Catholic vs. Atheist – 2017-05-28 – Matt Dillahunty

I was a call-in guest on the Atheist Experience. I spoke with Matt Dillahunty about the Principle of Sufficient Reason. He ended the call abruptly. I’m 100% certain that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for his behavior.


Please excuse any errors as these captions were automatically generated by YouTube.

0:00 welcome to the experience we are alive
0:01 today is Sunday May 28th 2017
0:04 I’m your host Matt Dillon joined this
0:06 week John aya Kutty hello lu-david
0:13 Montrell thanks for waiting
0:14 hi thanks for having me this is my first
0:16 time calling it’s my first time actually
0:18 listening to the show so I’ve only heard
0:20 your introduction that’s all I know of
0:21 you but it sounds really good I have a
0:23 similar mission a sort of Socratic
0:25 mission to pursue the truth follow the
0:27 truth wherever it goes that sounds kind
0:28 of like what you’re doing so I applaud
0:30 you for that
0:30 thank you thank you but the issue that I
0:33 want to confront you with is the
0:35 principle of sufficient reason so
0:37 basically it boils down in a nutshell in
0:39 layman’s terms that everything in the
0:42 natural order has a perfectly reasonable
0:44 explanation there’s nothing that’s
0:46 exempt for example from the laws of
0:48 nature there’s nothing that gets a free
0:50 pass there’s no magic fairy dust okay if
0:53 you will so I think that the atheists
0:57 the only honest and rational and self
1:00 consistent and self-respecting atheist
1:02 has to be a hard determinist where there
1:04 is no free will there is no morality and
1:07 there is no love really it’s just in the
1:09 kind of mechanical working out of a
1:11 great well-oiled machine that’s my
1:14 proposition to you and I’d like to your
1:15 response how would you get to that from
1:17 principle of sufficient reason because
1:19 everything has in principle an
1:22 explanation and if you’re an atheist you
1:24 don’t believe in the supernatural
1:25 presumably okay so actually that’s not
1:27 true and I you’re mostly right atheists
1:31 don’t believe in a god it’s entirely
1:33 possible to somebody could be an atheist
1:34 and believe in supernatural but you are
1:36 correct that we do not believe in the
1:38 supernatural because there isn’t
1:39 sufficient warrant or belief in that but
1:42 what I don’t let’s let’s just go with
1:45 let’s not even put a label on it I don’t
1:48 believe in a God and I don’t believe in
1:49 the supernatural what does that have to
1:51 do with whether or not I accept that
1:55 love is an observed part of reality or
2:00 that where your other things we’re a
2:04 hard determinist if the evidence is is
2:07 no free will and opposition to hard
2:09 determinism I don’t know why I’d have to
2:11 except that but but also when you when
2:13 you went to freewill and morality I
2:14 think in order to talk about those we’d
2:16 have to you know do some definitions
2:18 because depending on what kind of
2:20 freewill you’re talking about I don’t
2:21 believe it
2:22 okay I’d like to keep it really really
2:25 simple and just matrix yeah and just
2:27 just acknowledge the fact that if if
2:30 there is not nothing beyond the natural
2:33 nothing above the natural and super just
2:35 means above in Latin so if there is no
2:38 supernatural there’s nothing above the
2:39 natural and everything is subject to
2:41 natural cause and effect and in
2:43 principle if we had the tools and if we
2:45 had access to the subtle causes and
2:47 effects in principle there’s nothing
2:49 that escapes the scientists inquiry you
2:53 understand no I definitely understand
2:56 and if you were to perhaps it may be the
2:59 case that if you were to have absolute
3:01 knowledge of and spin of every particle
3:04 universe you could make perfect
3:05 predictions we don’t know that to be the
3:07 case but the but the bigger issue here
3:11 is that if everything has an explanation
3:14 for why it is the way it is and tell us
3:19 anything at all about whether or not it
3:21 necessarily needs to be a supernatural
3:23 explanation it could just be for example
3:25 what is labeled that we put on a a
3:28 complex variety of human emotions
3:33 experiences we can identify things it’s
3:35 not like the thing that exists on to it
3:37 sub metric it’s it’s a collection of
3:39 different emotive behaviors and actions
3:43 we recognize that somebody does this and
3:45 we label it love not like love exists as
3:48 some you know independent thing but
3:51 let’s say we had no way let’s say we had
3:53 no explanation or understanding of this
3:55 to say that it must have a supernatural
3:57 explanation I want I don’t know what the
3:59 justification is for that no I I didn’t
