The Atheist Experience 778 with Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harris

next week because my parents are coming to uh I don't know spend time, let's get started won't you listen to the reason? will you open your eyes? It's a wonder what you'll find with an open mind, you might be surprised, yes. I have to get away from this illusion for the good of the world. This deception has to go. Yes, hey everyone. The

experience

we lived today is Sunday, September 9, 2012. It's a little like I'm there, but I can't see it. because there's a camera in my way I'm on D honey I'm Tracy Harris welcome this is a public access television show live from Austin Texas we'll give you the number shortly so you can call even though it seems like every lines are already full surprise uh we're going to do what we can to take as many calls as we can today some quick notes on the phone because we've had some feedback on the issues that we're talking about that we're talking about.

We can do very little with the equipment in the public access studio. There are solutions at work that may change that in the near future. We're going to try to do a better job of retention. If you call. First, you will be able to hear better if you can do so on a landline rather than a cell phone. It works a little better because cell phones are notoriously bad at full duplex along with the phone systems that are here, uh, which aren't. It's not necessarily tuned correctly, so a lot of it has to do with people not being able to hear each other, we can hear everything, but they can't always hear, so I'm going to try to do a better job of doing everything. and also if we can encourage callers to make a question or a point and go back and forth instead of a life story or a sermon, that would also be very helpful as the sign says yes this.

It's the can you see it? that's it and your point is yes, I hope it's visible on the screen. I think it's how you are. I'm fine thanks. Did Eno enjoy the trip to Denver? It was phenomenal. Yes, I had a great time. time all my grumpy notes about conventions and you know, I had a great time, I bought some cool stuff from the vendors and I met some really interesting people and I met people in person that I met online or, through Beth. at Godless and it was great to see people in person. I have to admit that yes, we also had a great time and there was a picnic on Monday where we went out and walked, I would like to say It's a mountain because I felt like I had climbed a mountain when I got to the top, but actually I was in the Foothills in the outside of Denver, it's about 6800 feet or so and we had a great time. and the amazing thing is that a lot of you know it's the Rocky Mountains, there's so many gallons of pink and stuff out there and if it's like, oh, we could do so many cool things with all this, but it's a park, so you can't take it .

Yeah, you know, I don't know how the state got hold of all those rocks, but there's a secret conspiracy to get the state to control the Rocks. I don't think I've ever laughed as hard as um grass, Silverman's talking grass. It was absolutely hilarious, it's hysterical and it got me in so anyway we had a great time, let's go ahead and start with the calls because we only have an hour to clear this stuff out and I hope my list has been updated correctly Frank and Raleigh are with you, this is me, how are you? I'm doing fine and just saying hello, thanks, but I'll get to it quickly.

The question I have is that I am an

atheist

. I'm ex-Catholic, but one thing I've noticed especially here in the South is that when I became Catholic, if we didn't like the priest, we would just shut up and ignore them and do nothing, you know, in the You know, do anything with the church, but here like my relatives, well, they'll just change and go to a different church and what I'm trying to get at is how I would view this now in politics. in the US and I wonder, you know, like I said, I don't understand it, you know why you change churches so freely, not you per se, but Protestants change churches so freely and how do I see that, you know? . well, a lot of separatist movements, let's say, in the United States or you know some guys with tea bags on their heads doing that kind of thing, yeah, so a couple quick points about this is that I think you see this with more frequency in Protestant denominations.

That what you do in Catholic, well, that's what he's saying. I was going to ask if when you say they go to another church, do they go to a different denomination or do they go to a different church within the same denominations? um, sometimes they go. back and forth to Free Will Baptist for some evangelicals, uh, Pentecostals or just some, you know, regular SBC, yeah, there's not much difference, I mean, you know, for example, my mom and dad got married in a methodist Church even though one of them was a Baptist and one of them was nominally Catholic at the time.

I have a very dear friend of mine who went to Southern Baptist churches with me and was actually a youth minister who is now Catholic. I had to laugh a little when you mentioned that Catholics, if they didn't like what was going on, they just ignored it, because I think that's what we see almost across the board with Catholics because the nuns' positions, well, No. the nuns are also involved in a backlash against the Pope at the moment and there are several Catholics who disagree with the church's position on many things and yet they remain Catholic and that is why I like freedom of religious foundations you know you can leave that church you know you can leave the rules and find a church that suits you better yeah I am I like it I like the fact that maybe we're seeing more of this um. it means you know people might be thinking and saying you know what this doesn't jive with what I think it should be so I'm going to look for what fits my personal PR.

It's an interesting question though, as in, what's the point of abandoning ship instead of trying to change something internally? I mean, I don't really know the answer to that, but I mean, I think what Matt is saying is with the Catholic Church, it seems like what is that phrase in the Declaration that is uh people are willing to suffer uh it seems like people are willing to suffer a little bit of evil um and they still stick with it, like my mom and my sister. I love them so much and I mean them. you know fondly like CIA Catholics, sure and you know I don't want to say they're mad at me, but they're not, you know they understand where I'm coming from because I was a Catholic catheter until I quote in quotes came out MH from uh from quad

atheist

in work, anyway, which was an entertaining

experience

, especially down here.

