Truth Wanted 08.47 11-21-2025 with ObjectivelyDan and Trust But Verify

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, folks, lots of people believe in a lot of
different things, and that's why we're here every single Friday
taking your calls. If you believe in alternative facts, or conspiracies,
or what some people would call pseudoscience, you should call in.
My guest today is named Trust but Verify, and I'd
like to trust but verify some of your claims tonight.
So get ready because the show is starting right now.

(00:27):
Welcome back to another episode of Truth Wanted.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Hello.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Hello, My name is objectively Dan. This is the live
calling show that happens every single week Friday is at
seven pm Central Time.

Speaker 2 (00:38):
We talk to people about what.

Speaker 1 (00:39):
They believe and why, and if you'd like to talk
to us, you should do that. The lines are open.
The number to call is five one two nine nine
one nine two four two, or you can call through
your computer at tiny dot c c slash al tw
and I have to say that Truth Wanted is a
product of the Atheist Community of Austin, a five oh
one C three nonprofit organization dedicate to the promotion of atheism,

(01:02):
critical thinking, stacular humanism, the separation of religion and government. Say,
I have to say, it's more.

Speaker 2 (01:07):
Like it's my pleasure to say that.

Speaker 1 (01:09):
You know, this show is a product of a nonprofit
and every single week, folks, I always have a special
guest with me. This week is no different. I have
Trust but Verify joining me on the show today, Trust
but Verify.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
Welcome to Truth Wanted.

Speaker 3 (01:22):
Thanks Dan, I'm so excited to be here, so excited.
I can't tell you excited I am.

Speaker 1 (01:28):
Yes, I'm happy to have you on the show as well.
You are on TikTok talking to people also about their
own beliefs and why. But tell me what do you
do on TikTok Trust but Verify? Okay, well, yeah, I
do talk to people about their beliefs. I do focus
it mostly on their God beliefs, and I do ask

(01:52):
those main questions, what do you believe, why do you
believe it? And how you figure it out? It's true,
it's all centered around that.

Speaker 2 (02:00):
Yeah, that's pretty simple.

Speaker 4 (02:02):
What do you believe?

Speaker 2 (02:02):
Why you live? How?

Speaker 1 (02:03):
In other words, it's kind of like a street of pistemology.

Speaker 4 (02:05):
Is that is? It is?

Speaker 3 (02:07):
And remember, as I was telling you, you know before
we started, uh, you know, that's how I got my
start is during the lockdown, I had nothing hold didn't
had a lot of time in my hands, and so
I just watched a lot of street epistemology videos. I
stumbled into that rabbit hole and I found Anthony Magnebosco
and I found you.

Speaker 2 (02:28):
You know man, Yeah, yep, yep, it's this is this
has been cited.

Speaker 1 (02:32):
I you know, we talked about every once in a while,
but like it's happened the last couple of weeks where
some people have brought this.

Speaker 2 (02:38):
Up, and I'm happy to be I guess a search.

Speaker 1 (02:41):
Result for people when they when they dog you know exactly.

Speaker 4 (02:47):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:47):
For for those who don't know what street epistemology is,
how would you describe what sistemology is?

Speaker 4 (02:52):
Uh?

Speaker 3 (02:53):
The way I describe it is, uh, it's a pistemology,
which is the study of knowledge, and street uh pertains
to the casual nature of the conversation. So now, early
practitioners of street of pistemology would literally go out on
the street and have just strike up conversations with people
and it was more general, was about really what you

(03:17):
believe and why. And I've taken it in kind of
a different direction, you know, in terms of just really
focusing it on the you know, on on religion and
religious beliefs. And I think the other thing is that
with street epistemology, I think it's a great way for
folks to have these difficult conversations like religion, politics, conspiracy theories.

(03:43):
I think it's a great way to have these conversations
because it's very non threatening and people tend to open
up to you because you're just asking a lot of
questions and you're just trying to understand why they believe
what they believe. You're not really trying to break them
down or tell them wrong or anything like that.

Speaker 2 (03:58):
Yeah, I think i'd co sign on that.

Speaker 1 (04:00):
I think a lot of people like to point out
that Street of pistemology is primarily used by atheists and
therefore is sort of an atheist sort of wing to
the movement.

Speaker 2 (04:11):
What do you think about people who make that claim.

Speaker 3 (04:15):
While that's true, I think anybody could use Street of pistemology,
and I've been encouraging people to use anybody, people from
different denominations or different beliefs. Yeah, you can use that
to just export explore beliefs, because that's what it's all about.
The way I described it to people on My lives
is I think of them as a partner and that

(04:38):
we're sitting on the same side of the table and
we're working together to help understand their beliefs, to help
me understand their beliefs. Because the way I see it is,
even if I were to try to change somebody's mind
or convince them, there's no way I can do it
if I don't understand where you're coming from. And the
same with me. And I tell that to people too,
because there's plenty of people coming to my lives and
try who are trying to convince me because I'm an atheist,

(05:00):
and they're trying to convince me that God is real.
And so I explained to them, well, you would agree
that if you don't understand why I believe, why I
don't believe in a god, there's just really it's going
to be really hard for you to convince me that
this God is real. Right, And they they and they
see that, they see that point. So I think that's
that's what it's all about.

Speaker 1 (05:19):
Yeah, I like that description of because like for me,
it's it's it's kind of like, you know, you don't
have to go to college or get a fancy degree
to understand arguments for why people believe in what they
do right or to or to have these conversations with people.
I think it's just like a quick toolkit you can
use to talk about really anything. Obviously there's an interest

(05:41):
in religious beliefs in particular, but the method isn't limited
to that, and it's just sary.

Speaker 3 (05:46):
Oh no, it's not. And I even I even use
it with my kids. I've used Street of Pistemology in
my kids. I've used it with my wife, although nowadays
she's she's wise to me and she'll say, you know,
don't start that street of pistemiction symology stuff on me. Yeah,
so I have to be I have to be a
lot more gentle with that. But it's just a great
way to just say, you know, how do you how

(06:08):
do you you know? How are you sure that this
is true? You know, how do you know that this
is true? Or you know, how did you arrive at
that conclusion? And and just to listen too, And it's
really and it really helped my listening skills too, and
it really helped my patience because now I have to
sit and listen for the answer, and where before I
got to be honest, before I discovered Street of pistemology.

(06:28):
I was I was a bit of a bulldog when
it came to like debates and conversations like I jump
in and you know, but this has really helped with
me just sitting and listening and waiting because because I
think what happens is a lot of people, it's with
especially with really closely all beliefs. It takes time for
them to formulate like what their what their belief is,

(06:48):
and so they're gonna they're gonna kind of meander a
little bit, and so you just have to kind of
wait it out, and you you're just listening for those
key nuggets of information that they'll throw out, and then
you just really focus on and then you explore those.

Speaker 1 (07:02):
Yeah, you know, so obviously I'm a I'm a victim
of srit epistemology.

Speaker 2 (07:07):
I think is the best way to describe my situation.

Speaker 1 (07:10):
So I like the to me, the appeal at least,
is a way to organize your thoughts in patterns of
belief in a more formalized way than what the average
person might be used to.

Speaker 2 (07:24):
So like, if I.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
Can describe now the chain of reason as to why
I might believe something, I think pretty clearly if you
ask me, for example, what color is my car? Well,
it's black. How do I know that it's black? Well,
because I've seen it a lot of times? Okay, that's
a reason, right, that seems pretty simple. But what about
like with god believes how do you know that a
god is real?

Speaker 2 (07:46):
Well?

Speaker 1 (07:47):
I had a religious experience. Okay, so what happened with
this religious experience?

Speaker 2 (07:50):
How do we know? This religious experience is? Really you know,
it's kind of like just.

Speaker 1 (07:53):
Really just peeling back what we should already know, but
in some cases revealing not that there may be weakness,
but also that we may not have the best explanations
for why we think we do in exploring that, right.

Speaker 3 (08:05):
Yeah, Yeah, And I like how you how you explain
that peeling it back, because that's really what it is.
And I think people a lot of people layer reasons
on top of their beliefs, and and to me, it's
really come down to five major reasons. Like for at
least for at least for religious beliefs, it's it's personal experience,
it is a family culture of origin, like where you

(08:28):
grew up, historical evidence of philosophical argument or faith, and
it's usually one of those five things and I can.
I usually, yeah, every time. And I've done this, let's see,
since July June of twenty twenty four, and I've been
on consistently, so, you know, going on a year and
a half and I have yet to see any other

(08:51):
anything other than the five reasons.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
And you and used to how often do you stream when.

Speaker 3 (08:55):
You're right now? I stream at least four days a week,
so I'm quite a bit.

Speaker 2 (09:00):
Yeah, like how long had a time? About an hour
or about three four hours at a time?

Speaker 1 (09:05):
Yea three or four hours for four four days a week. Yeah,
that's quite a commitment.

Speaker 3 (09:10):
Yeah. Yeah, I'm just very lucky that I have a
job that allows me to spend that much time doing that.
I'm very very lucky to do that way.

Speaker 1 (09:19):
Yeah, when you're doing that, is it mostly just Hey,
I'll talk to whoever shows up. You got you got
your talking to people the whole time?

Speaker 2 (09:27):
What's what's that look like?

Speaker 3 (09:28):
Yeah? Yeah, So what happens is when you create a
live stream, you create a room. You know, people start
coming in and mostly how it starts is they'll start chatting.
You know, there's a there's a chat option. They'll start chatting,
and the believers will start to ask questions, and usually
in the background and the backdrop behind me, I'll have
a question posed up there. Usually it's something to the

(09:51):
effect of, you know, what's your best evidence that God
is real? Today? I had I did a live for
a couple hours before I came on here about an
hour and a half, I should say, and and I
just said, what's your best evidence that God is just?
And so I really pinpointed the question, really focused the question,
And so they'll come in and they'll see that, and
a lot of times they'll just engage with the question
in chat, and then people will start requesting up to talk. So,

(10:16):
you know, just a lot like this, and then I'll
just I'll just talk to people in chat. I'll answer
questions you know, mostly center around hey, what's your evidence
that you know God is real?

Speaker 4 (10:24):
Like that?

Speaker 3 (10:25):
Yeah, it's pretty cool. And are you are you hearing this?

Speaker 1 (10:28):
We need to get on this because I like this
meta where it's like you have the question just on screen,
so you know, even if somebody's used, just joining in
is kind of seeing what you're talking about.