4:01 say that in fact I am willing to it well
4:04 if your if your statement is that if you
4:07 reject the supernatural you can have no
4:10 explanation for these things then you
4:11 are in fact saying that they explain no
4:13 no no no I’m not I’m not saying that
4:15 what I’m saying if I could clarify what
4:17 I’m saying is that if it is the case
4:19 that everything has a
4:22 there’s a good reason for everything
4:24 that everything has a sufficient reason
4:25 or a sufficient cause if it is a case
4:26 and I believe that it is and if there
4:29 and if so it’s a two part conditional
4:31 and if there’s no supernatural then we
4:33 must conclude that her determinism is is
4:35 true and that there is the illusion of
4:38 free will perhaps in the illusion of
4:39 love and the illusion of morality but in
4:41 fact there it’s just a great well-oiled
4:42 machine now so you hang on hang on
4:45 because you’re starting with two ifs and
4:47 I don’t know that you’re starting with
4:51 two ifs and you’re reaching conclusions
4:52 that I don’t think are truly derived
4:55 from those two EPs and we haven’t even
4:56 established at those two ifs or the case
4:57 okay well if if if we assume the
5:00 opposite let’s say that there’s
5:01 something that happens in this universe
5:03 that doesn’t have a cause are you
5:06 comfortable with that I’m not okay well
5:08 first of all it doesn’t matter whether I
5:10 we’re comfortable with something
5:11 but do things just happen or is there a
5:13 reason and a cause no that I don’t I
5:16 don’t know how this is relevant so let
5:17 me let me get back to this because I’m
5:19 claiming that everything has sufficient
5:21 cause that’s a principle sure okay the
5:24 idea that something has the sufficient
5:26 cause is fine but that doesn’t mean you
5:28 have that doesn’t mean that you know
5:30 what the sufficient causes or anything
5:32 about it okay right but there are two
5:34 possibilities either it’s completely
5:36 natural or it’s or it’s not right either
5:38 it’s completely natural or it’s not yes
5:40 right right so if it is completely
5:43 natural then we can with certainty with
5:45 logical 100 percent certainty we can say
5:47 that her determinism is the state of
5:50 affairs no no you can’t because hard
5:53 determinism isn’t necessarily that isn’t
5:56 necessarily the case and soft
5:58 determinism allows for quantum
5:59 indeterminacy and stuff which still
6:01 doesn’t violate the natural law but if
6:03 it doesn’t violate natural law then it’s
6:05 hard to determine
6:06 it’s 100% determined what about quantum
6:09 effects like you just mentioned whatever
6:10 though they’re not there those are still
6:12 natural yeah they’re still natural
6:14 they’re subject to the natural law so it
6:16 but they’re but they’re not
6:17 deterministic they are deterministic
6:19 it’s just the our limited capabilities
6:23 to measure and to intervene on internet
6:25 because it’s try to you know that
6:26 because they studied quantum physics and
6:28 we use statistical methods precisely
6:29 because we can’t know two or more
6:31 qualities and attributes of these
6:33 quantum
6:34 but here’s the thing what I’m talking
6:36 about is yes something the explanation
6:38 for any X is natural or it’s not those
6:42 are the only two options okay but that
6:45 doesn’t mean that if the explanation for
6:47 X is unknown that doesn’t mean that it’s
6:51 supernatural or not natural however you
6:53 want to say it I’m not saying that and
6:54 also just I’m not saying that what I’m
6:56 saying what I would like the atheist to
6:58 do is to honestly consider that if there
7:02 is no supernatural then everything has a
7:04 natural explanation but that’s not the
7:07 Atheist position the atheist position is
7:09 not there is no supernatural my position
7:12 is a skeptic is that I do not believe
7:14 that there’s anything supernatural
7:15 because there has not been presented
7:17 sufficient evidence to warrant that
7:18 belief it’s not a claim that the
7:20 supernatural doesn’t exist it’s that we
7:22 don’t yet have evidentiary warrant to
7:24 accept that it does I have evidence I
7:26 could provide you with others quickly
7:27 and easily
7:28 oh good yeah provide provide the
7:31 evidence for the supernatural and why on
7:34 earth would you call us instead of going
7:35 after your Nobel Prize or your Templeton
7:37 trophy evidence is house how nervous a
7:42 theist get when I talk about determinism
7:44 because no one wants to admit that
7:46 you’re not free and that love is just a
7:48 well-oiled machine right David how
7:50 nervous a theist gets is utterly
7:52 irrelevant it’s not an evidence for the
7:55 supernatural but can I complete my
7:56 thought no I’m going to complete mine