I have a lot of people saying, Frank, how can you be an atheist? You're such a nice guy. It's amazing how it works, yeah, well. um, I mean, I know you're not supposed to talk about religion or politics at work, but we do it well and I'm glad to say that um, not anymore, a lot of them don't have such bad opinions anymore, so whatever What can i do. to help great, well, thank you so much for calling Frank, thank you, bye, it's one of those things when I was a kid, if we moved, my dad changed jobs, he worked for the airlines and we ended up moving and every time.

We were moving, we were looking for a new church and the process for that, because we were Southern Baptists, we visited a lot of Baptist churches and the preacher that my parents liked the most, that's where we ended up going to church, which is what it is. This is a completely transparent self-selection process of oh we think the preacher is the one who wouldn't say he best represents what we think, but he's the one who's right with God and they know this CU they're right with. God, yes, yes, absolutely, so it's kind of fun, we have Eric in Mesa Arizona, how are you?

I'm fine Matt, how are you today? Oh, I'm alive, yeah, that's good enough sometimes, yeah, that's very. Well and Tracy, hello, I'm glad, I'm glad to hear that you're on the show today because I've been waiting to be able to call you again and talk to you and Matt, because I've talked to you for several months. ago regarding some tests about God um I don't know if you guys remember our conversation was about nothing exactly who could forget what is that who could forget I think I've tried it yet I didn't hear you who could forget oh Yes, exactly, and the reason why the one I called back is obviously because Matt, you certainly remember, you probably ended up hanging up on me and I wanted to get back to you guys and hopefully get a chance to ask.

You have a question when you were both on the line and what I thought was interesting about our discussion is that later when I went online and read the comments, what was so surprising is that there were so many comments talking about this. Massive victory and how Matt would build a coffin and Tracy would put the final nail in it. I was the BL and what I was wondering is that the point I had made in opening the trials for God was that something can't come out of nothing and then Matt, you said that, I was assuming you were taking a position that you weren't taking. , so what I wanted to do is call back and read a couple of sentences from a book that you're probably both familiar with. with it's called why he became an atheist by John lus I guess you've both read it I haven't read it no but go ahead I have it I haven't read it all but I have it yeah what do you think about the book? very quick Matt, do you think this is a good book?

I haven't read it all um well I've met John several times uh I think John has a lot of good points um I don't know what because I haven't read it all. I can't comment so absolutely well. Here's a point he makes that only takes a couple of sentences and I was wondering if you agree or disagree with it and it's in the chapter that begins. chapter five and says it exists and he writes when it comes to why something exists, our choices can be reduced to these: something that has always existed or two, something that came from absolutely nothing.

The choice seems extremely unlikely or possibly absurd now he says these are the only two options and I was curious to know if both you and Tracy would agree or disagree with him first that something has always existed or something came from good. I guess I don't think it's possible for the problem. What I said last time is that the claim that suggesting something comes from nothing is nonsense. You can't even process it because it doesn't make sense and that's what we were trying to get at before, okay, and I'd like to comment on it. That's because this is what I think is interesting.

A lot of people were excited when you made that comment, which is a meaningless statement, but what I would like your listeners to know is that this is a comment that is made over and over again. in the atheist community by those who stood up and made these statements, so the statement is not, it's not like Eric, the Christian stood up and said here's this position and here's the other position and this was something new. that I had introduced, this is actually something that you will read over and over again since you know that you have people defending and then arguing against the existence of God.

I've actually only heard the idea that something arises from nothing because you excluded the scientific definition of nothing and you defined nothing as non-existence or non-being, as I understood it to be correct. I did Totally not be. If you go online and enter a definition of nothing again, you will see that this is a common definition. something, this is, this is totally fine, what I am asking you then is: can non-be? B, well, if not again, and this is one of those situations where if non-being could exist, then there would be non-being, so there should always be just being instead of going ahead and answering a question. like: can not be be?

What I'm telling you is that a significant part of the atheist community and the scientific community use these terms and you have to ask the question that you don't ask. Define that they do not define anything as you defined it, you used a definition of non-being that is not the physical definition of non-being. I mean, you used Sorry, nothing when everything you said excludes the Lawrence Krauss definition you said. That was you saying I won't accept the scientific definition of anything. I call it not being absolute. My problem with that is that you can't make a statement about what non-being does because it doesn't, how can you talk about attributes? of something that is not right, so again I understand exactly what you are saying and what I am telling you is that this is a statement made by the atheist community, keep saying, keep it, keep saying that, but when you called last time you excluded specifically Lawrence Krauss' definition and you said don't go to the physics definition.

I am using a proprietary definition of non-being. I know creationists often say that atheists say something comes out of nothing, but I don't know. anyone who didn't actually define anything like you did, which was non-being or non-existence and my question is can non-being be? Is it your belief that non-being can be or do you believe that non-being cannot be? be okay, certainly, non-being cannot be okay, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, Slow down for a minute, Eric, wait a second, if not beIt cannot be, so there is never a state of non-being, am I right?