Speaker 2 (10:39):
Yeah, that's a good that's a good thing to do.

Speaker 1 (10:41):
So so you talk to people about that and and
I'm as you talk to Christians obviously, and you talked
probably some atheists as well, I imagine from atheists.

Speaker 3 (10:49):
Yeah, and I'll get some agnostics. I'll get I'll get
a lot of you know, mostly Christians, lesser like Muslims,
and from people from Judaism. And then I'll get a
lot of like Pantheus and like Hindus and Norse Pagans

(11:09):
and uh, you know, people like the singular consciousness, like
the Wu God believers and things like that. So I
get like a nice large, diverse set of people who
come in with all sorts of beliefs. So it's kind
of cool. You know, a lot of people who will
talk about, Hey, I you know, I uh, I've been
I've been doing molly for the last six months, and

(11:31):
you know, and I've I now I know that I've
I actually met God or I've tapped into the singular consciousness.
I know there's a singular consciousness. I've cool like cool, Yeah,
I've had cool conversations like that. You know, people talk
about Spinoza's God and all kinds of stuff. Yeah, So
I get I get it all.

Speaker 1 (11:47):
So it's here you're spending a lot of time doing
this thing where you're talking to people. What's the value
in it for you?

Speaker 3 (11:54):
First it was because I was super extremely fascinated with
why people believe what they believe. It's really really fascinating
to me. So that's the first part of it. The
second part of it was, like as I said earlier,
it really helped with my patients in terms of listening
to people, and that has expanded into like my personal life,
into my business life, you know, working with like clients

(12:17):
and things of that sort. So just sitting and just
really listening and and then the ability to ask these
questions that were like non threatening and uh, you know,
so that's been very helpful as well. But now it's
it's I think I've shifted because I'm doing a little
bit less street of pismology. I still keep like the

(12:39):
is that as a I keep it as a foundation,
but I am starting to challenge people a little bit
more on their beliefs because I got to be honest,
there are some harmful beliefs out there, and the people
are sometimes using these beliefs in order to oppress other people,
you know, take white rights away, vote to take rights away.
And I think in some important to to really hold

(13:01):
up a mirror to some of these beliefs. And and
and not just for the folks that I'm talking to directly,
but also because there's there's usually an audience watching. So
you know, I'll get upwards of you know, one hundred
and fifty people watching me on on TikTok, you know,
talking to these people. So they're sitting, you know, my
guests are you know, talking in front of all these people,

(13:24):
And so I imagine a lot of them are either
also believers or considering become a believer. Maybe they're on
the fence. And yeah, and so the way I think
about it is, uh, you know, well, these are you know,
some of these things like for example, slavery or genocide
that's that's found in like the Bible. You're going to
have to justify these things.

Speaker 4 (13:44):
You know.

Speaker 3 (13:45):
This is what you're this is what you look forward to,
is some of these questions that I'm asking and these answers.
You know, these people you're you're listening to these people
justify this stuff and what justified? What really what justification
is there for slavery? What justification is there for genocide?
You know, I can't really think of any and so
it's just wild when people are just trying to, you know,

(14:05):
just explain it away like it's yeah.

Speaker 1 (14:08):
So let me ask you about this then, because first
of all, cruise listening to us because they put our
chapel question at the bottom lower third here, which is
is God cool with slavery? So you should call in
about that and ask us. That's not the only thing
we'll talk about today, probably, but.

Speaker 2 (14:23):
You know, hey, if you think it's cool that we
want to know why?

Speaker 1 (14:28):
And this is like a problem that I run into
with street epistemology, and I know this is ironic coming
for me, but you know, I have my own thoughts
and opinions about this because it's hard for me to
figure out where the question asking you know, sort of
just I don't want to say just asking questions mentality
because there's like a sort of a bad faith sort

(14:50):
of connotation with that. More so just along lines, at
what point are people stopping being curious? And at what
point does this become activism?

Speaker 4 (14:59):
Right?

Speaker 1 (14:59):
And point do we say, well, this is just activism
for my personal political belief or religious belief or lack
of or just believe whatever. I'm obviously okay with activism
because I'm an activist, right, But at one point do
we do we say that this method is used for,
you know, to advance social causes.

Speaker 2 (15:19):
What do you think about that?

Speaker 3 (15:21):
Yeah, you know what you bring up a great point.
And I think that's where I found myself at kind
of a crossroads because I was just in the in
the question asking business at some at at first, and
what I quickly discovered is that in a plate like
I think that's appropriate. I think it works really well
in a face to face setting because you're gonna get

(15:44):
because I think the key component of this is the
confidence of people's beliefs, the percentage confidence, And I think
that's a very underrated question. So for those who don't
know strata, pistemologist will typically ask how confident are you
that this belief is true? On a scale of zero
to one hundred, you know, if you had to grade
it one hundred being absolutely without a doubt, confident you know,

(16:06):
one being all doubts and so on. The videos I
watched and also I did a few face to face
like the kind of as litmus tests, and what I
found was that the confidence levels were all over the place.
You know, you get anything from like fifty to one hundred,
you know, all over. What I quickly discovered on TikTok
is everybody is one hundred percent confident, ninety five one

(16:28):
hundred percent confident. So you're getting all these people who
were just completely just all in. And what I understood
is that that TikTok is performative, that it is a
showy place, right, So people are there to try to
demonstrate that their God is real, and they are there
because they know they have an audience.

Speaker 1 (16:49):
You think the common denominator in your audience is literally
because they're on TikTok, because they have their own platforms
for sure.

Speaker 3 (16:55):
Yeah, because the conversations are way different when I'm in
like to face with somebody, and the exception being like
when Jehovah's witnesses or you know, like like like Mormons
knock on my door. Then I've had a couple of
those kinds and they're you know, they're all in, of course,
And so I found that those went exactly the way

(17:16):
they go on TikTok on you know, but face to face,
it's all over the place, and so you can just
sit back and just ask questions and it's much and
it's a much different conversation than it is on TikTok.
And so what I found out discovered was that I
was inadvertently giving a platform to these people because again
I had to sit and listen and if they're going

(17:37):
all round about, well, what they were doing was preaching.
And so that's why I had to find my way
to find a style to say, hey, you know, I
need to cut in here, like I'll give you a
couple of minutes to talk, but I got I do
have to jump in so that we can actually have
a dialogue because if you just let if you just
ask a question, they'll go on for ten minutes, you know,
trying to answer your question, and then you just go

(17:58):
on to the next question and you don't really get anything,
and they'll hit like five six, seven, eight talking points
and so you have to sit and remember number one
and then number two. You've just given them all that
time to just really platform their own their own agenda.
So yeah, I had to I had to kind of
take it back, you know. Yeah, So that was my

(18:19):
way of doing it.

Speaker 1 (18:20):
Yeah, that's interesting because I feel like I've had to
develop sort of a similar thing for myself here with
this show, because I think personally, every content creator has
a responsibility for their platform at the end of the day,
what gets on there, right, And so for us at
the ACA, we receive calls from people all the time,

(18:41):
and obviously we're adults and their adults.

Speaker 2 (18:43):
They're going to have differences.

Speaker 1 (18:44):
Of opinion and they can express that and we disagree,
and that's just how it is, right. I'm not if
we cut off calls because people disagree with this, there
wouldn't really be much of a show, right, So, like,
we have to let people talk, But at what point
do we tell them to stop?

Speaker 2 (18:59):
Because it's like, how do you manage it?

Speaker 1 (19:02):
It's every every sort of internal guideline or policy we've
ever come up with has all been based on after
the fact sort of experience. I couldn't tell you a
hard and fast rule because I don't know if it exists, honestly.
I mean, yeah, I don't think it's it's it's it's
it's so all over the place sometimes, so like I
kind of do it on vibes, I'll be honest with you.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
That's really how it worse for me. You've got you
feel the same way.

Speaker 3 (19:27):
Yeah, same here. Yeah, I kind of do it on
a vibe. But like I said, I tend to give
them like a couple of minutes. But if I have
this vibe that this person is especially uh long winded,
I may I may jump in after like a minute
or even thirty seconds, and and usually I have to say, hey,
you know, you said something really important here, and I
just want to jump in because it's this is really
fascinating to me. And then that usually it usually gets

(19:50):
so they don't get so upset about me jumping in
all the time. But yeah, but you know, you can't
help it all the time.

Speaker 1 (19:56):
And there's the hidden criteria that comes into this is entertainment
value exactly.

Speaker 3 (20:00):
That's which I don't like.

Speaker 1 (20:02):
I don't like that, but that's that's the reality of
the internet, right, Like, especially how interesting is this conversation?

Speaker 3 (20:09):
Yeah exactly, you know, and if you're watching the guy
just drown on for forty five minutes, it's not maybe
it's not going to be interesting at all. And yeah, exactly,
So there's this fine line, there's this balance. Yeah, I
was just quickly, I was I was talking to somebody
about this last night, in fact, and I was what
the point I made was that when I first started

(20:31):
doing it like a purest sy approach. I would say
one ninety nine to one hundred percent of the people
I talked with their feedback was, wow, this was such
a great conversation. I really love this. You know, you're
so different, et cetera, et cetera. And then when I
really dial it back a little bit, became a little
bit more debate y, I guess, you know, yeah, more

(20:53):
of a debate kind of person and press them on things.
That went down to about ninety percent, So from a
ninety nine to a ninety percent, call it a satisfaction rating.
I think it was worth it because now I'm getting
even better conversations, and you know, nine out of ten
people still are saying, hey, this was still a great conversation.

(21:14):
So yeah, that I think that was worth it, you know, yeah,
to really be able to get to my mission of
holding up the mirror.

Speaker 2 (21:20):
You know, I like that. I like that.

Speaker 1 (21:22):
I guess for me, at the end of the day,
I've accepted the fact that I'm also an activist. But
I can be an honest activist, right, I don't I'm
not a I'm not a pr person, Okay, I don't
have to defend some sort of company or ideology at
all costs, which is pretty much what PR people do, right, like,
even when there's bad stuff to spin it, right, I

(21:42):
don't have to spin what I what I don't like about,
maybe even the atheist community or even other like, you know,
the political factions I may or may not agree with.
So I try to be honest with that at least
and just recognize that I'm a person that exists in
the world that's going to happen.