7:59 first you said that you could provide
8:01 evidence for the supernatural and you
8:03 started off with something that is so
8:05 boneheaded ly irrelevant that it’s
8:08 incredibly frustrating the idea that
8:09 because a group of people who don’t
8:12 accept or reject for example the
8:14 supernatural might get nervous when you
8:17 bring up this doesn’t print it doesn’t
8:19 mean that it’s evidence for it okay let
8:21 me let me restart I think you’re
8:23 confusing nervousness with with
8:25 rejecting your premises let me put it
8:28 another way to you which would be less
8:29 offensive maybe it’s not a lot of fans
8:31 we’re not offended I’m not offended make
8:34 a damn argument and provide some
8:35 evidence okay the damn argument I’ll
8:37 make is that if everything is caused by
8:41 natural causes and there is no
8:43 supernatural then that means in
8:46 principle
8:47 that everything is 100% determined you
8:50 slept that much no I accept that it’s
8:52 possible that that may be the case but
8:54 not that it’s demonstrable that it is
8:56 the case I’m not I’m not going I’m not
8:58 good I’m not convinced that there are
9:00 things in the natural world that are
9:01 random and not predictable well
9:02 predictability depends on our level of
9:05 knowledge right like statistical methods
9:07 are only a tool because of ignorance
9:08 I agree but in print that’s why I say in
9:10 principle we don’t have the we don’t
9:13 have the capability of even predicting
9:14 whether in the future to a great extent
9:17 it’s too complicated and we we have the
9:21 ability to a clever bait we can make
9:23 predictions that are consistent with the
9:25 information we have we can use
9:27 generalizations and statistical
9:28 approaches well my point is that I agree
9:31 please explain what the hell that has to
9:32 do with your your statement we know that
9:35 there is the supernatural because if
9:38 there is no supernatural then everything
9:40 is natural and that cannot be the case
9:42 because if it is the case okay gave it
9:45 you just I write down that what what you
9:48 just said we know that there
9:50 supernatural because if there’s not then
9:51 everything is natural although we are
9:54 just going to stop are you just going to
9:55 spout irrelevant apologies or are you
9:57 going to get to the actual evidence well
9:58 you cut me off before I could concede
10:00 you know what we go hey David
10:02 we know that everything is natural
10:03 because if it wasn’t then the
10:05 supernatural would be supernatural the
10:06 other thing if I could try one more
10:08 thing with you before I go if it’s
10:10 possible it would be the uncaused first
10:13 cause we know with certainty that there
10:15 is an uncaused first cause because of
10:17 entropy in a second law of
10:18 thermodynamics now we don’t David no we
10:21 don’t reduction to absurdity we know it
10:23 we don’t know that we don’t know that
10:25 first of all I reject the notion we know
10:27 anything to an absolute certainty so
10:28 you’re already engaged in some swapping
10:30 is there but when you start talking
10:32 about the second law of thermodynamics
10:33 it doesn’t apply at the origin of the
10:35 universe the laws of nature don’t apply
10:36 the within the universe within yes but
10:39 we’re talking about the origins of
10:40 universe you’re talking about or not
10:42 you’re talking about an uncaused
10:43 Firstpost well you do not understand the
10:45 laws of thermodynamics apply to closed
10:47 systems right well in the universe is a
10:49 closed system
10:49 yeah but the origin of the universe is
10:51 outside of the closed system right
10:52 that’s my goal okay please tell me
10:54 something about your god other than that
10:56 is it is a sufficient explanation for
10:59 the origin of the universe
11:00 he’s self-existent he is you know how do
11:03 you know that he has to be okay I’m not
11:05 interested in this in these have to be I
11:08 want to know what how you know what you
11:11 know about your dog this deduction cure
11:14 deduction it’s its reason because if we
11:17 posit the opposite and say there’s no
11:18 first cause that’s on cost then we have
11:20 an infinite regress of cause and effect
11:21 and that cannot be you don’t know that I
11:23 do know that because it’s only a finite
11:25 amount of time that would accomplish the
11:26 heat death and we haven’t arrived at the
11:28 heat that’s therefore no no no your
11:30 finite of time and fun heat death apply
11:33 to the local presentation of the
11:35 universe they don’t apply time it may
11:37 not apply outside of the universe at all
11:39 is it your God timeless yes so don’t be
11:41 talking to me about properties your God