Again, this is what I would ask you. I would ask you in light of what John Loftus wrote rather than turning it that way. I can't speak for John Lus. I didn't write it all. Yes, not only can we not talk. for John Loftus, but I would say I didn't grant it. I haven't seen the passage, but first of all I think I agree with what you read because I would be interested to know what the other options are. because those two seem to be mutually exclusive options, but I'm not convinced that John Loftus means the same thing as anything you mean in the definition you're using, and I realize that definition isn't Eric's, we're talking fingers. different uses of a term and you are excluding a use that could include what Loftus says and at the same time you are trying to criticize Laus's position based on the definition or use that you prefer, but I am trying to stick to the definition that Eric has proposed on non-being or non-existence, if that cannot be, then there can only be existence.

I don't know how, I don't know what other options there would be. I guess what I'm saying is Tracy is if you go on the internet and you look up the definition of what it doesn't

matt

er it doesn't

matt

er I say I'm going with the definition that you're offering that's fine and according to me if you're going with the definition that I'm offering then let me Ask yourself this in light of what John Lus has written and where he says that something has always existed or something came out of nothing. Could you tell me which of those positions you take and if you don't take any of those, I'm just curious what the position is and I'll tell you that if we don't define anything the way you defined it, then it's impossible for anything to exist, so it could never exist.

If there was nothing, it would always have to exist. be something because the way you have defined it implies that there is always existence, in which case I don't know why we would need a Creator, well now the way I have defined it when you say that there is always existence you are absolutely right and that is exactly what I believe that existence is always existence by necessity must always have existed and there cannot be non-being and that is why existence has always existed and that is why there is no need for a Creator because existence according to what You What you are saying is eternal now.

I think you made some claims there that I agree with that existence has always been, but that doesn't mean you're still claiming that there doesn't need to be a creator, that's a claim that has to be proven and I think there is another fact if there is never if non-existence if non-existence cannot exist then existence is always in which case there is no creation there is no point of creation existence always exists according to the logic of non-existence being nothing, it cannot exist and therefore there is always existence, so now you must explain how there needs to be a Creator if existence always exists.

So are you willing to go ahead and take the position? Did you feel that? Existence has always existed. I'm saying it's a question. I'm willing to say that you think the answer to that question is Tracy. I don't know and I don't even pretend to believe in it, but I'm simply saying that if I take the position that nothing means non-being, then there is no need for a Creator because being has always existed, it would have to be. I don't agree with that and I think there is evidence that can go ahead and show that that is the case.

It's a flawed position, but it seems like you wouldn't object to the idea of ​​existence always existing. Is it that true? I'm saying that or you have to say that the non-being at some point was, in which case it was, which is completely crazy. I'm happy to say that I accept the possibility that something has always been right. Great, so let me go ahead and ask this question. Do you agree then that the consensus of the scientific community is that the Universe has not always existed, that there was a time when it had a beginning in this form, are you talking about the way we currently understand it, but not It is matter or energy or whatever, but what are we?

I'm just saying simply the shape of the universe as we currently know it, yeah it's one of those problems with the word Universe, it used to mean one thing and now it means something else, but you're talking about the current shape of the universe I'm talking about yeah , I'm talking well no, I'm just talking about the origin of the universe if you go ahead and examine the scientific community's consensus on space and matter. that it existed at a certain point in the past or that it existed eternally that it always existed we don't know what existed before Community would say I I think there's a question about what existed before um and that we know that things like time, space and matter or al fewer would say that that would be something that we know existed at a certain time, however, what existed previously I don't think there are too many statements about it.

I think there may be some theoretical things. I'm not a physicist. and so I'm not totally sure, but my understanding is that there's no definitive statement of what existed before this existence that we're familiar with, but I'm also curious because we're spending a lot of time on this. a second call from you and the question is why I mean the reason why let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me finish, the reason I ask why is because you are calling. go on a public access program to talk to two people, neither of whom express expertise in cosmology, physics, science, to have a discussion perhaps on a philosophical level about things that can't get us anywhere and that can't get us anywhere.

I mean that my inability to offer you an answer does not add a shred of evidence in favor of your propositions. Your disability doesn't, but I think the points where Tracy would say and you said you would. I have no problem saying that something probably always existed if we take it into the light of other facts that I think you and Tracy would agree with, where it's really not necessary to have a PhD in science. I believe that the evidence clearly indicates that the existence of a god exists. Well, I said something. I agree that something always existed if we stick with your definition of nothing and discard the physical definition of nothing.

I did not say that? I mean, didn't I qualify that clearly? um Sor I actually had the phone blz when you said that Trac, sorry okay and I'm still curious if you keep saying evidence for the existence of God and yet all I've heard is talk about something and nothing , I didn't listen correctly, he didn't hear what I was saying and the only thing I was pointing out was that I said that if we use your definition and not the definition that physics offers of nothing, then what are you doing. I'm saying that's probably right. I would have to say that non-being cannot be.