Speaker 3 (21:59):
Yeah, exactly, exactly. Yeah, sounds like we're on the same page.

Speaker 2 (22:02):
I think.

Speaker 1 (22:03):
So it's just it's I think it's important to point
out because that's one of the biggest criticisms I hear
about SC, and I don't think it's a bad criticism.

Speaker 2 (22:11):
I actually think it's a very good criticism. I just
it's how do you?

Speaker 4 (22:15):
So?

Speaker 1 (22:15):
I like to ask other SC practitioners how you navigate that.
But at this point, at this point in time, we
should bring Kelly Laughlin on stage with us, because Kelly
has our Question of the week and we need to
talk about that. Kelly, are you there, hello? Reaching private?
Kelly there? He is, Kelly, what's going on today?

Speaker 2 (22:34):
Brother?

Speaker 5 (22:34):
I'm not much man, I'm just kind of hanging out
and listening to you guys talk. It's been fascinating listening
to the two of you. It's awesome.

Speaker 1 (22:41):
Hell yeah, hell yeah. I'm glad you're enjoying the conversation.
I hope you guys are too. We're going to get
to calls in just a bit, and if you want
to talk to us, you should do that because the
number is down there. And also a computer link if
you want to talk to your computer and not through
a phone, because it's twenty twenty five and everybody has
microphones in front of their computers. Now that's okay, go
go and do that because we want to talk to you.

Speaker 2 (23:03):
Kelly. What's our question from last week?

Speaker 5 (23:06):
Our question from last week was if Jesus was the
magician at your child's party, what trick would you have
him perform? And here are our three favorite answers. That's
a good question. Honestly, I agree, it was a good one.
It was, it really was. The atheist Carpenter says, if
Jesus was the magician at my kid's birthday, I'd have

(23:28):
them cast demons into some balloon animals.

Speaker 2 (23:30):
That is so awesome. That is that is so that's
number three.

Speaker 3 (23:35):
That's number three, Kelly, Yes it is.

Speaker 4 (23:38):
Damn.

Speaker 2 (23:39):
That's a good one. Holy shit, Okay, I can't wait
for two and one.

Speaker 5 (23:42):
Yeah, I'm having like visuals of dancing.

Speaker 1 (23:47):
Yeah, like I'm thinking of, oh, what is it like Dumbo?
Remember Dumbo? They had that scene with the circuit. That's
what I'm thinking of.

Speaker 5 (23:55):
Yes, yes, yeah, I'm.

Speaker 3 (23:56):
Thinking of a whole balloon animal pigs that are just
just trample in to like a ravine or something like.

Speaker 2 (24:01):
That's good too, you know, yeah, they get there. Yeah,
I love that.

Speaker 5 (24:08):
Number two from Chuck Chato's at a kid's party. I'd
ask Jesus to change water into kool aid, but if
all he can do is wine, then you know that's
fine too for me.

Speaker 2 (24:19):
Okay, yeah, all right, respect, that's good. That's good.

Speaker 5 (24:24):
And number one from Anastasia. I hope I pronounced that right.
It's not spelled the way I would normally see it spelled.
So after performing a typical kid's magic show, for his
final trick, Jesus would turn himself into a birthday cake
and create drape grape.

Speaker 2 (24:38):
Juice into birthday cake and grape juice.

Speaker 1 (24:42):
I don't like that, well, I guess, but it's basically
the same as the Eucharist, right, yeah, huh.

Speaker 5 (24:54):
That's pretty pretty good.

Speaker 2 (24:55):
Actually, take upon this birthday cake like you would.

Speaker 4 (25:00):
You got it.

Speaker 1 (25:01):
You got to catch them early, right, yeah there, all right,
Well those are some good answers. Thank you for reciting
some of those, Kelling, thank you. Everybody's submitted. What's our
question this next week?

Speaker 5 (25:12):
Next week is the best reason to break the second Commendment?
Commandment Commendment the second Amendment of the Lord God in vain?

Speaker 1 (25:24):
Yeah, we were interrupt you say the second Amendment for
I'm saying it to the second Commandment?

Speaker 2 (25:30):
Excuse me? Yeah, that was awesome.

Speaker 5 (25:34):
Thank you, Thanks for not making me feel like the
lone idiot. Yeah, now shout not take the name of
the Lord in vain? So your best reason to break
that commandment?

Speaker 1 (25:45):
Okay, all right, so leave your best comments below. If
you're watching this live, make sure you leave it in
the comments section below the video, and we will give
credence to the best answers next week.

Speaker 2 (25:58):
So that's gonna be a good one.

Speaker 1 (25:59):
Kelly thinks so much for them, And we'll let you go, Bud,
We'll see you later. Have a good one, And Kelly,
we are back to the show. So that was our
questions this week, looking forward to our answers on that,
what would you say, trust, we verify, Gosh be the second.

Speaker 3 (26:17):
That's the best way to break this, the best reason
to break the second commandment? Taking the Lord's name in vain? Wow? Yeah,
I mean you man, I'm so unimaginative when it comes
to these things sometimes, you know, I think the only
thing I can really, the only thing I can really
come up with is uh is saying like okay, saying

(26:41):
like uh, oh you know, oh I know, maybe uh
saying God damn it when uh, you know, and really
meaning it, like when somebody takes like the last box
of uh like Klondike bars at the grocery store, or
so I'm.

Speaker 1 (26:56):
Like, okay, okay, here's what I'm saying, because I'm also
thinking extemporaneously, I did not prepare for this one. Well,
I ask you, But what if you know how people
could do like product endorsements like oh this is like
you know, Kanye's shoes or whatever. We can be just
fake and just being like, yeah, the God approves of
this dildo, actually like and put that on there and

(27:19):
see what I don't know. That's that's what I'm coming
up with. But I bet you guys were watching can
come up with you.

Speaker 3 (27:25):
You're gonna come up with some really good stuff.

Speaker 1 (27:27):
Yeah, let us know in the comments there. And we
are about at that point where we should be taking
call today. Before we take our first call, quick shout
out to the patrons of the show. Every single week
we are giving a shout out to the folks that
donate on tight dot, cc slash, Patreon, t W. I
want to thank everybody that donates, but this week's Patron
of the week is going to be Paul Sherman. Thank

(27:51):
you so much, Paul Sherman, and thank you to everybody
that donates on the Patreon. You guys are amazing for that.
And with that out of the way, let's get to
our first call. We have John Paul who wants to
talk to us from Washington. John Paul, you are live,
untruth wanted what's going on?

Speaker 4 (28:10):
Mean? I was just calling in. I guess I am
the reason I'm in a decision that between the ideas
of sign design.

Speaker 1 (28:18):
Okay, so in terms of you mean just like the
design of everything like Earth people.

Speaker 4 (28:24):
I mean everything from you know, the decision tree. Of course,
once you decide designed or if you say it's accidental,
you have down that tree and down that branch, and
so in that method, I do think that between the
term accidental or designed, there's good evidence that it can't
be accidental.

Speaker 1 (28:41):
Okay, okay, interesting, Yeah, you want to start with this conversation,
trust but verified, because you know you're I think you'd
be a great person to start with asking questions.

Speaker 4 (28:53):
All right.

Speaker 2 (28:54):
I think that you know.

Speaker 3 (28:57):
Because I ask a lot of questions. So my first
question would be, how how do you define or how
do you how do you define accidental?

Speaker 4 (29:05):
So I would say without intent or purpose? So kind
of the traditional version. I mean accidental is the term
used by scientists even is often but.

Speaker 3 (29:14):
Yeah, in so many ways? And and is it your
is it your opinion that say, like the evolutionary processes
without intent or purpose? Would you say that?

Speaker 4 (29:25):
Oh? No, I do believe. I believe that there are
reasons why evolution works. And I don't I don't. I
do believe in evolution, and I think either through natural selection.
I know there's some other theories out there too, but
I think there is a motive for evolution. We can
see enough evidence to see that evolution.

Speaker 3 (29:43):
Is Okay, okay, So you do believe in evolution, and
but it sounds like you would you assert that it
was God that started evolution or as a process?

Speaker 4 (29:56):
Correct, I would. I would say it's part of design.

Speaker 3 (29:58):
Okay, okay, Why do you think God used evolution other
than some other process.

Speaker 4 (30:04):
I think he probably thought it was a pretty good way.
I mean, I don't know, you're asking me an opinion
question on God, but I think he probably thought it
was a pretty good way to key in life in
certain environments and allow them to almost bake together with
the environment. So that obviously, through natural selection, the strongest
rise to the surface. And so I think that's that

(30:25):
does seem to be a pretty intelligent way to go.

Speaker 3 (30:28):
Well, I think one thing about natural selection, it's that,
you know, because there's things like selection pressure and only
force Falcy, we're here to really explain this out, but yeah, yeah,
I mean, he would just do dynamite at this. But
essentially it's not always in my understanding, it is, it's
not always the quote unquote strongest. It's just the one
that has the advantage, and that could change, you know,

(30:51):
just depending on environment, number of predators, you know, all
kinds of things, and so you know, I don't I
don't know if it's so much that maybe that's what
you meant. However, yeah I did.

Speaker 4 (31:03):
Sorry, your word is better than stronger?

Speaker 3 (31:05):
Okay, Okay, So I guess what I'm trying to understand
is do you think that wouldn't it be fair to
say that?

Speaker 4 (31:10):
Well?

Speaker 3 (31:11):
Actually, I should probably go back.

Speaker 2 (31:12):
And can I ask can I jump in on this case?

Speaker 3 (31:14):
Absolutely?

Speaker 4 (31:15):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (31:15):
Yeah, So like because I want.

Speaker 1 (31:16):
To note, so this is an interesting idea outlook that
evolution is. We're staying on evolution on this one, but
I think it's a good example being sort of designed
by God. Is it your opinion then that God sort
of preordains all events like he's he's sort of the
designer and controls everything that happens.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
How does that work?

Speaker 4 (31:37):
Boy, that's a good fundamental question. I would probably have
to say there's a certain amount of uncertainty. But you know,
I guess if we get real esoteric about it, you know,
because he exists in all parts of time, He's not
sitting there waiting, you know, well, evolution occurs. I have
to say that I believe that he is timeless. So

(31:58):
therefore it's hard to you put that sort of structure
to that question. Is that fair enough to say?

Speaker 2 (32:05):
I think maybe?

Speaker 4 (32:06):
I guess so.

Speaker 1 (32:07):
For me, it's like like evolution as we're describing it, right,
We're like we brought the example of selection pressures, right,
that's that's environmental factors, not what we would call natural factors, right,
affecting and changing the organisms around them. But if God
is sort of the system designer for all of this,

(32:27):
it kind of makes you wonder like, well, like who's
actually in charge here?

Speaker 4 (32:33):
Right?

Speaker 1 (32:33):
Is it nature that's doing these things? Or if it's
God actually doing these things, is he the architect for
these things?

Speaker 3 (32:38):
Right?

Speaker 4 (32:39):
Yeah? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (32:40):
And I was thinking like in terms of like do
you and just to kind of piggyback on that just
a tiny bit, I don't want to overwhelm you, John,
but like, do you think that God is just kind
of sitting back and letting evolution do its thing? Or
you know, is does he actually have a hand in
what's going on?

Speaker 4 (32:55):
Well? I think as it relates to nature, if you
do believe in God, you'd have to say that he
created nature too. So therefore all the fundamental principles and
forces from the again find going back to fine tuning
and entropy and all sorts of different things that he
laid the foundation of. In all reality, it's not necessarily
God letting nature do anything, because if he's created nature,

(33:17):
then means he's had an effect on that too, So
it's one and the same. Wouldn't it be life and
nature or biological life and natural processes? I mean, if
he's created at all, then technically those two things are
the same.

Speaker 3 (33:31):
If he has And so I think the big thing
for me would be, then what do we have it
to what we do? What do we have to compare
to that we could say this is design? Well, like,
what does something that's not design look like? That's natural?

Speaker 2 (33:46):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (33:47):
How would we be able to know if something is
natural in other words, not created by God or something
that is created by God definitively?

Speaker 4 (33:57):
Right? Well, but that's why I try to use the
word accidental institives, because not designed doesn't that violate the
principles sufficient reason, because it's not If not designed isn't
an explanation, it's simply the absence of one. So therefore,
if you say accidental, that is a claim, that's a
corresponding claim. So I guess you know, I don't know
that would be my response. We're getting you start to

(34:20):
pigeonhole yourself into that framework of seeing it's just not
something versus it is something versus.

Speaker 3 (34:26):
What we're getting at though, what we're getting at, well,
what I was saying is what we're getting at is
that how do you Maybe it's maybe the term is
not maybe the term we could use a better term
of not accidental, So maybe we can say something better
than that. But what we're getting at, I think Dan
and I are asking you is how do you how
do you distinguish between something that is designed and something

(34:50):
that is like designed by God and something that just
happens by nature because the other part of like selection
pressure is I don't think like evolutionary biologists would actually
call it quote unquote accidental. The reason being is that
there is some intent in there, Like for example, with
selection pressure, the organisms are you know, making choices. You know,

(35:14):
there's for example, selection pressure determines like mating habits, like
who they mate with and you know where they migrate
to and things of that sort. Right, So there are
some things that are intentional that are happening. So it's
not entirely like just what this just completely happened, you know,
out of the blue, out of nowhere. You see what

(35:35):
I'm saying, John, I.

Speaker 4 (35:36):
Do, especially on the biological side, if I shifted just
a little too, let's just call you know, go to
the fine tuning. Let's take entry, right, we know things
going from a low state to a high state of entropy.
We have mathematical formulas that give us probabilities of that occurrence.
It's well founded. Penrose himself lays out in his book

(35:58):
the specific number, and that number is astronomical. I mean,
it's it's almost hard to even say, but it's so
astronomical that his point, although he was making a different
but in a sense, the point is, as it relates
to that, it's so improbable that fine tuning didn't base
upon that number alone. So therefore, if you believe in
that number, and I mean we're talking a number that

(36:20):
I did an AI thing on it one time, where
I said, if it's a fourteen point font, how how far?
How how many zeros until you got to an actual number,
And you're going to round the known universe subverule million
times before you got to the single number after the zeros.
And so the problem I have is that seems that
to me is evidence right if we were having a

(36:41):
if we were if somebody was looking at DNA for
a murder suspect, I mean just that DNA would say, well,
I can make the reasonable assumption this person committed this crime,
and that number isn't even close to the one issue
related to fine tuning, related to entroviewes. So therefore, you know,
between the design or the theus and atheists, I realize

(37:02):
atheist is in a claim position, but that's where I say,
if you frame it accidental versus design, you start to
get some compelling pieces of evidence, mathematically well tons of
things all the way down to the theological where we're
looking at the moon that somehow keeps the dark side
of our planet right while also controlling you know, tides
and other things. It's just and the spectrum of everything

(37:25):
in between. I mean, you could literally layer it one
by one by one by one as you go and
it just becomes more improbable, more improbable, and more improbable
more probable. But I do agree that once you get
down to the biological life on Earth, after you get
over that little clumsy thing about you know, the verst
cell coming out of a chemical content once you get over,

(37:46):
once you get over that piece, then quite frankly, it
is a little smoother sailing. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (37:52):
So here's here's here's here's a struggle that I have
a fine tuning. So one of the struggles I have
of fine tuning is that like one piece of it
is that I think of like the nearest star from
our solar system, which I think is Alpha Centauri approximate
centauri something like that, and it's what about four or

(38:14):
five light years away, which is just a ridiculous amount
of space, right, is a ridiculous distance. And so if
this universe were fine tuned for now, would you say
that it's fine tuned for life or how exactly what
is it fine tuned for in your estimation?

Speaker 4 (38:35):
That's a very good question. I guess it's fine too
for the possibility life. That would be one element possibility
of life. I can't say that's the sum of it,
but I can say that I would say that's one element. Okay.

Speaker 3 (38:47):
So the problem I have with that is like, for example,
like we have radiation in outer space, right, and some
of these some of this radiation does hit Earth, and
there is we can we can draw a correlation between
like outer space, radiation and cancer. For example, the sun
causes cancer. So if this, if this place where fine

(39:10):
tuned for the possibility of life, why is there why
there's so many goddamn things killing us, trying to kill us?

Speaker 4 (39:15):
Well, let me let me slightly. You're saying that, Are
you saying that life isn't successful? If the goal is life,
the goal is let's just say, humans, we've been pretty
successful in general. I understand on an individual basis, you
make that point, and that's the point. I understand.

Speaker 3 (39:30):
It seems to be successful.

Speaker 4 (39:32):
Successful, Well, we.

Speaker 2 (39:35):
We could claim it's success.

Speaker 1 (39:37):
If you look at the entire universe, it's a pretty
bad job, right, desolate we've seen in the Milky Way,
because we seem to be the only guys out here. Right,
it seems that the universe is more finely tuned for
rocks to orbit around stars in space than it is
for people to live on them, right, Because how many
of those do we have going on?

Speaker 4 (39:57):
Well? But I guess I don't know if do you
feel like we know that? I mean, I'm not trying
to say I believe in I mean, I'm presuming there's
something out there, right, I don't think many people don't
think there's not fairly abundant life out in the universe.

Speaker 1 (40:09):
Right, But well, if we're talking about probability, like the
fine tuning are specific and Roger Penrose is a smarter
man than I'll ever be, okay, like, that's that's that's fine.
But the fine tuning argument, as I understand it, is
the probability that the constants are the way that they are, right,
Like what if what if the speed of light was
five meters per second instead of whatever?

Speaker 4 (40:30):
Right?

Speaker 2 (40:30):
And and how we get these things like what you know?
The one is I don't. I don't know if if
it can.

Speaker 1 (40:35):
Be any different, right, the universe might just be how
it is. But but but more importantly than that, if
we're talking from a pure probability standpoint, which is which
is what you brought into this conversation, right, it seems
to be more likely than not that that this exit
that we're the way we are rather than we aren't.
Then it seems like the universe like is doing a
really good job of trying to keep us out right,

(40:56):
Like if if you were just going on probability and
you just say, what would the intent of this god
for this universe? It would be to make a lot,
a lot a lot of stars and gas giants and
space debris. Humans are just an accident by comparison, right,
we seem to have uh, we seem to not be
as interested in that because because we could imagine the

(41:16):
universe that could be way more tuned for life than
what we currently have.

Speaker 4 (41:21):
Right, but let me, how do you know this is it?
I mean, how do you how do you know what
we see in the universe right now is God's plan? If?
If or a designer's plan, meaning we may we may
be just at a point in time where it looks
like that and maybe in later it doesn't. It's not
gonna look like that. I mean not to not to
invoke the Judaic God, but you know, fill the earth

(41:43):
and subdue it and then you know, fill the universe.
And how do you how do we know the plan
isn't ongoing?

Speaker 1 (41:50):
I mean, it may be a plan that doesn't work
on human time scales, but one has to ask why
why a god has to work on any kind of
time scale and right be instant in some sense?

Speaker 3 (42:01):
Right that kind of begs the question that there's even
a plan in the first place. Yeah, you know, because
isn't it Isn't it also possible, John, that there there
could have been no plan, Like, even if there was
a god, even if we grant that, isn't it possible
that there was no plan, that this God maybe just
created this accidentally, just didn't mean to and it just happened,
you know, it just happened to be universe? Isn't that possible?

Speaker 4 (42:24):
I suppose that it is possible, just like you know,
any rational argument can be.

Speaker 3 (42:29):
Yeah, And I think I think the point I'm getting
to is that if we if we start looking at possibilities,
like anything could be possible, right, There could be multiple universes,
there could be you know, there could be all kinds
of different possibilities. And so I think the big thing
that I kind of want to go back to what
I was asking you before, is you know, if if
if you're saying the fine tuning like, it could not

(42:51):
have been in any other way, because I think that's
part of what the fine tuning argument is as well,
Like if if anything is just off by even just
a just a tiny fraction, then you know, life wouldn't exist, right,
But again, what other universe do we have to compare
it to to verify that that's true, that's in my
name trust but verify.

Speaker 2 (43:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (43:10):
Yeah, Well, you know, that's where the whole multiverse you
know hypothesis comes from. I mean that trying to explain
that factor. Science realizes that's a problem, and so they
go out trying to seek an answer to that problem.
So there's where the multiverse you know hypothesis starts to
try to say, there's actually lots of universes and this

(43:32):
one just happens to be the right one. I mean,
there has been some failure in that hypothesis though. In fact,
Roger Preinros just gave a whole presentation of why he
doesn't believe that. But you know, and there are different ideas,
but at the end of the day, you do it
is it is a probability, right. It does come down
to there is mathematical probabilities here at work, and you

(43:52):
can a rational conclusion, I think, is that a designer
is rational. That is a rational thought because mathematically the
accident is irushed from a public relice standpoint. Now there's
other ideas. I'm not saying there's not ideas that we
can't float and think through and moll over, but it's
not super irrational to believe in a designer.

Speaker 2 (44:13):
I just think it's it's difficult for me to comprehend
this idea.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
And we're kind of going back to this again, but
it's more just what is a rational design versus an
irrational design exactly?

Speaker 3 (44:22):
Because we have nothing to compare it to. And I
think that's our position. That's the part we're struggling with,
am I right, Dan?

Speaker 4 (44:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (44:29):
Well, because like, okay, so here's an example.

Speaker 1 (44:31):
Right, There's been evidence that there's some planets in the universe,
at least one that I was reading about, and I
think some others that are like covered in diamonds, right,
which is like kind of cool, that's kind of interesting
as a fact, right now, we know that there's more
planets covered in diamonds than we are that are covered
in humans, right. I mean, you could make the argument

(44:51):
that the universe was rationally designed so that diamonds.

Speaker 3 (44:54):
Could be made in diamonds.

Speaker 1 (44:56):
Yeah, And I just how could I argue against that
with this logic if we're just using people in life
as an example of why it must be you know
a thing.

Speaker 4 (45:06):
Well, yeah, I mean, but but but I guess that's
where I go back to the decision tree. I mean,
all these things could be talked about at different levels,
which is why the first proposition essentially accident and design.
But you know, I agree, I mean that could be
another that could be a level of branch. You know,
is it design for humans? That's a good logical question,
I guess. I'm still trying to say that it's not

(45:28):
an a rational belief to say at that first in
a decision tree, the very first question is it accidental
or design? It's I just don't think it's a rational
So I agree with, I understand what you just said,
and I'm not disagreeing with I'm just saying that in
itself could be another discussion point on that side of
the branch of the tree.

Speaker 3 (45:47):
I think the other part and tell me if I'm wrong, Dan,
But there's there's uh, we're kind of smuggling in an
assumption here is that it's either or it's either accidental
or it's designed. Like it can't it be? Can't there be?
You know what if the universe always existed?

Speaker 2 (46:03):
Yeah, that's yeah.

Speaker 1 (46:05):
I was kind of talking about this before because I
don't know if the constants of the universe can be changed,
they might just be it, right, I think I think
the fine tuning argument kind of relies on this assumption
that you that these find that these constants didn't have
to be the way that they are, that they could
have been something else. But I'm not even I'm not
even fully convinced that that's the case. But you know,

(46:26):
as you mentioned, without the black and white thinking, I
could design a computer, but you I can give it
to you trust and you can do stuff with it,
and I don't know what you're going to do with it, right,
So like that's like I can you can design all
kinds of things, and other things could could.

Speaker 2 (46:38):
Get in the way.

Speaker 1 (46:39):
So if that's the case, you know, maybe that could
also be the case with the universe. How do we
know that anything that's happened in this system, the system
could be designed, But what if something else interferes? We're
we're already talking about natural selection and other kinds of
pressures sort of got emergent properties right within the system.
At what point do we say that where we're at
is this?

Speaker 4 (47:00):
I think the laws of interview prohibit the idea of
it always existing. That's why big being cosmology has probably
been the most likely truth.

Speaker 2 (47:08):
But anyway, sorry say that one more time, you're saying entropy.

Speaker 4 (47:14):
From entropy cannot the way interview works and energy you
can't constantly exist because the state would devolve too quickly.
So I mean, and if it always existed, then all
of a sudden, now you're dealing with unfathomable time. You know.
I'm not a physicist, but that's okay.

Speaker 2 (47:32):
I'm not aist either.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
I'm just trying to understand how that relates to the
argument you're saying, because the universe can't just be the
way that is.

Speaker 4 (47:39):
Well, I don't think very many people believe. I think
there is an idea out there, a hypothesis that it
might be always existing. There's that idea of floating around.
But the theory of Big Bang theory is the most
wide and shoot.

Speaker 2 (47:53):
Right, And I'm not contesting that.

Speaker 1 (47:55):
I'm more just saying, you know, but but there's a
I don't even know if the the constants themselves are
some that are mutable or immutable, right, I don't know
if that has much to do with the Like I
guess there's a debate on how like the origins of
the Big Bang theory, right, because like, did the constants
come in before that or were they a part of

(48:16):
like the universe's creation process, you'd have to ask.

Speaker 2 (48:19):
I don't know, Carl Zagen, I don't know. I'm not
the guy for that, right, But like again, I'm not
I'm not sure.

Speaker 4 (48:24):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (48:25):
You get what I'm trying to say here, Trust it's
more just like yeah, and I.

Speaker 4 (48:29):
Have I have.

Speaker 3 (48:29):
I thought of another angle that we could kind of
approach this from John is would you agree John, that
if God is all powerful and all knowing, he could
have created any kind of universe consistent with his goals?

Speaker 4 (48:42):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (48:42):
Okay, So couldn't he have simply created electrons with minds
that exist in perfect awareness of his glory? So why
would he need Why would we need planets and gases
and you know, space debris, all the stuff hand listed?
Why would we need that?

Speaker 4 (48:58):
Then?

Speaker 3 (48:59):
If if that's all he could have done, because he
prefers it that way, he prefers it. Well, how do
we know that?

Speaker 4 (49:04):
Though? Well we don't. We don't. I could never know. Yeah, right,
I mean we're we're talking about something that neither one
of us ever Okay, unless I guess we have a
conversation with God.

Speaker 3 (49:14):
Right, but you would agree that electrons would minds would
fulfill God's plan, you know, for because because I think
in the end, well, he's scoring. In the Christian worldview,
god does It's for God's glory, is to glorify God. Right,
So couldn't electrons with minds do that?

Speaker 4 (49:32):
I guess, I mean it could, but I guess it
comes down to preference and or optimal design according to
what Yeah, his plan is, Okay, So I mean, I
I agree that he could not, but I don't know
how we would ever get down to that truth whether.

Speaker 3 (49:47):
That's yeah, well yeah, but I mean that kind of
blows the fine tuning constants right out of the water,
because if God could have just done it that way,
then it doesn't really make fine tuning, you know, the
fine tuning constants don't really matter at that point.

Speaker 1 (50:00):
Christian had on though, all right, trust because God may
not be interested in what's the most optimal, right, Like,
his preferences may not be optimal, and that could still
be consistent with his nature.

Speaker 2 (50:10):
Right.

Speaker 1 (50:11):
So I don't know if that really because like I
see what you're saying. You're proposing that God's ultimate goal
is to have everybody kind of praise him endlessly, right,
So why not just get to the point of that,
but maybe that's not his ultimate goal, like maybe it's
something else. But yeah, ultimately, yeah, that does kind of
does bring up the question though, because if we don't
know what God's goal is, it's hard to know what

(50:34):
the design is for. Right, How do we know what's
designed for what? If we don't know what the goal
is for the vast majority of Earth's existence, humans weren't here, right,
So it seems like if we're part of that goal,
we're a very small part of that process. And maybe
he wants it that way, but it is a little
sus I agree, it's it's kind of hard to justify.

Speaker 4 (50:56):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (50:56):
Well, the point I was trying to make Dan is
that if if the you know, because if God could
have created this universe any way he wanted, and if
it really is just about creating minds, he could have
created minds without matter, right, Yeah, So in that sense,
whyline tuning constances instead of just creating minds like electrons
with minds, that's all you had to do. Yeah, So

(51:18):
if the constants are contingent, then they're arbitrary, and so
that's what I'm So that's what I'm going to get back.
So turn back to you, John. If if God could
have created this universe in any way possible, and he
could have created electrons with minds, that makes the constant contingent,
which means they're arbitrary. So how is this evidence of intention?

Speaker 4 (51:36):
Well, I guess I would. I'll invoke something that Carl
Sagan wants demonstrated related to And it's not my point
to talk about dimensions, but just say we're in the
three dimensional universe and we are the creatures of that universe.
There could in fact be universes or or excuting dimensions
in which there are minds that aren't physically and I

(51:57):
would even have to say that you did. God promotes
such night, So I don't. I guess, insofar as our
universe is concerned in our dimension, that we are the
beings that you sought the designer sought to create. And Okay,
I can't even and I couldn't even necessarily tell you that.
I mean, if you went across the whole universe, what
kind of life you'd see? I mean it might be

(52:19):
there may be all sorts of different types. So you
might be right there. Maybe we will. One day you
find an electron with the mind that of its own.
I don't know if the answers to that question.

Speaker 3 (52:29):
Right, but see, and I think kind of going back
to what Dan was saying. You know, Dan was kind
of playing Devil's advocate with me. See, the thing is
is that what would you say the likelihood is of
you know, if you say, well, yeah, we there could
be electrons out there with minds, right, well, why are
there all different sorts of casings bodies for these minds?

(52:50):
Then you know why? You know we've got you've got
us in human form with minds. Then you've got these
electrons with minds. And since you believe in evolution, it's
possible crows could develop into, you know, have the same
brain capacity as humans to have minds, and then they
discover who maybe they discover they start worshiping a god.

Speaker 4 (53:09):
You know.

Speaker 3 (53:09):
So I think what we're trying to get, what I'm
trying to get to is how would you This kind
of goes back to the question what do you compare
it to? How do you distinguish between this being in
your words, accidental quote unquote versus intentional.

