The Atheist Experience 29.34 with Justin and Godless Engineer

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
People call this show every week asking why we don't
believe in God, but the answer is obvious. We have
no good reason to believe in a God. In fact,
the universe looks exactly like what we'd expect if there
were not a God running it. It's chaotic, indifferent, unusually cruel,
and is bent on death rather than life. All of
this is radically unexpected in the God worldview, unless the

(00:23):
God is indifferent and cruel. Additionally, every version of God
that accounts for these facts has been a God that shapeshifts,
changes with culture, political powers, and moral frameworks. God seems
much more like a human invention than an eternal truth.
And every time humans have said God did it, scigns
eventually proved that no, God did not do it. And

(00:43):
here's how it actually works. This is why Nietzsche famously
said God is dead, God remains dead, and we've killed him.
I would add only one modification to this, stating God
is dead, God remains dead, We kill them, and now
it's time to bury the stinking, rotting blow corpse that's
left behind. So get your shovel and join us, or
call in to prove us wrong. The lines are open

(01:05):
and the show starts now.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Welcome in.

Speaker 1 (01:15):
Everybody.

Speaker 2 (01:15):
Today is August twenty fourth, twenty twenty five. I am
your host, justin You might know me.

Speaker 1 (01:21):
Elsewhere is Deconstruction Zone, and joining me right now is
my friend and co host, the Arkon of Algorithms, the
Pontiff of Probability, the Duke of Bible Debunking, the Archbishop
of Apostasy, and the Guardian of the Godless. Good to
see a godless engineer. Oh no, we lost your audio.

Speaker 3 (01:40):
Sorry I was muted.

Speaker 4 (01:41):
Sorry.

Speaker 3 (01:42):
I don't know if I'm all those things, but I
will gladly wear those titles.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Well, I'm happy to be on a screen with you again.
It's been a hot minute since we got to share
a screen together, so I'm pretty excited about it.

Speaker 3 (01:53):
Same here.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
I think last time we ended up cooking on numbers
thirty one. Who knows, maybe it was maybe it was
meant to be. Well, we'll get to do even more
cooking at number thirty one here tonight.

Speaker 2 (02:06):
But before we get into our calls, let's get into
some announcements.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
The Atheist Experience is a product of the Atheist Community
of Austin, a five o' one c three nonprofit organization
dedicated to the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism,
and the separation of religion and government. Now, John, we
have one theist online already, Benjamin, which you may and
I've talked to before, says that the people who go

(02:34):
to church don't have any idea what the Bible is
even talking about. I'd love to bite into this particular conversation, Benjamin.

Speaker 2 (02:42):
Can you hear us?

Speaker 5 (02:43):
Yeah? Yeah, how you doing doing good?

Speaker 1 (02:45):
Thanks for calin Benjamin. Benjamin, can you elaborate a little
bit on what your thesis is?

Speaker 6 (02:53):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (02:54):
So I went to toch earlier. Today, I do go
to Toad and I do believe in odd but as
far as the Trinity and stuff, I don't believe in
that because that was added a lot later, which was
kind of a bone to pick anyway, because they claimed
that the Trinity has always been I'm like, no, I
hadn't and in that when when Jesus was alive, Christianity

(03:19):
didn't even exist, you know, they was all poet us.
But yeah, I mean, it's uh. And I brought this
up to them, and I also brought up the fact
that they'd serry picked the Bible because they picked and
choose what they wanted to put in it. In the West,
they'd tried to burn and destroyed, and I saw as
heresy and they which Honestly, a lot of you people

(03:42):
have told me that my views are mainly heresy, but
I'm anostic and that that hasn't existed in several hundred
years anyway, and.

Speaker 1 (03:52):
So I think that's what we're interested in talking about.
It was, so let's let's get into that a little bit. John,
What were you gonna say?

Speaker 3 (04:01):
I mean, I was just I was just going to
ask Benjamin, like, how do you know what is the
true teachings of God or the true nature of God
or whatever particular aspects of God that you say that
you believe in or you think you know? How do
you know those things?

Speaker 5 (04:17):
Yeah? Well, I mean so experience. It is necessarily the
first person, right, So I go off experience knowledge and
life experience. But I can't demonstrate any of that to you. However,
the problem that I went into with a lot of
cists that I deal with is that either they don't

(04:40):
actually know their Bible because the cleatsers don't cleat from it,
and I mean they they pick a verotes, but they
don't pleach the whole you know, they don't. They don't
teach the actual Bible with the issue and you know,
the like in mindset for I'm.

Speaker 2 (04:56):
Not sure they answered the question. Maybe I didn't hear it.

Speaker 1 (04:59):
I think what John was asking is, how do you
know that your understanding of the Bible is somehow like
the correct understanding and that the others have it wrong.

Speaker 3 (05:09):
Did we lose him?

Speaker 2 (05:10):
Maybe I don't hear him.

Speaker 3 (05:12):
I don't know. Benjamin, are you there?

Speaker 1 (05:13):
Apparently the demi urge took him. He gone, he gone,
he's he's in the swamp. He's in the deep, deep
deep swamp of Alabama. Okay, then one of the alligators
got a hold of him. Well with that, then we
got another caller in the queue. Let me read our
announcements and we'll get our next caller into the queue.

(05:37):
Maybe if if he comes back while we're doing the announcements,
we can get him in. So let's give him an
opportunity to reconnect, if possible, before we move on to
the next caller.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
I hate for him.

Speaker 1 (05:47):
I have the wait in line all over again. But
if you're listening, call in and we'll get you. We'll
get you back in the discussion. If not, we've got
to go on to Adam our next caller. But the
announcements for the day we're happy to announce then. On
August the twenty ninth, just a couple of days from now,
the Atheist Community Austin will be hosting a presentation by

(06:07):
Seth Andrews with an introduction by genetically Modified Skeptic and
the Antibot. Join us at the Roundtable I'm Sorry the
Round Public Library for an evening of pizza, conversation and
critical thinking. Tickets are available right now at tiny dot
cc ford Slash Evening with Seth. Please like the video

(06:29):
and subscribe to the channel, enable notifications, and comment below
on who your favorite caller. It is also another way
to support the channel is by sending in superchats, So
go ahead get your superchats in. We'll be reading your
super chats as we get timed throughout the stream and
then also at the end of the stream. It really
helps us support the channel and it brings the audience

(06:51):
into the conversation. If you're in the Austin area, follow
us on meetup to keep up with community events. You
can see what's going on at tiny cc forde slash
ACA meetup. You can go to events like Philosophy under
the Stars, game Nights and more. Also, you could join
our weekly watch parties at the Free Thought Library on

(07:11):
Sundays for live viewings of Talk Heathen and the Atheist
Experience every Sunday, doors open at noon.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
It's a great place for building community. And lastly, but
certainly not at least, we want to send a big
thank you to the crew who puts the show together
for us every week.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
We've got video operators, audio operators, note takers, call screeners,
and chat maturators that make all of this possible.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
There's a lot going on behind the scenes.

Speaker 1 (07:36):
It's not just two talking heads on a screen shouting
number thirty one at people. So thank you to everyone
making the show possible. It really means to world, to
myself and to the people watching. And Benjamin did come back,
So I think Benjamin's connection is back with us. Benjamin,
welcome back.

Speaker 5 (07:57):
So I don't know what just happened. I was talking
and then all of a sudden I disconnected for some reason.
So I don't know what.

Speaker 1 (08:06):
I suspect just that reception. It's okay. So so Benjamin,
I think, what what?

Speaker 5 (08:12):
What?

Speaker 1 (08:12):
Godless engineer was asking, which I was looking for an
answer to still is you're reading the Bible, you're coming
up with an interpretation of the Bible, and you're saying
that your interpretation of the Bible is somehow superior to others.
What's the measuring stick or what's the tool that one
could use to come to the conclusion that your interpretation

(08:33):
is somehow better than somebody else's interpretation.

Speaker 5 (08:36):
Well, so I'm not going to make a mistakes of
what's a coach to triud to say and say because
that doesn't that doesn't work. But I would say personal experience,
just experience and general knowledge, you know, distovery personal experience
that kind of time.

Speaker 3 (08:52):
Well, what if I can ask what kind of personal
experiences are you talking about? Like and and I will
start there, like what what personal experience of yours has
convinced you of your particular interpretation of your God?

Speaker 5 (09:05):
Well, just well, that's kind of a complicated press to
get into. I got a puppy, But basically, I've been
burned and it didn't hurt me. I've been hung, I've
been shot, I've literally died a few times and came back,
been medically dead, and came back. I guess I guess

(09:26):
I should say, are.

Speaker 3 (09:28):
We talking.

Speaker 5 (09:30):
Time?

Speaker 3 (09:32):
Are we? Are you resputing.

Speaker 5 (09:35):
Now? But that is a good joke. I mean I was.

Speaker 3 (09:41):
Being half serious the way that you talk about yourself surviving,
being shot, hung and all that, Like that's wood resputant
went through. If I'm not mistaken there, I think he
was also poisoned and maybe drowned as well. But you
know what, there's time.

Speaker 5 (09:54):
Oh yeah, drown me and almost ground so that yeah,
I don't know if I was ever poisoned or not.

Speaker 3 (10:01):
I mean, would you really know if you're if you're
if you're immune to it and it didn't cook. I mean,
was there anybody surprised after you having a meal? Sorry?
I I'm we're getting off in the week.

Speaker 5 (10:11):
Oh, I mean when I did, when I agmatically did,
I mean I basically everything went black. My hearing cut off,
my my sense here what.

Speaker 2 (10:21):
Got cut off?

Speaker 5 (10:22):
Man?

Speaker 2 (10:23):
Huh is hearing your hearing cut off?

Speaker 1 (10:25):
Okay?

Speaker 5 (10:25):
Yeah, yeah yeah, so my hearing cut off, my senses
set off, so everything went black and then I just
woke up in the guardy. That's I mean, that's pretty much.
And also let me ask you this, so so I.

Speaker 2 (10:38):
Mean that that was similar to my experience.

Speaker 1 (10:42):
Like, so, I've been dead before, and you know, everything
went black and then I was just out of consciousness
for a time and then I woke up somewhere else.

Speaker 5 (10:49):
Right.

Speaker 1 (10:50):
But to me, this evidence, the evidence you're talking about
in my own experience, would lead one to believe that.

Speaker 2 (10:56):
There is no God, there is no afterlife.

Speaker 1 (10:58):
Like if we if we lose consciousness, we die medically
and then it's just blackness. It would stand the reason
that there there's nothing in the beyond.

Speaker 5 (11:08):
We'll see. What's weird to me is I was actually
standing over my body at one point, but uh, and
and also I like I was literally standing over it.
I could see my body, but then because I was
in the middle of a concert, uh.

Speaker 3 (11:23):
Benjamin, Benjamin, So I get that you you think that
you were standing beside your body, but I'm just kind
of curious how you can discern between like some kind
of hallucinatory uh like uh experience that you had versus sorry.

Speaker 5 (11:40):
What Well, So, yeah, you're arguing you know, basically scientific
chemicals in my Brian from lack of loss and rest
is a supernatural experience, right, I.

Speaker 1 (11:50):
Mean, yeah, that's essentially Yeah, We know that to be
the case because we can do it on purpose. We
can cause it through d MT cybercill and deep brain stimulation.
We can produce the exact SAMED experience that you're referring to.

Speaker 5 (12:04):
Well, so I can I also have a remote viewing,
which is basically the ability to use my brain to
look and see like stuff that I'm not there physically
looking at, but I can see, you know, stuff from
a distance, and I use my brain to remember, you know,

(12:24):
details of it.

Speaker 2 (12:25):
Like you couldn't do it right now? Can you do
it right now?

Speaker 5 (12:31):
Possibly? Sure?

Speaker 1 (12:33):
Can you do remote viewing and tell us something that's
in our in godless engineer's room or something that's in
our room that's not on camera?

Speaker 5 (12:40):
Well, I mean I could try to do that. I
mean that's I don't know if I'd be able to,
I mean, both of us.

Speaker 3 (12:49):
How long how long would that take? Like is it
like a long process of you like meditating and like
trying to view or it's.

Speaker 5 (12:57):
No, I mean it just it just takes content trace
clear in my mind and then I can basically sure
pretty much anywhere.

Speaker 2 (13:04):
And so I'm gonna I'm want to give you an item.

Speaker 1 (13:07):
Let me know if you can come close to determining
what it is just to the left of me on
my desk, I have a very very specific item on
my desk shelf. It can't be confused for anything else.
There's nothing like it that you would find in an
office that would be similar.

Speaker 2 (13:24):
So, like any description even remotely close to what this
thing is, I'd be willing to accept that you are
viewing it remotely. Want to give it a shot? Tell
me what's just left to me?

Speaker 1 (13:36):
Is at not really?

Speaker 2 (13:38):
It's metal? Is metal?