I mean, how could it be exactly like that? And Matt, you know, follow through with what you were saying in terms of the points that I would make. Where would this take us if the universe is not eternal and I think the evidence from Einstein's theory of relativity and radiation echoes the fact that we have hot spots in the universe and the fact that the consensus of the scientific community seems Be united. on the point that the universe is not an eternal universe, so if it is not, then what we do to try to figure out what could have caused the universe is we have to go ahead and apply it as a forensic science that uses the law. of cause and effect and therefore if the universe cannot use cause and effect, you cannot use cause and effect because physics, the rules of physics in this universe would not apply to what was before and what you are quoting. it's like a law or what they would call, I guess you know, generally speaking, a natural law of cause and effect and we also have particles that don't seem to adhere to cause and effect and there's actually a lot more to it than that and that's what we're playing a little fast and loose with definitions where I would be much happier saying that the current local state of the universe is causally related causally goes back to the big bang and before that we can't really say much and you want to use a forensic approach and a forensic approach necessarily requires additional information and you have no other universes to compare this to.

I mean, there are already people researching this question and let me ask you this. Although I have no other universes to compare it to, let me ask you if we are going to be reasonable and try to come to some kind of understanding about it. Wouldn't you think a good starting point would be to ask yourself? this question, when we look at the effect of the universe, we have to at least try to posit a sufficient cause and so in trying to posit a sufficient cause, I don't care if we ask you, no, Eric, no, you are, you are. only address one aspect of causality and that is sufficiency and causation includes necessity and sufficiency, so the fact that you can come up with an explanation that is sufficient to explain the universe is completely irrelevant because you have to demonstrate necessity, not sufficiency, a Magic is a sufficient explanation for the universe, but I guess what I mean is that if we could, if we could sit here and just the three of us figured out what caused the universe, what the goal of cosmological physics would be, and I mean, it seems a little Ridiculous to think that we're just going to sit here and talk about it and find out.

The people who are looking at the entire body of evidence and dedicated their lives to studying this and who understand the physics say they don't have an answer and yet, the three of us are going to sit down and talk about it without any experience or degree in this field and we're just going to find an answer with some kind of research question. Here's what I think it is. interesting about an atheist man, this is what is interesting. I'm going ahead and using it as a basis to say, you know, let's go ahead and see what science can tell us, isn't that something that atheists are constantly picking on?

The fact that the Christian does not want and use science is the atheist side that says you know what we cannot do that no, you are not, you are not appealing to science no, that is not what is happening to us. two of us, the two of us who are up here, I'm going to put you on hold again by asking you what's going on, the two of us who are up here who are advocating for science are pointing out that science has not been able to answer this question and the The person who believes in supernatural things that are outside the realm of science is saying: Hey, I found a sufficient explanation for the universe.

Well, one big smug cry isn't enough and how dare you? here with scientific rigor postulating the beginnings of the universe that's so strange real it's me I'm all silent Now Matt you're still talking for a second okay you're saying it's so strange but what I'm doing is I'm I I'm actually doing what You are saying what I am not doing and that is using the conclusions, the best conclusions that science has reached to base my position. I mean, you tell me a law that is stronger in science than the law of cause and effect Matt because here is the truth of the matter, every law in science is based on the law of cause and effect, how do you explain the virtual particles?

There is no scientific law, how do you explain virtual particles, how do you arrive at a law apart from the I didn't say you arrived at a law, we are saying that the answer is that we don't know the right thing and the other thing is that you are ignoring the fact that causality is necessarily a temporal condition and that there are models that do not include the time before the Big Bang and that these laws of our local presentation of the universe do not necessarily apply to other universes or the Multiverse, if that is true and a lot of things like that, so while you're appealing to causality what you're doing is when you get to the point where causality fails instead of saying um, we can't really say much more about this, you're claiming that you can actually say more. because you are using causality and you have Think of a sufficient cause and, as I have explained twice, sufficient is not enough.

Well, again Matt, this is what I would say if you are going to try to say that the law of cause and effect, personally, I believe that the law of cause and effect clearly demonstrates the existence of God and I believe that the laws of which I'm talking about things that have resulted from the deepest kind of scientific examination and if we're going to use something basically, it seems to me that what you're saying is that we can't use the law of cause and effect, we have to find some other kind of method, but it doesn't matter what method you find Matt, unless it's some magic, then yes Are you bad as God?

So cause and effect. I'm not using you. You don't even hear me mention God. Matt. Alright. I don't even have Eric. I swear, whatever God you believe in, if you ever try something as dishonest as pretending you're not talking about a God, we're done, okay Matt, I'm very clearly talking about God, this is what I said, so , why did you say it sounded? To me, and maybe I'm wrong, it seemed like you were saying that I was saying that God did it, that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that when we look at the laws of cause and effect and if we're going toattribute a cause that is sufficient for the universe and capable of producing the universe, that scientific evidence shows that there has to be a Transcendent cause because the universe is not Eternal so any cause that would have to transcend has to be powerful because whatever created the universe, don't you agree that whatever created the universe, even if it was the Multiverse, had to have a sufficient amount of power to be able to do it?