Speaker 4 (53:22):
Well, I guess I guess I'm framing that first question
because everything you guys are asking is great questions and
for fun to pontificate on. But those are branch like questions.
But the first question related to accident and design looks
at the probability, right, and it does look at how
what is more probable? What's better to believe between those

(53:44):
two propositions, And the problem with accident is oddly enough,
I could come up with a million different pontificating type
questions related to accident in a similar way you guys
just did. Because why is it we're here the way
we are and all that kind of thing? And why
does so many things make sense? I mean you talked
about the Sun and the the in the radiation and

(54:05):
all that, and I could counter that with the Earth
and how the magnetic fields protected. And I mean, it's
in every facet. This is the problem. Every facet that
we look at, there seems to be intention. Now is
it perfect design? I don't know. Maybe it's not. Is
it is it in its final form? Maybe it's not.
But there's so much intention where one thing counters act

(54:26):
to another thing, or this does this the recycling of
carbon on our surface through tectonic plates that we don't
see in any other planet, other than ours. I mean,
it goes on and on and on, and I wouldn't
even say this, I want to There's something called thermal
highly thermal highly regulation, which basically allows the planet to

(54:48):
radiate heat disperse it. And that's the exact same thing
that Q or living life does. Mammals particularly use in
their bodies because we use blood and fluids to regular
our heats to our extremities. I mean, Earth has virtually
the exact same design as it goes to thermal regulation.
So there is just I mean, it's it's like everywhere

(55:09):
you look it feels so okay.

Speaker 1 (55:12):
And that's why well, I mean again, purpose for who? Right,
Dinosaurs lived on this Earth way longer than we did,
and the conditions for life were great for them for
a long period of time. I'm sure the dinosaurs, if they,
you know, got brains like we did, they would have thought, gee,
the Earth was designed for us, you know, but you

(55:32):
know they're not here anymore. So it's like it's hard
for me to you know, it's the anthropic principle. You're
familiar with the anthropic principle, right, this this idea.

Speaker 4 (55:41):
That you know.

Speaker 1 (55:41):
I'm sure you are, because you're obviously educated and you
you you've been studying this, like you know this idea
that like, our observations are going to conform to what
we think is best for human beings because we're human
beings and we're limited in our understanding, and we're going
to limit our observations based based on what's what makes
the most sense for us in our in our conditions

(56:03):
where we're But truthfully, we're the subject of a very
small time and place in the grand scheme of the universe.
If anything, our existence and our lack of existence at
other places kind of informs the idea that we are
kind of an accident, that we that we aren't intended
by design. Otherwise the universe as a whole might be
more accommodating to us. Sure, we can talk about Earth

(56:23):
and as it exists right now, and already it's it's
inhospitable in many places, like you can't. We can't live
in Antarctica except if you're on a research base, but
even then that's highly modified situations. We can't naturally live there.
We are, you know, various places like that. So so
probability I get, But probability for who right for us,

(56:44):
I don't know. That's just one aspect, I guess of
a greater, bigger picture here.

Speaker 2 (56:50):
Am I making sense?

Speaker 4 (56:51):
Yeah? No, And I understand, and I understand your question,
and it's it's a hard question to answer because I mean,
I could just say life, but and varied forms of life.
But again I do my only point, I think to
this my only argument, and everything you're asking seeing I understand.
My only point to this discussion is starting from you

(57:12):
guys talk about epistemology, and starting from that decision tree
and analyzing the root question that then can lead to
more discussion down the line, as we kind of ventured
here in this discussion. So, and I just don't think
it's as reasonable as I think it's inferred sometimes in
the atheist community. I think that even though I know
that the idea of being an atheist is just lack

(57:34):
of belief in God, I think there's an inference that
it's kind of ridiculous to think there's a God and
I wouldn't go that far.

Speaker 3 (57:42):
And oh sorry, I was gonna say I wouldn't go
that far. I don't think every atheist infers that, because
there are like, for example, I'm an agnostic atheist, and
so I don't. I don't know if God exists, and
I don't believe that God exists, so you know, and
there's there is a spectrum to to a theism, So
I wouldn't I wouldn't say that every atheist believes that

(58:03):
it's you know what was word to use, preposterous, ridiculous
or something like that, ridiculous.

Speaker 4 (58:09):
Yeah, you're right. I shouldn't have if I said, everyone,
I apologize that that wasn't my some there's I do
as I watched these shows because I you know, I
like watching you guys show another shows, and but there
is a little bit of a h I don't know.
I don't even I won't even argue that I.

Speaker 3 (58:27):
Agree, John, would you would you say, do you think
that the constants were necessary for the for the universe?

Speaker 4 (58:34):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (58:35):
Or are necessary?

Speaker 4 (58:36):
Yes?

Speaker 3 (58:36):
Okay, then then if they're necessary, then how how is
it that a designer was free to choose them?

Speaker 4 (58:43):
How was it a designer was free to choose I
would say that, just like fine tuning anything, he created
the consonants, then to because the consonants is one thing,
but the constant tuning is another.

Speaker 3 (58:56):
Right, Well, again we we because earlier you were read
that God could have just created electrons with minds or
just a universe just with just minds floating around. Right,
So that just kind of tells us right there that
these constants weren't necessary because he could have used any
any numbers, any any kind of consonants or whatever.

Speaker 4 (59:16):
Right, Well, that's where that's where I was trying to
relate about the dimensions, you know, I was.

Speaker 3 (59:23):
I understand point right, Yeah, it were a.

Speaker 4 (59:27):
Three dimensional there may be other dimensions. I mean even
did you dig God again in the Bible, we're talking
about angels and spirit beings whatever that is. We may
be just the product of a three dimensional universe.

Speaker 3 (59:40):
Yeah, yeah, I understand that. But my point is that
if if you're if you're asserting that these constants were necessary,
that means that this God didn't really have a choice.
And so if this designer didn't have a choice, because
because then he could have chosen any constants, he could
have chosen any format to to make this universe like again,

(01:00:01):
just electrons with minds with nothing else. Right, he could
have chosen one electron with a mind, right, Yes, that
could have been the entire universe.

Speaker 4 (01:00:09):
I'll clarify, I don't I don't mean necessary necessary only
because he controls the frame word.

Speaker 3 (01:00:16):
But that's not necessary.

Speaker 2 (01:00:17):
Yeah, what makes it necessary at that point? Right?

Speaker 1 (01:00:20):
I'm picking up what trust is putting down here, because
if he is a guy and he can do anything,
why does the conditions we exist have to be necessary
for life?

Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
What couldn't be other kinds of.

Speaker 3 (01:00:31):
Could have been anything else?

Speaker 4 (01:00:32):
Yeah, well, I think I think because I mean, it
depends on what his design intent is, which we don't know,
right not. I don't even think it does. Want wanted
a system. Right.

Speaker 3 (01:00:43):
Well, See, here's the thing. I don't think it well,
I don't think it does depend on the intent, because again,
if if God could have chosen this universe any way
he wanted to, he could have designed this any way
he wanted to. Then that, by definition makes the constance
that you're talking about not necessary but contingent, because they
could have been anything. He could have designed this any

(01:01:04):
way he wanted to. He could have been a two dimes,
could have been a six dimensional.

Speaker 4 (01:01:08):
Yeah, but who's to say it isn't he did design
it any way he wanted to do in this design.
That's the problem.

Speaker 3 (01:01:13):
Is that the problem though you're yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:01:16):
You're you're saying, did he need the com did the
designer need the cont.

Speaker 3 (01:01:20):
That's what necessary is right?

Speaker 4 (01:01:21):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:01:22):
Well so that because that's what.

Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
They see being necessary.

Speaker 1 (01:01:25):
If they're not necessary, right, like if a god could
do something else with it, then they're not necessary.

Speaker 4 (01:01:30):
Right.

Speaker 3 (01:01:31):
It's it's kind of like saying if you're if you're
trying to make fried chicken, like like deep fried chicken,
it's kind of like saying, but but hot oil is
not necessary. I could do it some other way, but
then it's not fried chicken. Right, It's baked chicken or
something else, you know, microwave chicken, whatever you want to
call it, but it's not fried chicken. You see what
I'm saying?

Speaker 4 (01:01:49):
Yeah, I do. Except I guess what I'm trying to
get at here is if he how do we If
he intended for the constants to be in existence to
solve issues related towards through dimensional world, and then he
found fine tuned the constant specifically to allow our life.
I mean, I guess what I'm trying to say is
it's not necessary, but he chose to do it. Okay.

Speaker 3 (01:02:11):
Yeah, Then then and.

Speaker 4 (01:02:12):
I realized I'm backtracking because I didn't understand I totally
acknowledge that I answered that differently.

Speaker 3 (01:02:19):
So well then that I'm now okay, Well, then that
means that fine tuning is an evidence of God. It's
just evidence of unnecessary complexity. The wouldn't you agree.

Speaker 4 (01:02:28):
If you could have something would have to find tune well,
like well, like.

Speaker 3 (01:02:33):
You agreed, if he could have made this universe with
just one electron with a mind, right, sure, yeah, so
that means that fine tuning then is it's it's just
unnecessarily complex because if he could have achieved what he
and you did, granted you did say, well, we don't
know exactly what the intent is, as as Dan you
pointed out to However, if you're but if you're looking
at it from the lens of you know, I'm this

(01:02:57):
God was doing this to achieve his glory. He could
have his glory in a many number of ways, and
so the fact that he picked this way to do it,
you can't. How can you discern for us if it
was fine that this is fine tuning versus uh, you know,
versus an accident. You can't.

Speaker 4 (01:03:15):
There's just no way, well except I feel like there
is an underlying intent that I'd have to know to
answer this question.

Speaker 3 (01:03:23):
If you assume it, how do we know that, Yeah,
you pre suppose it.

Speaker 4 (01:03:28):
Well, but you're against you're pustal leading against an intent.

Speaker 3 (01:03:33):
Well, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:03:35):
You can't demonstrate it.

Speaker 3 (01:03:37):
We can't demonstrate we don't postulate it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:39):
Again, if Barney the dinosaur came back from time, right,
and I'm I kind of used this before and being
a little facetious, but you know the idea, right, a
dinosaur might say, Hey, a smart one would say, hey, this,
there's a lot of dinosaurs on Earth right now. They're
all vibing in these different ecosystems. We're doing great. We've
existed for millions of years. It seems that the intent

(01:04:00):
was that dinosaurs should exist on Earth, and uh, you know,
God loves us everything, like a dinosaur should be able
to make that conclusion, at least at that period of time, right, true.

Speaker 4 (01:04:10):
I guess if it was self aware, I guess it could. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:04:14):
So that's that's the principle, the.

Speaker 4 (01:04:17):
Anthropic intent for us. I mean, these are the heavy movers,
the big tiles of crap everywhere to fertilize to key
life the better. I mean, there's a lot of different
things that dinosaurs did for our planet. I mean that
gives us the carbon fuels we use, Yes, you know
in the twentieth century wish.