Speaker 5 (13:41):
Is it? Let's see, I'm trying to see it. Sorry,
let's see.

Speaker 1 (13:51):
No, No, I'm sorry, completely different categories, not across.

Speaker 5 (13:57):
I know it's some kind of.

Speaker 2 (13:59):
Safe, right, It's not a safe like a shape.

Speaker 5 (14:02):
No, I said a safe.

Speaker 1 (14:03):
It's like, oh, the shape I would give it is
more of a polygon.

Speaker 5 (14:11):
Okay, yeah, I was. I was thinking that, and I
knew it was something. I knew it was metal. But yeah,
so that's that's kind of how my self works. I mean,
I can visualize it didn't.

Speaker 3 (14:23):
Work, No, Benjamin, Benjamin, it didn't work. You just scattered
shot a bunch of shit towards Justin's way, and then
none of it worked. Out and so now you're like, so, yeah,
that's how it works. It just it's impeccable. I got it.

Speaker 1 (14:39):
I mean to be sure, to be sure, I just
want to make sure we're clear on this, prit.

Speaker 5 (14:46):
But it's a polygon.

Speaker 1 (14:48):
Well, to be sure, all of us have a metal
rectangle in our office. It's typically what our computer is
housed in. That's not what I was referring to. So
I would need some sing more specific than like, oh,
it certainly.

Speaker 2 (15:03):
Isn't a triangle. What I'm what I'm referring to.

Speaker 5 (15:05):
A right, I mean, so I thought you meant I
thought you meant something in your womb with me, you said, right, Well.

Speaker 1 (15:14):
I mean I'm in my office right now. So the
room that I'm in has has a metal a metal device,
but I wouldn't describe it as rectangular.

Speaker 2 (15:24):
It's definitely a polygon.

Speaker 5 (15:26):
Computer, right, Well, that's the thing computer I thought.

Speaker 1 (15:33):
I specifically picked something that wasn't a computer because I
assumed that you might guess a computer since it's going
to be in all of our rooms since we're talking
on a computer. Right, So the item that's sitting to
the left of me, right, so the item is to
the left of me.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
Well, it's not a safe, but it is something.

Speaker 5 (15:54):
It's you know, I said safe, not safe s a
f E metal, but I don't know shit, I think.

Speaker 1 (16:02):
Shape, oh shape, Well that's what I'm saying. It's not
it's not a triangle.

Speaker 5 (16:07):
Yeah, I mean that was my post guest, but I
know it was metal. But remote doing this where you
can use your mind to see self that you're not
physically looking at, which I have.

Speaker 3 (16:19):
Right Yeah, So I just want to kind of cut
through a bunch of this bullshit that we're kind of
waiting through right now, because studies have been done on
remote viewing and uh, they've actually been detrimental to like
police investigations and everything like that. There's actually never been
any verified case, just like what we just witnessed here

(16:40):
of actual remote viewing being accurate. So, but what you've
demonstrated here is the failings of remote viewing. You haven't
been able to remotely view a thing like I'm holding
something in my left hand right now, and you're definitely
not going to be able to guess what it is
because nobody would be able to get that's what I'm

(17:00):
holding right now. But if you think you can remote
view and guess it, you know, give you a second
shot here? Uh, you know, go ahead do it.

Speaker 5 (17:09):
Well. I have actually do plenty of stuff, and I
also have been able to look at people and know
what they went through without even me asking them, for example.

Speaker 3 (17:22):
To answer my question what we're closer and like, physically
I'm closer to you than Justin is. So maybe that
could be the case here for this remote viewing aspect.
What am I holding in my left hand right now?
Can you remote? You come into this with them?

Speaker 5 (17:37):
I tant y'all with boats in Texas.

Speaker 3 (17:39):
I'm in Alabama.

Speaker 2 (17:41):
Shit, you guys might be neighbors.

Speaker 5 (17:44):
Now, no, we're not neighbors. But how do you know?
Let's see, because I live in a small town, I
know well, actually it's tendency to bring that up because
I've been here for over forty years and people don't
realize how long I've been here of amens and saying
but oh what else?

Speaker 2 (18:04):
So let me just real quick, Benjamin.

Speaker 1 (18:07):
The reason why we're kind of testing you a little
bit on remote viewing is because the way a lot
of remote viewing happens is people will like guess really
generic items that may or may not posiblyly in a room,
kind of like cold reading a crowd. In order for
remote viewing to be validated, we would need like a

(18:29):
specific instance, like there's something in my left hand, what
is in my left hand or like that. That would
be really good proof is if you actually gave us
this specific description of the ideas.

Speaker 5 (18:40):
Okay, right, so let me ask you this. So if
I was in a womb, right and and somebody was
walking down a stairway to the womb, and I guess
you know, I say goal with glasses, and it's the
goal with glasses. And then I say, you know your
your bicycle ads, you're willing on your lights, so dummy

(19:00):
hill and see as a lean on the white shoulder
from a bicyle passident that just happened. And there's no
possible way that I should have known any of that
because I couldn't see who was coming down the staiway, right,
So if I this stuff like that, does that count?

Speaker 1 (19:15):
That's what we're asking, right, because like you're telling us
something that you already did in the past that we
have no way to investigate.

Speaker 2 (19:21):
That's why we're asking you to do it now, right,
because I can easily say I can say, listen.

Speaker 1 (19:24):
John, I I'm not God, but I do have magical powers.
In fact, just last week I went outside and I
made all the rocks in my backyard levitate. Now listen.
That would be really cool if it was true. But
the reality is John has no way. But John doesn't
have a way of testing that. That's just a story
that I told, right. So the only way for us

(19:45):
to come to the point where we believe you that
you can remote view is if you can demonstrate it
in real time.

Speaker 5 (19:52):
Well, let me ask you this. If somebody has that mostnesis, okay,
how could they tell whether that person that's in the
storm or the storm is coming naturally because you could
have hold.

Speaker 3 (20:06):
What no, Well, hold on, Benjamin, I'm confused. One one.
Did you say telekinesis?

Speaker 5 (20:12):
I said atesis? But but what you decided would be at.

Speaker 3 (20:17):
Mom What is is that?

Speaker 5 (20:20):
Right?

Speaker 3 (20:20):
And that's the ability to control storms?

Speaker 1 (20:23):
That's what I thought. Yeah, at moesis ability to control
weather the atmosphere with your mind. So I want to
make sure we heard you correctly. Are you saying you
can control the weather with your mind?

Speaker 5 (20:34):
Well, I mean even if I could, I couldn't prove
it because people would just pass it off as Apple.
I wouldn't believe you.

Speaker 1 (20:42):
Right now, listen, if you could make it rain outside
of my house right now, I'm looking out a window
right now. If you can make it rain out there,
I'm joining your cult right now.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
I'm signing up.

Speaker 3 (20:57):
I've got I've got a money gun in here, so
I can definitely make it rain in one kind of way.
But yeah, that sounds like a Marvel with superhero power.
That's that's storm from the Marvel. Are you are you
fucking with us? I feel like I feel like you're
fucking with this, Benjamin. Are you fucking with this?

Speaker 5 (21:13):
No? I'm just saying like, if I was able, I mean,
I'm just giving an example. If I was able to
console the weather, nobody would be able to discern that
from natural occurrences, right, I mean, let's.

Speaker 3 (21:25):
Say, right, Benjamin, Benjamin, if it's Benjamin, If it's unfalsifiable, Benjamin,
if it's unfalsifiable, then that makes it a pretty shit claim,
right Like, there's no way for us to falsify whether
or not you've been able to use your mental powers
to conjure a storm. We're never going to be able
to verify or not verify it.

Speaker 5 (21:45):
Well, no, I wouldn't say that, but I would say
that there would be certain stamps that you would have
to take to verify it, because let's say the take
ordin that I did make the way, and then you know,
you could just say, oh, it's just wined by natural currencies. Right.
But but if I'm able to do that with peaceably
and make it weighing in the location where I'm at,

(22:06):
that for the record, usually it has to be where
I'm at. So like right now, I'm in I'm in
my tail and it's cloudy all over and I'm you know,
it's about to start waiting here. But lienerally it's stronger
where I'm at than where I'm not at.

Speaker 1 (22:22):
So, Benjamin, that's what we're saying, right, We're saying we
would give you the benefit of the doubt. Like I'm
I'm charitable enough, I will give you the benefit of
the doubt if you can make it rain where I'm
at right now. Like I told you, I'm not lying
to you. I'm not going to say it was through
natural causes. I'm saying you do it right now, and

(22:43):
I'm a believer. Well, do you prefer silver or gold.
I can make an idol in either one.

Speaker 7 (22:50):
I don't I don't really care which one, but one, well,
I mean even titles anyway, right.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
But I mean I'm not a Christian.

Speaker 1 (22:58):
I be following whatever. Your cult is not the Christian cult, right,
So I guess it's like a new rain cult. I
guess weather cult.

Speaker 5 (23:08):
It's bail.

Speaker 2 (23:09):
But yeah, you're bail. Okay, so we're talking the bail. Cool.

Speaker 1 (23:12):
Well, you're the writer on the clouds.

Speaker 5 (23:14):
Huh.

Speaker 3 (23:14):
Okay, so is the rider on the storm? Oh damn, Benjamin, No, Benjamin, Benjamin.
We've kind of run the gambit here today because we
started off asking you, hey, how can you verify that
your interpretation of your religion is the correct one and

(23:35):
everybody else is wrong? And now we're on I have
Marvel superpowers that can control the weather. I'm basically storm
on the X men. I'm sorry, didn't you just say
that you.

Speaker 5 (23:50):
Can't do it?

Speaker 2 (23:53):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (23:54):
Okay, I'm sorry, you were talking like you could. Anyways,
can you please, can you please just maybe we can
re enter this before we have to go, and maybe
we can get back to the original question that you
still have yet to actually answer, And that's how do
you discern that your beliefs about your God are true,
and every other Christian that goes to church at least

(24:16):
is wrong.

Speaker 5 (24:17):
Okay, Well, if I was just to tell this out there,
if I was to tell you that where you're at
it's gonna wayne later today, would that be a prediction
If I have no way to know where you're at,
if it's unawayne.

Speaker 8 (24:30):
You could just watch the weather report, ben Fuck Yeah,
So like a future prediction of like sometime today it's
going to rain, I don't think is interesting.

Speaker 1 (24:41):
Like I need you to do it right now while
there's no rain clouds overhead.

Speaker 2 (24:45):
That would be interesting.

Speaker 1 (24:47):
But also keep in mind that I don't think that
this is unique because there are people in other religions
who claim to do the same thing. So like, I'm
aware that to you it is sound like super convincing
that like, hey, I have a power because my God
is real. But like, if you have this power and
there's other people, like in the Hindu faith who have

(25:08):
the same power, then you're The best you can possibly
do is say that all of the gods are real.

Speaker 5 (25:14):
Well, I mean you kind of flitting hairs with that,
but the what so, what would be a good what
would count as a good trediction in your mind tradition,
So it has to be specific, and it has to
be something that is that that would not be generally possible. Right,
So if I if I say.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
Ben ben Ben Ben ben Ben, what what Justin is
asking for here is for you to literally snap your
fingers like fucking Thanos right now, cause it to rain
at his location, and then snap your fingers again like
Santos and cause it to stop raining.

Speaker 5 (25:54):
I don't know where he is. It's kind of hard
to make it weigh in someplace if I don't know where.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
It's a god as God knows where I'm at, and
you don't have to know, just like you don't, like
you don't have to have literal control over the weather.
Your deedy gives you that control, right, so, like you
don't actually need to know where I'm at. What I mean,
you were able to astra project into my office apparently
earlier kind of fixed if it didn't work, so like
you know you could figure it out.

Speaker 5 (26:21):
Okay, Well, just to give you all idea if I
were a god, you know, if I was, you do
realize it's not a good ideas for the human ways
to test my patients right because I'm.

Speaker 3 (26:39):
We're testing your patience, Benjamin, what are you going to
do about it? I'm standing, I'm standing here with my
hands up in the air cause it to lightning. But
come thor come on right now, I'm testing your patients.
Let's do it.

Speaker 2 (26:55):
I mean, I'm literally drinking holy water while I blasph him.

Speaker 1 (26:57):
God, you're breaking the water.

Speaker 5 (27:01):
It's not holy water.

Speaker 2 (27:04):
It's in a bottle that says holy water.

Speaker 3 (27:07):
It's not holy water, holy water? So you do how
do you know it's not holy water?

Speaker 6 (27:16):
If I couldn't make it weighing where you're at, you
can still just dispve it is scientific, because you.

Speaker 5 (27:23):
Know I told you I wouldn't.

Speaker 1 (27:27):
I already told you if you if you make it rain,
if you make it rain right now where I'm at,
I won't blame it on science or nature. I'll believe
that you did it.

