The Atheist Experience 29.29 with Godless Engineer and @blitzphd 2025-07-20 16-25-13

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Prayer is useless. And if you think you're a super
special person, that your God readjusts his perfect plan so
you can get that promotion at work while one hundred
and seven people, including thirty seven children, died in what
some call an act of God. Then we want to
hear from you because the show starts. Now, what's up?

(00:27):
He then's welcome everybody. Today is July twenty and twenty
twenty five, and I am your host, godless Engineer John Gleeson,
and joining me today is doctor Blitz. How you doing there,
doctor Blitz?

Speaker 2 (00:39):
I am warm and uncomfortable, but otherwise great.

Speaker 1 (00:43):
Yes, I too am warm and uncomfortable. Heat rises and
I'm on the half the half story of my house
and so like, it's it's pretty hot up here right now.
But I'm glad that you're doing well other than you know,
being a little hot over there. So what do you
want to you know, in case anybody doesn't know, do
you want to tell people like, you know, kind of
who you are and everything like that.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
Yeah, So I'm a human that was born somewhere on
Earth around thirty two years ago. I eventually ended up
getting a pH d in physics and now as part
of my science communication out efforts, I engage in debate
Lord memory. So here we are. I've never been a Christian,
I've never really believed in God to begin with. But

(01:28):
you know I still strong opinions.

Speaker 1 (01:29):
Yep. I also similarly have strong opinions, and I also
cannot say similarly in a in like a normal way.
All right, Well, we do have our first caller lined up.
Are you ready to just jump right on.

Speaker 2 (01:42):
In as ready as I'll ever be.

Speaker 1 (01:44):
All Right, Before we get to our first caller, I
do want to specify that the atheist experience is a
product of the atheist community of Austin if I have
one C three nonprofit organization dedicated to the promotion of atheism,
critical thinking, secular humanism, and the operation of religion and government.
So with that in mind, we're gonna talk to Benji

(02:07):
from my own state of alicious slamas. I don't I
don't know what that's supposed to mean. Hey there, Benji,
how you doing.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
Hey, I'm good. I don't think I've ever spoke to
you all before. So I was I was gonna go
ahead and talk about the how God's patience has gone
pretty much and also the indoctrination saying, but I'm pretty
sure y'all would disagree with me on that.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
Well, yeah, so the notes say that you're you're saying
that indoctrination is bad at all levels. I'm kind of
curious what you mean at all levels, like what that
might specify. But if you want to talk about how
God's patience has run up? Uh, we could we could
start there.

Speaker 3 (02:49):
Well, I mean I was gonna. I guess I could
do both. So the indoctrination saying like everything from uh
church is terry picking what they want to teach, you know,
because you know families go to thirds and the ones
that are religious. Uh. I mean you're from Alabama, so
you understand this. Uh, I'm I go to Thurts. I've

(03:11):
been to several different denominations throughout the decades. I'm pretty
old I even speak Latin, and so I I was.

Speaker 4 (03:22):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (03:23):
I talked about the Bible to people. I teach them
about the the books that they banned or burned, you know,
got with of whatever.

Speaker 5 (03:31):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (03:32):
A lot of people don't count them as tennon. But
then I explained that if you throw out half a story,
you can't say the other half is all there is
you know, you can't look at half a picture and
say it's the whole thing, and so that the industrination problems.
One of the things I have a problem with is
them Seriah picking and doing special pleading and you know,

(03:55):
all those fallacies and traps that they tend to do.
I do go to thirt. I am considered it to
us because I believe in God. But I'm a gnostic
and there's not really any gnostics left to be honest.
I'm also a spiritualist, which I didn't realize that's what
that was. But basically blieking in limbo spirits, that kind

(04:19):
of thing.

Speaker 1 (04:19):
Okay, Benji, Benji, could you explain what you mean by
gnostic because that can mean a couple of different things.
What do you mean by gnostic?

Speaker 3 (04:29):
Yeah? So God is both Yeah, God's both good and evil.
The twentyy was added in the fifteen hundreds by the
Woman Catholic Church, right, well, probably a little earlier than that,
at the fifteen Nights Dark Ages. The Catholic charts made
up to twentity. It was not part of the original Joste.
They added that in later and mean earlier. When I

(04:52):
was talking to people, I explained that God and Jesus
not be the same person because God is wrashful and
a jealous God. And that's actually when they add, you know,
when they say God's name is jealous, Uh, the asshole.
A test to that was God's name is the jealous one.
Because God is jealous. That's why the first thing he

(05:12):
says is, don't believe in any of the gods but me,
you know so. But then I trying to teach people's
stuff about the asshole Bible, the history of it and
all that stuff, and people give because I want so.

Speaker 2 (05:26):
Look, it may very well be the case that you
don't believe in traditional traditional Christian doctrine like the Trinity
or like the you know, the unity of Jesus and
the Father and so on. You may very well not
believe in any of that, but you do still believe
in God. And so I guess the real question is
is why just knowledge.

Speaker 3 (05:46):
That was given to me life experience? Is that kind
of sane?

Speaker 1 (05:49):
Also, hold on, Benji, sorry sorry? What knowledge was given
to you?

Speaker 3 (05:55):
Well? Just history and just there's stuff. I mean, Book
and Mary, Book of Paul, a lot of the Hidden Gospels,
the Dead Seas Glows, which was the old Testament, Uh,
yoga mass just.

Speaker 1 (06:12):
Well so so Benji, I'm just kind of curious, like all,
like the first few books that you mentioned there as
far as like Christian books go and stuff, I don't
those come much much later. Like in history. I do
want to correct one thing. The Trinity wasn't added at
one particular point. It developed over a long period of time.

(06:33):
But the first time that it was formally defined was
in the first Council of Nice in three twenty five Ida.

Speaker 3 (06:40):
Right, there were the group of people that decided what
to keep and what to throw out. Yeah, well yeah, uh,
the leaders of the Catholic well right.

Speaker 1 (06:49):
But what I'm what I'm what I'm saying is is
that the books that you mentioned at the very beginning
of your list of books that contain the knowledge that
you're talking about, those are known like fabrications that occurred
much later after the fact. Like those things don't represent
actual history or any kind of actual knowledge that we

(07:10):
know of that those are just fabrications written by people
meant to push some kind of theological narrative about it.
So I guess I'm going to go back to asking
asking you, like what knowledge was given to you and
how did you receive that knowledge? Did you just read
read these books? Or did did God like directly talk

(07:31):
to you and tell you that these books are valid
and related something? How did you get it? And how
do you know that it's it's accurate?

Speaker 3 (07:38):
I mean, it kind of just flooded my head, my mind.
So I mean, in a sense, God gave me the knowledge.
But also just to point out one sign tennentally, I
could say that the Bible is a copy or a
fabrication of a copy, because the flood story was passed
on eons before the Bible was ever even written, before Genesis, sure,

(08:01):
epic Gilgames, and before that you had stories and Samaria
and uh Simond's still Barkin, Samerian tests, Anoka Anaka, Naki tests,
and a bunch of other ones.

Speaker 2 (08:19):
So, Benji, you're giving us a great reason.

Speaker 3 (08:21):
It's apology if there was not money.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
Benji, you're giving us a great reason to be skeptical
of all of the religious texts, right. I mean, if
it's if it's the case that these are religious texts,
are not describing something that actually happened, but are rather
stealing stories from something earlier, why should we trust any
of it? I mean like, perhaps you might say that
we could trust the earliest case of these, but still
these are better understood as mythology as folklore. What's the

(08:47):
reason for believing these texts represent what's true about the world.

Speaker 3 (08:50):
Well, I mean a lot of mythology was based on
who was that? But they were you know, later bone
out of proportion. How do you know that strong person
that was the son of uh, somebody that lived on
a mountain Hera, which Hercules is not Heracles meant son
of Hera, and then it was translated to Hercules, and

(09:12):
that's and and then you have the traid layers and
all of that other stuff. And then also, I don't
know if people realize it's either, but it wasn't three
wise men in the beginning that went to see Jesus.
There was way more than that. Actually, it doesn't directly
give a number either, I don't believe.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
No. I mean, so the gospel stories are are are
pretty specific about who comes and sees it. And I
mean I do agree that only one of the stories
has has wise men coming, and and then in another
story it's shepherd's uh. So, I mean there is a
difference there. But as far as is what you're talking
about are where are you driving that information from? Are

(09:51):
you driving driving it from later documents?

Speaker 3 (09:55):
The well, some of it was tablets that they sizzled
on at the time that was recovered. Other stuff was papaya,
and then other stuff was stuff that they found later.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
What what tablets of all tree and papaya is a fruit?

Speaker 3 (10:12):
I know what the hell papaya is.

Speaker 2 (10:14):
But that's you're thinking of papyrus.

Speaker 3 (10:16):
Well, I'm talking about the papyrus paper that they used
to Yeah.

Speaker 1 (10:21):
Right, yeah, yeah, Well, but I'm kind of curious as
to what tablets are being chiseled on. Is that's recording
this information? Is My recollection is that there's there's many
papyrus pieces, Like there's a lot of manuscripts written on
papyrus that we have fragments of. Uh, but I can't

(10:41):
think of any tablets that record these things. What tablets
are you talking about?

Speaker 3 (10:44):
Well, I mean, the there was houses that they made
out of basically play is sent well stone and play
and doing that time and the you know, they essentially
they lived in kind of like caves, but it was
more like like a square house that they built out
of brick and limestone and so.

Speaker 2 (11:05):
Not caves, houses made out.

Speaker 3 (11:07):
Of brick, record stuff on the walls. Well, that's what
I mean. But they would record stuff on the walls
similar to what egypsums did you know with the highward
liverids and that.

Speaker 1 (11:17):
Well okay, okay, I get that, but you're not telling
me like typically these tablets they have names associated with
them so that people can identify which tablet you're talking
about here? Okay, Like is okay, do you have any
other information that could help us like verify this because
and I know I'm asking a question then elaborating, but

(11:39):
just to let you know, it's coming off to us
as if you're just ada hocs stating that these things
have been found, that they verify these things, and that
they are in fact trustworthy. But what we're trying to
do is actually assess the information so that we can
know whether or not it actually is trustworthy information, which
I'm guessing it's not. So again I'm going to ask
what specific like tablets are, what specific carvings are you

(12:03):
talking about?