Speaker 1 (01:04:34):
And that's what's that's us looking back, right, But maybe
some other future species will look back on us and
see what our maybe us committing to climate change help
better their environment, right, and and that life couldn't exist
without us doing our thing. And so they would say, man,
that that part of humans living, that was part of
our design was for them to do. You see how

(01:04:56):
that becomes a problem.

Speaker 4 (01:04:57):
Well, it does, except if you do believe in evolution.
Just throwing this out there, I mean, if you do
believe in evolution, which we I think all of us
do here, I mean, who's to say that we're in
our involved state as our intended state right now? I mean,
if humans need to live, what, well, evolution doesn't I mean,
we could, we could turn into the.

Speaker 1 (01:05:14):
Order point of order, John. Evolution doesn't propose intent. Evolution
doesn't propose we're in an intended state or we're in
a maximal state at all. Evolution just says we're in
the state we are because we're in the state we
are because of X, Y, and Z.

Speaker 4 (01:05:31):
Right, there's such a minor. You know, on the whole
scale of things, evolution and biological life is not you know,
what do you mean?

Speaker 2 (01:05:42):
It's not.

Speaker 4 (01:05:42):
If I was having to judge evolution on the idea
of whether there's a God or not, I guess, you know,
evolution would be explanatory to being not needed. But it's
all the other things that evolution needs to even exist
in the first place.

Speaker 1 (01:05:57):
Well, John, I mean, let let's think of I think
you're undervaluing or underselling evolution in this because think about this.
It says a lot about God and how he wants
to create things, right, Like if we're the ultimate goal
in that, and maybe we're not, but humans tend to
think that we're at least part of that plan.

Speaker 2 (01:06:16):
Then a lot of people all had to die.

Speaker 1 (01:06:18):
Not just people obviously, but a lot of creatures on
Earth had to die to achieve that. Yeah, and a
lot of land masks had the change and geology and
all that. You know, that's one thing because attribute sentience
to that, But at least a lot of things that
had the capacity to feel, and some would dare say think,
and some would dare say, you know, reason in some

(01:06:41):
cases had to die in order to frust to get
to that point. So it does say something about God
and his intent if we are the intent, if that's
part of the process, wouldn't you agree?

Speaker 4 (01:06:53):
I do agree. I mean there's where then you get
into theologies related to you know, life and death.

Speaker 2 (01:06:59):
Or we're talking about intent.

Speaker 1 (01:07:00):
I think that's implied, right, if we're using intent as
part of our reasoning as to why fine tuning is
a valid line of argument.

Speaker 4 (01:07:08):
Right, But I guess we again, we don't know. I
agree with There's nothing I'm disagreeing with you about. I'm
just trying to say that we would have to know
what the ultimate plan is, which we don't necessarily know.
I mean, I guess that's where you start to look
at theological books to determine what God's intent is. For instance,
the Judaic guy as an intent which starts to Adam

(01:07:32):
and ends in you know, whether you believe in a paradise,
ris or heaven. I mean, there's there's kind of two
ultimate goals with endpoints there. I'm sure other religions have
other starts and finishes.

Speaker 1 (01:07:44):
So and John, I one hundred percent agree with you,
and and and it is part of my problem why
it's hard for me to accept fine tuning, because fine
tuning for what I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:07:53):
Exactly, we don't know, you know, you know, and introduces
other problems like there's the I don't know part, there
is the what do you compare it to? We have
nothing else to compare it to. And then there's other
things like you know, because you brought up earlier, John, like,
you're right, there are some systems in here that are
pretty amazing, right, Yet then I look at something like

(01:08:16):
our planet is covered with seventy percent water, right, but
ninety nine percent of that water we can't drink. It's
poisonous to us. And God designed us that we can't
go more than three days without water?

Speaker 2 (01:08:29):
Why would God do that?

Speaker 1 (01:08:30):
Yeah, it gets into some weird theological sort of conundrums
that are hard to answer.

Speaker 4 (01:08:37):
But yeah, except I do want to say, and that's
you know, obviously that I could talk about the ring
system and the water filtration system and how that advantages
the earth because it gets cleaned to the ocean, or
I should say, through the evaporation process. And therefore there
is kind of a water recycling system, a complex one. Now,

(01:08:58):
why we drink fresh water? You know, I don't maybe
we evolved to drink fresh water. Maybe maybe maybe in
time we will drink softwater. I have no ever some
version of humans. I mean, I guess at the end
of the day, you know, even when you point to
that again, there is immense complexity and it's hard in

(01:09:20):
their innate system. That's the other thing you got to remember.
The biological is different than the inanimate slash innate because
the inanimate slash innate systems have no development system. There's
no steps to development, right you can't you can't look
at that water filtration system and say, oh, well, one
day it was just this whatever microclad. I don't have

(01:09:41):
a good thought here. I'm just ad living. But you know,
I think the point of what I'm trying to say
is all these systems that we're talking about can't develop
over time. They don't have that same kind of structure
that life does. That point to be inanimate.

Speaker 1 (01:09:55):
So I am under I think, do you mean merging
systems not innate systems? Because life relies a lot on
physical systems, right, Like life is not divorced from physical systems.

Speaker 3 (01:10:11):
And it relies a lot on those physical systems working.
So like this water filtration system you're talking about it's
it's far from perfect. I mean, we we've had we
have droughts all the time, you know, and life dies
because they can't get enough water. And and so what
it seems to be is that the water filtration system happens,

(01:10:35):
it goes through its boom and bus cycles, and then
life suffers when that when those boom and bus cycles happen,
and then you know, things die off until it gets
to the point where those that do survive can survive
on what the water filtration system is producing. And then
in another boom cycle, then life starts flourishing again until

(01:10:56):
only for it to bust again and then things die
off again. So that's what it seems to do constantly.
And so I so I'm at a loss as how
this is at all intentional.

Speaker 4 (01:11:06):
Well, what I mean is, let's let's I could relate
it to the water system specifically, it might have been
a poor choice. But let's say the magnetic fields that
protect leaders that we specifically from those radiation fields. I mean,
how does that that can't develop over time? That's almost
accidental to this planet.

Speaker 2 (01:11:26):
Like, why are you saying it can't develop over time?

Speaker 3 (01:11:28):
I couldn't develop over time?

Speaker 4 (01:11:30):
Well, how would it develop for time?

Speaker 3 (01:11:32):
Gravity?

Speaker 1 (01:11:32):
What do you mean, like magnetism? If magnetism exists as
a thing, right, like, then then it could develop.

Speaker 4 (01:11:39):
Yeah, I guess I've never researched it. Are you saying?
If I look up magnetic fields and I can see
kind of a step by step how.

Speaker 1 (01:11:45):
Its Electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental forces of
the universe, right, So what I'm talking.

Speaker 4 (01:11:52):
About how it protects the years related to because it
ties into the well, well.

Speaker 2 (01:11:56):
Well, the Earth itself is a giant magnet, right exactly.

Speaker 4 (01:12:00):
But we don't see those kind of the same protections
and other planets we observe.

Speaker 1 (01:12:04):
And that's precisely it, yea, because they don't I mean,
like atmospheres and stuff don't develop, and and sometimes they
do develop, but it's they're very thin, right, So it's
it's not an on off situation. There's some plants that
do have atmospheres and they and they do have major
geological shifts and changes over time.

Speaker 2 (01:12:24):
Mars is a great example of that.

Speaker 3 (01:12:25):
Mars is a perfect example of that.

Speaker 4 (01:12:28):
So, yeah, I understand, But I guess what I'm trying
to say is it has to we don't see, there's
a lot of unique things on Earth. Even though we've
seen an examine and not up close, but we've examined,
you know, millions of different planets through telescopes on it.
We don't see any of those same things at work
in any other planet, right, I mean we do we
agree that like our moon is very unique only to

(01:12:50):
this planet. We don't see another moon composed the way
this moon is in any other instance. Yet we see thousands.
So I mean, there are there are several things, and
I guess I'm going back to this idea and I
may need to research more about Yeah, because electro magis
I got maybe a little over.

Speaker 2 (01:13:10):
My That's okay. I appreciate.

Speaker 1 (01:13:13):
I appreciate first of all, because I'm not We're not
scientists either, man. We're you know, we're just people who
read stuff and we talk on the internet. Okay, we're
the lows of the low. So I appreciate that we
can talk about this because this is a good opportunity
for both of us, I think, to also learn some
new information. So I really appreciate this conversation so far.

(01:13:33):
I'm kind of having the tail ended here because we
do have to let you go.

Speaker 2 (01:13:38):
But John. What I do want to say is this
has been really really great. I really really appreciate it.

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
Thank you so much for spending your Friday night with us,
because you've you have given me the most intelligent defense
of the fine shooting argument I have heard probably in years.
I would say, so excellent and I and I love
this because I need to examine my own beliefs and

(01:14:03):
see it do they match up with these arguments? And
you know, you maybe had to think a little bit
on this. I still am hung up on a few things, right,
at least from my side. I have to know if
we don't know intent, then how can we.

Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
Know probability right?

Speaker 1 (01:14:17):
How can we know what that's for and right? And
that that's a that's a hard one for me to overcome.
I'm not sure where trust is at. He was he
was talking about some spiritual electrons. Okay, you know, he's
got his own line of argumentation that is creative but
effective I think in its own right.

Speaker 4 (01:14:35):
So I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:14:36):
This was This was a great conversation, is all I
won't say to that. So thank you, thank you for
spending your time. I hope you call it again in
the future.

Speaker 4 (01:14:42):
I will and for me too. By the way, I'm
going to go with research, and there's a several things
I'm going to go research. So I appreciate it.

Speaker 3 (01:14:47):
Great.

Speaker 2 (01:14:47):
Great, we'll let you go for now, John, Thank you,
and have a great rest of your weekend.

Speaker 3 (01:14:52):
Night John.

Speaker 2 (01:14:53):
Wow, fantastic.

Speaker 4 (01:14:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:14:55):
We spent over thirty minutes on that call. I never
do that, and one of the reasons I don't do
that is because thirty minute calls aren't interesting. I thought
that was pretty interesting though. I think that I think, uh,
every back and forth was filled with some new Yeah,
I agree with that.