Yeah, okay, so if it was Transcendent and Powerful, I also think we can prove that it had to have intelligence and I think the reason we can prove that is based solely on all the scientific evidence that we have and this is why which Matt calls the principle of uniformity the principle of uniformity clearly in a The courtroom is held over and over again and what that principle of uniformity shows is that certain effects similar effects have similar causes, well, the only cause that we know which is capable of giving rise to a specific complexity that is what we see in the simplest living cells. the only cause for which we can stand up and say that this is a sufficient and powerful enough cause to create a specific complexity is intelligence, which is an AR, which is an argument from ignorance.

You say it because we have only met or we have only been. able to detect this as a cause therefore it is likely that this is a cause of something else, something that certainly exists outside the laws of causality. It's funny that you ignore it when you reach Transcendence and once again continue to ignore both. aspects of causality and you continue to look for enough and sufficiency, as I said, is not enough. Now it seems strange to me that in one sentence you say you are not claiming that God did it and in another sentence you flat out state that I believe the evidence points to God.

I would like you to pick something, stick with it and be honest because the fact is that you are claiming that reason leads to the conclusion that a God created the universe and not just scientists who have studied this and am an expert in it and doing using science I haven't come to that conclusion but the position is how could you come to that conclusion because you can't have enough data to say this you can't even determine the probability because I don't know how you don't have other universes to compare to. You don't know what happened before the Big Bang.

You don't know if the Multiverse theory has ended well and the question is: don't all these physicists understand? science or what Matt said real quick if you don't mind because he said a lot let me just let me say this Matt um you when when when you say that I'm responding I'm coming to my conclusions based on ignorance this this That's what's so interesting about that, when you say it's based on ignorance, literally every example we have, I can give you an infinite number of examples that show that intelligence is a sufficient cause to give rise to a specific complexity.

I can give you an infinite number, but you can't give me I tell you what Eric and yes I put you on hold again because now I'm getting irritated and it's much easier if I put you on hold first of all I don't accept your statement of the specified complexity I think which is weasel talk to smuggle precisely what you're trying to prove secondly when you start talking about being able to give me an infinite number. Now you've proven that you don't understand physics, but you also don't understand math, so I thought I'd stop you there.

Great, what do you say? Okay, you're saying I don't understand Matt M Matt, what I'm saying is I could literally start. get examples of specific complexity that originate as a result of intelligence and literally not hold back because many of you may know what I can give you in every example where I have hit the mark. I can give you all the examples where I have hit the mark. Does that mean I've never missed the mark? Does that mean no one else has hit the mark? But look, that's a bad example, Matt, because what I'm saying is every example that we know of, we can look at them all, every example that we've shown that the only cause sufficient to produce a specified complexity is intelligence.

First of all, first of all, first of all, you have not defined specified complexity and I have rejected what you seem to be implying with specified complexity because the specified is specified and you are using that to apply to nature, what does a tree have that it has a specified complexity and by the way the tree is a natural thing that arose from a natural production process, did you just dig into that? I have to be kidding, if we went ahead and decoded the DNA of a tree, we literally have a book mat, we don't have a shred of evidence to show that a book can originate solely as a result of millions of natural examples that can result from a intelligent intervention 100 million natural trees with completely empty hands and you're basically just saying that you're going to ignore naturally occurring instances of what you call specified complexity you ignore all the natural instances that you say we'll see This is an example of what you're doing.

I have a relative who likes to build ponds on his property. She builds these beautiful, elaborate koi ponds. because I've seen her do it and the only ones I've seen happen to her, um, you know, are intelligence and these ones that just form in holes from the rain obviously there's an intelligence behind it because I just reject it. that they formed naturally, okay, again, Tracy, I think that argument completely fails because, first of all, here's the reason why we know from a ton of examples, hundreds and hundreds of thousands of examples, that the law natural is enough to be able to produce a pond, but I also know that there are huge trees in nature.

The only thing that can produce specific complexity is intelligence, and trees occur in nature all the time. You can plant one and watch it grow. Hey, Tracy, if we back up, if we back up the audio and because This is very important and listen to what I said. I didn't say that specified complexity cannot produce specified complexity. I said that it is impossible for the specified complexity to originate. In other words, wait, no, no, I'm not going to wait, it's my damn show, so you. You agree with trees occurring naturally because this complexity was specified in the past somewhere, but you agree with lakes occurring naturally and lakes have no specified complexity, so God does not create lakes.

What is the question? Does God create L? That's a ridiculous discussion okay bye I'm tired 30 or so minutes with Eric one thing I always say and I will never get tired of saying it and I will never stop saying it is when you are going to invoke science and the leaders of the scientific community to whom you're invoking they don't agree with your conclusion then you're not doing it, you're not understanding it correctly if you're going to put me in a position where I have to believe that you as a novice understand the scientific field better than any expert in that field understand that field um to me that's kind of you know, I don't, I'm looking at it like I do.

I'll go with an expert explanation or I'll go. With yours I don't currently like to get involved either because no, this is not a question that worries me, but if it were, I don't think I would go to Eric in Mesa Arizona to ask him what we know about the origins of the Universe I think I would go to someone who really I studied cosmology and I would ask and right now I don't know what the peer-reviewed journals are publishing. God did it, you don't understand it, you don't understand it. claim specified complexity just assert that that is the case, you could also be claiming that oh this is creation, it clearly had a Creator, it is loaded with language that smuggles the idea and if your argument for specified complexity is a bunch of analogies that are filled with the sniper fallacies of all the other examples we have seen of this, guess what DNA is not a code, it does not transmit information from one mind to another, they are chemicals that follow physical laws, we are simply sending you a IM code so we can understand it and see what it's doing, but it's not chemistry.