Speaker 5 (27:38):
No.

Speaker 2 (27:38):
That's why be so believable.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
That's why I keep saying, if you make it rain
right now, I'm joining your cult. Tomorrow, I'm I'm burning
down all my silver and gold.

Speaker 3 (27:49):
You know, Ben, what it's coming across, what it's coming
across as right now, It's like, well, I have this
atmospheric like power to make it rain as long as
as I know what the weather is. I can predict
the weather.

Speaker 5 (28:03):
And I know what weather is, I mean being able
to make it wayne whenever. But I still have to
know where the guys that so I can make it
waging there I can't.

Speaker 3 (28:15):
But then you literally said you literally said, can I
make a vague prediction that it will rain at some
point around you in the future, And like that's apparently
supposed to be some kind of magic things. I also
want to point out, Ben Ben Ben, I want to
point out that Deuteronomy eighteen ten through twelve explicitly prohibits

(28:36):
you from practicing divination, sorcery, uh and any other kind
of magical x man ships?

Speaker 5 (28:42):
Is it right?

Speaker 3 (28:43):
Quick check? Justin Am I wrong about that?

Speaker 2 (28:46):
I'm aware?

Speaker 5 (28:47):
No, I know what it says. I know what it says,
and it doesn't. Okay, I'm included from that.

Speaker 3 (28:53):
Oh you're special? Well yeah, thank you?

Speaker 5 (28:56):
Why that verse? Well, I mean, have you ever dealt
with the saber winds?

Speaker 9 (29:02):
What?

Speaker 5 (29:03):
Why did you think people burn them at the steak
which is the Massachusetts when they did when they did
the witch they used.

Speaker 1 (29:11):
Just a second, Benjamin, we're trying to figure out what
We're trying to figure out what you just said before
you move on. Yeah, so you started talking about the
Salemwiches follow or diverse.

Speaker 3 (29:21):
The witch trials. Okay, so the Salem witch Trials, a
bunch of scared men decided to burn women at the
steak because they were afraid of them. What what does
this have to do with the like, how are you?
How does that factory into you being excluded because you're
not a woman.

Speaker 5 (29:39):
No, no, No, that's not what I'm meant. I was
just bringing it up to the facts that they used
that vers witch Trials. The the reason I'm excluded would
be because I don't fall into that category that the
verses for. So that's why I'm included. But also.

Speaker 2 (29:56):
I heard category roses.

Speaker 5 (29:58):
Can you say that no category of so so the
category of people that that was written for, I don't
phone under. That's what I said. That is that.

Speaker 2 (30:08):
Also because you're you're not a witch, you're a warlock?

Speaker 5 (30:14):
Will I mean I'm a god?

Speaker 3 (30:16):
I feel like that's a distinction with a difference there, Benjamin,
But you're a god? Did you say I'm a god? Okay, okay,
I don't think so I can.

Speaker 1 (30:28):
Can I a question for you, Benjamin, because I'm really
deeply intrigued by the idea that you have a unique
interpretation of the Bible. And we spent a little bit
of time trying to determine why we should care about
your interpretation.

Speaker 2 (30:45):
But I don't know if we're going to make a
lot of room there.

Speaker 1 (30:50):
I think we've demonstrated what we need to there, but
I'm trying to figure out. I'm curious, what is your
unique interpretation of the Bible that nobody else has that
we know about.

Speaker 5 (31:00):
Do you really want to know?

Speaker 2 (31:02):
I'd be glad.

Speaker 5 (31:03):
To know you. Well, the human wace killed Jesus and
slandered him, and then the castolate toats made him. This
high guy added to Twinity Mound half the books and
the manuscripts that told history of it. And now they
sit there in their temples and they say, and they
have different interpretations of trap, and they argue amongst themselves,

(31:23):
and you're going to end up destroying yourselves anyway. And
they sit there and say, oh, well, Jesus and God
is also in person with this book book anyway. And
then the Bible was posed in the first place.

Speaker 3 (31:35):
Ben, Ben, what do you fucking believe? That's what we
want to know. What is your interpretation. I don't want
to know what kind of like backstory you've got for
you know, the Christian history or whatever. I just want
to know what you fucking believe. Okay, could you please
tell us, like, what's your interpretation of your of your God?

(31:58):
And why is it the true one?

Speaker 5 (32:00):
Okay? Jesus is not God. Jesus was a messenger. In fact,
he even says it himself. And God is not all
good because if he was good, there was evil in
the world in the first place. Now, also, I'm going
to add to that, in order for you to recognize
good and something, you have to have something to compare

(32:23):
it to. So, no matter what amount of good is
in the world, there's still going to be darkness and evil.
You can't have one without other.

Speaker 1 (32:30):
So in so, I think verse ninety says that God
is good to all. Does that not not imply that
he's good to everybody?

Speaker 2 (32:40):
And James says that.

Speaker 5 (32:43):
The Malachonics was good.

Speaker 2 (32:45):
No, That's what I'm saying is there's passing in the Bible.

Speaker 1 (32:49):
It seemed to state that he is good, but when
we look at his behavior, it seems pretty clear that
he's not good.

Speaker 5 (32:57):
Right, Well, that was my point. There you go, You
have told me my opinion of God, right, just to clarify.

Speaker 1 (33:04):
Okay, so I think so the Bible passages that say
that God is good, they're not necessarily true.

Speaker 2 (33:11):
They're like euphemisms.

Speaker 5 (33:13):
Well they're lives, but oh.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
Fair enough, we agree. Then yeah, those are lies.

Speaker 1 (33:18):
Yeah, the part where it says God is like in
Mark ten eighteen, when you know Jesus says, why do
you call me good?

Speaker 2 (33:24):
No one is good but God alone. That's just a lie.
So Jesus tells lies.

Speaker 5 (33:28):
I would say, I can say that, I would says
not all good, if he's good at all?

Speaker 1 (33:33):
But sure I could agree, what percentage good do you
think he is? Like fifty percent good, twenty percent good?

Speaker 3 (33:40):
Forty Just pull a number out of my ass real quick, okay, forty?

Speaker 1 (33:48):
I mean I would I would lower that to maybe
twenty percent at best. But still, I mean, that's a
pretty huge admission that you're willing to say God is
only forty percent good and he's sixty percent evil.

Speaker 5 (33:59):
I mean, I mean, you do realize that nostage, which
I am technically a gnostic to it at least that
that God was evil.

Speaker 10 (34:09):
I mean, I'm not going to go into the whole
spirit crap, you know, body trapping the spirit bullshit. But
as far as God being evil, yeah, I definitely believe
that because if you look at the wold and you
look at the universe and everything else, everything is designed
to kill us, not give as life.

Speaker 5 (34:27):
Right, there's there's not a there's not a fountain downtown,
the fountain of views that I could drink plumb and
stay you young forever. You know this, this.

Speaker 6 (34:36):
Idea of oh, whoever's believe in to me is in
our parents. But I have ever last in life that
would really suck. I mean I could.

Speaker 5 (34:45):
I can tell you from experience. I mean, hell, I've
been around a very wrong time and I can.

Speaker 6 (34:51):
Tell you it really did sucks.

Speaker 5 (34:54):
Like if you talk about it, if you're if you're
around for decades and you look the same and no
one knows how long you've been around. Not only is
your societal you know, stuff is going to be different
because you've been around so long, and society things is
over time, and you're still forty fifty years in the past,
which is in my case. By the way, Hell, I'm

(35:15):
used to the the m eighties.

Speaker 1 (35:17):
But yeah, I just want to put a bow on
the conversation. Then, so you're suggesting that parts of the
Bible aren't true.

Speaker 5 (35:25):
Well, yeah, definitely. I mean, hell, the Bible has been
often in sains for decades centuries, so people so want
to spend on it all the time. What do you
think interpretations are?

Speaker 2 (35:36):
Sure?

Speaker 1 (35:37):
So why would you trust the Bible as opposed to
the Quran or Debadas, well as far.

Speaker 5 (35:43):
As the Tanak and the Kawan and the Bible and
you know, all these other books that it's playing, you know,
sort of the same stuff. I'd think that if I mean,
I could argue, if you can buy in all of
those and put all of it into one, you might
have a chance at that point if you can discern

(36:04):
you know, who's who on that. However, because everything is
separated and half of it has been destroyed, and you
know my point I was talking about earlier. The SATs
I go to. They have no idea about the missing books.
They have no well they know about the books, me not.
They don't count it as cannon, and they right, no,

(36:25):
sit there and throw and then they don't please in
the actual.

Speaker 2 (36:28):
Bible, Benjamin, you don't.

Speaker 1 (36:29):
You don't have to, you know, preach to me about
the apocryphal books.

Speaker 2 (36:33):
I agree with you. They were canonical to the early Christians.

Speaker 1 (36:37):
They were canonical to the Church for the first seventeen
until the seventeenth century.

Speaker 2 (36:45):
So like, yeah, I'm with you, I'm with you.

Speaker 1 (36:47):
But aside from that, what I'm trying to figure out
is if we have this book that is so full
of errors, so full of things that are incorrect, like
what is the tool that we're using to figure out
which parts are correct? And if a bunch of it's incorrect,
why would I trust it at all? Why wouldn't I
just throw it out and say, oh, this is another
book of mythology.

Speaker 5 (37:07):
Well, see, it's interesting you bring that up, because when
I bought up that same point, they said, oh, well
the books of Eno and all these other books alone,
but this what we have here is white. And I
didn't want to be an asshole and say, well, that's
just you know, that's no, that's not how that works,
you know. And uh I knew it was a I
know it was a a thinking gearer, A I'll see,

(37:32):
what the hell you gona call those, but I knew
it was one of those, but I couldn't thank the
damn name of it, so I couldn't really tell you
what the name of it was. No, No, the uh
SO saying that the book that what they have is
white but the other stuff is wrong based on their
opinion that that there we go atification fallacy. I believe, yeah,

(37:56):
the so so. Basically when they said that, I was
kind of done with them because I could sit here
and say, you know, you don't have all the books,
you don't have the full pitcher, which they don't. You know,
no one really does now because it's too late to
get it.

Speaker 1 (38:12):
Essentially, sure, but yeah, but we're not here to argue
about that.

Speaker 2 (38:16):
We're we're not We're not We're not.

Speaker 1 (38:19):
Concerned about the canon. That's not something we're concerned about.
We can just agree with you there and move on.
But listen, we spent some time talking, and we've had
Adam waiting in the queue for a while being patient.
So I want to make sure Adam gets a chance
to come on and have a conversation with us. But Benjamin,
you've been a lot of fun to talk to. Please
do come back. It was very enjoyable for me. I

(38:41):
hope it was enjoyable for you as well.

Speaker 5 (38:44):
I mean I had fun you in Alabama, right, so
you know how the weather is here anyway? I mean,
but yeah, yeah, I don't. You know. I was trying
to help these people out by pizzing them, but they
have their own opinions and really, you know, and then
they even said, oh, it just comes down to fate,
which you know, again, I didn't want to be an ass,

(39:05):
but that's what they literally said, like, oh, it comes
down to face about what you believe, and goda YadA,
got it. And I'm sending me here like, well, all
that is is opinion. You know you don't all you
have is basically taking it on its word blind face,
definite end of that.

Speaker 3 (39:21):
Yeah, yeah, Ben, Ben, I well I've got so we
can go after this. But I've got the perfect solution
for you. Okay, the next time you're going to a
church or something like that and you want to convince
people that hey, I know what I'm talking about. This
is like what you believe is wrong and what I'm

(39:42):
about to tell you is right. What you need to
do raise your hand up in the air. Snap caused
lightning to like fire off all around you and then
unsnap and then have an eclipse go across the sky
and then snap again, and you're like, believe me, mother fucker,
And then they probably will they You'll start they'll start

(40:04):
worshiping you. I mean, if you are, if you are
the real world Marvel's version of Storm, then you know
that should be an easy thing to do. You could
top it off by remote viewing and being like, oh,
I totally see what you know somebody is doing in
the house down the street, and then you know they'll
believe you. I'm just saying.

Speaker 5 (40:25):
That. And then even if I even if I had
liked me go all the way with me with clouds
and storms and everything else, but in a few minutes,
you know that they still would just dismiss it. I mean,
I'd say, these people are so adoptinated. Even if I
did do all that stuff, it would either stand the
hell out of them or they would try to kill me.

Speaker 3 (40:43):
Well you know, I mean right, I mean there's one
of two options there, And I mean they either believe
you or they you know, light yourats on fire on
a steak. So I mean, just you know, roll that dice,
roll for initiative.

Speaker 1 (40:55):
But but listen, Ben, it was great to talk to you.
We gotta we gotta move forward and the show, but
thank you for being here and do come back.

Speaker 6 (41:02):
Yeah, I'm tried to call on time.

Speaker 5 (41:04):
I didn't know what time the show started, but it was.