Speaker 3 (01:15:11):
Was yeah totally, and there was still some meat on
that bone because one of the other things I wanted
to to bring up was uh, because like the comparison
thing to me is really still sticking in my cra
because you know, he was saying, because he he started
with the whole highly improbable, you know, of why we're here,

(01:15:32):
and so then what I wanted to ask because it
occurred to me, oh, I should ask him this question
and why And it was like, towards the end, I
wanted to ask him, well, how did you determine the
probability that God created the universe? You know, with these
with these, uh, with these fine tuning constants that you're
talking about, And of course he'd probably say something like
one hundred percent because because God did, well, how do

(01:15:54):
you how did you calculate that?

Speaker 4 (01:15:56):
What?

Speaker 3 (01:15:56):
What was your method of calculating? And this is where
the old se roots can Yeah, what's your method of
calculating that?

Speaker 4 (01:16:02):
How?

Speaker 1 (01:16:02):
It goes back to Roger Penrose's whole argument is fine
tuning thing. I'm like, you know, I'm just not the
person to critique that too much. I just can't because
I don't know what's right and what's wrong with it?

Speaker 2 (01:16:18):
You know what I mean? Yeah, yeah, it's it's it.
That is a part of it.

Speaker 1 (01:16:21):
I do think when we talk, you know, the reason
why I was hung up on the intent thing is
because we talk the classically fine tuning is classically fine
tuning is talking about the constant, specifically right, the constants
of the universe. I believe that's what Roger Penrose was
talking about. When you know and and and basically how
and why they are the way that they are. I

(01:16:43):
can't tell you how and why they are the way
they are. I'm not sure that anybody really fully can.
I can only talk about what happens like afterwards, and
if human beings are a part of that whole thing,
that seems sus to me because what, like we've talked about,
a lot of things had to die to get there,
a lot of time had to get there, and maybe
that doesn't matter to God, Okay, but if that doesn't

(01:17:04):
matter to God, that tells us something about God.

Speaker 3 (01:17:06):
Oh that's another great point you bring up, Dan, is
the fact that we've been here for what three hundred
thousand years and the earth is I'm sorry, the universe
has been here for a thirteen point eight billion years?
So why would we be here for less than a
blip of time? You know, all this universe was created

(01:17:29):
for us to be here for just a little tiny
blip of time, And why did it take so long?
Like you think that we would have been here a
lot earlier, but it took all this time for us
to get here to be here, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:17:40):
And John was kind of a response to that was
like God's like kind of timeless, but like it's it's
less than can we explain God?

Speaker 2 (01:17:48):
And more of what's the greater likelihood?

Speaker 1 (01:17:51):
Ex Right, great, this is a naturally occurring system or
God because That's that's what fine tuning is all about.
At the end of the day, right, it's probability. It's like, like,
what is probably these things happening? And I'm not I'm
not fully convinced based on what we know that what
we have is intentional in any shape or form.

Speaker 3 (01:18:08):
Well yeah, well, and the other part is it falls
apart at the end of the day because if you're
if you're also looking at if God could have made
this universe any other way, like you know, I'm gonna
go back to the spiritual electrons with mines example, Right,
he could have made it this way, but he decided
to do it this way with fine tuning, where ninety
nine percent of ninety nine point nine percent of life

(01:18:30):
doesn't survive here on one little tiny planet. Yeah, granted,
there could be like eight what eight billion planets you
know that are Earth like you know, around or I
think maybe in the Milky Way or something like that.
You know, somebody can fact check me on that. But
but that's in comparison to this seven hundred like septillion
planets and that they've calculated that's in the entire Solar System.

(01:18:51):
It's still like a fraction of a fraction of a
fraction of a fraction. Yeah, so then if we think
about it from that standpoint, then we're then we're looking
at Okay, that's what that basically means is that God
just bought a shipload of lottery tickets.

Speaker 2 (01:19:06):
Yes, because it goes both ways, because.

Speaker 1 (01:19:11):
We'll say, oh, that's how we know that we're special,
because look at all the rest of it, because we
stick out exactly, it could like it goes both ways,
so anyway.

Speaker 3 (01:19:20):
Exactly the other way. You're absolutely right.

Speaker 1 (01:19:23):
Another thing, I usually don't like talking too much about
a call, like I like talking about a little bit
after a call, because it's not I don't want to
make arguments that our caller can't end or whatever. But
if John, if you're listening to this, it's not because
like it's more just because I'm excited.

Speaker 2 (01:19:38):
About this topic.

Speaker 3 (01:19:39):
Really it was.

Speaker 1 (01:19:41):
Yeah, it's it's it's fine tuning is one of the
better arguments in my If I had to make a
tier list of arguments for God, fine tuning is up there.

Speaker 2 (01:19:50):
I don't know if it's the best. I think it's
it's it's it's like.

Speaker 3 (01:19:53):
A top three, maybe top specifically the ones that bron
John brought to the table like those type of arguments.

Speaker 4 (01:19:59):
But there's there.

Speaker 3 (01:20:00):
I've heard some really bad fine tuning arguments. That wasn't
one of them.

Speaker 1 (01:20:03):
Yeah, there are different kind of variations. Again the you know,
we've already discussed our thoughts on this.

Speaker 2 (01:20:09):
I don't know much I.

Speaker 1 (01:20:10):
Want to keep going on about it, but you know,
it's it's it's why religion was made. At the end
of the day, I think, is these conversations right here
about creation intent, because every religion has some sort of
thing where people are either a part of that process
or an accident in that process, right, But like either

(01:20:31):
way there's an explanation and so and this is an
attempt at an explanation.

Speaker 3 (01:20:36):
Which it just falls short.

Speaker 1 (01:20:38):
You know, there's I imagine there's nobody who's a fine tuner,
right that says, yeah, these systems are fine tuned, and
we're just we're not even we don't even matter in
that process, right, Like we're we're the universe is actually
fine tuned for some being greater than us. I don't
think anybody makes that argument. It's always about how you
know us at the end of the day, in our
relationship with God or whatever.

Speaker 2 (01:20:59):
Oh, and look at this.

Speaker 1 (01:21:00):
We got a super chat, I think from from the
gentleman himself. He said, enjoy the conversation. I'll study the
counterpoints you brought up and gave us ten dollars.

Speaker 2 (01:21:09):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (01:21:09):
Wow, wow, thanks to Wow Wow incredible. What a great,
great conversation. Wow, this is really good. I folks, this
took up like pretty much the entire showtime today. Well,
I don't feel sorry about it. I thought it was
pretty good.

Speaker 4 (01:21:24):
What do you think? Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:21:25):
For sure?

Speaker 4 (01:21:25):
For sure?

Speaker 3 (01:21:26):
And it flew by fast. Yeah. And I'm not quite
used to this because I usually do like a twenty
minute like end time, and then I do it like
a vote by the chat who gets to say and
who gets to go? So it went a little bit longer,
but it didn't feel like strained. I didn't feel strained
at all. It was a great conversation.

Speaker 1 (01:21:45):
I quite enjoyed it. We're going to start to get
things going here. I want to thank you Trust but
Verify for being on today's program with me. It was
a pleasure having you on.

Speaker 3 (01:21:56):
Sure.

Speaker 2 (01:21:58):
If people want to find you, where should they know?
I am?

Speaker 3 (01:22:01):
All my socials are Trust but Verify twenty twenty four.
So I'm on YouTube, I'm on TikTok, I'm on Instagram,
I am on Twitter, but I don't check that account anymore,
so don't bother. So that's the three main ones you
can find me at Awesome And folks, don't forget about
our question of the week. I'm gonna bring Kelly back
up real quick if he's still there and is still listening. Oh,

(01:22:23):
he's ready to go, Kelly, what's up?

Speaker 4 (01:22:25):
Man?

Speaker 5 (01:22:25):
I wasn't totally ready to go. I hadn't unmuted myself.

Speaker 2 (01:22:28):
So now you're ready to go, that's all they mattered.

Speaker 4 (01:22:30):
No, I'm totally ready.

Speaker 5 (01:22:32):
There's only a second before I realized.

Speaker 1 (01:22:34):
But see, what we don't understand is it was fine
tuned in that moment for you to I think all
of time and existence was, So don't sweat it anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:22:43):
Go ahead.

Speaker 5 (01:22:45):
So the question for next week is what's the best
reason to break the second commandment? Doll shout not take
the Lord the name of the Lord in vain. And
while I was listening to that damn good car, I
came up with an answer. Watch truth wanted. It's God
damn good.

Speaker 4 (01:23:01):
Man.

Speaker 1 (01:23:02):
The self plug, the self plug. He's doing it, folks,
Someone stop him, get him out of here. Just kidding,
you know, I'd be remissed as well. I need to
thank the wonderful, awesome crew that helps make this show
happen every single week. So if we get that crew
cam up and show all the awesome faces and the
folks that aren't on camera that helping the show happen,

(01:23:23):
Thank you crew for doing this, and thank you to
everybody watching in the live chat for watching live. Tune
in next week for another great episodeh wait, wait a minute,
hold on, don't tune in next week. We are not
going to be doing a show next week because not
a live show because next week is Thankgiving holiday here
in the US, So never mind on that. But regardless,

(01:23:46):
you know, thanks for everybody for watched today's episode. Before
we go, I would like to ask most of the time,
at least my guest, what are there words of wisdom
you have? Any words of wisdom for us?

Speaker 2 (01:23:58):
Trust were verified before we pick it off?

Speaker 3 (01:24:01):
Words of wisdom? Let's see, don't eat, yell us snow,
don't run with scissors, and keep asking questions.

Speaker 4 (01:24:08):
I like that.

Speaker 2 (01:24:09):
Those are some tenants to live by. Let me tell
you great. I answer for that, folks, I.

Speaker 5 (01:24:14):
Was thinking his name was We're really good words of
wisdom too.

Speaker 3 (01:24:18):
Yeah, trust but verify.

Speaker 2 (01:24:19):
That's also true. Oh my god. Yeah, it's built into
the name. There, you're that's awesome. I love that.

Speaker 1 (01:24:26):
Okay, folks, I'm objectively Dan. This has been another great
episode of truth. Wanted to remember to always keep wanting
the truth. And we'll see you next time. Watch the

(01:24:58):
non profits and join the course in the live chart,
visit tiny dot c cy, slash yt and p

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

.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;}Truth Wanted 08.47 11-21-2025 with ObjectivelyDan and Trust But Verify

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

All Episodes

Truth Wanted 08.47 11-21-2025 with ObjectivelyDan and Trust But Verify

Stuff You Should Know