DNA is no more a code than H2O is a code that we put there. I also like the idea that existence must always exist and yet a Creator is required, yes, it's like no. can't if existence can't not exist and I and I don't know, I'm not, I'm not saying that I think the static state is correct clearly no, but the idea that because we don't have a static state that means that the existence did not exist, it is as if we were to opt for the definition of nothing as non-being, then the being has always existed, it would have to be based on that definition and if the being exists, then there is no requirement of a creative being would simply be and it would be whatever.

Yes, we have about 20 minutes left in the program. I want to get to one real quick and then have a little more fun. Mario and Union, how are you? My two favorite presenters. How are they? guys, hey great and thanks for waiting and if you're asking what I think you're going to ask, get to it and I'll let you know, yeah, I'm going to do this this quick. to see if you guys can catch another Eric on the line. Have any of you witnessed the fiasco that occurred at the Democratic Convention? Well, yes, in fact, they would mind if I answered their question offline.

Yes, wow, yes, thanks Mario. although we are not a political organization and I am not telling anyone anything about any political party or ideas, although we can take stances on issues, can we talk about a letter that, in fact, I published a letter on the blog to the mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Vosa, who chaired the Democratic National Convention and some of you may have already seen this video as it was done on The Daily Show and other things, and people in general are confused and some are laughing. I'm not laughing because I care about democracy and what ended up happening was that the party platform was voted on and during the process someone called to add an amendment to it.

It turns out that I don't agree with the amendment, but that doesn't matter, I don't care if it was about having pancakes for breakfast, what happened is what the problem is. He hoped the amendment would pass, so they suspended the rules and called for a voice vote that requires a two-thirds majority. voice votes for those people who when they see this process think how strange, how can you know that 66% of voice votes are usually taken when you have proposals that no one expects to pass or fail and that will be blatantly obvious? It should be clear, you know, if I have 100 people in the room and I call, hey, it should happen and it's yes and then there's no pot, then we'll know we're close enough to 2/3 where we can trust someone.

However, in this particular amendment, the Y's and Not's were practically indistinguishable, and yet Tony, the mayor of Los Angeles, started passing it anyway and then realized that this is going to look like something like this. strange because I'm reading the message that this happened, but what I heard is that the Y's and not's are not that distinguishable. Hey, I'll do a second vote. Well, that's a good idea, let's do a second vote. that you can be sure whether you heard two thirds or not and the result of the second vote was that the Y's and No's are quite indistinguishable again and now he looks very confused and someone even comes up behind him to say hey, you have Let them do what they're going to do and he decides he's going to take a third vote and after the third vote where, in this president's opinion, the nose rang a little louder, probably because they were angry at being ignored so so obvious. for the first two votes, when the voting was over, he announced that, in the opinion of the president, a two-thirds majority had voted in favor of the resolution passed by Mr.

Vosa as mayor of Los Angeles and as president during this party convention. Politics aside, you are an absolute disgrace, you stood there and blatantly lied to the public as a representative of a party that has been talking about how many votes count and every vote should count, you screwed up the Democratic process, you ignored the will of the people and polluted the party platform because you are a trained monkey who can do nothing but read a teleprompter, you should resign in disgrace and at the very least you should hire the party and ask that the platform be put back in front of your stupid ass .

I decided to just say, "Well, screw it, it's not that important, it's just the party platform. I'm going to read what's on the telepromter, moron, in another note, oh, and I just turned off my thing, oh, No, see you, Tony, you made me turn off my.” tablet so I don't even know who's on the phone now we're flying blind who knows hey this is line one who's here uh it's Mark Mark Mark hey what do you have for us mark from the UK hey Mark hey sure um before we go on I have three points I am going to try questions that I will try to introduce before doing so.

I wanted to comment on the first call you had on the topic of cause and effect and Tracy almost put her finger on things like virtual.particles, for example, you may have heard of things like Shing's wave equation, which provides results for the positions, for example, of particles as a probability, there is no known way to determine the cor. This is the reason why Einstein used the expression God does not play. given because there is no cause and effect and that is why things like the transition of electrons between levels is completely random the position of electrons around an atom is completely random there is no cause and effect the decay of radioactive elements that give off things is completely random There is no way to determine that this is going to happen, so there are problems where there is no cause and there is no link between cause and effect, so your point about that was ridiculous and you also talked about enough energy, The energy in the universe is actually zero because if you counteract mass and gravitational effects, gravity acts as a negative value and therefore the net energy in the universe is zero, as in the KRA book, States , so it's basically nonsense.

Yeah, and also, the physicist in the room had been trying to get me into all that, but since I'm not an expert, I usually avoid it, but thank you so much for calling and offering me that too, okay? My three points, firstly, I think Trac has a great smile and I'm missing his striped sweater that I saw on YouTube videos. Look back. And I said he was an atheist. My real reason for being R new was to order. I want to give you what I think is constructive criticism because I have a couple points of contention with some of the things you said and obviously I hope to improve his program even more than it is right now.