11:43 and saying that it must necessarily be a
11:45 first cause because there hasn’t been
11:47 enough time in the local presentation of
11:48 the universe you’re ignoring other
11:50 potential hypotheses where the cosmos is
11:53 in fact eternal well either there’s an
11:55 internet chain will cause an effect or
11:57 not and if not then there’s a first
11:59 uncaused cause and i and since we don’t
12:02 know which of those two is correct we
12:04 know we do know because if we pause it
12:06 an infinite chain of cause and effect
12:08 that means that you and I cannot
12:10 literally cannot be here right now and
12:12 the fact that we are now because you’re
12:14 so causality is necessarily temporal
12:16 correct correct and time is a property
12:20 time begins with the universe okay so
12:22 you can’t talk about causality absolute
12:24 time correct what we can talk about god
12:27 causing the universe yes he’s the first
12:29 cause of the uncaused cause you just
12:31 said that causality was necessarily
12:33 temporal and if there’s no time prior to
12:36 the universe under your model that your
12:38 God can’t cause anything in the natural
12:40 order but God is the first cause he’s
12:44 not material how do you know because if
12:46 we pause it the opposite and say there
12:48 is no first cause then that means
12:49 infinite regress and we know that
12:51 there’s no fact in fact I know David the
12:53 fact that you are unwilling to accept
12:55 something as a possibility doesn’t mean
12:57 that it’s not the case the correct
12:58 position here is that we have no
13:00 explanation for the origins in the
13:02 universe we’re still working on it but
13:03 the theists want to pretend for
13:06 philosophical masturbation that they
13:08 have cracked the case but may I ask you
13:10 a personal question do you believe that
13:11 the universe has a beginning or not
13:13 depends on what we mean by universe the
13:14 standards that the normal presentation
13:15 of the universe we can’t investigate
13:17 you know the very earliest moments of it
13:20 but do I think that the cosmos may in
13:22 fact be eternal that seems to be a
13:25 plausible explanation supported by Alan
13:27 Guth and others that that the unit that
13:30 the universe won in this context the
13:32 cosmos which may be a multiverse or
13:34 anything else may in fact be eternal but
13:36 the thing is we cannot investigate that
13:39 you can use reason we can apply reason a
13:40 deduction not you okay
13:42 but reason is only applicable if you
13:44 have something to actually point it they
13:46 hit it on so what are what are the other
13:48 universes in the multiverse like we
13:50 don’t know but we do know that cause and
13:51 effect governs everything in the
13:53 material universe doing so so something
13:57 so if cause and effect is temporal and
13:59 time is contained within our local
14:01 presentation of universe you’re
14:03 asserting that other potential universes
14:05 also have cause and effect of course
14:07 because we we are here now how do you
14:09 even know that they have time well if
14:11 they don’t have time that doesn’t bother
14:12 me I’m okay with that it’s not a
14:14 philosophical challenge to me I don’t
14:16 care if it bothers you you keep coming
14:18 back to the your proof of this is that
14:20 eight years of your proof of the one
14:22 thing is because a theists are bothered
14:24 by it your proof of another thing is
14:25 that you’re not comfortable with it I
14:27 don’t care if you’re comfortable with it
14:28 I care about what is actually true and
14:31 reasonable to believe right but listen
14:32 there’s some total of all the
14:34 multiverses and all the strings and all
14:35 the bouncing universes and you know
14:38 everything that you can imagine every
14:40 lucky theory that any speculative
14:43 philosophical scientist has come up with
14:45 you can clump them all into what I call
14:47 the universe maybe you call it the
14:48 cosmos I don’t know but I call it the
14:50 universe I put all my universes into one
14:52 universe but to me uni means one so I
14:55 just call it the universe right even if
14:57 it dad that’s the way that’s the way
14:59 this started until we actually learned a
15:00 bit more and learn a bit more about
15:01 possibilities so you have a guy you have
15:06 a God that is your first cause what do
15:08 you know about this God I know that he’s
15:11 perfect in every incident in every
15:13 perfection that it’s better to have than
15:14 to not have I know you know that I know
15:16 that because the principle that in
15:18 effect cannot be greater than its cause
15:20 right and so when we observe the
15:22 perfections in this in this world really
15:23 so so when
