scholars in the world, the Bible scholars
in the world unanimously agree that Roman Empire subsumes the

(01:40:04):
remainder of disintegrating Macedonian Empire. Right, So, Roman Empire in
first century takes over the Holy Land and they become
the resident empire in the Holy Land, all right, And
first century is a very critical time, and that's when
the Jewish people are expecting their Messiah to come and

(01:40:26):
liberate them from the Roman yolk. Right, So that's the
time the Messiah comes. But for the misfortune of the
Jewish people themselves, they disbelieve in the Messiah and the
Messiah just and there for the own misfortune, the Roman
Empire continues to become comfortable in the Holy Land because

(01:40:47):
of their disbelief of the Messiah. All right, So were
just now in seventh century.

Speaker 1 (01:40:52):
Really really quickly, before I before I let you finish
your sermon, before I let you finish your sermon, I
just want to understand, like I'm going to pass the
whole claim that scholars unanimously agree. I don't know of
anything that scholars in any field unanism unanimously agree on.
That's kind of this. There's an old joke that like
a group of crows is called a murder, and a

(01:41:13):
group of ferrets is called the business, and a group
of academics is called the disagreements, and so like that's
just I but let's assume let's assume that every Bible
scholar is like, yeah, that's what that is. Just so
I'm on the same page here. Did these events happen
before or after the writing of this part of the Bible?

Speaker 2 (01:41:31):
What a great question to ask Forrest, because I happen
to have the answer to that, and the answer is yes,
of course they were written later as later interpretations, because
Daniel has been modified and is not. So the Daniel
we have of the Old Testament is not the Daniel
that was first written in the time of the ritual author.

(01:41:51):
Isn't that interesting?

Speaker 1 (01:41:52):
So Prophet Daniel, now, profit Daniel, if you'll let me
finish my question, can you please answer for me? What
do you think personally, just as as you as a
per do you think it's more reasonable that the original
authors of the Bible wrote this perfect thing that perfectly
prophesied all these world events, and they just happened to

(01:42:14):
write it in the weirdest fucking way possible, so that
now in twenty twenty five we can kind of squint
our eyes out and say that looks like this, Or
do you think that maybe the fact that the Bible
has been rewritten and rewritten and reinterpreted and retranslated and
had things added and taken out, and now all this way,
thousands of years later, we can look back and figure

(01:42:36):
out what the fuck they were trying to do. That
kind of demonstrates that, just like any other man made document,
it's just telling a story that the authors wanted it
to tell. What do you think is more reasonable?

Speaker 11 (01:42:50):
Actually, you're getting confused, all right, Yes, the book, I have.

Speaker 2 (01:42:54):
A better I have a better question to ask. Sorry forrest,
not that your question isn't good, but because I know
this specific context of this, because the four kingdoms that
are alluded to, as you're right, one of them Babylon, Persia,
et cetera. The fourth kingdom being the Roman Empire, is
interpreted as such because of the fall of the Jewish people.

(01:43:16):
The reason why that's wrong is because the Fourth Empire,
as described, is supposed to bring about the end of
the fucking world. Right, It's not just the end of
the Jewish people. It's literally supposed to take over the
earth levels of ending of the world, and the world,
as far as I know, it is still going. So
that's why it's not a good prophecy. It's wrong, right.

Speaker 11 (01:43:40):
Hang on, hang on, don't brush, don't rush, don't rush, Okay.

Speaker 2 (01:43:44):
So we're yeah, we are rushing to be clear.

Speaker 11 (01:43:50):
No, okay, So the empire that should subsume and consume
the Roman Empire is the Rock Empire, the rock that
God makes, the God of Heaven makes with his own hands. Correct,
So there you go. In seventh century, there comes a
Slam from the heartland of Arabia and defeats the Roman Empire. Okay,
it subsumes it takes control of the Holy Land, right,

(01:44:12):
so that's God's empire.

Speaker 2 (01:44:13):
No, No, the text literally says they controlled the entire earth.
That's not what it doesn't say it takes over a
majority land mass or just Israel. They're taught. They says
it takes over the entire earth. It is an apocalypse dream.
It is not just say that. Yeah, the Rock became
a mountain that filled the whole world. That's the end

(01:44:34):
of the trap passage led up here.

Speaker 11 (01:44:37):
Holy No, it doesn't say that.

Speaker 2 (01:44:41):
I'm not dale, I'm not a Bible scholar, but I've
read the Bible. That's not what it says.

Speaker 11 (01:44:46):
Open, open, Open the Book of Daniel two.

Speaker 8 (01:44:50):
Open.

Speaker 1 (01:44:51):
I just read it. I just read it aloud. A
great stone not cut by human hands fell to the
feet of the statue and destroyed it, and the rock
became a mountain that filled the whole world, not the
Holy Land, the whole world.