I'm trying to fit in, but I have the second one. Actually, both you and Tracy, particularly Tracy, have actually claimed that Evolution, the question of whether we have proven or disproved Evolution, I'm afraid has nothing to do with the existence of a God. I can't agree with that, um, you might say, oh well, that's the god of spaces argument, um, oh, yeah, the point of Tracy's actual quote was um, some religious people believe in evolution , others do not, therefore it is relevant, but The point is that people do not believe in religion, we do not believe in religion because we can prove that evolution exists and therefore, if even the claim were refutable, we think , God, that is so if now and it is not the argument of the god of the gaps. because cells and things we understand how cells work and we know a lot about biochemistry and if we couldn't find that the DNA mechanism exists and we couldn't see hereditary inheritance and mutations and how that information is transferred or, for example, if Humans had a different type of DNA than other animals, which would be a really big problem for science and beyond, and that would suggest that something very, very strange is going on and it's not a Gap god because we're familiar with that area. kind of like if you found a situation where Newton's laws were working you would think it was an area that we think we understand and therefore if we found out that that is not happening and we cannot understand evolution then that would be De In fact, when I think you yourself said: "Ask me to explain the evolution or show you that this is not irrelevant to my problem, it is because I apologize, we put you on hold.

I hope you can hear me. This speaker is incredibly loud and does not you could hear." it's uh stepping in um while I agree that this would pose a problem for science and we could certainly come to the conclusion that something strange is going on which is not enough to say that there is a God or that a God is responsible because you're back. to what the previous caller did of raising a sufficient explanation without showing that it is also necessary, I would also add that it doesn't work the other way around. In other words, you could say that if it wasn't what it was, it would be strange, but I can't say that because it makes sense that that would have some relation to the existence of a god, it doesn't, people can say that God does it. in this way, yes, it doesn't prove that God is like that, but when you find out that there is a big gap in science where you think you understand something and that violates science and you have a situation like that, you would think that there has to be a very , very honest, now it's not turning out good and this actually gets to The third point I was actually making is that I think you've been a little guilty in the past for setting the bar too high for people who call and want to prove the existence of God and you almost seem to be demanding that you do it. give his phone number or something similar or do you want him to perform a trick repeatedly because I mean, I think Trac has regularly used the phrase you want repeatable, verifiable um evidence yeah, same as for this, that's what I want in order To accept that anything ex my my uh standards for evidence of God um I don't agree that they are extraordinarily high, they are high in proportion to the importance of the claim and I agree to accept the existence of anything that you can actually prove it with a demon , right, you can't even your name, your name is Matt Dill Hunty, you could say you have a birth certificate or your mother says so, but these could all be lies, you could have been secretly and you don't even know it. you're a real person you don't even know you're not a replicant the levels of proof that only math can provide and um uh sin sin no no no no no me the fact that I could be wrong I could be a replicant My name may not be be Matt D honey actually that's AB absolutely true because when it comes to labels I am stating that my name is Matt and therefore that is the case because it is a label that we are using to identify me just as I call this a cup of coffee, whether you agree or not, it doesn't matter because the label I'm putting on it, but just because I can't refute the claim that I'm a replicant doesn't mean I am one. likely to be a replicant and does not mean that you are not rationally justified in believing that it is probably not a replicant.

I'm also not asking for any additional evidence than I have. I would ask for a billion worldly things. I mean, I'll accept evidence of existence the same way I accept this little Beanie Baby. I mean, I'm not asking for something extraordinarily wild, right? But I mean, the thing is, you're not dealing with something. supposedly this God is quite reserved and quite playful and I don't know, how do I know that God? Well, supposedly, I mean, we, we, well, the religious fanatics keep telling us that, but where do they get their information from himself or someone else?

People, where do you get this information system that you are trying, but the information does not come from the god? that's what I'm saying, it's like they can't just do, I know they don't start making claims about a and then I'm supposed to follow up with your claims when I have nothing to examine to see if even your initial claims are correct, So if someone tells me that God is secretive, my response is how do we know if we have looked at the god? to see if it's secret, we've talked to it, we've gotten it, you know, and if we don't have a God to examine if someone tells me this Beanie Baby is covered in, you know, painful thorns, right?

I mean, I can look at it and say. No, that's wrong. This thing is very soft and nice. If someone tells me that he's black and white and I'm not color blind, I can look at them and say, "Oh yeah, he's black and white," but when someone comes up and says why. I can't prove who my God is because he is secretive. My answer is how the hell do you know you examined your God? Not because he is reserved. Well, then you don't know anything. How do you know anything about this God? As we can? we know what we're looking for oh well, actually, I don't mean to be, I mean, I sympathize, but I think sometimes the levels that you respond to are, I mean you couldn't get through much of the physics, um, we know the the speed of light could potentially be different in the place there are all kinds of things in some of the levels you look like bars you look like obstacles you seem to put in front of people I think they are probably so high that you are very difficult to reach justify almost anything I have I have to have a God to examine or I can't I can't even respond to a claim I don't understand how you can say the bar in the first place you're an atheist right yeah so no one has convinced you that God exists your standard of evidence is too high , well, well, actually, I think, fortunately, this continues my first point after going to all three, which is that I think you should be more proactive in refuting God instead of just saying.

I prepare the search for people who do not know that we do not exist, how can we be more active in refuting something? There are certainly definitions of God and claims about God that can be refuted, but how is science done? Science is based on methodological methods. Naturalism can't say that the supernatural doesn't exist, it only maintains that since we can't address that, we're not going to work, how do you disprove something that people say is impossible to examine or prove or even have anything to prove? Well, I'll try it. I mean, there are things like T that an all-powerful God can create the universe and do all kinds of clever things like that.

So you have a logical point if he is all powerful and can create objects that are too heavy to lift, he can create irresistible forces and immovable objects and also God, if he is outside of time like he should be, then presumably he knows the future and in which case then we don't have any free will because our future is predestined, interestingly, interestingly, it seems that you have a definition of God, where did you get all this information from which God are you talking about? Well, I admit I'm going with the conventional one as a powerful example, I guess presumably cited by I.

I'm not familiar with the Buddhist concept, the problem is that you kind of have to rule out omnipotence because omnipotence is self-contradictory so you can't have that, then there is a certain question that the individual has to answer like exactly what are the limits of God's power now, how do we determine the limits of God's power without a God to examine? Well, I'm just trying to do the logic press, I'm just saying that there are logical arguments you can say about God. that means it can't exist as an illogical option, no you can't find a logical AR argument that's okay for a specifically defined God, you can certainly show that that God is not logically consistent, but that's not the case for everyone. definitions of God and in fact as we move through civilization and God, God claims keep colliding with this kind of thing, religious claims are getting better at OB fisca, their God claims are a made among modern theologians. the various omn do not represent omnis as an absolute power, modern theologians define them specifically as God is the ultimate power and has the greatest power logically possible, so that defeats any attempt to prove that God does not exist, but then I would look at And I would say what is the maximum amount of power that anything could have.

You know what I mean, it's like yeah, but I mean, you laugh, you call to say that not only are our standards too high, which I think is absurd. but that we should actively refute the gods when what we do is ask people to define which God they are talking about and defend it and then address that and you seem to think we can logically refute the gods when you know of no offense. m I'm as tired as anyone of saying, you know, this is what modern theologians say, but the fact is that it is possible for someone to believe in a god who is not absolutely all-powerful, which would be logically contradictory but extremely powerful. in and out without a logical contradiction that could still exist and still be the god that someone worships and and you laugh at it oh okay maybe I'm saying that the almighty, the omnipotent and omnipresent lar um is something that you could attack and it's good.

If we go for one maximum, then yeah, okay, so obviously, in other words, people can propose a god up to the point where you can logically refute it fine, but you know what else? There's also the problem of people who will say it. You say God can make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it and then he can lift it. There are people who will present that now, how do you respond to that? Because your God is not bound by logic, God, your God. Say he is, you know, logic is a construct that our God is more powerful.

I agree, I agree that those people are, you know, I think it's absurd, but how do you reason with that because the laws of logic are absolute? I think those people are just absurd and you can't argue, you can't argue with an idiot. I think I agree. Can. I've done it for years, but the question is, are you going to refute it? and you are going to say that God is not all powerful and you are going to use the logical argument that there will be one group of people who disagree with you because they don't understand logic and then there will be another group of people whothey would agree with you but they would say yes, but my goodness, he is bound by logic, but he is almighty within that.

Hi and Mark, I have two minutes left. I want to make one more call before we close, but thank you very much for calling. Well, thank you very much and you are doing great things. Put those strappy sweaters on Tracy. Don't know. What's that? I wish I knew that I don't know either or why we're talking about your wardrobe. I don't know, uh, Adam in Westbrook, how are you? If you can be very quick we will try to answer this. Yes. Well, thank you. I was just curious. I'm an atheist and so is my girlfriend, but she tries to convince me that it's okay to be spiritual too.

She likes animism and things like astrology and things that we basically have at least with astrology. proven you know it's not true and there is some way to be somewhat spiritual but also not really believe in a God, yes there are people who say they are, um I have yet to figure out what they mean by that, it seems like they all mean things different and I really don't know if the word spiritual is a word that has any really useful meaning. When the person explains what he's saying, that's when you have something to deal with, you said?

She believes in astrology, yes, and in animism. Because? How does she explain the different fates of the twins? She does not like. It's one of those situations where I know she doesn't really know what she's talking about and she sounds. you'd think twins would be, you know enough to blow that out of the water, there are twins and they don't all have the same fate, yeah, they're just racking up the credit so we gotta wrap it up, thank you very much. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you can't believe in spiritual things, which is why I'm a skeptic first and an atheist second.

I would say that skepticism leads to excluding those things. Thank you very much, thank you to all the people who make the program happen. I won't be here next week. I have company that is coming to the city, but there will be people here and remember that on the 22nd we will return to Cruz Terresa McBain and she will be on this program, well, thank you very much everyone, see you later