Speaker 3 (41:08):
Been yet raptured.

Speaker 1 (41:11):
The weather might have came in and dropped his call.

Speaker 2 (41:14):
It seems like.

Speaker 3 (41:15):
You know, he you know what he probably did. He
flicked his finger and that caused a storm to appear
and like caused his call to drop. That's what happened.
It happens to me every day.

Speaker 1 (41:25):
Let's grab a couple of super chats and then we'll
get Adam on the line. Well we can just rotate
take turns. Here we've got a super chat from our
friend cohoto Kun.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
Great to see you. Thank you for the super chat.

Speaker 1 (41:35):
It says Doug approves of eating your kids as long
as their sour patch.

Speaker 9 (41:40):
Kind.

Speaker 1 (41:40):
Yes, I can confirm, as a profit of Doug the
only kids you're allowed to eat our sour patch.

Speaker 3 (41:46):
All right, are we How many are we reading? Just
a few?

Speaker 1 (41:51):
Let's go, let's down.

Speaker 2 (41:54):
We'll end on doctor Joe's super chat.

Speaker 3 (41:57):
Okay, cool, So next is Dasa's concubine, who says, today
the prophets woke me and told me to don a
leather mask with steel zippers. She then said that we
would be making we would quote make pleasing aromas for
the Lord. I cursed the day my dad, John the Baptist,
sold me.

Speaker 1 (42:17):
There's a lot of inside jokes happen in there, but.

Speaker 2 (42:22):
You can YouTube Hadasa and find out.

Speaker 1 (42:24):
Libra the Skeptic, thank you for the Supertestas Benjamin, I
can tell when a storm is coming. It's called phantom pain.
Now remote view what's in the room I'm in. I
think you're the mail storm.

Speaker 5 (42:37):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (42:38):
So I for everybody that was wondering what was in
my left hand that I wanted him to guess, it
was a bear, you know, I take the top bottle opener.
Thank you, Han, but just in in my face. Yes,
I got that as a present from somebody, from my wife.
That's what I was holding. He would have not figured

(43:00):
that out all right. Next from the liber skeptic, thank
you so much for the super chat, says it's his
fruits of the spirit with a bunch of laughy cry faces.

Speaker 1 (43:12):
Indeed, you know what he had. At least he was
pleasant to talk to. He had some of those spiritual fruits.
Our friend Masthamchetier with a super chat. Thank you so much,
says I predict Doug makes me as hard as petrified would,
and indeed Doug would make you rock hard absolutely. In fact,
they're watching over us, Doug and Sharon Stone behind me.

Speaker 3 (43:35):
Next, Libro the Skeptic says, best way to start my
workshift hearing this guy.

Speaker 1 (43:45):
That's definitely a good form of entertainment. And last for
now from our friend doctor Joe. Great to see your friend,
says Color doesn't seem to understand idiom splitting hairs and
testing my patients. Also, I'm in Austin now, o's ry.
I knew you were in the Austin area. Actor Joe, Well, listen,
you should stop in at the Free Thought Library and

(44:05):
join some of the people that are like live watching
the show. That'd be a lot of fun. I think
that's our our last for now. We'll read more superchecks
at the end. Let's get Adam into the show. And
Adam is from Alabama. Again this this is a popular
place to be appairly and Adam is asking, what is
the purpose of this show? Nice, I'll let John go

(44:28):
first because I've got some things to say.

Speaker 3 (44:32):
Yeah, So, Adam, I mean, is that pretty much just
what you want to ask is like, what's the point
of all this?

Speaker 5 (44:37):
Oh?

Speaker 7 (44:37):
Yeah, and I could get in to you know, my
in different kind of not necessarily in difference, but my
position is there intelligence in the divine?

Speaker 3 (44:51):
Okay, Well, so just to answer your initial question here,
what's the purpose of the show. It is to you know,
provide theists and other others out there that want to
ask us questions, like both theists and atheists that want
to call in and have conversations with atheists in the community. Uh,

(45:12):
maybe they have questions that they need answered, or you know,
like you heard earlier, just some you know, weird ideas
about the religious belief and all this stuff. So, I mean,
there's multiple reasons why people call in, and we're just
sort of providing the opportunity for people to have a conversation,
a nice civil conversation, usually with somebody that doesn't believe

(45:34):
in God. So that's that's at least why I'm here.

Speaker 1 (45:37):
Yeah, you know, the only thing I would add is, see,
the only thing I would add is I think the
show is important because for some people their introduction into
critical thinking and or you know, rational thought processes is
by watching a debate, like they've heard something all their lives,
but they've never heard opposition to it, And we're providing

(45:59):
up platform to give a robust debate from both sides
of the aisle on the God concept. And I think
for a lot of people these debates are really helpful
informing their their critical thinking skills. And I also believe
that people's beliefs are important because they act on their beliefs.
And so we live in a society where people believe

(46:20):
in God. They're going to act on these beliefs in God,
and they're going to do things in accordance with their religion.
And if they are harming others, then I think the
best thing we can do is teach them how to
think critically and move away from their harmful religious viewpoints.

Speaker 2 (46:35):
Sorry to interrupt you them you would.

Speaker 7 (46:38):
Say that all religious viewpoints are all? Say would you
say that they're all Would you just say that bad
beliefs or to that effect.

Speaker 1 (46:49):
No, I don't think all religious views are hearently dangerous.

Speaker 7 (46:55):
What that God believe? What that God believe? In the
form of call, was he a Christian. I couldn't hardly
telling like that rambled on for about forty so.

Speaker 5 (47:08):
He might.

Speaker 3 (47:13):
Out of Adam adam. Uh sorry is because he started
getting louder when I was trying to interrupt him. So
I mean, I get the you know, want to maybe
uh talk about the previous caller, and I think he
seemed to be Christian and everything like that, but he's
not here to really defend himself or really further explain
his marvel abilities. But so maybe we could, you know,

(47:36):
kind of focus on what you want to talk about, uh,
And I mean I'm kind of curious about.

Speaker 7 (47:41):
That about about rather watch Paint Drive and listen to
that boot again. But at any rate, you know, my
position on is like an agnostic agnostic which has deals
with the igism, which you know, God has come to
ambig Einstein pretty much said the same, So I don't

(48:03):
know how you could, you know, I think it's a
term that could mean literally anything. But like the agnostic
part is, I take that scientific neutrality as any hypositive
senior dudes. And so therefore, to believe or disbelieve in
a God, I think we have limited information. Like Ironstein said,

(48:28):
it was like a child and a library filled full
of books of different languages. A child can't understand but
see some mysterious might perceive some mysterious order.

Speaker 5 (48:45):
I think.

Speaker 7 (48:47):
Okay, I know y'all like to talk.

Speaker 3 (48:50):
Well, I mean, we we've been allowing you to talk, Adam,
and I just wanted to get a word in edge
was okay five minutes, y'all dream okay, Uh anyways, uh,
you know, just coming from my perspective here, if I

(49:12):
if I don't have like an active belief in a god,
then that means that I don't actively believe in a god,
which makes me an atheist. Now, I do characterize myself
as an agnostic atheist. So it seems to me like
you're trying to draw a distinction about this middle ground,
pure middle ground of agnosticism, which I'm not trying to,

(49:32):
you know, tell you how you should label yourself. I'm just,
I guess, clarifying my misunderstanding with your position, because it
seems like what you're saying is that like you're taking
the very the null hypothesis there on whether or not
a God exists, and that makes you like a pure agnostic.
But I'm just kind of curious as to why you
wouldn't classify yourself as an atheist because all that means

(49:54):
is that you just don't actively believe in a god.

Speaker 7 (49:58):
But about you allow me to extrapolaid up on my position.
Seems like I can't talk for a minute at a time.

Speaker 1 (50:07):
Well, I think he's trying to clarify your position, So
he's not trying to interrupt you. It's just that in
order for you to explain your position, sometimes we need
clarification when you say things, and if you say a
lot of things, then we end up having to take
you all the way back to the point where we
need a clarification. So conciseness is Helpfulward, I guess he's

(50:27):
trying to figure out is it sounds like you might
actually be kind of like an atheist as opposed to
an agnostic, because do you believe in a god or
do you not believe in a God?

Speaker 7 (50:36):
I neither have say nor disbelief in a god. Atheists
don't have a disbelief and intelligence in the design it Really,
I think you should focus on the design aspect of it,
because I don't know that you might not be able
to directly observe, you know, a creator, especially if the

(50:57):
creator existed outside the universe always, Yeah, I don't know.
I think it's just beyond our comprehension as God. As
one explain.

Speaker 1 (51:07):
So if you if you don't believe in a God,
that means you have disbelief in a god he said
you you said you have no disbelief and no belief,
but those are no actually two opposites, Like, if you
don't believe in God, that means you have a disbelief.

Speaker 7 (51:26):
And I know you'd like me to be an atheist,
but no, I maintain neither faith nor disbelief.

Speaker 1 (51:32):
So you're saying that if you don't, if you don't
believe in a God, that means you're an atheist.

Speaker 7 (51:39):
Can I finish speaking for like twenty seconds?

Speaker 2 (51:42):
You know, Well, we're just trying to define a word.

Speaker 1 (51:47):
No, right, like you see how like I'm responding to
you in very short sentences, like very concisely.

Speaker 2 (51:54):
I'm just trying to get the word defined before we
move on.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
Right, So what does it mean to a belief in
something agnostic?

Speaker 7 (52:02):
There's three physicians here agnostic and what see you use
the term agnostic as an adjective if you say agnostic
atheist or an agnostic theist you could be either an
agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. That just means you're
not one hundred percent you say you're a gnostic athe

(52:24):
you're a gnostic fast then you're one hundred percent certain
of your position.

Speaker 5 (52:30):
And that's an adjective. Use.

Speaker 7 (52:32):
I'm talking about agnostic the noun. Yes, I'm very familiar
with that.

Speaker 1 (52:37):
That's why we're That's why we're defining the words, because
what it means to be agnostic, it just means to
be without without knowledge of the God. Right Ah in
Greek just means to be without and gnosis is the
knowledge you lack, the knowledge or the belief in a god.

Speaker 7 (53:00):
Sounds like a manipulating basic definitions.

Speaker 5 (53:03):
You want me to.

Speaker 7 (53:03):
Look it up.

Speaker 1 (53:04):
That's just that's just what it means.

Speaker 2 (53:07):
It's a Greek term.

Speaker 7 (53:09):
Now let's read the real Now, let's read the real definition.
Hold up, let me let me find the actual definition
of the word. This is ridiculous, okay, agnostic.

Speaker 5 (53:21):
For you here?

Speaker 2 (53:23):
If it comes from which language?

Speaker 5 (53:25):
A person?

Speaker 7 (53:25):
Again, I say this for like thirty seconds, will you
let it?

Speaker 6 (53:30):
I mean, come on, A.

Speaker 7 (53:31):
Person who believes that nothing is known or can be known,
of the existence or nature of God.

Speaker 5 (53:37):
No, that's not.

Speaker 7 (53:38):
And then a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief
in God. That's separated by semi colon. Those are two
different perspectives. I'm not the first. That's the second part
of that definition. A person who claims neither faith nor
disbelief in God or intelligence in the design. And I'm

(54:00):
adding the intelligence in the design because if you established
intelligence in the divine, then Adam stablished designer.

Speaker 3 (54:10):
Adam.

Speaker 7 (54:10):
I don't know why you think it's can I, Adam?

Speaker 5 (54:13):
Can?

Speaker 3 (54:13):
I ask a question real quick? Do you believe in God?

Speaker 7 (54:19):
I neither have faith nor disbelieve. Do you disbelieve God?
Do you disbelieve intelligence design? If you do, you may
be an atheist and not an agnostic.

Speaker 3 (54:30):
You know I can be both, do you I am?
I am both? Adam? Adam, I am both. I am
an agnostic atheist. I do not know whether or not
God exists, but I do not believe in one. So
that is what makes me an agnostic atheist. I get
that you want to play a dictionary game, and maybe

(54:52):
you're going to like the Stanford like, uh, philosophy dictionary
or whatnot? For what this specifically? An atheist in those
kind of conversations. But we're talking about a colloquial use
of these words. And in a colloquial use of these words,
agnostic means that you just simply don't know. Well, atheist

(55:12):
means that you don't believe.

Speaker 1 (55:14):
Right, And to be sure, in the dictionary, the definition
of disbelief is a lack of faith or the inability
or the refusal to accept something is true. So you
can't say that you are without faith, and then you
are also not disbelieving. If you are without faith, you
are disbelieving. So if you don't believe in a God,

(55:36):
that means you have a disbelief in God according to
the definition.

Speaker 7 (55:39):
All right, can I ask you guys a question? And
I think I can? Okay, I think I can. I
think I can, I think I can.

Speaker 5 (55:47):
Okay.