Speaker 3 (12:05):
Well, the there was a baghetti of that number, but
there was a whole lot of tablets that they did
during that time that had the Hebrew It laws on them.
The you know, you have to thing commandments, but you
also had a bunch more that had social laws, legality, laws, government,

(12:26):
a bunch of others sayings at the same time, and
so a lot of those are I believe still around.

Speaker 2 (12:33):
I'm saying, so I'll help you out here. So probably
the earliest recorded the earliest record that there is of
any of the things that you were referring to, is
probably the Epic of Gilgamesh. There is a stone tablet,
I suppose it was a clay tablet, Yeah, which is
that has that has parts of the Epic of Gilgamesh
inscribed on it in Akkadian, and that dates back four

(12:55):
thousand years or you know, perhaps thirty five hundred years
or something like that. That certainly exists. But sure we
can say that the story existed. How do we know
that the event actually happened.

Speaker 3 (13:05):
Well, I mean you would have to basically, I mean,
right now, there's not really a way to look at
the find a way to see all the events that
took place in a particular point in time. So you
have to just go off what was recorded at the time.
And you're white, by the way, it was clay, not stone,

(13:28):
But the Epic of Gilgames was actually written before Genesis,
which they got a lot of stuff in Genesis. I
know a lot of Christians disagree, but that's why science
and religion can never be compatible, and it was never
compatible back then either.

Speaker 1 (13:44):
But so so Benji, Well, so Benji right, Benji Benji.
Pivoting off of that point, you say that religion and
science are are are mutually exclusive or they're time towards
one another. They can't you know, merge or whatever. So
with you being religious, does that mean that you reject

(14:07):
like a lot of scientific discoveries or a lot of
scientific theories, like is should Is that a reasonable assumption?

Speaker 3 (14:14):
Well no, no, I mean you can be No, you
can be scientific and still believe. But but the way
that people do that is they associate discoveries with God.
So for example, black holes or new stars or you
know whatever. I mean, I'm not going to sit here
and senator to damn dome over the earth. I mean,
like the firmament. I mean, I'm not going to go

(14:36):
that far with it, or sit here and be a
you know, a New Waves creationist and be like, oh
well the os is only four thousand. No, it's just
stupid But what I would do is I would say, well,
you know, the everything that is created or everything that
does exist or has existed, was created by God. I
mean that's what most people say. So therefore, anything they're

(14:57):
not discovered in the future, any technology that we come
up with in the fare, is allowed by God. And
so that way, he still gets all the credit. I
don't like the fact that people buying Lucifer for the
bad stuff because he's just a scapegoat. But I mean
other than that, I mean that's there's ways to get
around the science and religion don't agree. You just have

(15:19):
to be creative about now back in the day.

Speaker 1 (15:22):
Is that really Benji? Benji? Benji? Is that really truthful though? Like, Benji,
I'm sorry, hold on, is that really truthful though? Like,
if you have to be creative in order to work
a scientifically minded worldview, you know, into your view of
the world, is that really all that truthful as far
as like, you know, you retaining your religious sort of

(15:46):
Like I guess my question is how truthful is it
to be creative to work science into your religious worldview?

Speaker 3 (15:54):
Well, it's not like I'm painting the target aroound the yoo.
If that's what you mean. I mean what I'm seems
like you are trying to include everything together instead of
separating to it.

Speaker 1 (16:05):
Well, well, no, I disagree with your statement about it
that you're not painting the target around your arrow because
you've already shot your arrow and and you said, well,
this is where God is and then you're drawing whatever
I guess science around it or however that analogy would work.
You're definitely like cherry picking here, and I just don't

(16:27):
see that as a very truthful, like you know, thing
to do or a good thing to do.

Speaker 3 (16:31):
Well, No, I mean I know the whole Bible. I'm
not say picking the Bible at all. I know the
entire bot I know lots the back of my mind.
I've read it of times. I'm not at the back
of my hand, but I would.

Speaker 1 (16:44):
I understand that what I'm saying is that you're cherry
picking science because I feel like I feel like if
you would adhere to a scientific worldview, you're gonna come
And I don't know, maybe Blitz would disagree with me
on this, but I feel like if you're going to
adhere to a scientific worldview, at some point, you've got
to with that cognitive dissonance of working with a religious worldview,

(17:04):
because the religious worldview, as you yourself stated, it can't
be all that well merged with the scientific worldview. So
it just seems like at some point you have to
be dishonest with yourself.

Speaker 3 (17:16):
Well it can, well, no, it can. I mean angels
and every time you're in a different realm, he can
explain that by multi uvotes or different.

Speaker 2 (17:28):
Oh no, don't do this.

Speaker 3 (17:29):
To men tomesself, that that work existence and popping them
out of existence. I mean, there's different ways to work
around that. Also.

Speaker 1 (17:41):
Do you recognize that as ad hoc though? But Benji,
do you recognize that as being ad hoc? Like you're
just stating God? Like from what I've heard for you
so far, Benji, is that your ad hoc stating that
God is responsible for all these things? Instead of actually
providing any kind of real evidence to ground your staf
events in your conclusion that God is responsible, you're just

(18:04):
saying that God is responsible.

Speaker 3 (18:06):
Do you want me to form a you want me
to form a sound argument here to try to prove
that I'm not gonna sit here and go to the
scientific mess But I mean I could go ahead in
five seconds and form a sound argument. I mean, so
if everything that does exist and will exist uh exist

(18:29):
and either national or supernatural causes, then either God made
it or he didn't make it. If and then if
God did make it, then he's responsible. If he didn't
make it, something else would have to be responsible. Because
for every ass and there's an equal, there's an equal
and opposite. We acs into every everything that's in motion,
so are the stars every time that's most in space

(18:51):
and time and everything else. You could argue it started
with the ben Bang, But there's other stuff that was
before the Big Bang. There was energy, there was there
was a state of mass that was close to equal
to zero to absolute zero, but it wasn't absolute zero.
And and some scientists, and not all of them, but
some no, I'm gonna cry infinite address.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
So look, look, so Benji or Benji your.

Speaker 3 (19:21):
Ji.

Speaker 1 (19:22):
They were saying, benj sorry, Benji, you're muted right now,
while Blitz addresses all of the wrong that he just said.

Speaker 2 (19:30):
So, yeah, I mean this is like my nine to eleven, right.
So the argument that you were making, that you were
trying to make is that everything that exists has either
a supernatural or a natural cause. If it has a
supernatural cause, then God created it, and hence God exists.
If it has a natural cause, then that natural cause
must therefore also have its own cause, and so on,

(19:53):
and so it seems like you're saying that unless, unless
there is some sort of infinite regress, then God must exist.
And even if we grant that argument as valid, which
it's it perhaps is valid. I don't know if it sound.
You can't get away from an infinite regress. But even
beyond them, there are models of the universe that have
a beginning without any cause that started the beginning. This

(20:15):
is it gets a little bit complicated, but there are
ways to make sense of this from a scientific point
of view. The whole notion of cause and effect is
a twenty five hundred ish year old piece of metaphysics
that we just haven't really used to do science for
the last one hundred fifty years or so. We use
equations now, we use we use what are called evolution equations,
which are a type of differential equation. We just don't
talk about causes and effects when we're really doing science properly,

(20:38):
all right, Benji.

Speaker 3 (20:38):
Brett, you're bank okay, So if you're talking about scientific.
I know, if you're talking about the scientific, if you're
talking about the scientific to trasans at the formula of
trasans and all of that stuff with the yield sign
and everything, I'm still I mean, I could use the
yield sign stuff too. I'm pretty good at that too.

(20:59):
And scientific message, but or scientific message, depending on which
one I'm doing. But also I still do the cause
and the fet saying everything must have a cause, otherwise
it wouldn't be in most or it wouldn't do what
it's doing. And so the hold saying one of the
roots of science is discovery. And if you're not trying
to discover everything and any saying that is out there

(21:21):
in the universe, then you're not going to know it
because you're not trying to find the answers to it.
So I do disagree with you. You did get the argument,
by the way, you got the argument pretty good that
I was trying to make. As far as infinite redressing,
there could be infinite regressing, but there is no way
to prove it yet. But if there is infinite redressing,
then that just means that there's always been something, whether

(21:42):
that something is a god or not, would still be debatable,
but there could be something else before the big bag
that is almost existed.

Speaker 2 (21:51):
And the typical definition of a god trying to discover.
So the typical definition of a god is some sort
of mind that created the universe, and perhaps as additional
qualities like it's all powerful, all good. But but just
the barebones definition is a mind that created the universe.
And if the claim is is that if you have
an infinite regress then it could still be God, well

(22:11):
I guess maybe. But the point is is the argument
that you gave does not soundly and validly demonstrate the
existence of a god. At best, it demonstrates a dichotomy
that you either have an infinite regressor you don't, and
at worst it's not even valid. So all I would
say is that these sort of like a prime mover
type arguments, they kind of fail when we begin to

(22:34):
consider the way that things actually are in our universe, right,
I mean, like this notion of this notion of what
even is cause in a timeless universe. Well, that's a
very very hard question to answer. I don't think that
your argument is capable of dealing with that.

Speaker 3 (22:48):
I have an answer to that. I have an answer
to that time didn't exist in the beginning of the universe.
In fact, time didn't exist two thousand years ago because
tendantly time started being measured. Well, whenever they started measuring
the units of time is when the concept of time
actually started. Now, you could also argue that, you know,

(23:09):
time is coexistant with space and all that crap. But
to me, when I started measuring time, it's when it
actually became insane.

Speaker 1 (23:18):
I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Did you did you just did
you just ship on Einstein's theory of general relativity and
special relativity? Did you just ship on all of that
by saying all that crap? I'm just asking for a friend.

Speaker 3 (23:38):
Well, you know, Ironstein was wrong on some of that, right,
was wrong on some of that. There is ways to
go faster than and well, I mean, how could you know, Benji?

Speaker 1 (23:50):
Benji, we need to stop right now. I need you
to explain to me how to go faster than light.
I would love to know. I would love to hear
this Ted talk.

Speaker 3 (24:00):
Uh Well, I mean to go faster than light, you
would have to break the light barrier speed of light
of tracing uh mc squared basically was ech squared. And
to do that you would have to use a lot,
a lot of energy, and to do that, you would
have to use basically or basically either like newly or

(24:21):
fusing power or even like hyperdrives using protons and neutrons
and infinite energy to travel through space. But then you
get the and there's a problem with that because if
you're in vel at light speed.

Speaker 2 (24:37):
They hit the third tower so far away from.