15:25 fuse with a magic and all right I’m not
15:27 even going to go down that particular
15:28 road yeah you shouldn’t because you’re
15:30 going to look so really yeah and if that
15:33 can’t be greater than the cause so for
15:35 example when I when I light a match and
15:37 put it to a bomb we’re not going to get
15:40 an effect we could look at it and I
15:42 understand where you’re going you could
15:43 look at it as if the the causal effect
15:46 or the the proximate cause the necessary
15:50 and sufficient cause of lighting the
15:51 match produces something that is more
15:54 significant now it doesn’t in any way
15:56 violate the laws of nature because the
15:58 the components of that bomb are what
16:00 actually are causing the explosion
16:02 however you’re saying that God has to be
16:06 perfect in every possible way
16:08 is this an agent he’s a person he has
16:11 personality yeah how do you know that
16:13 because I’m a person and an effect
16:16 cannot be better than its cause I I know
16:18 that God loves because I love so so
16:21 basically you’re saying it’s impossible
16:22 for you to exist unless there was a god
16:27 that’s right that nature that nature
16:30 could not through pure natural processes
16:32 and chemicals result in biological
16:35 thinking agent no if God blinked once we
16:39 would disappear he’s watching and he’s
16:42 here and he’s sustaining everything yes
16:44 how many times yes how many times I’m
16:46 going to blink you can blink as much as
16:48 you want you you’re not necessary being
16:50 you’re not you’re not the creator and
16:51 sustainer so you can blink oh yeah but I
16:54 am the person who determines whether or
16:56 not we’re going to keep listening to
16:57 unfounded assertion about you you’re
16:59 talking about the attributes of God and
17:01 we and the ancient Greeks came up with a
17:02 lot of the the attributes of God just
17:04 using pure reason yeah they did come up
17:07 with the attributes of God so this is
17:08 not my little fantasy I want to know
17:10 whether or not the attributes are
17:12 accurate whether or not there’s actually
17:13 what does God one God wants everything
17:16 that’s good what’s best he wants hopping
17:19 and now you know that is a is that just
17:20 definitional as well it all has to do
17:22 with goodness right like the things that
17:25 you crave what is goodness whatever it’s
17:27 better to have than to not have life
17:30 love justice beauty health yeah I David
17:33 I’m done with David I’m done with your
17:36 tautology parade well you’re just asking
17:37 me
17:38 you I don’t know if you want
17:41 mathematical proofs or what you want but
17:43 like a definition that isn’t just a
17:45 tautology the good things are those good
17:46 things they’re not the bad things I can
17:48 talk about the fact that God is not
17:50 material because the material things are
17:52 subject to change the composed of parts
17:54 all of this is well established over the
17:58 past millennia even by its well
18:01 established in theological circles that
18:03 they’re desperate to find something but
18:04 I want to know what actually is because
18:08 there’s a God who is a person and he
18:11 wants goodness yeah he needs nothing
18:14 right but what he created as
18:16 gratuitously out of love and he wants us
18:18 to be with him to be happy forever so
18:20 that how do you how do you know that how
18:21 do you get how do you get from uncaused
18:23 first cause all of that stuff I’m not
18:25 just sitting in my living room in my
18:27 armchair doing philosophy I belong to
18:29 the Roman Catholic Church and I have a
18:31 lot of revealed truths that are not
18:34 knowable by the natural light of Reason
18:35 how are they revealed their revealed by
18:37 God through sacred tradition and sacred
18:40 scripture what makes them sacred well
18:43 because they’re revealed by God how do
18:44 you know that the traditions in
18:46 scripture that you’re saying are sacred
18:48 are the right one I have faith I could
18:51 be wrong okay
18:52 I’m not interested in positions that are
18:54 based on faith that’s why I was talking
18:56 about philosophy because faith is not a
18:57 pathway to truth but I don’t have faith
19:00 in God the Father I’ve faced in the
19:01 Trinity I have faith in the Incarnation
19:03 I’ve faced in infallibility of the Pope
19:05 I don’t give a rat’s ass if you have
19:07 faith in your lucky rabbit’s foot I care
19:08 about what’s actually true and
19:10 demonstrable and if your position and if
19:12 your position is that you believe these
19:14 things based on faith now we’ve entered
19:16 a whole new realm the mysteries of faith
19:18 that are revealed and that can’t be
19:20 known by the natural light of reason I