Speaker 11 (01:45:03):
So look, in Biblical terms, the world depicts the world
of Israelites, the Holy Land. That's the world for them.

Speaker 1 (01:45:12):
Oh okay it, Well, then if if the whole world
just means Palestine, then I'm gonna say that the statue
means fucking Megatron. Like it doesn't. I don't know what
you're saying here, dude, Like it's just you're just making
excuses for something that doesn't make any goddamn sense. And
as we already explained earlier on, this has been adapted
in later versions to be more like the history that

(01:45:34):
the authors knew already happened. So it sounds to me
like you're just like real locked into this thing without
thinking about it too much. I encourage you to call
deconstruction zone. Who I see is in the chat we
got justin here next time he's on that dude has
actually read the Bible better than most people I know
and can probably deal out what actually is being said.

(01:45:55):
You're better than us. But as of right now, Prophet Daniel,
the Prophet Daniel in the Bible that you're describing here
is not convincing to either of us. I'm gonna go
ahead and wrap up the call because you you had
your chance and you blew it. So like we're gonna
move on to I encourage a call back with somebody
who can maybe deal out the history of the Bible
a little bit better.

Speaker 2 (01:46:15):
Yep, yep. Yeah, so you're you're a criticism is correct
when talking about Daniel and some other aspects because there's
like later interpretations of of of of Messianic prophecy within Daniel.
But interestingly he's talking about the the apocalypse stuff from
Nebucknezer's dream. I want to point out the original Book

(01:46:37):
of Daniel also has Daniel talking to a dragon, so
there's a lot Maybe the Book of Daniel isn't exactly
the most reliable source of information about anything ever, but yeah,
people interpreted as the Roman Empire, not even Muslims, which
is that's a whole other thing.

Speaker 1 (01:46:55):
So well, I do want to point out that, like
if the rock that that is created by God and
is the one final truth that destroys all world is Islam,
then you just admitted that Islam's true. So that's kind
of cool. Yeah, well what it sounded.

Speaker 2 (01:47:10):
Like to me they didn't do a great job because like,
Islam isn't even the majority religion in the world right now,
So I don't know, I don't know what happened with that,
but you know.

Speaker 1 (01:47:20):
Yeah, I'm gonna that that's our time. We both have
some commitments that we got to go take care of.
But really quickly, I want to thank our backup host
for helping out tonight. It's Jamie. Look at that handsome devil.
Thanks so much for hanging out, my dude. I appreciate
you being here.

Speaker 12 (01:47:37):
Oh you can name me now right, Yes, thank you
very much. Did very great, fantastic You probably saw me
ripping my non existent hair out some of that. The
biggest two big things One, what were the tiny humans
running around at the party full of atheists I was
at watching Eurovision, If not children, maybe constructs. And secondly,

(01:47:59):
I love the fact that Luke called in thinking he
had something and did exactly the same thing as Herman,
where he's like, this word means what I say, it
means rules have a rule maker, And I'm like, you know,
a word can mean two things differently, right that we
when we say rule of nature. We mean observed consistent,

(01:48:19):
predictable pattern. It wasn't set there. And if you try
and break it's not like someone's going to come go
and go no no, no, no yellow card. We're trying
to break physics.

Speaker 1 (01:48:29):
It's don't pretend like you know what words are, Jamie,
who do you think you are? Herman?

Speaker 2 (01:48:36):
This is a Collins show. Nobody knows what words actually means.
We're just making going on.

Speaker 12 (01:48:42):
Yeah, I'm from where words were invented, I'll have you know.

Speaker 2 (01:48:47):
So where there's words, there's word makers. So you know
that one.

Speaker 1 (01:48:56):
Yeah. Anyway, God save the whatever with that, y'all. Uh,
it's been a show and you watched it, so you're
you're at least partially responsible for this whole thing that
happened just now. I want to thank objectively, Dan, my
beautiful co host, and Jamie, our incredible backup posts. I
also want to thank our call screen with Tinah, and

(01:49:18):
also all of our the rest of our crew are
our showrunners and our producers and all the people who
make this show possible. Thank you to our callers, even
the ones that sucked. Thank you to the people in
the chat, even the ones that sucked. Thank you for watching,
have an awesome rest of your day, and never stop learning.

Speaker 2 (01:49:31):
Bye bye, Glad.

Speaker 13 (01:49:34):
Let to start Albay, stop the bullshit every.

Speaker 1 (01:49:45):
By. Welcome Ellen. We watch Talkie Than live Sundays at

(01:50:20):
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

Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

.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 29.23 with Forrest Valkai and ObjectivelyDan

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;}Dateline NBC

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

All Episodes

The Atheist Experience 29.23 with Forrest Valkai and ObjectivelyDan

Dateline NBC