Speaker 3 (24:40):
The Earth, you can't go back to the oaths because
every time's moving away from you.

Speaker 2 (24:44):
So there's a point that with go Benji, this is like, Benji,
are you are you like trained in any particular field away?

Speaker 3 (24:54):
All right?

Speaker 2 (24:54):
Are you trained? Are you like trained in any field?
Like did you go to school for something or did
you get training in anything? Yeah? Can you tell me
what it was?

Speaker 3 (25:02):
Signs? Why? Yeah?

Speaker 2 (25:04):
For a comparison.

Speaker 3 (25:05):
Well, let's see, I did, Yeah, so I did. Uh
what is that temple? Like the study of atoms and
energy and energy fluctuation and the energy manipulation that kind
of thing.

Speaker 5 (25:23):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (25:23):
And then I also did physics and uh do.

Speaker 2 (25:27):
You have a degree in physics? You're trained in physics?

Speaker 3 (25:30):
The time valation?

Speaker 6 (25:32):
Uh?

Speaker 3 (25:33):
Yeah, timea Uh?

Speaker 2 (25:37):
Can I can I ask you just a really can
I ask a really really basic question. Could you explain
to me what a tensor is?

Speaker 3 (25:49):
The pincer is what you said.

Speaker 2 (25:51):
Tensor t E N S O R.

Speaker 3 (25:55):
That's I mean, it's been a while, but I bet
that it's a unit of measurement or it's a type
of particle.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
But by the way, it's neither of it.

Speaker 3 (26:05):
The time that I was gonna say, the universe is
working like it's article. So it's repeating itself over and over.
So once it either would expand infinitely and we would
die in cold, or it would condense and then we
would die from heat and we go back into an
infinite point of mass big bang, and then it would

(26:26):
do it again and repeat itself, and so it would
have its beginning and it would have no end, and
it would happen to.

Speaker 1 (26:32):
Then it's a big crunch model, right am? I am
I mistaken?

Speaker 2 (26:37):
That's one variant. So Benji, Benji, here's what I would
suggest as a as somebody who's who's field you are
currently like taking an enormous dump on. Please don't uh.
There are plenty of people who know a lot of physics.
It doesn't seem like you're one of them. Rather than
watching pop science YouTube videos or watch it or reading,

(26:58):
you know, watching TikTok videos. I suggest pick up like
Peskin and Schroeder, pick up a Griffith's textbook, pick up
Sean Carroll's Spacetime on geometry if you want to learn
about relativity. You could even pick up you know, more
advanced book like Wald, or you could pick up some
you know, you could pick up Soccer Eye if you
want to do more quantum stuff. There are a lot
of books. But it seems like none of the things

(27:18):
you were saying had anything to do with any of
those things that are said in the books. So please,
I guess refrain from saying things about physics. It would
make me feel a little lot better.

Speaker 1 (27:31):
Okay, Benji, we do need to Benji, we did. We
do need to move move on to other callers. We
do have calls stacking up, So I'm gonna I'm gonna
allow you to have the last word here. That might
be a bad idea, but I'm gonna let you have
the last word, and then we do need to move on. Okay.

Speaker 3 (27:48):
Yeah, you can use gravity and mask to bend space
time and create a time uh temple wormhole to tavel
true time. So I do actually know a lot about physics,
and they actually did design hypercribes for the past twenty
or forty years now.

Speaker 1 (28:04):
One of them, Okay, I did not mute them. He
just went okay, yeah, anyways, by Benji, I'm just gonna
go ahead and drop you because that was I begret.
I should not allow the last, the last them to
have the last say. I feel I feel like that
was pretty good proof of that. So I do have

(28:26):
a few announcements just really quick for everybody before we
get into our next theist caller. First up is the
Back Cruise twenty twenty five is coming up fast August
sixteenth at seven pm. Ticket folks for me, so get
yours today and join people like James S, Kara Ge
Helen G who already have their tickets. If you're not

(28:49):
able to attend, you can still help out by donating
underneath the live chat to purchase a ticket for one
of our hosts or crew. So you can visit tiny
dot c c Ford slash that cruise to get your
tickets and we'll see you on the boat. You can
also get your axp merch at tiny dot c c
Ford slash merch Aca. We've got T shirts, sweatshirts, hoodies, hats, pints,

(29:12):
pint glasses, which I need to get me one of those.
I'm actually wearing an XP shirt right now. Yeah, it's
it's it's really nice. It's really nice material, So definitely
get you some of that. And before we get to
the next color, I just want to give a big
shout out to the crew who put the show together
every single week. Video operators, audio operators, note takers called screamers,

(29:35):
chat moderators, everybody. Thank you guys so much for putting
forth all the hard work to make these shows awesome.
All right, now, we're done with announcements for right now,
so Blitz, if you're ready, I'm ready to jump into
the next one.

Speaker 2 (29:50):
Yeah, sure, hopefully I can't. Well, I can't imagine it
goes worse.

Speaker 1 (29:53):
Than that, Yeah don't. I don't know. Maybe, well we'll
have to see, but next time it Gohan is next.
Hey there, Gohan, how you doing good?

Speaker 6 (30:05):
How are you guys doing?

Speaker 1 (30:07):
Doing pretty good? So what you want to talk about there? Gohan?

Speaker 6 (30:10):
Good? So I want to talk about why view the
claims of Christianity are different compared to claims of another religion.
And then why I trust and like, those differences are
the reasons why I trust Christianity.

Speaker 1 (30:25):
Okay, I to preface this though, what I would ask
is that we sort of got and go at it
one at a time instead of like just you know,
shotgunting an entire list at us. Maybe we could just
go one at a time, like talking, you know, one
point at a time.

Speaker 6 (30:42):
Would it be okay if I like give the list
of reasons and then we go one point out of time.

Speaker 1 (30:48):
How long is your list? Because if it's like ten points,
then we're not gonna be able to get all of them,
and I'd rather not leave anything on the floor. But
if it's like a short list, then sure, yeah, I'd.

Speaker 6 (30:58):
Say somewhere like between four and so. I actually haven't
counted it myself, but somewhere.

Speaker 2 (31:03):
Why not start with what you would say is the
best reason?

Speaker 6 (31:07):
I would say it's, you know, I'm not really sure
there is a best thing. I'll just get into it
really quick, if that's okay with you, guys. The claims
of Christianity was made by people who could not have
been mistaken, So they could either be lying or they
could be right, but they couldn't have been mistaken, So

(31:30):
that's one point. Another point is that appearances happened in
the group, but there's no room for like loose nation
or anything like that. And then the third thing is
that these are heartfelt claims. These people ended up going
to their deaths for their beliefs. So I would say

(31:52):
those three things are things no other religion really has together.

Speaker 2 (31:57):
So have you ever heard of the Gospel of Ehranius?

Speaker 3 (32:01):
Not?

Speaker 2 (32:01):
Yeah, So the Gospel of Aphranius is a document that
documents the natural, conspiratorial explanation for the entirety of all
of the appearances that have been, all the appearances that
happened post Jesus's death, that accounts for all of the
miracles that have that happened during Jesus's life, and explains
them all in a purely naturalistic and perhaps plausible way,

(32:23):
neither of which rely on people being on people lying,
but it does rely on people being mistaken, which, of
course people can be mistaken. So, for example, it's it's
quite plausible that trickery was used to create apparent miracles, right,
It's quite plausible that these early people who witnessed the
risen Jesus or claimed to have witnessed the risen Jesus

(32:46):
could have been tricked by an imposter. Right, So it
seems like that at least, given that we know that
those things are possible, that we should give that that
view that this was all an enormous conspiracy conducted by
the Romans far higher credence than any sort of supernatural view.

Speaker 6 (33:03):
So as far as like the impostor claim, like, yes,
it is possible, but it's something I severely doubt, and
most New Testament scholars, atheists and christiana like severely doubt
that as well. These many why are true claims that
they sat and ate If they sign and ate with

(33:26):
Jesus for extended period of time, there's no way it
could have been somebody other than Jesus. These are a
man that spent three years of their lives following this guy.
They would know if somebody else came.

Speaker 1 (33:39):
Oh, that totally depends on which gospel you're reading. There,
I just that. So already there's a problem right there
is that it depends on which gospel you read. Sure, sure,
if you're reading John and you're taking John at his word,
then there's like a three year ministry. But if you're
reading the synoptic gospels. Then there's not a three year ministry.
So are you saying that John is the correct gospel?

(34:01):
Or is Matthew, Luke and Mark? Are any of those
the correct gospel? Which gospel is the correct one?

Speaker 6 (34:07):
So I'm just saying, these are the claims of Christianity.
Like whether the gospels are trustworthy is a separate thing,
but I like.

Speaker 1 (34:17):
The claims of Christianity are the gospels.

Speaker 6 (34:20):
The claims like.

Speaker 1 (34:21):
The gospels are are a key thing to the claims
like you just said that, Like for instance, you just
said that that they that these people ate with Jesus
and there's no way that an impostor could be there,
you know, being an impostor of Jesus. But there's actually
no record outside the gospels of anybody eating with Jesus

(34:42):
or or even talking to Jesus. It's all all of
the records that we have our post resurrection interaction with Jesus.

Speaker 6 (34:49):
So maybe maybe I should have started with a preface.
This whole idea is assuming like the claims of Christianity
are authentic versus the claims of Islam is authentic.

Speaker 3 (35:01):
Claims.

Speaker 6 (35:01):
First, the claims for Buddhism or authentic claims, like if
you take all their claims, give as much credibility to
each claim as possible, and then weigh them against each other.
Christianity is only one.

Speaker 1 (35:15):
So so basically I feel like what your method here
is correct me if I'm wrong, But I feel like
the method that you just laid out was well. If
we if we assume that Christianity is truthful in its
claims about what happened, then Christianity is the most truthful religion,
or Christianity can can be trusted more so than any

(35:37):
other one. So I mean, I feel like that's pretty
circular because you're starting out saying, well, Christianity is true,
and then you're arguing your way to say, oh, well
Christianity is true. That is that at all like what
you're saying here, because I feel like that's what you're saying.

Speaker 6 (35:52):
No, I'll be honest, it's fairly close. And that's why
this isn't made practice because this by itself is not
enough evidence to believe at all. But I did say
this is for all religions. Like if you say Joseph
Smith actually was interpreting the tablets, like we take him
out his word, that who's interpreted in interpreting the tablets
like taking, Yes, could the disciples have been taking that?

(36:17):
That was Jesus very unlikely? Do you see what I'm saying?
How do you know that Joseph Smith I was worried that? Yes,
he's trying to how how do you know?

Speaker 1 (36:25):
How do you know that the apostles were not mistaken?
How do you know that the apostles were not mistaken
about either who they were talking to or who they
were receiving messages from.

Speaker 6 (36:35):
You mean like when he's sitting with them after the resurrection,
of eating with them in the upper room. Yep, sure,
I mean honestly, I'm not sure how they could have
been mistaken? How could that have been somebody else?

Speaker 2 (36:47):
So look, Gohan, the problem is is that A we
know it's possible that they could have been mistaken. We
know that impostors have existed historically. In fact, Nero Nero,
the Roman Emperor was impersonated three times, all three of
which he gained. The impostor gained significant support, in fact,

(37:07):
so much so that at one point one of the
impostors led to war. He convinced people to go to
war because they thought that he was the risen Nero.
So this clearly happens historically, But more so than that,
even if you think it's very unlikely that these people
could be convinced that this person was actually Jesus, even
if he was an impostor, the point is is that
the fact we know that that's possible, that that is

(37:28):
something that happens historically, makes it far more likely. It
means that your priors for that position should be far
higher than anything supernatural, because supernatural things kind of by
their very definition, are not things that we have direct
evidence of them happening. They're not things that we experience
in everyday life. So this is just an argument from priors.

(37:49):
The fact that you know impersonation is possible means that
your priors for impersonation should be orders of magnitude higher
than your priors for Jesus actually being risen.

Speaker 6 (38:00):
I think if we're talking about circular arguing, sweep around
at we found a circular argument. There sounds like you're
saying anything is more possible than a miracle, So therefore
reject any possible miracle because it's not possible.

Speaker 2 (38:12):
No, it's about prior's right. The point is is that
you and I presumable. I mean, maybe you've personally experienced
several miracles in your life. But the point is is
that the kinds of historical occurrences that we're looking at.
On the one hand, we can verify tons and tons
of impersonations. We know that impersonation does not require anything supernatural,
and so these are things that the the prior probability

(38:33):
of it happening, even if it's quite low, we know
that it's at least possible. Right on the other hand,
considering that neither you nor I have ever witnessed anybody
coming back from the dead, your prior probability of that
happening should be as close to zero as it can get.

Speaker 3 (38:47):
Why.

Speaker 2 (38:47):
Oh, because the way that you establish priors is based
off of, you know, prior knowledge.

Speaker 6 (38:51):
So I mean, like, if we take my prior probability
of me going up onto my roof to fix my shingles,
I haven't done that, but maybe after hurricane season it
might be doing that. So I mean, you can't say
it's improbable that would be up on so it's still
so asible, but you don't you can't tell the problem right.

Speaker 2 (39:13):
Look, Look, so so the way that we analyze evidence,
if you want to. If you want to rationally come
to conclusions based off of evidence and based off of
you know, experiences that you might have had. The way
to do so is via something called Bayesian reasoning, And
the way that you do Beajian reasoning is you basically say, okay,
what is my por what is my prior credence in
some view. So if you have some view that, like

(39:35):
you know, if you go fishing, you'll catch a fish, well,
if you've been fishing before, then your prior then your
prior credence should be fairly high because you know that
you can find fish in lakes for example. But on
the other hand, if your hypothesis, if your belief is
that you're going to catch I don't know, a dinosaur
when you go fishing, well your prior credence in that

(39:55):
view should be very very low, just because you've never
done that before and you know that all the are dead. Now,
after you've established your priors, then you can go and
examine what the evidence does. And if the evidence strongly
favors one hypothesis over another, then that can change your
priors to make them posteriors. That can change your credence
based off of what the evidence is. So if, for example,
you don't think that there are any selacants that it

(40:18):
still exists, you think that they're long extinct, and then
somebody goes and finds a selacant, Well, even if your
prior was very very close to zero, the fact that
you can then find one means that your posterior credence
just shoots straight up to like ninety nine percent. Now
the question is is how good is the evidence? Can
it shift the priors the prior of supernatural things happening

(40:38):
being so low, in the priors of being you know,
natural things happening being you know, perhaps low, but not
very low. Is the evidence so strong to shift that
probability distribution, to make it so that even though it's
much much much much less likely without any evidence that
Jesus actually rose from the dead compared to Jesus being
in being impersonated, is the evidence from say the Bible
so strong that it blows the possibility of Jesus being

(41:02):
impersonated out of the water. That's how we establish this.
And so the question is is what is the priors
that you come at this with. And I would argue
that your prior for Jesus coming back from the data
should be remarkably low, so close to zero that essentially
any evidence should make it impossible or no evidence should
make it possible.

Speaker 3 (41:18):
Rather so, I mean, I.

Speaker 6 (41:20):
Think that's the basis of like to me that I'm
sorry if I sound offensive, But to me, that sounds
very close minded when you say the possibility of this
happening you should be so close to zero that no
avindue should.

Speaker 1 (41:33):
No so so. But but Gohan, I'm just kind of curious.
What's closed minded about saying, well, the like the prior
likelihood of this event being like either Jesus resurrecting from
the dead or maybe you know something along those lines.
How is it closed minded to say, well, if you
have strong enough information evidence to overcome those prior likelihoods,

(41:58):
then then then you know you can actually prove that
your statement is correct. How is asking for more evidence
and solid evidence to support your conclusion? How is that
closed minded?

Speaker 6 (42:11):
You're right if you phrase it like that, it's not.
But if you give it such a low probability where
you state that no amount of evidence would be changing
your mind, Like, it's not zero, but no amount of
evidence would change your mind, I don't understand how that's not.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
I don't think that's what Blood said. Is that what
you said, Blave, it's.

Speaker 2 (42:27):
Perhaps what I said what I meant, I mean if
I did say that, what I meant to say is
that I don't think that any written testimony is going
to be sufficient to overcome that. Now, look if somebody
went and they actually found like a little like besides
roun Wyatt, if they actually went and found a little
blood sample from like some tomb in Jerusalem that only
had twenty three chromosomes or whatever, and like then it
had like one god chroma like, if they actually found that,

(42:50):
then sure that would be really compelling evidence. And even
though the supernatural claim has very very low priors, that
would probably shoot your credence in the position very very high,
at least, you know, to like eighty ninety whatever percent.
But saying that, oh, these people claimed that they met
with the guy, when there is an equally good explanation
that doesn't require supernatural explanation, it seems like whatever your

(43:14):
prior should be, because supernatural things are by definition not common,
it seems like that your priors, your priors for the
supernatural thing should be lower than the prior for the
natural thing, and they both equally well explain the evidence,
So the prior for the for the natural thing will
go up by the same amount that the prior for
the supernatural thing will. So the natural explanation will always
be favored unless you find supernatural evidence.

Speaker 1 (43:36):
Of course, so I think it.

Speaker 6 (43:37):
Like, yeah, let's rephrase the statement too, not like any
thing won't change my mind. But as you say, like
it's so low, but written testimony alone won't change my mind.
I'm fine rephrasing it to that. So sorry, could you
resay to a question I just want to say that
really quick.

Speaker 2 (43:56):
Yeah, all I'm saying is that when you have two
pieces of when you have two hypotheses that make the
same predictions about the you know, about what would happen,
and so they're both equally well explained by the data,
which the imposter hypothesis and the resurrection hypothesis are both
equally well explained by the data, by the data that
we have, you know, document documents of people claiming resurrection

(44:16):
and so on, then that means that the credence you
have in them, how strongly you believe those those explanations,
rise by the same amount. So if the natural explanation
starts off with a with more credence with a higher probability.
Then even if you have really good evidence that explains
the UH or that that is predicted by the resurrection hypothesis,

(44:38):
well they're both going to go up by the same
amount unless you find some piece of evidence that can
distinguish between the two, Like finding Jesus's blood for example,
would be a good way to do that.

Speaker 3 (44:47):
Yeah, So I think.

Speaker 6 (44:48):
The one problem I have is I don't define a
miracle the same way you do, as being the least
probable or very rare occurrence. So I think the miracles
any time there's to bind intervention, and I think diviner
invention actually happens quite a lot. But I'm so having.

Speaker 2 (45:04):
Surely natural things are more common than supernatural things the probability, and.

Speaker 1 (45:09):
How would you well, I'm wondering, how would you be
able to discern between some natural phenomena that you don't
understand and a god miracle.

Speaker 6 (45:19):
I've actually wanted to comment on this pretty much my
whole life. This kind of gets into the idea of magic.
Is it's impossible to tell magic from any highly advanced
sufficiently highly advanced technology? Is that true. Is that kind
of your question?

Speaker 1 (45:34):
Well, I mean, I mean I didn't bring up magic,
but yeah, I mean I think that the miracle claims
are pretty much you know, magical claims, but not just
sufficiently advanced technology, but just any natural phenomena that we
don't understand, because, like, just to give you a for
instance here, we used to think that God was responsible

(45:55):
for lightning. You know, the Greeks and the Romans thought
that their respect, God crafted lightning bolts and you know,
through them, and uh, that get transferred a little bit
to God. God throws lightning bolts and shocks people in
the in the Old Testament a lot, but we always
thought that lightning was the product of God. But we

(46:16):
understand lightning better now. Maybe not completely. I remember seeing
a doctor blitz stream or or a conversation about that recently,
but but we have a better understanding of lightning and
it's definitely not a God thing, right, So I'm kind
of curious what you're under like, what what is your
way a method for discerning between God magically making something

(46:39):
happen and then just some phenomena that we just don't
understand yet.

Speaker 6 (46:45):
Yeah, I wouldn't say it like anything I don't understand
as God. Uh, that sounds very much like a god
of the gaps. A lot of the things that I
do understand I see as pointers to there being a God.
So a lot of the reasons I do believe is
because of things I've learned to understand. So I would
never say like, I don't understand this, therefore gone right.

Speaker 1 (47:07):
I wasn't saying that, though. Gohan. Let me repeat my question,
what is your method for distinguishing between God, miracles or
magic and just natural phenomena that we don't understand?

Speaker 6 (47:23):
Can I change the question? Take off that last setting
of what?

Speaker 7 (47:27):
No?

Speaker 1 (47:27):
Wait, hold on, why are you changing my question to you?
It's I don't like the question? Can I ask a
different question? Please know I asked you a question. The
question is what is your methodology for discerning between magic
and natural phenomena that we don't understand?

Speaker 3 (47:44):
Okay?

Speaker 6 (47:45):
So I would say, it doesn't matter if it's phenomenon
we do understand or not. I would say, how do
I determine between or miracles and something natural? Is same
way I determine if it's a person behind me getting
hit by something or not if I can see that

(48:05):
there was intention and low odds of something happening, then
most likely somebody tried to make that happen. Same thing
for me. Okay, so there's intention low odds of something happening.

Speaker 1 (48:17):
So so go on, go on use it. Using that
right there, you would you would then have to admit
that there are some lightning strikes that are thrown by God.
Is that something that you would say is accurate, like
there are some lightning strikes or some weather events that
are caused by God.

Speaker 6 (48:38):
I wouldn't say yes or no. I mean, I have
no idea of God through lightning. I wouldn't say he can't.
I wouldn't say he definitely did. I have no idea.

Speaker 2 (48:46):
Look, using your same criteria for determining whether something is
supernatural or whether it's uh perhaps has a natural explanation,
you said that if it is super rare and seems direct,
I'm paraphrasing, but you could imagine, and I'm sure that
this has happened in the past where somebody an atheist,

(49:07):
got struck by lightning and that's really rare and it's
perhaps deserved under your worldview. Anyway, would we then be
justified in saying that it was God that caused that
person to be struck by lightning.

Speaker 6 (49:19):
So the kind of rarity I'm talking about is not
like something that happens like that, where it's yes, it's
rare that lightning will strike this spot at this time.
But I'm talking like orders of magnitude more rare, like
ten to one orders of magnitude.

Speaker 2 (49:36):
Oh, do you want to talk about the cosmogical constant
because we can talk about that.

Speaker 6 (49:42):
Yeah, so yeah, stuff like that. I was going more
a biogenesis.

Speaker 2 (49:45):
And well the ten to the one and twenty power thing,
that's that's a cosmological constant thing. I know that number
like I was born with it. That's not an a
biogenesis thing.

Speaker 3 (49:54):
Good.

Speaker 6 (49:56):
It actually does deal with.

Speaker 2 (49:59):
DNA for Okay, can you cite the relevant paper so
then I can go take a look at it.

Speaker 6 (50:05):
I can't. It was in my organic chemistry class. There's
a big green textbook is I'm pretty sure there are
titles organic chemistry. If you give me a second, I
can find you the author.

Speaker 2 (50:17):
Yeah sure, please one second? Sorry, Yeah, go ahead. Yeah,
So the ten to one hundred and twentieth, by the way,
that's a I know that you're looking as I'm just
talking to the audience at this point. That's a claim
about the deviation that the cosmogical constant has the observed
cosmogical constant that we see in the universe compared with
the theoretical predictions of what the cosmogical constant should be. Now,

(50:38):
there are some issues with this claim, namely that oh
and so so. Then the argument goes by theists is that, ah, well,
you know, if it's off by one hundred twenty orders
of magnitude, it must be it must have been chosen
to be that way. Now, of course, the trouble with
this argument is that it relies on the understanding that
the theoretical prediction is actually correct, and not that it's
off by one hundred twenty orders of magnitude. Because the

(51:01):
relationship between the thing being calculated and the observed cosmogical
constant is a correct is a true relationship, of course,
it's almost certainly not a true relationship. And even then,
that particular number one hundred ten to one and twentieth
power that number is even if you assume that is
the correct relationship, kind of like the bear relationship, if
you just do a little bit of you know, thinking

(51:24):
about the way that we expect gravity to behave in
the microscopic scale. What you find is that that actually
all goes away. We would actually expect a small cosmogical constant.
That's putting aside the fact that we now have evidence
that there isn't a cosmogical constant in our universe at all.
So anyway, hopefully it filled enough time for go Huan
to go find the author of this textbook.

Speaker 6 (51:43):
Yeah, goat right now, I'm not fine in it.

Speaker 1 (51:49):
I was just going to say, we have been on
the call for about twenty four minutes, and we do
have other callers to get to, so we do need
to sort of be wrapping up so that we can
get to the other callers in our show's time frame.
So I don't know as far as wrapping up here
at the end of the call, I didn't really hear

(52:10):
anything that would be compelling that would make me trust
like Christianity more. And I don't understand why you trust
Christianity other than you just trust Christianity. Do you recognize,
maybe we can end on this particular topic. Do you
recognize that that your trust of Christianity, your level of

(52:31):
trust with Christianity would be similar to those in different
religions that they would trust their religion just as much
as you trust your religion, And so it ends up
being like just an equal thing, like you know, you're
adhering or you're trusting your religion just as much as
a Muslim is trusting Islam, and just as much as

(52:52):
Mormon is trusting Mormonism. Do you recognize that?

Speaker 6 (52:55):
So I think this is a really good thing. I
appreciate you guys being on the call, taking me on
the call. The thing I wanted to get into was
this exactly my original claim is not just like, well,
my claim on this call wasn't just that we should
trust Christianity solely because of them, even with Muslims. Muslims

(53:16):
cannot claim that the founders of their religion could not
have been wrong. Died a martyr's death, and those three
things I said at first, so they couldn't be wrong.
They died a martyr Seth. I forget the third one.
I don't know if any of you all remember it.
There were three things Christianity.

Speaker 1 (53:38):
Yeah, so heartfelt heart there's heartfelt claims. You mentioned eyewitnesses,
and then you also mentioned the false dichotomy of they're
either lying or they're.

Speaker 6 (53:49):
Truthful, right, so they couldn't be wrong. They're either lying
or tell the truth. They were seeing in groups these
occurrences of Jesus after the Death and resurrection, and they
died for their beliefs. Muslims can claim a lot of
their people died for their beliefs, but they can't.

Speaker 1 (54:07):
So you can't you can't actually prove that the apostles
died for their beliefs. For one, the martyrdom stories are
are generally overblown. And there's actually a really great book
out there about the myth of persecution. I can't remember
the author's name, but the book title is the Myth
of Persecution. Uh, So you can't actually prove that they

(54:29):
were persecuted in that way. The only ones that we
can be sure of that were quote unquote martyrs would
have been Peter and Paul. And even then, I don't
think that you can prove sufficiently that they were given
a chance to recant their belief So, I mean that's
just an ad hoc statement that they were martyred in
that way. Anyways, Gohan, you know, this has been a

(54:51):
great call. We went through a whole lot of different topics, uh,
and I appreciate you calling in but uh, oh it
was doctor Candida Moss. That's who it is, the myth
the persecution. Thank you in the chat there for forgetting
that for me. But Gohan, I gave the last color
of the last say. Uh, but you know we're we're
we're gonna head on out right now. And I hope

(55:12):
that you have a great night. Okay, Bud, Yeah you too.

Speaker 6 (55:14):
Thank you guys for the cool all right.

Speaker 1 (55:15):
Thanks going all right, Yes, I learned my lesson for sure.
Yeah right, uh okay, all right. So uh, the next
person we have is John from California. What's up there, John?
How you doing?

Speaker 3 (55:32):
Hey?

Speaker 2 (55:33):
The going good?

Speaker 1 (55:34):
Pretty good? Doing good?

Speaker 3 (55:36):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (55:36):
What's your uh? What's your question for us today?

Speaker 4 (55:39):
So I'm coming not to make it, not to ask
a question, but to make a claim. Okay, this is
I feel like this is the right show to look
into this. It's the good part of this claim is
you don't have to take my word for anything. You
can independently verify this even if you don't agree with
my interpretation of this, my claim itself, we can you
know it's it's a falsifiable so to the true or

(56:01):
it's not. And I'm very confident that it's true.

Speaker 1 (56:04):
All right, shoot shoot.

Speaker 4 (56:05):
My claim is that nobody, nobody knows what the Lord's
prayer means?

Speaker 1 (56:11):
How does how does his prayer.

Speaker 4 (56:13):
As it's comes comes down to us in the Gospels,
it contains a word in Greek that appears nowhere else.
That isn't you know, that isn't like a word that
we have a definition for. It's like if Jesus going
to phrase specifically, and this whole time, for the past
two thousand years, nobody's brought this up. Like I just
feel like anywhere like you guys would be the the

(56:34):
ACA would be the perfect people to like jump on this.
Nobody knows what the Lord's prayer means, Like that feels
significant to me. I don't know.

Speaker 1 (56:42):
Okay, this is not really I don't I don't know
about you, but this is not really help helping me whatsoever.
Hold on, I'm gonna have to mute you, John if
you can't stop talking while I'm talking. I don't know
how like what what what benefit is this? Let's just
say nobody understands it. Do what what? What does this
mean for anything?

Speaker 4 (57:02):
I would like to propose an alternative meeting, which has
become the basis of my faith that me actually makes
scripture makes sense the word that I'm making, you know,
So that's the second.

Speaker 2 (57:14):
What's the translation that you're getting that word?

Speaker 4 (57:16):
Sorry, I don't have it off time. It's a peace
fool loan. I believe the word that translated as daily
bread at poc on, thank you, thank you?

Speaker 2 (57:29):
So what's your translation for that is a word.

Speaker 4 (57:31):
That appears nowhere else in the Greek language.

Speaker 2 (57:33):
Okay, what's your translation for it?

Speaker 4 (57:35):
And again, this is the there's two parts of this.
There's my insert free bread for everybody every day, and
that's what Jesus was telling us to do.

Speaker 2 (57:43):
Based based and everybody gets free food.

Speaker 4 (57:46):
Pilled only carbo hydrate only. That's a very important. We
still need an economy, but only carbo hydrate. You get
enough carbo hydrates to survive.

Speaker 2 (57:54):
I think this is a meme.

Speaker 1 (57:57):
Are you a troll?

Speaker 4 (58:00):
Car is genuine real? This is genuinely real. This is
my belief.

Speaker 1 (58:04):
John, let's let's test this out. John my paint No, no, John, John, John, John, John, John,
My pancreas is broke as fuck. Okay, I have to
take insulin. I got I got a pump right here
insulin pump. I've got to take insulin every day. I
cannot just eat free carbs or whatever in the fuck
that's supposed to mean. How does that? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (58:26):
How?

Speaker 1 (58:26):
How does how does that translate? For all of the
diabetics that have ever existed? Like, as far as these
free carbs go from Jesus's uh supposed flesh, I'm not.

Speaker 4 (58:37):
Going to tell you how your diabetes works. And you
know it's your body or it's your business. I have
some diabetics in my family. While they did have to
manage their intake of sugar, they absolutely eat carbohydrates. There
is no way that you can servive.

Speaker 1 (58:51):
No, no, no, no, yes, yes, I still eat carbohydrates.
I'm trying to discern what in the fuck you mean
by free carbs for every money like that, I just
in in particular for a diabetic like I just don't
understand what that means. I didn't say that diabetics don't
eat carbs.

Speaker 2 (59:08):
That's not what he just wants breadlines like in the
Soviet Union, free carbs.

Speaker 1 (59:16):
Get your carbs here, get your carbs.

Speaker 4 (59:18):
Seeds from right by the wayside. If the Catholic Church
had done this, we don't have communism.

Speaker 1 (59:23):
No, I'm sorry, Oh okay, uh no, but still I'm
trying to figure out.

Speaker 4 (59:27):
Spons so that would be we would give you a
slightly smaller portion.

Speaker 1 (59:31):
So so hold on, why do we have this word
defined in Greek lexicons? Is it? Is it? Are you
saying that the only reason why we have this word
defined in Greek lexicons is because of Jesus?

Speaker 4 (59:42):
Well, it's it was only used in by Jesus, That's
what I'm saying. I don't think we really do have
a definition, the definition that we've accepted as daily bread.
I disagree that that, you know, that's basical. What my
claim is that that that that the definition that we've
accepted is wrong or does it have any evidence? Doesn't
have enough evidence to convince me that it's true.

Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
Okay, I don't understand what you're talking about here is
the bread part? No, you're because because you're complicating No wait, John,
you're complicating the Greek here. The actual Greek is ton
hamannuson or I'm sorry, I don't know how you pronounce
that exactly in Greek. But so that's the entire phrase,
and that's the bread of us daily. So that's what

(01:00:25):
you're calling the daily bread, and so it's actually like
an entire phrase here that means the daily bread. So
I don't know what you mean by there's a singular
word for daily bread. The epussion right there is is
daily and then bread is arton as far as the
interlenear goes. So which one are you saying is the
unique word? Is it the is it the epussion.

Speaker 3 (01:00:47):
Or is it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:49):
Yes, so that means so, that means daily, So that
means daily. So so you're saying that daily the understanding
of day daily here is unique to the Gospel of Matthew.
And I'm not even sure if Luke uses that word,
but I would assume Luke uses the same general word.

Speaker 2 (01:01:09):
So the the trouble is is that it's I'm sure
that the word that other words for the word daily
appear elsewhere, is just that this particular Greek word doesn't
appear elsewhere except in Luke and in the word's prayer
right exactly. But I mean, like, okay, suppose that that's true.
Does this mean that there is a guy? Does this
mean that there's a.

Speaker 4 (01:01:28):
God that in and of it that in and of itself,
wouldn't There's a lot of other evidence that I would
have to use to support that one. But this one,
what it means is that we've been worshiping God wrong
the entire time. We're way off here.

Speaker 2 (01:01:41):
Yeah, we need Soviet redline heard her first.

Speaker 4 (01:01:45):
I think this is where we started. My genuine argument
is that communism would have never happened if the Catholic
Church had just been doing this the whole time.

Speaker 2 (01:01:53):
That would be My question is do you have a
degree in Greek? And Greek.

Speaker 4 (01:01:59):
Definitely not even pronounce. I push you on whatever it is, So.

Speaker 2 (01:02:02):
Then why do you think that you know the correct translation?
And like the ancient or like the ancient Greek scholars,
the Aramaic scholars and so on, aren't correctly translating it.

Speaker 4 (01:02:11):
That was why at the beginning I wanted to be
very clear. There's sort of two parts of this claim.
There's the claim that we don't know what it is,
which is falsifiable, and then there's my own personal interpretation
of it, which we can talk about, but that's a
separate claim. The reason I'm making this claim is because
other writers can back me up on this. Nobody has
ever seen this word before. When we translate it, quote unquote,

(01:02:34):
all we're doing is make it the best get.

Speaker 2 (01:02:36):
So it is true that it's like not's we don't
have a certainty on this word. To say that nobody
knows is probably too strong a statement. Better, it's better
to say that we can only infer what it means.
But that doesn't mean that, like we don't have any
knowledge whatsoever about what it could mean. Like it's definitely
not going to mean like the Statue of Liberty. Right, So,
all I'm saying is that I don't know. I trust

(01:02:58):
the people who are doing the translation better, and if
they have good justifications for translating the way that they are,
it seems like that they're probably more justified in that
position than you are.

Speaker 4 (01:03:06):
What if they had an economic incentive to hide the truth?
And I'm tired there's a conspiracy going way back here.

Speaker 1 (01:03:12):
Yeah, I don't entertain like conspiracy theories like that, like, oh,
there's a big conspiracy to hide it, like I So,
so I still don't understand how this how this benefits
deliberate But okay, I still don't understand how any of
these gets us anywhere anything in the world.

Speaker 4 (01:03:30):
If the Catholic Church gave up whatever it was doing,
and I've been doing free beer and free popcorn for
everybody the whole time. What if Christopher Columbus had come
over it and instead of trying to convert people, instead
of genociding people, and just like giving them free bread,
like here's bread, people would have probably converted anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:03:47):
It's so cool but irrelevant.

Speaker 1 (01:03:49):
You can't see so you're saying.

Speaker 4 (01:03:50):
People are starving. People are starving.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
Hold on, hold.

Speaker 4 (01:03:55):
On organization and not a political organization.

Speaker 1 (01:03:59):
No so, John, Look, I don't understand how changing. You're
basically without any kind of of actual uh expertise here.
You're just reassigning this word to mean free. Am I
understanding that correctly? I just want to make sure I'm
understanding you correctly.

Speaker 4 (01:04:17):
I don't think I'm coming out of left field though,
because it comes right aftergive what is give? Typically imply?

Speaker 1 (01:04:23):
Yeah, it doesn't come right. I mean it says, it
says the break, it says to you. No, Like, I
still don't understand how this is. Like all that this
would entail is that the communion would be given for free,
which is already given for free. I mean you don't
have to pay to take communion, or at least I

(01:04:44):
never did. I mean you got to donate to the church.
That's whatever you.

Speaker 4 (01:04:47):
Should be doing. More communion every day?

Speaker 3 (01:04:49):
Right?

Speaker 1 (01:04:49):
Well, okay, wait, more communion, a communion, communion every day?
I'm sorry, when was the last time you had communion?
Because that ship sucks?

Speaker 4 (01:04:59):
Earlier morning or this morning?

Speaker 3 (01:05:01):
I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:05:02):
I like it.

Speaker 3 (01:05:02):
I have a good trip. Did you?

Speaker 1 (01:05:03):
Did you have communion flakes or something like that? Like
what I mean? I guess I just don't understand how
this would benefit humanity giving somebody a little bit a
piece of unloving bread on your tongue there too. It's
like really dry and chalky and everything like.

Speaker 4 (01:05:17):
That, And that's what you were asking specifically.

Speaker 2 (01:05:20):
Wait, so John, do you think that bread.

Speaker 4 (01:05:23):
To sustain a person for a day? And it can
be any kind of bread you want?

Speaker 2 (01:05:27):
It doesn't even Do you think that bread is God?

Speaker 4 (01:05:29):
Like pop whatever you want?

Speaker 2 (01:05:31):
John? Do you think that bread is God? Well?

Speaker 3 (01:05:33):
I believe that.

Speaker 4 (01:05:34):
I believe the oppression of God. Yes, because a lie
is all insumthancing everywhere. No, I don't know, it's not trolling.
That's the belief everything God kind of it's also not God,
but it is.

Speaker 1 (01:05:46):
Well wait, how can it both be not God and
God is exact same.

Speaker 4 (01:05:49):
That bread is given to us as a blessing by God.

Speaker 1 (01:05:52):
Though bread is literally not a blessing by God. It's
it's literally a product of like, uh, what is a
yeast and water and then a chemical reaction involving carbon dioxide.
I think, right, it's been a while since I've looked up.

Speaker 2 (01:06:06):
The probably, but you are you are feeding him, feed
him bread if you will, but you are feeding.

Speaker 1 (01:06:10):
The Yeah, all right, John, John, I cannot, I cannot
in good faith continue the conversation because I don't think
that you're genuine.

Speaker 2 (01:06:21):
I've I've heard from others that he does this every
show he does.

Speaker 1 (01:06:24):
Okay, yeah, all right, Sorry, John, I'm gonna just go
ahead and drop you because I don't I mean, we're
wasting minutes here on on, you know, our precious minutes
on this show.

Speaker 3 (01:06:34):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:06:34):
But anyways, okay, So, but I will say that I
learned something new out of that call, and that's the
uniqueness of that word.

Speaker 4 (01:06:42):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:06:44):
Yeah, because I looked it up while he was talking
about it. I was like, yeah, it's only used in
in those two places in the Gospels. Uh, maybe one
more and in another outside work that derives from the Gospels.
So it's kind of like a really unique kind of
situation there. But I still don't see how changing that
one word to whatever he was wanted to mean would

(01:07:04):
would indicate that, you know, everybody gets free bread. Also,
I can't eat free bread. Like I could eat a
little bit of bread, but that's not enough to sustain
me as like a human.

Speaker 2 (01:07:14):
So you're not getting into the Kingdom of Heaven then, sorry,
the Kingdom.

Speaker 3 (01:07:17):
Of all right.

Speaker 1 (01:07:22):
Uh So anyways, uh, next up is gonna be Hannah
calling in from uh misty servers. How how's it going there, Hannah?

Speaker 7 (01:07:34):
How about you pretty good?

Speaker 1 (01:07:35):
I do want to let you know that that we
are kind of running short on time here, so we
can't get into too deep of a conversation. But I
know that you're wanting to try to use quantum mechanics
as evidence for God's existence, which I think Blitz is
the perfect person to to interact with on this, So
go ahead, Hannah, make your make your argument here.

Speaker 2 (01:07:55):
You hate me, don't you.

Speaker 7 (01:07:56):
John premise the premise that quantum mechanics is evidence for
God's existence, I think I would put it in syllogistic reasoning,
so premise one would be the non deterministic interpretations of
quantum mechanics is true. Be nondeterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics

(01:08:20):
are evidence that naturalism is false, and see that if
naturalism is false, God is more likely. So that would
be probably the three part syllogism for why I believe
quantum mechanics is evidence for God's existence being more likely.

Speaker 2 (01:08:34):
So I mean a you have I mean that I
have a problem with both. Well, I have a problem
with all three premises, but we can attack these one
at a time. So suppose for a moment that we
grant that this is a valid syllogism, which I suppose
it is. How do you establish that the non deterministic
interpretations of quant mechanics are.

Speaker 7 (01:08:51):
True because they appears with things like the double split
experiment and other things. To understandings are that basically interterminacy
is almost always found in experiments about the quantum level.

Speaker 2 (01:09:08):
So to be clear, the deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics,
like the many worlds interpretation, would expect the same outcomes
of measurement. So, for example, you would expect to see
upon measuring upon placing a detector, say in front of
one of the slits you would expect to see a
particle like behavior after performing your measurement, even in the

(01:09:29):
deterministic interpretation known as the many worlds interpretation.

Speaker 3 (01:09:32):
Okay, so that's the case.

Speaker 7 (01:09:35):
You would then say that the non deterministic theory is
not proven by the experiments because the deterministic has the
same predictive power.

Speaker 2 (01:09:45):
Yes, as far as I'm aware, there is not a
single interpretation, with perhaps exception of the Bomian interpretation, that
has been falsified. And even that's a stretch saying that
the Bomian interpretation has been falsified.

Speaker 7 (01:09:58):
So it's been proven false the Boman So.

Speaker 2 (01:10:01):
It depends on who you believe. So some some would
say that the Boman interpretation hasn't been proven false, but
perhaps is incompatible with quantum field theory. And we know
that quantum field theory is a good description of reality,
and so if that's the case, that the Boman interpretation
is incompatible with that, then you would come to the
conclusion that if quantum field theory is true, then the
Boman interpretation is false. Others have argued that you can

(01:10:22):
make it compatible, but that's not super compelling to a
lot of people.

Speaker 7 (01:10:25):
Okay, And so would you say then that premise A
that the nonotrumistic theory of quantum mechanics is true is false.

Speaker 2 (01:10:31):
I would say that it is unjustified. Now it might
be the case that the correct interpretation is you know,
is uh nondeterministic, but we don't have any reason to
accept that given the data we have.

Speaker 7 (01:10:44):
Okay, yeah, I guess it has to look more into it.
But the reason I thought asks is because I thought
that the fact that scientists can't find where a particle
is on the quantum level when measuring it is generally
interpreted as as as basically proof of the law of
causalite not holding on the quantum level. But if that's
the case, then I would have to look into the

(01:11:05):
more deterministic interpretations. But would you like to go into
the second premise? Yeah, sure, the first premise would you
like to.

Speaker 2 (01:11:15):
Just so, how do you figure that naturalism require reason
believe to Well?

Speaker 7 (01:11:19):
Specifically the reason I think that the non Well, I
don't think nationalism requires determinism because you can I believe
you can be naturalism belief in free will, even libertarian
free will. But I do believe naturalism would be incompatible
with nondeterminism of physical or material objects. And I believe
the reason for that is because of the fact that

(01:11:40):
on the quantum level, basically, if there's indeterminacy, this means
the law of causality doesn't hold, Whereas I believe if
naturalism is true between the laws of Cazaldi would hold
because naturalism, as I understand it, is the belief that
everything is bound by the laws of nature, and the
laws of nature inherently operate by causality, and matter and
and physical physical existence would be mechanistic causality.

Speaker 2 (01:12:03):
Yeah, so naturalism, as far as I understand it can absolutely.
I mean, if you if you interpret naturalism to be
something like everything follows laws of nature, then perhaps that
that's a fine Perhaps that's a fine definition. But there's
no reason why you can't have statistical or like stochastic
laws of nature where the law of nature is that
you have a one is is that you know you

(01:12:23):
have some probability of measuring this outcome and some probability
of measuring that outcome. There's I don't see the incompatibility there.

Speaker 7 (01:12:29):
Well, if it's if physical reality or material reality, which
is what the mechanics studies, not consciousness, and that I
would say, you can definitely believe consciousness. Now is that
reducible to physical or material reality? Which is why I
say naturalism is all quire determinism. But at least when
we're talking about material or physical reality, if that's not
bound by the law of causality, then how could any

(01:12:50):
law of nature apply to it?

Speaker 3 (01:12:52):
Right?

Speaker 7 (01:12:52):
If causality so is not does not apply to physical
and material reality, then what laws of nature are there?

Speaker 2 (01:12:58):
So I don't think that laws of nature descriptive of causality.
In fact, the way that we typically talk about laws
of physics these days is we talk about them in
terms of like descriptive or descriptive descriptions of what actually happens.
So you so a law of nature might be something like,
when you have a mass here and you have another
mass there, we observe a force occurring, say for the

(01:13:19):
you know the law of gravitation, if you will. But
that's just a descriptive statement. That's not a cause. That's
not a statement about causality. It's not a statement about
this causes that. It's a statement of these things occur simultaneously,
for example. And you could just as well have another
descriptive statement saying if you were to measure such and
such a thing at such and such a time. If

(01:13:39):
you were to measure this over and over again, half
the time you would get this and half the time
you get that. That that's an equally good description. It's
just not as informative, but it's still a good description.

Speaker 7 (01:13:47):
Okay, So but then what is the purpose of these
descriptive things if it's not demonstrating causal relationships would be
my question?

Speaker 3 (01:13:55):
Or or how exactly are the laws.

Speaker 7 (01:13:57):
If they're just description, because minderstanding law implies that basically,
this is a principle that will occur, not just the
description of what has already occurred.

Speaker 2 (01:14:06):
Yeah, So, typically we take so when we're doing, you know,
any sort of scientific investigation, typically we take the universe
to have the property of consistency, namely that things that
have happened in the past will or the way things
are in the past will continue to be the way
things are in the future. And so if you have
some sort of description of the way things happened in
the past, then you can at least make some sort

(01:14:27):
of prediction about the way things will likely happen in
the future, or perhaps the way that things will definitely
happen in the future depending on what your laws look like.
But that doesn't imply any sort of causality. If you're
asking what's the point of them, Well, the point of
them is to be able to describe what will happen
in the future based off of what is happening now.
But that's not causality. That's just you know, you have
some information, you have some information now, and so you

(01:14:48):
can use that to figure out what will happen next.

Speaker 7 (01:14:50):
Well, then then how do we know that something will
happen in the future if we can't demonstrate a cause,
a relationships to lead it.

Speaker 6 (01:14:58):
To it happening its future? Is my question?

Speaker 7 (01:15:00):
Like, by what method do we gain knowledge that? Say,
for example, the idea that the freezing point of water
is this, and then in the future the future in
point of water will still be this. If you can't
demonstrate a causal relationship between the temperature and the freezing
of the water, how do if there's no cause or relationships,
my question would be, then how do we notice future
will resemble the past?

Speaker 2 (01:15:21):
Oh, that's an assumption built into the scientific process. It's
not it's not something that we can prove. This is
the problem of induction, right, But if you're doing science
you just assume that the future will be like the past.

Speaker 7 (01:15:30):
Well fine, but then I just if it's not proven
that I'm not saying it's false, but it's not. I
would say. It's the same thing with God. Like if
you don't believe in God because you don't believe there's
evidence for him, then I would say because you'd say
it would be unjustified to believe in something cures no evidence.
If there's no evidence that something will happen in the
future that resembles the past, then you're also in justified
in believing that.

Speaker 3 (01:15:50):
If that makes sense.

Speaker 2 (01:15:51):
Well, look, I mean like it depends on what you
take justification to be. You can take seemings as justification
that perhaps is a very weak version of of justification,
or you could just accept it axiomatically. I mean, look,
if you if you want to reject the principle of
induction because you think that it's unjustifiable that if you're
taking like some foundationalist worldview, you could do that you

(01:16:12):
would just live a pretty miserable and confused life.

Speaker 7 (01:16:15):
Well then I would say I would accept it. Then
what I'm saying is, if you can you can basically
say the law of induction, basically the principle of induction
is an axiomatic things, Then why can't I say God
is an axiom in the same.

Speaker 2 (01:16:31):
Way you can? But then that doesn't give anybody else
justification to believe in it?

Speaker 7 (01:16:35):
Right, Well, then why does anyone have justification and believing
in induction as an axiom?

Speaker 3 (01:16:41):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:16:41):
I mean so my guess is probably because there's like
some evolutionary, evolutionary reasons psychologically to be able to infer
from the past about the future. And so I would
suspect that humans, being, you know, rational beings that are
trying to survive, probably have a belief in induction that
you know, if the sun rose yesterday, it'll rise tomorrow,

(01:17:01):
probably have that inbuilt in us. That's probably like a
fundamental part of being human. Now, perhaps you could say
that that's not rational and that we really that we
should try to overcome this instinct that we have, But
that's neither here nor there. I mean, you and I
both do agree that the future will likely be like
the past, right.

Speaker 7 (01:17:18):
Yeah, I mean it's something like the sun or I tomorrow. Yeah,
I would say say say that would that's example of
a true statement or cause of patterns, and I believe
these pa well, yes, But the thing is, the reason
I have for the justification for induction is that I
believe in God, and I believe God demonstrates an induction
because if God exists, God can create laws of causality.

(01:17:41):
And if God can create laws of causality, God can
very causal relationships which will cause the sun to rise tomorrow.
But if there is no God and then you have
basically a lack of causal relationships, then basically I don't
know how you justify an induction then, because basically, if
God exists, even creeds coled relationships. If God doesn't exist

(01:18:03):
and you can't be certain of these pulse relationships, therefore
induction would be unjustified. So basically what I'm saying is
I understand that it's a psychological thing for induction. My
question to you would be, why does everyone, anyone have
a good epistemic justification for believing in induction as opposed
to God when neither of them you would you'd believe.

Speaker 6 (01:18:22):
Have proof of them.

Speaker 2 (01:18:23):
Yeah, So, I mean it might be the case that
there is no justification for this psychology that we have,
or it might be the case that that is a
feature of our universe and that's why we have that psychology.
The point is, is the kind of reasoning that we do,
the kind of reasoning that we have just existing as beings,
kind of requires induction. Like we're just really not capable

(01:18:46):
of operating without it. It seems like we're totally fine
to operate without any sort of beliefs about God. So
it doesn't seem like that that's like a required way
of thinking about the world in order for us to
function in the societies that we live in. So I mean,
just just pragmatically, it's there's a good justification for believing
and induction, and there's not really a good justification for
believing in God, at least in the same sense. But

(01:19:08):
this is getting this is getting very philosophically, Harry. What
I would say is that when we do physics, like
when we genuinely do physics, when you write down equations,
when we analyze data, we're not looking for cause and
effect relationships. That hasn't been the case since like Newton's
time or something like this. We're looking for descriptive relationships
between data points. Right, you might call them dependent and

(01:19:28):
independent variables. But really, like at the fundamental layer of physics,
there's no distinction between dependent and independent variables, right, These
are just data points that are correlated, and you can't
really tell the difference between which one caused which one? Right,
does the force? It does the mass cause the force,
even if they exist simultaneously. Well, it's hard to say.

Speaker 7 (01:19:50):
Okay, So basically you would say then that naturalism is
compatible with indeterminacy because naturalism is not naturalism or the
idea that everything operates. The coring to laws of nature
does not mean causal relationships, just dependent or independent variable relationships.

Speaker 2 (01:20:06):
I would say that naturalism requires a consistent uh requires
a consistent description of correlation of like physical correlation.

Speaker 7 (01:20:13):
Okay, so this, but basically the point is that naturalism
has now required these laws of nature to be causal relationships.
So causal laws of nature, but just correlated laws of nature.

Speaker 2 (01:20:24):
Yep. Now it's kind of a bare bones naturalism. And
you could say that there that you know, like objects
have causal power, and then you can just say, oh, well,
the causal power is inherent in the objects, and the
laws are describing that causal power. But it's not necessary
for naturalism.

Speaker 7 (01:20:37):
Okay, and so you would say yes, so you would,
so you would adhere to some to like a conventionalist
naturalism with laws of nature or conventional conventional correlations without causality.
And you do not believe in determinism, or you you
would you say you subscription to determinism.

Speaker 2 (01:20:55):
I'm a determinist, but I take that that's different from
taking some view on causality. I'm a determinist in the
sense that I think that the future is in some
sense always predictable given previous data.

Speaker 7 (01:21:07):
Are you a determinist about the physical and material world?
Are you also a determinist about free will?

Speaker 2 (01:21:13):
I'm some sort of compatiblist about free will. There's a
whole discussion to be had there, but I'm general like,
my general view is that I'm a physicalist, So I
take that the mind is like a physical thing, or
at least arises from physical things. But that's perhaps a
conversation for another time. I don't know how much time
we have.

Speaker 1 (01:21:30):
Yeah, we are coming up, we still have.

Speaker 7 (01:21:34):
To Okay, Yeah, I would just say to that that
perhaps I was just confused about what naturalism is socioated
is I thought naturalism was believed that's the cause the
laws of nature. But if if you can believe in
naturalism without believing cause the laws of nature, then yeah,
I just must have had a misunderstanding, and then the
argument of quantuman determinacy would not would not be able

(01:21:55):
to non naturalism, therefore.

Speaker 6 (01:21:57):
Not evidence for God.

Speaker 7 (01:21:58):
So if that's the case, then yeah, I guess there
was a confusion on my part.

Speaker 2 (01:22:01):
So I think it's Hume that talks about the indeterminacy
of causalism or of cause out of a cause and
effect relationship. So that's sort of where this idea is
stemming from. But yeah, I'll leave it at that, all.

Speaker 1 (01:22:12):
Right, Hannah, did you get all of your questions like
answered for this? Yeah?

Speaker 7 (01:22:17):
It was. It was a good toughing to you gentlemen.

Speaker 1 (01:22:19):
Yeah, well, mostly Blitz. That's his area of expertise right here,
at least more so than mine. So but I appreciate
you calling in there, Hannah.

Speaker 7 (01:22:29):
Okay, thank you, all right.

Speaker 1 (01:22:30):
See you later.

Speaker 2 (01:22:31):
Sorry about that. I know it's easy to get bogged
on in philosophy, lingo.

Speaker 1 (01:22:36):
Yeah, you're perfectly fine. Hannah calls in all the time,
so I'm glad that that you were able to really
interact on a on a level, that particular level with
them because they they call in all the time and
they want to get super specific about a lot of things.
So I'm glad that they were able to do that
with you. Yeah, all right, Next we have Georgie from

(01:22:57):
Bulgaria today. Yeah, are you Georgie?

Speaker 8 (01:23:03):
I'm doing very well, yead.

Speaker 1 (01:23:05):
So what do you want to talk about today?

Speaker 8 (01:23:07):
Well, maybe you can give me a minute and a
half and I can make a pieces.

Speaker 1 (01:23:12):
Okay, sure, lay down whatever you want to.

Speaker 8 (01:23:16):
Well, we as eternal infinite awareness from a car perspective,
one to experience anything like meaningful and this is why
we have created physical reality because it provides an opportunity
to do just that. And I would say that existence
is not subject to time. Time is a concept within existence. Okay,

(01:23:40):
we can converse.

Speaker 2 (01:23:41):
Now, So what does this have to do with God?

Speaker 8 (01:23:47):
Well, there are two or three main aspects of God,
but God in his sessence is pure existence and he
none existing but definitely yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:24:01):
Yes, God is pure existence. The universe is pre existence.
Therefore the universe of God something like that.

Speaker 8 (01:24:07):
God has the quality to exist and we are the
first step down from God.

Speaker 1 (01:24:13):
Georgie. Georgie Georgie, can you can you please enlighten us
as to how you know that God is defined that
way or or that God has that attribute. How do
you know that other than just ad hocs saying that
he is? How can you prove that by definition?

Speaker 8 (01:24:32):
It's something like metaphysics. By definition, the one God is alone,
so he doesn't have awareness.

Speaker 1 (01:24:39):
Okay, that I don't see how. I don't understand how
that proved, how that proves that God has the quality
to exist. You're just saying that you're defining God that way,
and that's it, Like you're not actually substantiating why you
would define him that way. Just and we've got a
lot of dead error here. I'm not sure. Well, in

(01:25:00):
Georgie's connection, Oh shit, we've got awareness. Did you know that, Blitz?
We have awareness? Therefore God.

Speaker 2 (01:25:06):
I didn't know that. Therefore I don't have awareness, therefore
there is no God.

Speaker 1 (01:25:12):
Well fuck, we just disprove Georgie's God there So, Georgie,
can you please substantiate for us that God like the
reason for this definition or do you have something else
you want to ask?

Speaker 3 (01:25:23):
Blitz?

Speaker 2 (01:25:24):
I was just gonna say we had this, I had
this exact conversation with him on Monday or something. Yeah,
and it basically went nowhere for twenty minutes. So if
there's another caller, I might suggest we move on.

Speaker 1 (01:25:37):
Georgie is our last caller.

Speaker 2 (01:25:40):
Yeah, we can have this conversation for twenty minutes.

Speaker 1 (01:25:46):
I'm not really interested in having the conversation for twenty minutes.
I still would like Georgie to at least like you.
Your starting out thing is defining God as having the
quality to exist or something like that. Can you substand
that I'm just going to ask this one last time.
Can you substantiate that definition of God? Like what seems

(01:26:06):
to indicate that God has that quality? Or are you
just ad hoc stating it as like a metaphysical necessity.

Speaker 8 (01:26:14):
It's a hard question. You want me to prove it
or give prove for something.

Speaker 1 (01:26:20):
Other than just defining God that way. I don't know
why you would say that God has the quality of
existence or or given the ability to exist, like, I
don't understand what grounds that like and that that makes
it so that God has that quality. I'm just wanting
you to connect the dots for me on this, because

(01:26:40):
i'd other than just you ad hoc stating it. I
don't see a reason for saying God has the quality
to exist.

Speaker 8 (01:26:47):
Well, we have non existence, which doesn't exist and cannot
be so existence cannot become non existence because of quality
of properties.

Speaker 1 (01:26:59):
Was he this apherent the other day? There? Blitz? Yeah, Okay,
I'm sorry, Georgie. I'm not sure how we can continue
forward in this. The screener note says that you're claiming
that reality is our simulation. I don't know what that means.
You mean, like a computer simulation.

Speaker 8 (01:27:16):
We are infinite and eternal awareness, and we're the structure
of existence. We are what makes up the one.

Speaker 1 (01:27:23):
Got so I think I remember I remember interacting with
Georgie before. Uh. And I believe I did this last
time too. And I'm wondering, Georgie, can you please parse
this for me? Tell me if you understand this particular thing.
Mythological truth is the ground of subtle phenomena. Does that

(01:27:44):
make sense to you? I'm gonna say no, Okay, Georgie,
I'm so sorry. We can't have dead air like this.
This this is making conversation.

Speaker 3 (01:27:52):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:27:52):
And I guess I was just, you know, I guess
trolling at that point. With the wisdom of Peterson generator. Uh, Georgie,
maybe call in uh when you have a better connection
next time, so that there's not such a long delay.

Speaker 2 (01:28:04):
I don't know if that was a connection issue.

Speaker 1 (01:28:06):
I'm trying to be charitable, all right, Sorry Georgie, I'm
just gonna have to go ahead and drop you because
you're not interacting really anyways. Uh, that's gonna be it
for the show tonight. Yeah, with Georgie's last call, I
was trying to see I remember the last time Georgie
called in, uh that I interacted with him. I I

(01:28:30):
just started reading off Wisdom of Peterson and it blew
his mind. And that was That was a pretty big
indicator there of of of Georgie just being sort of
a Jordan Peterson word solid kind of thing. Anyways, Uh, Blitz,
thank you so much for coming on tonight and interacting
with these callers. Uh and uh, you know, I'm sorry

(01:28:52):
we couldn't get more, you know, more calls in the
in the theology aspect of things, I guess, and just
the one troll. But anyways, thank you so much for
coming on.

Speaker 2 (01:29:02):
Yeah, thanks for having me. It was a delight. It's
still warm and uncomfortable though.

Speaker 1 (01:29:05):
Yeah, still yeah, it's still warm and uncomfortable, all right,
So uh, I guess that's gonna be it for our
show tonight. It's been a while since I've actually ran
a show, so I'm not sure how we close this out,
but I hope that everybody has an awesome weekend.

Speaker 3 (01:29:22):
Glad sat.

Speaker 5 (01:29:30):
Step watch Talking Than Live Sundays at one pm Central.

Speaker 2 (01:29:46):
Visit tiny dot c c slash y t t H
and call into the show at five one two nine
two four two, or connect to the show online at
tiny dot c c slash call th H