Speaker 7 (55:48):
Let's see here, So atheism is what a fact? Is
atheism a fact? To you guys? If so, have you
established that?

Speaker 3 (55:59):
Oh my god, I don't even know.

Speaker 2 (56:02):
Yeah, atheism is a lack of belief.

Speaker 7 (56:05):
You know, you you believe there's no intelligence in the design.
I know that you can't believe there's intelligence in the design.

Speaker 5 (56:13):
That's a claim.

Speaker 7 (56:14):
By the way, if you say, no intelligence in the design.
How you established that? You know, any claim has to
meet the burden if there's a burden, but burden of
proof is a legal term, it would.

Speaker 1 (56:26):
Be only we haven't made a claim.

Speaker 3 (56:28):
You're talking, yeah, Adam, We've yet to make a claim
about anything. You're the one that has been making claims,
just by the way you continuously like yelling in order
to like talk over us. I mean, I get that
that's like a Southern thing. I grew up in Deep South,
so I get that that's a Southern thing as a

(56:48):
way to get someone to shut the fuck up. But
we're not going to shut the fuck up because this
is our show. So like, you can scream all you
want to, but we got the mute button just saying bud.

Speaker 5 (56:58):
I like that.

Speaker 7 (56:58):
God James Walton YouTube channels where he's packing on y'all,
he's just getting started. I think that was really hilarious
because I've never heard of him down y'all are hacked philosopher.
Hacked philosopher, and.

Speaker 1 (57:12):
I'm not a philosopher. I don't even I don't even
attempt to engage in philosophy and less force too.

Speaker 7 (57:19):
What are your credentials? Do you have any credentials besides
this atheism to speak on this this littotopical shit I'll
get into each week.

Speaker 1 (57:28):
Yeah, yeah, I've you got a degree from a Bible
college and Masters of Divinity from a seminary. So I'm
particularly educated on the topic of the Bible, which is
why I know that it's not true, which is why
most of my live streams are about the Bible, not
about philosophy.

Speaker 3 (57:46):
And Adam, I'll pose the same question to you, what
credentials do you have to question our credentials?

Speaker 5 (57:52):
I am.

Speaker 7 (57:53):
I have my credentials the computer science, I have my
condition credentials and elect tronics of worked hardware software fortune
five hundred companies. I've also majored in philosophy at FSU,
who was junior level. I was a field service engineer
at the time and didn't need that. But yes, I'm

(58:15):
well over, far beyond qualified for you hacks. Do I
actually know.

Speaker 3 (58:20):
And prety we're hacks?

Speaker 5 (58:22):
Now?

Speaker 3 (58:24):
I've got no. Hey, hey, hey, Adam. Look, I've got
two engineering degreeses a computer engineering degree and a software
engineering degree, and I work on helicopters for the army
and I've been doing that for twenty years. I also
worked on Patriot missile systems. So guess what, get fucking wrecked, motherfucker,
because you don't have any more like authority to come

(58:47):
up here and question our ability to engage with the
audience on these questions. All right, I don't give a
fuck how much time you spent doing fortune five hundred
ball cuddling or whatever and the fuck you were doing like,
it really doesn't matter. We're up here, we're having discussions
with people on these topics. We are very much qualified

(59:10):
to do this because we are atheists and that's really
all it takes for us to be up here on
this stage interacting with people we don't believe in God.
You seem to be confused as to whether or not
you believe in God. So how about this, Maybe you
should go collect your thoughts or something like that so
that maybe you can read off a script and you

(59:30):
can read more than a few words a second. Because
that's my major problem with you right now is you've
got you know, the pacing is really slow, so it
takes a lot for you to get to your point,
and that's why we have to continuously interrupt you.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
Yeah, I would also add that having a background in
engineering isn't helpful for you, because not only is John
an engineer, so am I. I was in the I
was electrical engineer for twenty years before I started doing
what I'm doing now. So, like, your credentials don't really
get you any further than you thought they would, being
that both John and I have the same credentials plus some.

(01:00:08):
So like just doing a dick measuring contest of like
I was a really cool engineer for a while, isn't
really all that helpful. Like, in order to demonstrate that
God exists, you would need an actual argument, And it
sounds like you don't have an argument. It sounds like
you don't even know what you believe. It sounds like
you're just mad that atheists exists.

Speaker 5 (01:00:26):
And if I could say a.

Speaker 7 (01:00:28):
Word, y'all gone on here for ten minutes just now,
and I have you.

Speaker 3 (01:00:33):
We've only been on this call for seventeen minutes. What
the fuck are you talking about, Adam?

Speaker 2 (01:00:39):
We can go longer.

Speaker 7 (01:00:41):
For ten seconds before I was cut off, I spoke
like maybe five seconds.

Speaker 5 (01:00:47):
Before I was cut off.

Speaker 7 (01:00:48):
Just this, that's what y'all do.

Speaker 5 (01:00:50):
It's good when you can.

Speaker 3 (01:00:51):
I'm really tired of the meta on this.

Speaker 1 (01:00:54):
Yeah, it seems like the entire call is just meta,
Like there's no substance to this call. So I'm not
really sure that this call is a good use of
anyone's time, So we can reframe the call. Also, Adam,
I don't know why you're I don't know why you're
talking while I'm talking. Just so you're aware, like when
you're talking while I'm talking, people can't hear you, right,

(01:01:16):
So like you're welcome to do it, right, You're welcome
to talk while I'm talking, but like it's a waste
of your time, and like I actually want to hear
what you have to say. So in order for you
to talk in a way that I can hear what
you have to say, just count to ten, wait for
me to stop talking, then you can say your stuff. Now,
what I would love to happen is for you to

(01:01:37):
prevent like some kind of a case for why like
there should be a god or there could be a god,
or we should believe in a god, because that's actually
what the show is about. This show is not about
meta commentary on how you just don't like atheists, So
do you have an argument for God or no?

Speaker 7 (01:01:53):
I could speak more than a few seconds before I'm
cut off, but it doesn't be allowed. I want to speak.
You spoke for like five minutes straight talking about this
is hilarious.

Speaker 5 (01:02:06):
Are y'all clown?

Speaker 2 (01:02:07):
Ooops, my fingers slipped.

Speaker 8 (01:02:09):
Oh shit, my bad.

Speaker 1 (01:02:16):
Well with that, we've got We've got time for another caller.
We've got Maryland in the queue, and actually I think
I know who Marylyn is. We'll spring up Maryland and John.

Speaker 2 (01:02:26):
This doesn't be fun. Just in case you don't know
Maryland yet.

Speaker 3 (01:02:29):
Okay, I'm ready for Maryland, Marylynd wilcome in.

Speaker 1 (01:02:34):
Hey, Maryland, I love you.

Speaker 9 (01:02:37):
I'd be spending more super chats, but I think I
was banned from your channel again.

Speaker 2 (01:02:42):
Yeah, you probably said some stuff and got banned again.

Speaker 1 (01:02:44):
That's that's likely.

Speaker 2 (01:02:46):
Yeah, you can't talk about the Jews in my chat.
I don't know. You can't do Jewish space lasers, or
the moon is fake or.

Speaker 9 (01:02:54):
Ruin's not fake. But I did want it justin as God,
and that's what I wanted to talk about.

Speaker 1 (01:03:00):
I appreciate that it sounds like you've got a new
argument we haven't heard yet and want to lay it
down for us.

Speaker 9 (01:03:05):
Well, you don't think you're God, so I want to
know why.

Speaker 1 (01:03:09):
Well, see, I don't believe I have any attributes of God.
Like the attributes of God would be all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent.

Speaker 2 (01:03:18):
I don't seem to have any of those attributes.

Speaker 9 (01:03:20):
I think you're all powerful and with all the power
and authority, all knowing what exactly are you supposed to
be knowing? Like I believe we're all God and we're
all part of one body. So every individual has all
the knowledge that they know, so all together, all the
knowledge that is known and talked about is already known

(01:03:41):
by the whole collective. So God sort of does know everything.

Speaker 1 (01:03:46):
So John is going to have some questions. You know, Marilyn,
you and I've talked before. I kind of know what
you believe. You're a little bit on the christ consciousness level,
although you're not a Christian it, which is fine, but like,
let's talk a little bit, let's push a little bit deeper.
What in your belief system or what about your belief

(01:04:06):
system can we demonstrate to be true so that someone
like John and I can look at it and be like, oh, yeah,
this this maybe we should believe it too.

Speaker 9 (01:04:14):
Well, you are the image of God. So you can
look in a mirror and you can you can tell
you are a person. You are manifested into reality. You're
not just a spirit or a thought. You are actually,
I mean, Maryland was God and he had eyes and
ears and those right.

Speaker 3 (01:04:30):
Right, Maryland, how do you know what the image of
God is?

Speaker 5 (01:04:35):
Like?

Speaker 3 (01:04:35):
How do you how do you know that?

Speaker 9 (01:04:36):
Because Man came up with the image of God. So
if it came from man, then that's if that's what
man wants to do.

Speaker 3 (01:04:44):
Well, did do you see how that's circular?

Speaker 5 (01:04:46):
Though?

Speaker 3 (01:04:47):
Do you see how that's circular? Because you're saying Man
decided what God looks like, therefore we are in the
image of God. You're just that's that's circular in that
kind of way.

Speaker 9 (01:04:57):
But wouldn't that be kind of like idolizing the word
God and saying that that God is some something separate
from whoever created the word God and whoever made it
up and then it is and it came out of
their perceptions in mind and wrote it down and talked
about it.

Speaker 3 (01:05:16):
Well, so not so Maryland. If if, if God truly exists,
like any kind of God that created, do you maybe
I should ask that first? Do you believe that God
is a real entity that created everybody, or created this universe,
or has any kind of like active agency in this universe.

Speaker 9 (01:05:36):
I believe that God is the beginning in the end.
So I believe we always were and always will be.
So I don't believe there was a some sort of
we were. We were all known before the world began,
is what the Bible does. We're all known before the
world began. So if we were all so, true, maybe
we weren't.

Speaker 3 (01:05:56):
Well, well, since it seems like you're using the Bible
and that the Bible, typically you know, says that God,
you know, pre existed, you know the universe, and that God,
through Jesus, if you believe in the Gospel of John,
created everything, would you say that that would be accurate
to your beliefs that God uh pre existed the universe
and created the universe with his you know, his omnipotence.

Speaker 9 (01:06:22):
I believe we are all God. We are all God
because of God. So I believe we were always known,
we have always been, and always will be. I do not.
I don't agree to a beginning of creation. I'm not.
I don't believe in evolution. I believe we always were
and always will be. We are God. We are God.

Speaker 3 (01:06:41):
Well, okay, so how do you explain the fact that
the Earth is only four and a half billion years
old and that it formed at that point and then
there was a good to nine billion years before the
Earth formed? How do you how do you explain that
I am.

Speaker 9 (01:06:57):
A flat earther. I don't know where y'all even get
the capacit to be in your brain to even register
nine point eight million billion years.

Speaker 3 (01:07:06):
And I play million billion.

Speaker 9 (01:07:09):
Evidence of someone knowing something that.

Speaker 3 (01:07:13):
Rats Okay, Well, so what I can tell you as
far as the science goes, We've been able to analyze
their con crystals and we've been able to do radio
metric testing on them to determine that the oldest one
was formed like about four and a half billion years ago.
So that's how we know that the Earth is at
least that old. And the way that we know that

(01:07:34):
the universe first inflated about a little over thirteen billion
years ago is due to things like the red shift
of the planets as well as you know, we've been
able to take a picture of the cosmic microwave background
radiation and like just being able to measure that starlight,

(01:07:55):
you know, is also a pretty good indication of how
old you know, things can be in this universe. So
I'm just kind of curious as to like, why do
you deny the deep time that is represented by physical
evidence that we have in our reality.

Speaker 9 (01:08:12):
Well, I mean, that's all well and good, but I
believe the Bible to where we are sourced. The air
was here, the water was here, the ground and land
was here, The vegetation was even here. Plants were here.

Speaker 3 (01:08:26):
Were the stars there?

Speaker 9 (01:08:27):
The sun and the moon and the stars?

Speaker 5 (01:08:30):
Right?

Speaker 3 (01:08:30):
That doesn't make sense. But were the stars there? Were
the stars there?

Speaker 9 (01:08:35):
No, we are sourced. We were here before there was
life on the place, before there was the sun and
moon and stars.

Speaker 3 (01:08:42):
Okay, yeah, I get that. But do you agree that
the stars were there though?

Speaker 5 (01:08:48):
What?

Speaker 3 (01:08:49):
Right, like when the sun was created or whenever you
think the stars got put there? You think the stars
were created at the same time that we were correct.

Speaker 9 (01:08:56):
No, no, we're not at the same time. No not no,
we were made first and then and then all the
other stuff was made.