19:21 accept on faith obviously but yes I know
19:24 I decided an absolute I’m sorry but that
19:26 is absolute garbage every time I talk
19:28 with Catholics in particular the word
19:30 mystery just keeps popping up well
19:31 you’re comfortable with mysteries no I’m
19:33 not comfortable with mysteries that’s
19:34 the point that’s the point that’s the
19:36 point a bit of know start with a quantum
19:38 thing you were comfortable the mystery
19:40 of the quantum world no no I’m not God
19:42 do you have are you able to understand
19:45 anything that I’m actually saying I keep
19:48 saying that I’m not comfortable with not
19:51 knowing
19:51 but I’m not so uncomfortable with not
19:53 knowing that I’m going to make shit up
19:55 to sue myself which is what religions do
19:57 well if we could talk about the quantum
19:59 things for just a little bit I think
20:01 that we can we can agree no we can’t I’m
20:03 not a quantum physicist I don’t give a
20:05 rat’s ass but I know some quantum
20:07 physicists who disagree with you call
20:08 them yeah there’s a there’s a lot of
20:10 different philosophical interpretations
20:12 oh yeah and I want to know what’s
20:13 actually reasonable to believe don’t you
20:16 yeah of course then why would you take
20:18 anything on faith faith is not a
20:20 reliable path to understanding
20:22 I trust the witnesses of Jesus Christ
20:25 and I’ve done a lot of research into it
20:27 why okay first of all first of all you
20:29 have no access to any of the witnesses
20:31 not what are you talking about a few
20:34 Catholics and I’m going to ask you what
20:39 witness to Jesus Christ do you have
20:41 access to I was confirmed in the
20:43 Catholic Church in 2009 and the bishop
20:45 that laid his hands on me there’s a
20:46 paper trail going all the way back to
20:48 Jesus Christ the laying on of hands from
20:50 one Pope to the next hey you know what I
20:53 I did a card trick the other day and
20:55 there’s a paper trail that car trick
20:57 going back to Merlin that mean Merlin
20:59 was wizard I’m asking you
21:01 what access do you have Oh what you see
21:04 you know you talk about ApS getting
21:06 nervous we talk about why is it every
21:07 time I ask you a question you start
21:08 fucking laughing because I find it
21:10 amusing I’m asking you a serious
21:12 question you’re not even detecting you
21:14 said you have faith because of your
21:16 access to the witnesses to Jesus Christ
21:19 and I’m asking you who are those
21:21 witnesses how many concept APIs this
21:22 Saints what Saints and how do you okay
21:25 the Catholic saints how are they
21:26 witnesses to Jesus Christ you go to the
21:28 library pick up a book you read what
21:30 they said and what they lived and how
21:31 they lived and how they died yeah okay
21:33 which one was a witness to Jesus Christ
21:35 you want me to name the Apostles and the
21:37 successors to the apostles I would like
21:39 you to first of all start with Jesus and
21:41 name who the witnesses and he had
21:43 apostle named one James John Andrew
21:47 Philip Bartholomew sure now what do you
21:50 have from them that you can confirm
21:52 comes from them and is in fact accurate
21:54 their writings and their their oral
21:57 tradition okay but okay so for the first
22:00 of all sorts of writings an oral
22:02 tradition fine we have no idea who wrote
22:03 the Gospels
22:04 correct okay so if we go into the other
22:07 writings where it comes from Paul and
22:09 whatever Paul never met Jesus is a
22:11 living being did he yeah he does on the
22:13 road to Damascus that’s not Jesus as a
22:15 living being that’s an apparition you
22:16 think it wasn’t Jesus of course I think
22:18 it wasn’t Jesus I thought I guess you
22:21 must yeah I don’t believe that Jesus
22:23 rose from the dead and appeared to
22:25 somebody but you do yeah I do based on
22:27 the testimony of all the witnesses sure
22:29 no no there were no witnesses to this
22:32 Paul meet meets this apparition on the
22:34 road to Damascus and the people company
22:36 him either don’t see anything or can’t
22:38 attest to anything there aren’t
22:39 witnesses for this and you have no
22:40 witnesses that you can investigate what
22:42 you have is a collection of stories that
22:44 are unsourced that keep pointing to
22:47 witnesses that you don’t have any
22:49 ability to investigate if someone came
22:51 to you right now and said my uncle met
22:54 Jesus our met Elvis when Elvis rose from
22:56 the dead would you believe them no okay
22:58 why do you have a different standard for
23:00 that than you do for what you’re reading
23:01 when this is somebody who when this is
23:03 somebody who you could in fact speak to
23:06 and evaluate them personally
23:08 face-to-face as to how reliable they are
23:10 rather than an anonymous source because
23:13 of the way they live their lives in the
23:15 way they’re willing to die for Jesus
23:16 Christ you see this is the thing you
23:18 don’t know how they live their lives or
23:20 how they were going to die do you think
23:22 people would be willing to die for
23:23 something that wasn’t in fact true yes
23:25 yeah they would so that becomes an
23:27 irrelevant vector that so how do we
23:30 determine with any reliability that the
23:32 stories you are putting your faith in
23:34 are in fact true I’m not saying I’m not
23:37 saying David I’m not saying whether how
23:40 do we determine whether or not those
23:41 people believed it I’m talking about
23:43 whether or not it was actually true yeah
23:45 there’s a whole host of different kinds
23:47 of evidence that come together in my
23:49 mind to make it reasonable to accept the
23:53 testimony of the witnesses over the
23:55 2,000 years since the death of Christ
23:58 yes thanks for telling me again what you
24:00 thanks for again for telling me what you
24:01 believed which we established 20 minutes
24:03 ago and avoiding the why at all come
24:05 what I just told you that there are a
24:06 whole bunch of reasons why I believe the
24:09 testimony of the witnesses there there
24:11 are literally libraries full of writings
24:14 by the
24:15 if you haven’t looked into it maybe you
24:17 should if you’re curious but it’s very
24:20 powerful and it’s very convincing once
24:23 you know who God is you do realize that
24:24 I was a Christian for more than 25 years
24:26 and that this is in fact my life’s work
24:28 no I don’t know you yeah I’m talking
24:31 about why we should believe that the
24:32 claims are true not how they live their
24:35 lives because would you acknowledge that
24:37 there are people in other religions that
24:39 you do not believe are true who have
24:41 lived wonderful lives and credit their
24:42 religion with it yes it’s like I said
24:44 it’s a combination of factors how do we
24:46 tell the difference between those two
24:47 people person a from your religion and
24:49 person B from some other religion how do
24:51 you tell the difference the first and
24:52 most important element is are they
24:54 talking about my god that first cause
24:56 that’s uncaused and with all the
24:57 perfections if they’re not okay we’re
25:00 done
25:01 talk about oh I’m going to go with the
25:04 one I believe in this is the thing if
25:07 you ask John John why do you believe the
25:09 Earth orbits the Sun I don’t know you
25:15 don’t know that’s an acceptable answer
25:18 another answer it would be to actually
25:20 provide the evidence for it the direct
25:23 observations how we got it wrong before
25:25 how we correct it the past not neither
25:27 of us our science is neither us or Ella
25:29 Murphy yeah we’re not going to be able
25:30 to give good answer on that but this
25:32 isn’t the the the ah let’s orbit the
25:38 Earth or let’s orbit the Sun Club fuck
25:40 I’m going to get it all wrong the thing
25:42 is if this is something that you’ve
25:45 called in to say that you believe I’m
25:47 fine with you saying you believe based
25:48 on faith I’m fine with that is in fact
25:51 your answer I’m going to challenge it
25:52 because they don’t find faith to be a
25:54 reliable path to truth there’s nothing
25:56 that you couldn’t accept on faith and
25:58 when you say oh I’ve read the stories of
26:00 the Apostles and the lives they lived
26:02 okay but you have no idea how to
26:05 determine the accuracy of those stories
26:07 and even if they lived wonderful lives
26:10 you just acknowledged that people live
26:13 lives and credit their religion for good
26:14 lives even with religions you don’t
26:16 think are true there’s this parade of oh
26:19 there must be a first cause and
26:21 therefore which may or may not be true
26:24 but if it is
26:26 and this is why you ate these get so
26:27 nervous is because you recognize that as
26:29 soon as it that your model has hard
26:31 determinism and no free will and no way
26:32 to hold people responsible and no
26:34 morality and no love and that’s just
26:36 garbage
26:37 Chris Johnson was just here last week
26:39 he’s got a book and a film called a
26:41 better life where a hundred atheist
26:43 speak out on join meeting in a life
26:44 without God the film doesn’t have a
26:46 hundred in it but it’s culminated from
26:48 those interviews this idea that you
26:50 can’t have morality is something that
26:52 we’ve addressed over and over again in
26:55 many different there’s many different
26:56 models of morality but I will say and
27:00 this isn’t just a dig at him because