Speaker 3 (01:09:06):
Okay, that that further complicates everything that we experience in reality.
Do you know how fast light moves?

Speaker 5 (01:09:13):
Okay?

Speaker 9 (01:09:14):
Okay, no, because I feel like all this is indoctrination
and someone told you this and set it down your road.

Speaker 3 (01:09:21):
We can physically measure, we can Maryland, Maryland, Maryland. We
can physically measure the speed of light. And because we
can measure the speed of light, we can actually know
how long it takes light from distant galaxies and distant
stars to travel here, and like the nearest one. Uh,
totally debunks your entire idea of of like a young

(01:09:45):
Earth or of God creating things.

Speaker 9 (01:09:48):
I don't necessarily believe in a young Earth. I believe lose. Oh,
I don't know, man, I like it almost feels like
you believe in psyops just like the Christians, Like you
have stock On syndrome, just like the Christians, do you
have to have Stockholm syndrome?

Speaker 3 (01:10:05):
That No, I'm sorry, but the speed of light is
not is not a Stockholm syndrome thing. The speed of
light is something that you can measure. I'm sorry, I'm
muting you real quick, because this is not some kind
of Stockholm syndromey thing. This is speed of light is
something that we have measured, we can measure, and we
can know like how long it takes light to like

(01:10:28):
progress from distant stars. This is just hard math. Do
you think that math is somehow a Stockholm syndrome kind
of thing where math has been manipulated to give us
one number? Because like math is literally just measuring the
our reality. Like that's all it does. It's not biased
in one direction or another. Like it's just fucking math.

(01:10:51):
And that's what I'm talking about here.

Speaker 9 (01:10:53):
Okay, are you ready?

Speaker 3 (01:10:54):
Yeah?

Speaker 9 (01:10:54):
Hear me? I?

Speaker 5 (01:10:56):
I yeah.

Speaker 9 (01:10:57):
Math can totally be in the way that numbers like
you guys like to use. But I don't believe math
is the ways of numbers. I believe it's the ways
of order. Math is ordered, and there is an order
two things. Like the stuff you're talking about is semantic,
like there is a divide here within the human psyche,

(01:11:20):
some sort of division that that creates conflict that needs
to be resolved, and it's complete. It's just ignorance. I
don't necessarily feel like it's out of malice. More more.

Speaker 3 (01:11:33):
So, how is it, well, Maryland? So how is it
ignorant of me to take a basic equation of speed
times you know, distance or times uh, you know, some
other values in order to get the amounts of time
it would take four that photon to get here from

(01:11:54):
another star out in the Solar system. How, how is
that just ignorance on my part? It's literally just multiplying
one number against another number to get yet another number
that represents the amount of time it takes. That debunks
your entire position here. So like, I'm still not understanding
how that's somehow biased in any kind of way, or

(01:12:17):
like it's an indication of my ignorance.

Speaker 9 (01:12:19):
No, I'm not saying you're ignorant. I'm saying you're God.
Maybe that's your hobb maybe that's what you like to do,
but you shouldn't have to put it on other people
and make them believe it and make them.

Speaker 3 (01:12:30):
Maryland get on board, and Maryland, if I was an
all powerful God, I would snap my fingers right now
and make you stop believing this silly shit. If I
was a god, that's what I would do.

Speaker 9 (01:12:42):
Pretty over me. We're all God. No one can be
an idol. If everyone is God, you cannot tell me
what to do, just like I can't tell you what
to do. No one is above or below anyone. Hierarchy
is this thin competition?

Speaker 3 (01:12:54):
Yahweh is just another human that's walking around on Earth.
Is that what I hear you saying, is yahweh just
another human that's been walking around on Earth.

Speaker 9 (01:13:02):
I mean probably I wouldn't doubt it. Yeah, I mean
we all. I don't we're all God. I don't understand
why why we have to do this thing to make
it so grandiose?

Speaker 3 (01:13:16):
You mean, why do we have to do this thing
of analyze, critically analyzing the radical ship that you're saying,
because it doesn't make sense with reality. That's why. No,
I understand that you're not a Christian.

Speaker 1 (01:13:29):
Don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:13:29):
If you're not a Christian, then using the fucking Bible.

Speaker 9 (01:13:32):
Maryland reality true, Like you can disassociate from reality, but
reality isn't going to disassociate from you that stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:13:40):
Really you're not No, No, listen, if you're not part
of Maryland, if you're not part of an Abrahamic faith,
why are you using the Bible?

Speaker 9 (01:13:48):
Because God is real, Jesus is real?

Speaker 3 (01:13:51):
Doesn't answer my fucking question I was getting into this.

Speaker 1 (01:13:56):
Huh Yeah, sorry, John, I knew what was happening tonight. Merely,
do you believe that vedas are real?

Speaker 9 (01:14:04):
Vedas?

Speaker 5 (01:14:05):
What is that?

Speaker 1 (01:14:06):
Like Hindu scriptures?

Speaker 5 (01:14:07):
What is that?

Speaker 1 (01:14:08):
Do you believe in the Holy Text for other religions,
gods results.

Speaker 9 (01:14:11):
Well, I believe truth has no agenda. Truth has no agenda.
So any lie or any thought that doesn't inspire hope
is rooted in a lie. It's just there's a good
side and a way of doing things, and it's gathering,
and then there's a bad side that causes bad and
it's and hurt and scatters. I mean, child children get

(01:14:33):
into heaven. You have a mind of a child. I
feel like it's common sense. But for some reason people
distort good with bad and they want to mix the
two and say stuff that is flagrantly just evil, just bad,
intentionally unbalancing the situation, and think they are they have
done something to virtue signal about like they've done something good.

(01:14:56):
It doesn't add up in my mind. What people are
doing has to be got to ignorant.

Speaker 1 (01:15:01):
Sure, well, listen, Maryland, We've got just enough time to
take our last caller.

Speaker 2 (01:15:04):
I appreciate you coming up and chatting with us. I hope,
I appreciate hope.

Speaker 1 (01:15:08):
You having a good Sunday. We wish the best for you.

Speaker 9 (01:15:11):
Yes, I love you justin your God, I'm going to
get you and we're going.

Speaker 5 (01:15:15):
To get you.

Speaker 9 (01:15:15):
Everyone's going to get you.

Speaker 5 (01:15:20):
Bye, Marylyn.

Speaker 3 (01:15:24):
Well, oh, a restraining order? Maybe maybe Justin needs a
restraining order on Maryland.

Speaker 5 (01:15:29):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:15:30):
We're going to grab our last caller and then finish
with what's left of our super chats. We've got a
theist Bill from Texas coming in saying that fine tuning
proves God.

Speaker 2 (01:15:42):
I would love to more know more about the fine
tuning argument.

Speaker 5 (01:15:46):
Bill.

Speaker 1 (01:15:46):
Do you think that the fine tuning argument points towards
a generic god or a specific God?

Speaker 2 (01:15:52):
Okay? Do you believe in a junioric god or a
specific God?

Speaker 4 (01:15:55):
By the way, I John Knows telling you godless Granny
as a friend, that is. I was just on her
show yesterday talking to doctor Rich Carrier about the fine
tune and we had a really nice discussion. So one
of the things I brought up was the strong nuclear force,
which you know, if it's off but two percent stronger,

(01:16:17):
you're not going to get. You get a periodic table,
but you don't get hydraged, which obviously is the stars
is important. If it's five percent stronger, you get you
don't get uh, you only get hydrogen.

Speaker 2 (01:16:28):
So is God all Bill? Bill's got all powerful I.

Speaker 4 (01:16:32):
Would think he's I would think he's pretty powerful because
I brought up to Richard that we have one hundred
billion galaxies with two hundred million stars, And I'll ask
you the same question, just yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:16:44):
But did God design physics?

Speaker 5 (01:16:46):
Yes?

Speaker 4 (01:16:47):
I think he did in mathematic.

Speaker 1 (01:16:49):
Okay, So did God design the parameters that would bring
about life?

Speaker 4 (01:16:53):
Yes, I believe he did the twenty five okay camera.

Speaker 1 (01:16:56):
So if that's the case, then God could have made
life anything. God could have said life is going to
be made out of, like mostly aluminum, Like, he could
have made it out of anything.

Speaker 5 (01:17:07):
Like.

Speaker 1 (01:17:08):
So the fine tuning argument isn't helpful, right, It doesn't
get you to a God, because a God can make
life out.

Speaker 2 (01:17:14):
Of literally anything. He set the rules, right.

Speaker 1 (01:17:17):
It just happens to be that the life permitting universe
we have right now has these particular properties. But we
have no way of knowing if it could be any different.
But we do know that if God was all powerful
and he authored this, then the fine tuning argument completely
fails because God could have made life out of literally anything.

Speaker 5 (01:17:35):
Well that's what Richard said, Yeah, I know.

Speaker 1 (01:17:37):
Yeah, so like like fine tuning would only be helpful
if we knew that this is the only way there
could be life, Like, if God had no other way
of creating life other than this way, then it would be.

Speaker 2 (01:17:51):
Maybe partially remarkable.

Speaker 1 (01:17:53):
But I think even at that it's not remarkable, right
because what we're what we're suggesting, is that we do
have life with the current configuration of physics. But the
reality is, like, I don't believe there is a start
of the universe. I don't believe the Big Bang is
like something from nothing. Like if you believe in an

(01:18:13):
eternal universe, well, there is an eternity of different universal
formations prior to this one, and probably none of them
had life, and it just happens to be that we're
finally in one formation that happens to have life.

Speaker 4 (01:18:27):
And I somewhat agree with you that you're familiar with
Roger Penrose's cyclical conformal cosmology.

Speaker 1 (01:18:34):
I'm only vaguely familiar with Penrose's theory. Well, and there
there are others who believe in a cyclical universe, you know,
like Sean Carroll, and.

Speaker 4 (01:18:42):
Yeah, exactly exactly, so that is a possibility. And Christians
have got personal they've got to stop talking about the
Klam cosm. Watch but you've heard it a million times.
I'm sure you're bored to tears with as i am.
There's better arguments, like the Paul exclusion principle, like the
fine structure constant, which is one over one thirty seven
that Richard Seinman said, every physicist should put this on

(01:19:06):
a wall and worry. And if this thing's not right,
then if it's four percent off, you don't get carbon,
and thus you don't get like So my question to
you guys, are you worried?

Speaker 5 (01:19:16):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:19:16):
But the problem, no, I'm not worried.

Speaker 1 (01:19:18):
But the problem with the fine tuning argument is it
assumes that life was the goal, Like the fact that
life exists would only be unique if life was the goal,
and we have in order to assume that there was
a goal of the universe, we would have to assume
that the god existed already.

Speaker 2 (01:19:34):
So it becomes a circular argument.

Speaker 1 (01:19:35):
So like I give the a popular example, like if
I have a deck of cards and I throw the
deck of cards on the floor, the arrangement of each
individual card is it's like statistically impossible for it to
be that particular arrangement, But that's not actually meaningful.

Speaker 2 (01:19:50):
It would be.

Speaker 1 (01:19:51):
Meaningful if before I threw the cards down, I told
you what the arrangement would be, then it would be
super meaningful. You'd have to assume that I had some
sort of magic or mystical powers or a fixed deck
in order for me to guess the arrangement.

Speaker 2 (01:20:05):
Same thing with the universe. The universe just happens to
be an arrangement right now that permits life, but it's
not meaningful unless you believe that the universe had the
goal of creating life, then the fine tuning constants become meaningful.

Speaker 4 (01:20:20):
Well, Richard Fineman says, who was an atheist, that it
looks like God's pushing the pencil, but we don't know why.

Speaker 2 (01:20:27):
And let don't I don't care what he said though, like.

Speaker 4 (01:20:30):
Well, he's only like one of the greatestes of last century.

Speaker 1 (01:20:34):
I literally, I'm literally telling you why I don't believe
the fine tuning argument works. And you're bringing up somebody
else's quote, like I want you to address what I said,
that what some other guy said.

Speaker 4 (01:20:47):
Well, I see your point. You have a very good point,
but could I actually talk. Carbon has many ways to
go interact with other molecules twenty nine thousand ways. Bilicon
which is blowing on the periodic table could be a
good cant is a good candidate, but I don't think
it's as good as carbon. So it looks like there

(01:21:08):
was something behind this creation. Yes, it could have been
needed to make fetal, you know, because there's so many things.
Let me just give you an example. To create carbon
and nucleosynthesis in stars, you've got to get four heliumate
nuclei together with another helium nuclei to make a brilliant then,

(01:21:29):
but brilliant. But that's the fine.

Speaker 2 (01:21:31):
But this doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:21:33):
But Bill, I want you to I want you to vote,
and I'm not gonna let you finish because what you're doing,
what you're what you're doing is you're you're ignoring the
admission that you just made thirty seconds ago. Right, if
if the fine tuning constants or whatever things you think
are finally tuned, that permits the universe we have now,
If those things aren't relevant because we haven't determined that

(01:21:56):
that was the goal of the universe, then just repeating
more of that is useless, like just continually repeating like, well, listen,
if this was different, then we wouldn't have what we
have now. Yes, you could do that till the cows
come home. But none of it is important until you
can demonstrate that the current formation of the universe was
the goal of the universe. Once you've attributed a goal,

(01:22:19):
then you can calculate how likely that goal is. But
you haven't been able to establish that the universe has
a goal yet. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Speaker 4 (01:22:27):
But the strong, the strong anthropic principle says that there
was a goal that to create carbon, and I literallyould
then take five seconds. A brilliant height, which is the
intermediate step between the final formation of carbon, literally takes
a split second. It's just remarkable. And I see your point, Richard.
If you look at the video which pop on Godless Granny,

(01:22:50):
he made very compelling points, just like you're making points.
But you've got to realize that there are theists since
Barrel and Tiplett, you know, six that have given pretty
good reasons to infer there might be a god.

Speaker 2 (01:23:07):
But we're asking you, we're not asking them, right.

Speaker 1 (01:23:09):
So in the argument that you've presented so far is
the fine tuning argument. And I've given you a really
good reason why the fine tuning argument fails. From my perspective,
it fails because in order for anything to be finely tuned,
we must determine that a it couldn't have been any
other way and still ended up with life, and b
that that was the goal. Like somehow the goal was

(01:23:31):
to get from point A to point B and we're
currently at point B. We don't know that to be
the case.

Speaker 4 (01:23:37):
Exactly, but there seems to be things that are so improbable,
like with paula exclusion principle that these electrons inhabit certain shells,
the two shells of a case show which is two,
then eight and eighteen.

Speaker 1 (01:23:51):
That I've addressed this, the improbability of something is useless
until you determine that that was a goal of something,
Like the goal of something is what establishes the improbability
is being meaningful, right, just something being improbable isn't isn't helpful.
So for example, like I'm sitting in a chair right now,

(01:24:13):
there are a billion other places I could be sitting
in a chair. The fact that I'm sitting in this
chair right now in this position has nothing to do
with fine tuning. It just happens to be the current
state of the universe.

Speaker 4 (01:24:25):
I understand that, But you've got to realize you're talking.

Speaker 5 (01:24:28):
The theist on this.

Speaker 4 (01:24:29):
You have theists listening to you, Christians listening to it,
and what these apologists do is like, for example, what
turned me on.

Speaker 1 (01:24:38):
With Luke bah But you're the apologist universe.

Speaker 4 (01:24:41):
Okay, Well that's that's a scary thought went on And
I've only been as for a moment.

Speaker 1 (01:24:48):
You came into the conversation saying that argue, the fine
tuning argument proves God.

Speaker 2 (01:24:53):
That means you're a theist.

Speaker 4 (01:24:55):
Yes, I've only been a theist for a month. Give
me some spac here, okay, but yes, the improbabilities, like
the cosmological concept is final.

Speaker 3 (01:25:05):
So so so Bill, I understand that you're that you're
using these large numbers, and I typically call this just
argument from large numbers because it it always whenever somebody
says these things, it always makes me think and and
usually it turns out to be correct. That you just
simply don't understand how probabilities work or how statistics work,

(01:25:26):
because you're mentioning these very large numbers. But when you
consider the sets that those large numbers are contained in,
they are this is the likelihood that it's going to
happen at any one point in time, not the likelihood
that it will happen at all. And so unless you're
positing this number the statistic is absolutely zero, then it

(01:25:48):
will happen given a large enough set, And when we're
talking about the universe, I feel like the set is
going to be large enough where it definitely will happen
at some point. It's just rare that it's going to happen.
And I feel like that is the main thing that
a lot of feists out there just don't understand whenever

(01:26:09):
they start bringing up probabilities. Unless you're positing a zero
percent chance, then it will happen.

Speaker 5 (01:26:15):
You know.

Speaker 4 (01:26:16):
That's a good argument, and I think that's one Richard made.
But you know, and I don't trust when they use
these large numbers. I do not trust any Christian about
pretty much anything. But the numbers are unimageable, like the
cosmological constant feed to take the.

Speaker 3 (01:26:35):
Right bill bill. But still again, unless you're saying that
it's a zero percent chance, then there then it will
one hundred percent happen. It's just what that improbability is
telling you is is how likely it is to occur
at any one single point in time in this set,
and when we're talking about the universe and how old

(01:26:56):
the universe is, and then you think about that, and
then how many times can chemical reactions occur, like in
a single second, in a single milliseconds and all of
a sudden, how many chemical reactions have occurred in the
entire universe up until this point right now? If you
take that set in you know, you unless you have
a zero percent chance of something happening, then one hundred

(01:27:17):
percent has happened at least once in that set, if
not twice. Have you heard of the pigeon hole?

Speaker 2 (01:27:23):
You know, not.

Speaker 3 (01:27:24):
Hypostles, but the principal pigeonhole principle? No, go ahead, Okay,
imagine a board that has twelve holes in it, right,
You've got thirteen pigeons. Okay, you're going to put one
pigeon in each hole. What's the likelihood that one of
those holes is going to have two pigeons? Pretty good,
it's one hundred percent. Like the likelihood that one of

(01:27:47):
those holes is going to have one is going to
have two pigeons. It's one hundred percent likely that it's
going to happen. Now, of course, we can do the
math on this, on the probabilities of any one particular
hole having that second pigeon. But the fact that there
is a second pigeon in one of those holes is
one hundred percent likely. And that's exactly what we're saying,
like about life and everything like that, and the fine

(01:28:09):
tending of this universe. Like I mean, it's just, uh,
you bringing up these big and small numbers as far
as probabilities go. It doesn't really move the needle at
all as to pointing towards a god because those things
would one hundred percent happen in this very large set.

Speaker 4 (01:28:25):
Well, I think I don't the apologist would say no
that when it's ten to the one twentieth, that's like
saying it's impossible that it.

Speaker 5 (01:28:34):
Would never have that.

Speaker 4 (01:28:36):
This expansion rate has to be too precise, too fine
too to happen by sham.

Speaker 3 (01:28:42):
But Bill, Bill, if I can ask you how many
so earlier at the beginning of the call, you brought
up the weak nuclear force, and you brought up the
fact that like if it was five percent different strong okay,
strong nuclear first force, if it was five percent different
than what one thing or another wondn't be able to form.
I can't remember exactly what you said it doesn't matter.

Speaker 4 (01:29:03):
But you get the period you don't even get periodic table.
You just get lonely high case right right.

Speaker 3 (01:29:10):
That's not my point. That's not my point here, Bill, Bill,
that's not my point here. I want, like, in terms
of numbers here, how many numbers on on the on
on the real scale here? Uh uh occur between negative
five percent and five percent?

Speaker 5 (01:29:26):
An infinity?

Speaker 3 (01:29:28):
Holy shit, really an infinity of numbers in there. So
you're telling me that there's an infinite amount of different
configurations of this universe that still produce the periodic table. Well,
fuck me.

Speaker 4 (01:29:43):
I'm saying you guys have good arguments, but you have,
like I said, I was the eightiest part of the
atheist bookook, So I took a stance. So I've got
to make a decision, you know, is the is it
more probable? I'm not saying this is improved. I'm just
saying it looks like there's so many herbles, there's so

(01:30:04):
many things that have to go right to have a
life permitting universe that.

Speaker 1 (01:30:10):
Again, none of that matters until you've determined that the
goal of the universe was to produce life.

Speaker 2 (01:30:15):
Because this is a preser. You keep begging the question.

Speaker 1 (01:30:18):
You have to demonstrate that the purpose is to create
life before you can calculate what the likelihood that somebody
setting out to do that could do it.

Speaker 4 (01:30:29):
Well, who can say that, what's the purpose of the
universe or God whoever?

Speaker 1 (01:30:35):
That's the point. The point is you would have to
demonstrate that the universe had a purpose to create life
before you can say, look, how rare it is that
the universe produced life, Because if the universe is timeless
and endless and is completely devoid of a god, it
would still produce life eventually. Like if the universe is

(01:30:56):
infinite in the past and the future, and the probability
of producing life as anything but zero, it will eventually
produce life no matter what it will happen.

Speaker 4 (01:31:05):
Well, what they say is, you know, the cyclical conformal
cosmology is what we have as one universe dies down
in the little charcoal or briskets of the dying universe
goes and pops a you our universe in But you
still have to have a universe generator, don't you.

Speaker 2 (01:31:22):
No, you don't have to have a universe generator.

Speaker 1 (01:31:24):
But there isn't adjusted point, right, So if you believe
in a cycle universe, where there's there's no beginning and
end of it, like it's just always existed and the
probability of life arising is anything but zero percent.

Speaker 2 (01:31:38):
That means it's a guarantee that life will arise eventually.
Maybe yeah, maybe yeah, I mean it's just mathematically true.

Speaker 1 (01:31:46):
If the universe exists forever and the probability is anything
but zero, then it has to produce life at some point.
Doesn't mean it's going to go on forever, but like
our galaxy is likely to collide with the Andromeda galaxy
in like four billion years. When that happens, hell, shit,
we could be completely wiped out and then there might
be no life again.

Speaker 4 (01:32:03):
But hete death of the universe is almost certain. These
starts are going to burn out.

Speaker 1 (01:32:07):
Well, I don't know that to be the case. Like,
the latest DESY data seems to suggest that the expansion
rate is slowing, like it's still accelerating obviously, but the
acceleration rate is lessening, right, Which if that's the case,
if they confirm it in the twenty twenty six readings,
that that really is the case, then it certainly could
be possible that we have a cyclical universe that eventually

(01:32:29):
gets drawn back in through gravity and then contracts and
expands endlessly.

Speaker 2 (01:32:36):
So but no matter what your.

Speaker 1 (01:32:38):
Model is, right, but whether you have like a rubber
band model or not rubber band model, if the universe
is around forever, then it's just a guarantee that life
will be produced at some point, would be, could be?

Speaker 2 (01:32:50):
Yeah, So yeah, Well, listen, we're.

Speaker 4 (01:32:52):
All threading water here because this is theoretical physics that
is pointing people to God.

Speaker 3 (01:32:59):
So I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I have to interrupt right here,
real quick, Bill, Bill, I have to interrupt because everything
that we've talked about so far has just been statistics
and not like theoretical physics necessarily, So like all of
your arguments are just basically, oh, there's this giant number
that when you take that as a a likelihood or

(01:33:19):
a probability of this universe existing, it is incredibly low
and is therefore just as well impossible. And what we're
trying to explain to you is that from a basic
statistics and probability perspective, you're just wrong about that because
due to how statistics and probability just works naturally, the

(01:33:43):
likelihood of life developing in a universe is going to
be one hundred percent, especially when we're already here to
be able to analyze it.

Speaker 4 (01:33:51):
Well, Okay, I understand what you're saying, but you're familiar
with the Discovery Institute.

Speaker 5 (01:33:56):
You know what's the being. So what they say is a.

Speaker 4 (01:34:00):
Protein form, the odds of these aminio acids coming together,
and you have the car reality problem where they all
have to be left handed.

Speaker 3 (01:34:07):
Okay, okay, but Bill, unless you're going to tell me
that it's a zero percent likelihood, then it really doesn't matter.

Speaker 2 (01:34:13):
Right, So Bill, I just want to make sure we're
clear on this.

Speaker 1 (01:34:15):
You keep saying that there's this thing, and the odds
of this thing happening is really high, and we've given
you a bunch of reasons why it doesn't matter what
the odds are. If the odds are one in fifty
or one in fifty trillion, it still is irrelevant. Like
the number of the odds is not relevant.

Speaker 4 (01:34:33):
Well, if this is so clear, and he says the
odds are ten to the seventy seventh and the amount
of protons universes, they so that's saying there's no chance.

Speaker 7 (01:34:41):
Basically, that's what these guys are saying.

Speaker 3 (01:34:43):
That's literally not it. No it's literally not saying that
there's no chance. It's just that it's rare. That's all
that says.

Speaker 6 (01:34:51):
Like dumb and dumber.

Speaker 4 (01:34:52):
So you're saying there's a chance, Remember what's the chances?

Speaker 6 (01:34:56):
Oh, it would be like.

Speaker 5 (01:34:58):
One in a million.

Speaker 3 (01:34:59):
So so the likelihood, so the no, you just I
feel like you just I've explained this before. So the
likelihood of it happening is one hundred percent, Bill, The
likelihood of it happening is one hundred percent. But the
likelihood of it happening at any one moment in time
is that percentage that you're bringing up. So we're not

(01:35:20):
saying that you know it's going to happen right now.
What we're saying is is that it will one hundred
percent happen at some point. That's what you're.

Speaker 4 (01:35:28):
Saying, one hundred percent you're saying, right.

Speaker 3 (01:35:31):
That's how likelihoods work.

Speaker 4 (01:35:33):
Yes, yeah, okay, So what I'm asking you John, if
in you're You've made a great argument, it's very compelling.
So why doesn't the Discovery Institute say, oh my gosh,
I heard John articulation, So what are we talking about?

Speaker 5 (01:35:49):
Why don't we use these numbers?

Speaker 3 (01:35:51):
So they're they're heavily So the Discovery Institute is a
heavily biased think tank that is definitely geared towards a
very creationist, fundamentalist sort of view of science and everything.
So you're you're just you're basically giving me a creationist
source here and telling me, well, why don't the creationists
admit this, because they're not going to admit that they're

(01:36:13):
going because the basic, uh playbook of creationism is to
twist the information into straw men so that it can
convince people of things that are not reasonable. That's any
creationist argument will fit that particular mold. And everything that
you said here as far as like the creation or

(01:36:34):
the Discovery Institute goes, is exactly that.

Speaker 1 (01:36:37):
Yeah, and admire by the way, who wrote the book obviously,
Stephen Meyer. Okay, but just Discovery Institute is not a
good representation of the science. So like, for example, my
friend doctor blind sent me a survey that was done
recently among like actual cosmologists about the fine tuning constants.
And the question is, in your opinion, what explains the

(01:36:59):
value values of physical constants of nature and the claimed
anthropic coincidences? And three percent of the respondents, Yeah, that's.

Speaker 5 (01:37:10):
What only that's what Richard said. So I believe you.

Speaker 1 (01:37:13):
Three percent of the respondents, which is only two claimed
that they believed it could be explained by an intelligent designer.

Speaker 2 (01:37:20):
The rest of them had different answers.

Speaker 1 (01:37:22):
In fact, the most popular answer was that their brute
facts and they need no further explanation. A twenty four
percent went to a multiverse principle to explain them, and
then their other explanations. But the bottom line is, like,
if you're just going to quote, like, well the Discovery Institute, well,
I'm not sure like just saying some other guy believes
that he agrees with me, isn't that helpful because like

(01:37:45):
the bulk of scientists, the bulk of physicists like agree
with John and I. Right, So it's I'm not sure
that like the appeal to poor authority is helpful.

Speaker 4 (01:37:53):
Well, that is very disserting that the guys that know
this stuff, that quirk and the option down in the
dynamics and stuff, these really detailed things, but which seemed
to point to that they know this better than we
will ever know it.

Speaker 5 (01:38:08):
Only three percent of like you said, like Richard said.

Speaker 4 (01:38:10):
I believe that this point is to God, So it's
very disconcerting and uh, probably.

Speaker 1 (01:38:17):
For us obviously. But listen, Bill, I think you've been
pleasant to talk to, but we're we're running up on
a time limit here and we've got to do some
things before we cut the show.

Speaker 5 (01:38:30):
Yeah, yeah, this has been great. You guys have been terrific.

Speaker 4 (01:38:32):
And I'm a big fan of John obviously. I think
he has such a great sense of humor. And and
by the way, it's the things on davilas Granny Theis
it's atheist refuge theass, so you can see somebody actually
knows what they're talking about to a great extent refuge
these So thanks guys, I'll see you later.

Speaker 2 (01:38:49):
Bye.

Speaker 3 (01:38:50):
Thanks Bill.

Speaker 1 (01:38:51):
We've got a handful of super Test to get through
and then we've got to uh conclude our show.

Speaker 2 (01:38:58):
We appreciate everyone that called in.

Speaker 1 (01:39:00):
It looks like our first troup chat is from our
friend Chad, and Chad says, where can I find a
list of the best anti theist arguments?

Speaker 2 (01:39:08):
Is there any agreed upon best sources? Thank you, Chad.

Speaker 1 (01:39:11):
This is a good question. I don't know if there's
a best source. Here's what I can tell you though,
for like anti theism I would ask which theists are
you trying to refute or which theism are you trying
to refute, because like, if you're trying to refute like
the Bible God, to me, the best sources just to
read the book, like literally just read the Bible from

(01:39:33):
front the cover, from fromt the cover, from from cover
to back. Uh, and you'll you'll have basically what you
need to say, Yeah, this God is silly.

Speaker 2 (01:39:43):
After that you can maybe read some other books.

Speaker 1 (01:39:46):
I can't actually promote other people's books on this particular
live stream, but I would I would engage with people
in the field of Biblical studies. And so if you
want to know more about the you know, how to
interpret different Bible passages that seem to be like it
would go against the theistic worldview. Look at the academics, say,

(01:40:09):
a lot of the academics that are writing commentaries on
particular passages are pretty darn honest, not that some of
them aren't, but you'll find a lot of honest, critical
commentaries on the Bible that will more or less indicate
to you like there's a problem here, let's talk about
this particular problem.

Speaker 3 (01:40:25):
Yeah. And for me on this uh, I really just
watch a lot of debate stuff because I can usually
pick up on, you know, what's a good argument, what's
a bad argument. I mean, I'm not trying to you know,
toot my own horn here about being able to discern
good arguments from bad arguments. But I feel like everybody
has as a good sense of what's convincing them and

(01:40:48):
what isn't, and so like I would, I would watch
some of the better, you know, debates out there on
whatever topic you're you're trying to look at. I wouldn't
necessarily look at quarrelsome debates or anything like that where
just people yelling at each other, but you know, some
some more structured or some more uh, you know, reasonable debates.
I mean you can find them out there on YouTube.

Speaker 5 (01:41:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:41:09):
I think debates are really good for learning.

Speaker 1 (01:41:11):
We've got another superject from doctor Joe, Thank you so much.
After Joe says, I think ben is looking for logical fallacy,
maybe cognitive distortion.

Speaker 2 (01:41:21):
I agree.

Speaker 1 (01:41:21):
I think that's probably what oh Benjamin was looking for.
But you know, when you're on these shows, sometimes you
lose the words you need.

Speaker 2 (01:41:30):
You get kind of tongue tied.

Speaker 3 (01:41:32):
Yeah, and then next we've got Atlas who says, I
really enjoy listening to you both.

Speaker 5 (01:41:37):
John.

Speaker 3 (01:41:37):
It was great to meet you and Casey and nan
o'conn and I look forward to seeing you guys again
justin maybe I'll get to meet you someday. Great work, guys,
it was great meeting you there Atlas. I don't know
if Alice is still watching, but Alice it was. It
was really nice meeting you.

Speaker 2 (01:41:52):
And I'm I cannot pronounce his name.

Speaker 1 (01:41:56):
I am E t R eight er. Thank you so
much for the time that was says, Oh, I'm e trader.

Speaker 2 (01:42:04):
That's what it means, I'm e trader.

Speaker 1 (01:42:07):
Why is it that people like Adam, who can't even
do algebra often misquote Einstein?

Speaker 2 (01:42:12):
Do they think that makes them sound smarter?

Speaker 1 (01:42:15):
Well, the thing of it is, I'm not sure that
they think it makes them sound smart to misquote someone.
I think that in their mind they're quoting them correctly.
But you guys know, as well as anyone else you know,
at a lot of times when people are quoting the
science folk, they either misquote them or they attribute things
to them that they didn't say, and they just don't
know any better because they're not intimately familiar.

Speaker 2 (01:42:37):
They just heard it on the internet.

Speaker 1 (01:42:39):
They're repeating what they heard on the Internet, and they
don't know that they're making an error.

Speaker 3 (01:42:45):
Yeah, And I would also say that that's typically an
appeal to, you know, authority, or an argument from authority.
They think that just because they can say something that
they think Einstein said, that somehow disproves somebody. But you
know that's that's not the case at all. Next we
have Lord Beegers, who says, this wild and crazy guy

(01:43:09):
will lk kind of rules, low key, low key kind
of rules.

Speaker 1 (01:43:14):
Low ki.

Speaker 3 (01:43:14):
I gotcha.

Speaker 2 (01:43:15):
I'm not cool enough to know what that would have meant.

Speaker 5 (01:43:17):
Either.

Speaker 2 (01:43:18):
What's okay? Nobody on fire?

Speaker 1 (01:43:23):
Great to see you tonight, says the one Doug will
remain when Andromeda collides with us, for he grounds the universe.
My footstays firm, for it rests upon him Metamorphosism sixty
nine four twenty.

Speaker 5 (01:43:39):
A.

Speaker 1 (01:43:40):
Doug absolutely uh.

Speaker 3 (01:43:43):
And then finally tonight we have some kind of Dicky
who says a rumor has it that a math teacher
will be hosting talk Keithan on nine fourteen. If Bill
wants to call in and talk to him or I
mean them me or I mean them about probability. I
definitely said just that. I mean, I really kicked myself
in the butt every day because I didn't get my

(01:44:05):
bachelor's in mathematics because I was like three classes away.
I've only got a minor in it, So, like you know,
but definitely call in and talk to to Dicky there.

Speaker 1 (01:44:16):
I did not and do not have the mental fortitude
for that kind of nonsense, but I'm.

Speaker 2 (01:44:20):
Glad that people like you do.

Speaker 5 (01:44:22):
Also.

Speaker 1 (01:44:23):
Let's thank our backup post for the night, Jimmy. Let's
see that beautiful is there?

Speaker 2 (01:44:28):
We go, Jimmy.

Speaker 1 (01:44:30):
Great to see you.

Speaker 2 (01:44:31):
Hey, Jimmy, your thoughts on the show? Oh boy, what was.

Speaker 11 (01:44:37):
A fun one tonight? I don't know what was happening
by that third by the time the third call came.
So so Benjamin, I think was a good example of
how vague and how large your net needs to be
when you cast out your ideas in order for any
of them to make sense, right, I mean, you need
to really cast a pretty wide net. For example, his

(01:45:00):
remote viewing technique where he found a metal thing. I mean, hey,
that's proof, right, that's proof right there, he found the
metal thing in your office, so he must he must
be onto something. But yeah, I mean that is just
an example of how vague you have to be. And
thank you Benjamin for that. That was a fun call.
But man, I hope, I hope Benjamin can can get

(01:45:21):
a more sound story moving forward. Marylyn, Oh, poor, poor Marilyn. Oh,
my goodness. That was rough. That was rough, just all
the worst ways to describe. And that was a very
disjointed conversation. She was coming out of every coming at
you guys, every direction. The flat earth thing. You know,
I need something from flat earthers. I need you guys

(01:45:44):
to agree and define your right and left boundaries of
what a flat earth looks like, right, so that we
can figure some stuff out, like like does the Earth
is it partitioned on like the Atlantic Ocean or like
the Pacific Ocean? Like what's in the middle, because if
you take, for example, the African slave trade or the

(01:46:04):
attack on Pearl Harbor, those both could not have happened
if the Earth is flat. So I need to and
you can slice that a bunch of ways. So I
need to know where the middle, where the right and
left are, so we can figure that out. And Bill, yeah,
I don't have the mental fortitude for mathe either John
awesome job man. But but for Bill, like, we don't

(01:46:27):
have a model to compare our current circumstances too, so
we might actually not be that uncommon. We don't know
the size and scale when it pertains to geography and
time of the universe, so who knows. We could actually
be pretty common in the large grand scheme of things.
Then maybe there are some other conditions where life is possible,

(01:46:50):
not just our own condition. So something to think about, Bill,
But a really good call.

Speaker 1 (01:46:54):
I like that a lot.

Speaker 5 (01:46:55):
I like that.

Speaker 11 (01:46:56):
That was a good way to close the show. Guys,
thanks for letting me up here and give my thoughts.
I had a great, great time listening and learning in
the background.

Speaker 2 (01:47:06):
Well thanks sometime, Jimmy. All was great to have you
on the screen.

Speaker 1 (01:47:09):
And with that, friends, make sure we'll be here again
next week market on your calendars. Definitely thank Jimmy and
John for being here and four pm or sorry for
thirty pm Central Time Sunday. Next week we'll do it
all over again. I'm not going to be hosting next week,
but there's gonna be some lovely maybe I am hosting

(01:47:30):
next week. I already forgot.

Speaker 2 (01:47:32):
Make sure and be here though for no matter who is.

Speaker 1 (01:47:34):
Hosting, so you can get all of the conversations, it
should be a great time.

Speaker 12 (01:47:41):
Glad to start already. Stop the bully around you, guys, say.

Speaker 1 (01:48:00):
Mm hmm.

Speaker 3 (01:48:00):
Watch Talk Ethan live Sundays at one pm Central.

Speaker 1 (01:48:04):
Visit tiny dot c c slash y t t H
and call into the show at five one two nine
nine one nine two four two, or connect to the
show online at tiny dot c c slash call THH

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Atheist Experience 29.34 with Justin and Godless Engineer

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

The Atheist Experience 29.34 with Justin and Godless Engineer

On Purpose with Jay Shetty