27:02 he’s a Catholic religions raise
27:05 objections to morality that they can
27:07 never solve and meanwhile if you’re
27:10 going to call in to pretend that
27:11 atheists have no way of reaching a moral
27:16 grounding on purely secular terms then
27:19 maybe you should go to Netflix and watch
27:21 the documentary that I just watched this
27:23 weekend called the keepers which
27:25 demonstrate that the Catholic Church is
27:27 a criminal organization that needs to be
27:29 bankrupted at the first opportunity and
27:32 every Catholic Church needs to be turned
27:34 into a home for the impoverished and for
27:37 children who have been abused by the
27:38 people that they shuffled around and hid
27:41 from police now that doesn’t tell my
27:47 little spiel they’re as accurate as is
27:50 and is applause worthy as it was doesn’t
27:52 tell you whether or not there’s a God
27:53 but neither did anything that David said
27:56 oh well there must be a first cut but
27:59 you know nothing even if you’re right
28:00 that there must be a first cause you
28:01 can’t tell me anything about it you have
28:03 no ability to investigate it what can
28:05 you tell me about other universes we are
28:06 blocked currently and perhaps eternally
28:09 from investigating beyond our universe
28:14 for most of the existence of human
28:16 beings we were blocked from
28:17 investigating very much outside of the
28:20 planet that we’re sitting on we’ve
28:23 gradually increased our ability to
28:25 explore and we have better
28:26 understandings but we also don’t have an
28:28 explanation for origins and the nice
28:30 thing about science is it doesn’t get to
28:32 pretend that it does have an explanation
28:35 there’s nothing within the realm of
28:37 scientific
28:39 query that says you know what we aren’t
28:41 able to come up with a naturalistic
28:43 explanation and we’ve been at this for
28:45 you know a good hundred and fifty years
28:47 or so so screw it there must be a first
28:50 cause it needs to be a personal God who
28:51 is timeless who can act outside of time
28:54 and we’re going to point to the second
28:55 law of thermodynamics even in places
28:57 where it doesn’t apply because we’re so
28:59 desperate to bolster the ideas that we
29:02 believe that we’re not following the
29:04 evidence towards a conclusion we are
29:06 desperately trying to get all of the
29:08 little factors to point to what we
29:10 already believe that’s not what science
29:12 does which is why there’s no no Nobel
29:14 Prize for demonstrating God which is why
29:16 somebody’s going to call into the
29:17 Atheist experience with their personal
29:20 take on what they think they can derive
29:22 from quantum physics quantum mechanics
29:24 rather than going out and demonstrating
29:28 through proper channels that they have
29:31 scientifically demonstrated that a God
29:32 exists I’m fine with having
29:35 philosophical arguments I’m even fine
29:37 with having some scientific arguments I
29:39 I try not to go too far afield of my
29:42 areas of expertise in part because and
29:45 this is why I wanted to get to specifics
29:48 about the God this person believed in if
29:51 you drill down and get specifics about
29:52 those gods they are almost always in
29:55 conflict with the observations that we
29:58 see the observations that would be
30:00 sensible Oh what is your God wanting
30:02 wants what is good okay what’s that is
30:06 good just what you think it is what if
30:08 what if you and I disagree on what is
30:10 good oh well God’s always right okay you
30:14 can say that but saying it don’t make it
30:16 so well I’m where he where he was going
30:19 with that around the time you hung up
30:22 was he he went back to the uncaused
30:26 first cause and he said but but those
30:28 other religions because you were saying
30:32 the other bridge anyone listening to me
30:34 i am i own here this is patrick phanpy
30:37 i’m trying to get through so hey Patrick
30:40 yeah I’ve been waiting I’ve been trying
30:43 to be patient I was muted I had it muted
30:46 the whole time for that entire call
30:48 another eight is debating another
30:51 Christian that’s too easy for you man
30:54 another atheist debating another
30:56 Christian I don’t know what you mean
30:57 yeah a Christian is a easy Smackdown for
31:00 an atheist talking snakes mad woman made
31:04 of a man’s rib that’s not what I’m
31:07 talking about
31:08 okay Patrick we hadn’t even addressed
31:10 your welcome to show I just accidentally
31:12 took you off hold as John was finishing
31:14 his thoughts if you like a little view
31:20 if you can just draw some questions a
31:23 piano go all you got to do is all you
31:27 got to do

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *