Does This Caller ACTUALLY Have Proof Of God? | The Atheist Experience: Throwback

Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use your computer to save on long-distance charges: tiny.cc/callthe...
► LinkTree: linktr.ee/athe...
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Find all of our links here: linktr.ee/athe...
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: https:tiny.cc/merchaca
► Become a KZbin member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tiny.cc/acddiscord
Note: We request pronouns as part of the call screening process on our shows, and we display the pronouns our callers provide. If you see a caller with no pronouns indicated, this is because they chose not to provide us with any, and we respect that decision.
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is a 501(c)(3) educational non-profit organization based in Austin, Texas. The Atheist Community of Austin is dedicated to promoting atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation of religion and government.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2024 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.

[@dx1450]

Does this caller actually have proof of God? Short answer: no. Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooo.

[@JackMishandling]

Is there was an evidence for God the vast majority of the people in the world wouldn't believe in God. If the idea that the origins of Life came into existence without God the vast majority of atheists would believe that but they don't. At least the ones I've talked to including the hundred or so on the atheist experience threads throughout the years . And only a few atheists I came across believe the origins of Life came into existence without God and provided their evidence to why they believe that and it's always the same ridiculous argument they never seen God as if they seem life pop into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence.

[@tonyclements1147]

@@JackMishandling Congratulations, you have no F idea what atheism is and what atheists think.

[@JackMishandling]

@@tonyclements1147 do you bleed the origins of Life came into existence without creation without God? If so please provide evidence to why you believe that and if I'm not convinced in return I will provide evidence to why I believe in God and we will see which one is more logical But if you don't believe the origins of Life came into existence without God just don't forget to tell me we found some commonality and that would be the fact that neither one of us believes the origins of Life came into existence without God. PS please don't shift the burden of proof. For example don't tell me something like you believe the origins of Life came into existence without God and then tell me that I have to prove God exists to disprove your claim that the origins of Life came into existence without God. I have no problem providing evidence to why I believe in God but the only way I will do this on an atheist thread and to an atheist is if The atheist says God doesn't exist and proves it first or the atheist says something like the origins of Life came into existence without God and proves it first if they do that in return if I'm not convinced I will provide evidence to why I believe in God The reason why I never do it first on an atheist thread and to an atheist is because the nature of atheism it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true so no quality of evidence can convince someone of something they're not willing or able to accept as true but like I said if the atheist actually has a position that he believes the origins of Life came into existence without God and provides evidence to why he believes that again if I not convinced I will provide evidence to why I believe in God and this is just so everybody could see which one is more logical even though the atheist still wouldn't be position that he believes the origins of Life came into existence without God and provides evidence to why he believes that again if I not convinced I will provide evidence to why I believe in God and this is just so everybody could see which one is more logica l.

[@JackMishandling]

@@tonyclements1147 PSS please don't forget to tell me if we found commonality if that's the case meaning that neither one of us believes the origins of Life came into existence without God . And please don't do the old atheist trick of saying I don't know how the origins of Life came into existence I'm not asking you what you know is true I'm asking you what you believe is true.

[@oldbatwit5102]

@@JackMishandling Same old tripe, over and over again, year after year, decade after decade. You can't argue a god into existence.

[@IsBeingHello]

I love when they say I have undeniable proof of god… but first let me tell you something about my background… like dude you don’t need background to prove a cat exists.

[@qwadratix]

Well, you do if you don't have a cat.

[@dx1450]

Either that or when prompted to give their "evidence" for god they say, "Well first, let me ask you a question..." No, dude, you don't need to ask someone a question to show them proof of something.

[@LOwens-xf8yo]

“I have proof of god, but first…” is a tell. If they actually had proof, they wouldn’t need all the foreplay.

[@HamptonDoubledayJr]

Wait - cats are real? 😦

[@quentind1924]

@@qwadratix You don't need to have a cat to know they exists. Everyone has already seen cats walk on the street during their life

[@Mr_Porter]

It's always amusing when hosts repeat something a caller said, and then the caller realizes how absurd it sounds when echoed back to them. Their immediate response of "I didn't say that" is followed by an attempt to rephrase the same idea in a different manner, which only adds to the comedic aspect of the conversation. Antonio did that so many times that it went from comical to downright ridiculous. Like, it's clear that you're freestyling your argument, just be honest.

[@Olyfrun]

Honestly, this comment primed me for giggles. The zoom at 1:35 cracked me up, I've lost it now.

[@JackMishandling]

I don't know why the atheist always have to lie why can't they can't admit that atheism is a disbelief it's an unwillingness or inability to accept God. Of course they don't believe in God and you can't believe what you can't accept that even if God was proven by the scientific method if you have a disbelief in God you wouldn't be able to accept God as true. The part that I find so revealing about atheist while they don't have the willingness or ability to accept God they don't actually believe the origins of Life came into existence without God. I know this because I've asked atheist if they believe the origins of Life came into existence without God and if they do the provide evidence to why they believe that. And maybe one in 30 will say they believe the origins of Life can you do this without God and provide evidence... The evidence is always the same lazy evidence which is I never seen God. And of course my responses I believe in God because I never seen life pop into existence . I'll just give an equivalent answer they do. it's also not just a coincidence that every atheist on atheist experience supports gender Faith it's not a coincidence you can't distinguish between the moral values of the atheist and the synagogue of Satan.

[@Idonthaveone-ug6wj]

Timestamp?

[@brucebaker810]

"I didnt say that" = "that sounded a lot smarter in my head; or when that apologist said it".

[@alanparr4217]

Lovlely to hear Traci's voice again despite it being an old show, nice Lady.

[@sternwheeler]

I sure wish they would've picked a better thumbnail.

[@BUNCHAPUNCHISTAKEN]

Funny how callers feel compelled to speak to prove their god exist. Your god should be able to self evidently demonstrate himself without your help, don’t you think? Isn’t he the most powerful being, ever 😂?

[@dnjj1845]

God is always absent, but never short of a representative.

[@paultimson6674]

The Church age is about FAITH. God is not out to prove he exists. He is out to see if YOU WILL EXIST. By refusing him. You refuse an upgrade. To GODHOOD. its like you turned down the chance to be superman. you prefer to be a dead human?

[@strategicthinker8899]

He's just shy. A real introvert that god.

[@strategicthinker8899]

@@paultimson6674 Your mother didn't have a health plan that included abortion?

[@paultimson6674]

@@strategicthinker8899 We live in Scotland, NHS. its all free.

[@STHSilqueira]

"The dictionary just says that, uh, an an atheist is somebody that rejects the idea of a god, like, completely" I dont know man, that doesnt sound like something from a dictionary.

[@N_IRL]

Maybe the caller was using Urban Dictionary 😅

[@davidszeremi1786]

Some dictionaries might but the people on the show can clarify how they use labels

[@neologian1783]

Why do theists ALWAYS feel the need to provide their entire "spiritual backstory" before they are able to provide what they regard to be proof for god? I suspect it's because somewhere deep down they know, however dimly, that the supposed proofs they are about to offer are as gossamer, content free, and weightless as the spirits they believe in....and they seem to believe that providing a long winded personal backstory somehow makes up for the missing gravity in their supposed proofs.

[@petebetz5358]

If a person believes it's true then they're not lying to you. Doesn't mean what they're saying is true. It just means they believe it.

[@banishedbr]

a.k.a. delusional

[@petebetz5358]

@@banishedbr I'm afraid so....

[@johns1625]

Claiming to know what you literally cannot know is lying.

[@jpbaley2016]

People saying they believe may have motives to say it. This caller grew up amongst not only a family that is religious but a culture of the religion. He was brought up knowing if he says he doesn’t believe, it may cause him family and community alienation, unacceptance, maybe even shunning. Those are very strong motivators to douse any questions, ideas or thoughts, which go against everyone around them.

[@petyrkowalski9887]

Yes..deluded and misguided.

[@vvanheukelum]

This is just an example of defining something into existence.

[@dcrapier]

'I have proof of god, but first... a little something about myself...' Just a reminder: argument is not evidence.

[@brucebaker810]

I posted same. First third was foreplay. At 6:19 he says "'okay, my proof..."

[@leoaguinaldo65]

The caller should have said, "I have proof of the existence of god, and here He is. Say Hi, God."

[@johnchambers9836]

They want to prove something to be true without even knowing what that thing is

[@dx1450]

Or without even being able to describe that thing.

[@queuecee]

The Christian "proof" of the existince of god: "Things die, therefore god." 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂ Apparently the all-powerful UNDYING god can only make things that die. 🤦‍♂ How stupid is that?

[@louistournas120]

For some reason the god that is immaterial makes stuff out of atoms. I have never understood why theists believe that their god is not made of something.

[@emp-ty-g]

same problem as usual. "i'm to clever to say. i don't know"

[@queuecee]

NEPy's "mind" is in darkness... all the time... where voices in his head scream at him "MUD PUDDLE!"

[@dimitrioskalfakis]

caller was brought up in christian mythology and never managed to question the truth of the claims. he toggled between theist and agnostic for the same bad reasons.

[@rocketsfan6116]

"...I decided to become an agnostic..." You've only given half of the information.

[@kriss3d]

Also it's not something you get to decide. It's not a choice which you find compelling or not.

[@F_N_Inquisitor]

Im at the part where he's talking about misunderstanding the dictionary. Im betting he never actually looked it up in the dictionary

[@robgilmour3147]

some dictionary's actually give the answer he did, you really have to look at one that's been updated in the last 20 years to get the modern usage.

[@joeely6817]

Sounds like this guy just watched "Time Bandits" when he was high and had a deffenition of the Supreme Being.

[@scotttchviski6706]

He does have proof of God. Unfortunately, he's only proven it to himself.

[@dx1450]

And he has a very low bar of evidence.

[@brucebaker810]

He doesn't even have proof of the pudding. But he sure wanted to provide life story context for... whatever he had.

[@zoggdawg8141]

Spoiler: he did not.

[@IsBeingHello]

Im weak lol

[@ronwhitehouse23]

No one on the planet has provided proof of any god!

[@sanjeevgig8918]

EVERYTHING has a "cause" EXCEPT my personal god who i very conveniently DEFINE as a CAUSE-LESS DUDE . LOLZ

[@brucebaker810]

Christians dont know - Whats in the bible - How it got there - What atheism is...

[@amtlpaul]

Jimedith Bromfeld Castleberry's 'proof' of the Christian God: 1) Why is everything the way it is? Your puny science and secular philosophy can't tell me. 2) The only answer I can think of is called 'God' 3) The God of Christianity is called 'God" 4) Therefore, the God of Christianity exists

[@Seticzech]

Isn't their reasoning cute? 😀It's like talking to toddler.

[@queuecee]

😂 He obviously doesn't understand how syllogisms work or what logic is. His point #2 is pretty cute. "The only answer I can think of is called 'God'"😂😂😂😂 Is that an ignorance fallacy?

[@queuecee]

Is this what Jim actually said? Or you making fun of them? I literally cannot tell.

[@amtlpaul]

@quecee Not verbatim, but It's basically his argument. He actually claims that he believes in 'God', not 'a God', so he doesn't have to justify belief in the Christian God rather than in some other idea of God.

[@queuecee]

@@amtlpaul He doesn't think that whatever deity he believes in is even a god. So maybe a demi-god?

[@joshsheridan9511]

So according to Antonio a mindless thing can be god There you go Neppy it's a chance for you to claim you're god.

[@bubbercakes528]

Thee two are such great hosts. They are calm and reassuring! This is what creates converts to science and atheism.

[@ApatheticFish3667]

Since Dingleberry likes to talk about how atheism "guts" morality, what does he use to determine what is moral and what is not?

[@timg7627]

Perhaps you should call the show and ask him yourself 👍

[@joshsheridan9511]

​@@timg7627Dingleberry is one of the trolls that infest the threads He posts under Jim Castleberry or Edith Bromfeld.

[@amtlpaul]

He won't say because then he'd have to defend that, and he knows he can't.

[@artemisnite]

I'm relabelling the word god to mean the freckle on my butt, so yes. Gawd absolutely exists. 🤪

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

That freckle *IS* your butt, right?

[@queuecee]

Pics or it didn't happen.

[@mikesabin8568]

I cant disprove any of the thousands of other gods claimed to exist either, so by default they exist too?

[@LegionarioCruel]

Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. The dichotomy theist/atheist refers to BELIEF, while gnosticism/agnosticism refers to a claim of KNOWLEDGE. And EVERYONE either believe or not believe in deities, therefore EVERYONE is either a theist or an atheist. Period.

[@legshakermaker1968]

4:30 where did this guy get his dictionary? Those definitions are way off.

[@capthavic]

I hate these vague, wishy washy "god" concepts.

[@johns1625]

I have proof of God. Dontcha ever just look at the trees???

[@Schism_harmony]

Or my proof is my faith

[@queuecee]

Because NO Christian on these comments even understand moral systems enough to actually articulate HOW their moral systems work, here are some theistic moral systems, and the issues with them. I'll keep posting this until a theist can actually respond intelligently. 1. Divine Command Theory: Actions are morally right if they are commanded by God and morally wrong if they are forbidden by God. In other words, morality is ultimately determined by God's will or commands. Contrary to what some atheists say, this isn't really "subjective" because it still is a moral system that's stance-independent of the human agent. The PROBLEM: There's NO way to determine what is moral and what is just being commanded as moral. A person attempting to kill their son because god commanded them can't be distinguished from someone hearing voices or lying about having heard voices. 2. Natural Law Theory: SOME versions of Natural Law Theory rely explicitly on the existence of a god, not all. For those that do, they claim that the natural moral order is established by God, and morality is derived from the rational understanding of this NATURAL order. The PROBLEM: There is NO need for that extra, unprovable step to say that a god established that natural moral order. Also this causes the problem of deriving an ought from an is (at least for those who understand what this means). Just because it's "natural" doesn't mean it ought to be moral. 3. Divine Nature Theory: Moral values are grounded in the nature of God. God's nature is the standard of goodness, and moral truths are derived from understanding the attributes and characteristics of God. The PROBLEM: This is strictly dependent on some person's claims about what is god's nature. One person can say that god doesn't permit gays to marry. Some other Christian can say that god is OK with gay marriage. 4. Theological Voluntarism: This theory suggests that moral obligations arise from God's will, rather than from God's nature. In other words, morality is determined by what God commands, rather than by God's inherent nature. The PROBLEM: The same problem as above. It's strictly dependent on someone's claim that it's god's will. So I've done the work that the philosophically illiterate Christians on here don't have the brains to do. They can't do this, because they have NO idea what they are talking about when they claim that they have objective morality. This is due to at least two reasons. One is that you can't have a moral system that's based on some entity that you don't have some objective access to. And two, you can't have an objective moral system based on a fictional character.

[@Emperorhirohito19272]

Subjective only means something based on or influenced by a subjects opinion, that subject doesn’t have to be a human, just a being capable of having an opinion. God clearly qualifies as a subject

[@queuecee]

@@Emperorhirohito19272 In philosophy, "objective" in the context of objective morality refers to moral principles or values that are independent of individual opinions, beliefs, feelings, or cultural norms. Objective morality posits that moral truths exist outside of human subjectivity and are not contingent upon personal preferences or societal conventions. It's debatable to say whether the will of a supernatural god would be considered "subjective". I would not say that god "clearly" qualifies as a subject. But I understand that there are arguments to say that it's subjective. The counterargument is that god is considered objective within the belief system. But what makes it truly subjective is that it the reliance on the subjective interpretation of this divine will, so the whole point is moot in that regard, at least to me.

[@Emperorhirohito19272]

@@queuecee yes I know god is dogmatically declared to be objective, but god is a conscious being who makes value judgments, those value judgments must be by definition subjective. They can be nothing else without straight ignoring what the words mean.

[@queuecee]

@@Emperorhirohito19272 Just playing the devil's advocate here. A tri-omni god's nature and commands would be considered ultimate and objective standard of goodness, rather than subjective or arbitrary. His perfection means that his will is by definition objectively moral. And as he is eternally existent, necessary being, his nature would be unchanging, which would be the objective foundation to the morality that's not going to shift on subjective whims. Within the religious view, god reveals the key moral truths, so this source of objective moral truths would have to come from an objective source. A divine mind could not be considered to be like a subjective human mind, making it a category error to say that just because god is an individual that it means that his will is subjective. There are of course counterarguments for these to say that the divine command theory is subjective. But within the perspective of the theist, who would be the one claiming that it's an objective moral system, the most effective argument is to address the inability for a human to access whatever "objective" quality that a theist could argue for their god.

[@Emperorhirohito19272]

@@queuecee I feel like a perfect subject is still a subject though. Things being right or wrong are a product of a conscious being discerning the two, without a being doing the discerning, I don’t understand how the concepts can exist.

[@LOwens-xf8yo]

To not believe in fairies, I d first have to prove the non existence of fairies! Therefore, fairies. Also, everything must have a cause except X, because I define X as being the only thing that doesn’t have a cause. Therefore, X.

[@christopherdickenson374]

Agnostic Atheist here. I don't know for certain so I am Agnostic... I still don't believe in any god. Therefore I am an Agnostic Atheist..

[@sirbarryvee-eight6485]

Likewise. Funnily enough I was also an agnostic theist decades ago. I accepted that my belief was a matter of faith rather than evidence so I was an agnostic theist. Then I realised faith wasn't a reliable path to truth and I become an agnostic atheist. I remain open to evidence of a god, but I'm still yet to see it.

[@joshsheridan9511]

Just started watching but i predict there will be no proof of god thingies.

[@Seticzech]

We can be new prophets. 😀

[@arieswar4770]

Screw the back ground and just gave the evidence!!!

[@n0w3lly90]

Great start: demonstrate that you don't know what either "agnostic" or "atheist" or what the burden of proof is!

[@jimsmith3029]

Not slamming this guy, but it’s funny how every proof for God starts off with the person saying something like, “before I get into it, let’s talk about something else”

[@badatheist9948]

two wonderful people, i hope both are enjoying life

[@dogwalker666]

So no evidence for his or any gods.

[@HamptonDoubledayJr]

@@JimCastleberry 🥱

[@dorsdonstowe9403]

Prove God....... Ok. You’re dying. Everybody you know is either dead or dying. Every human being, plant and animal in the last 10,000 yrs is dying or dead - never producing any NEW INFORMATION/ TRANSITIONAL NEW ANATOMY/EVOLUTION. So if you never produce any new information, your CAUSE can't be just more dying entities. Therefore, your CAUSE is "required" to be a NON-DYING ENTITY. There is no “PHYSICAL OUTSIDE" of time-space. Thus, the cause of physical existence is necessarily NON-PHYSICAL/transcendent. Just like the CAUSE of “time” is required to be “timeless.” And if you’re “timeless,” do you have a beginning or end? All of these facts point to the cause of this world to be OUR INFINITE/ETERNAL/SUPERNATURAL GOD.

[@user-vx9jy7jl2l]

@@JimCastleberryyeah that’s what all theists have said since the beginning, for all the 4,000 gods we’ve ever had.

[@dogwalker666]

@@JimCastleberry Theists have ZERO evidence for any of their gods, There is no difference between any of the thousands of gods, The biblical god is actually less real than any of them.

[@queuecee]

@@dogwalker666 Jim can't provide any evidence for god that's not just some bare claims or expression of personal incredulity. Trust me. I've tried to get him to give his "proof" of god. All he can do is lie and say he has it, but he can't ever.

[@jpbaley2016]

This caller doesn’t believe in the god he was raised to believe in, was surrounded by the acceptance of this god. He found himself a loophole, where he has identified god in a manner that allows him to live with his family and in his community without risk of strife or alienation.

[@Lazarus745]

Many people are interested in distinguishing between the words agnostic and atheist. The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods, and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable

[@Devious_Dave]

It'd be interesting to hear what the caller believes now. His idea (a vague cause outside our universe) probably wouldn't last long.

[@brucebaker810]

I said similar. He was...21 maybe? If so, he's 40% older now.

[@AndyCampbellMusic]

The obvious reason all gods are imaginary... One two part question for people with superstitious religious beliefs. (A) If someone told you (or you read in a book) that the sun used matches and candles to spread light and heat at night. Would it be obvious to you, how self evidently illogical, irrational, unreasonable and nonsensical this idea was? (Would you understand why)? (B) If someone told you (or you read in a book) that something capable of creating a universe and everything in it, used puny humans and books to spread accurate information. Would it be obvious to you, how self evidently illogical, irrational, unreasonable and nonsensical this idea was? (Would you understand why)? All gods are imaginary. No people = No imagined gods.

[@frogandspanner]

7:45 "If everything has a cause". Notice the *if* . This constrains the domain of discourse, but the speaker fails to recognise that. If the caller wishes to expand the domain to the Cosmos/universe then he must justify it.

[@simonkoster]

Kalamity Bill Craig has another acolyte

[@donneuner2883]

Every belief I have is tentative and can be changed with sufficient evidence. I spent years trying to convince myself god was real, because I trusted authority and desperately wanted to fit in with some other people. All I was ever presented with was sophistry gaslighting and flowery language.

[@Al3x1066]

I always love this type of video, I am an atheist but I would absolutely love if we found actual proof of anything supernatural, I would love it so much if ghosts and magic was proven real and harnessed to improve the world for everyone. I cannot stress enough how much I would love the supernatural to be real, but unfortunately there is no proof and likely won't be at least in my lifetime 😢😢😢

[@kasocool2812]

It would be cool but I've always felt the problem is that the moment we have reliable testable scientific proof of the supernatural it would cease to be supernatural and just be natural. Brings to mind a quote from Tim Minchin 'You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? - Medicine.'

[@sirbarryvee-eight6485]

Ricky Gervais said once about the religion v science issue (words to the effect that) "if we found proof of God it would be the single most amazing and important scientific discovery of all time". I agree, but it's a bloody big "if".

[@may_it_please_the_court]

Dude it's okay to just say no I don't know instead of making shit up about causes.

[@barrythomson899]

Please ask him to present his evidence before the chitchat about definitions.

[@skblack5050]

What's up with the audio? The words are not matching the lip movement . I'd like to see more of these videos but the glitches are an issue. What's the problem guys? How can a lawnmower repair guy in sweat pants get it right and you guys can't??

[@robgilmour3147]

this is like a 15 year old clip, it's probably been reformatted a time or two and none of this is done by payed professionals.

[@kathleenjimenez8968]

I haven’t watched the video and yet I can tell you right now, he doesn’t have evidence of God.

[@DanielHill-y6p]

I've noticed that most callees are referring to the God of the Bible. You know made in his image. A MAN

[@Ghalaghor_McAllistor]

All I ask for is some irrefutable evidence that can't be used to "prove" other gods.

[@jonclark8252]

What if I pinky promise you that my deity is the only one?

[@tonyclements1147]

“Trust me bro, He is real, I saw/heard Him.” 😁

[@HamptonDoubledayJr]

@@JimCastleberry 🥱

[@ApatheticFish3667]

@@JimCastleberry Evidence for what? And don't call us goons.

[@TheKosmikid]

@@JimCastleberrywhat evidence?

[@tedgrant2]

All my forebears had to have at least one child. That's a lot of bears.

[@brucebaker810]

He doesn't even have proof of the pudding.

[@petyrkowalski9887]

Ooooo..oooo.. i was all excited, got my popcorn, gathered the family around to finally hear the proof. Oh… wait…. What a massive let down.

[@terrencelockett4072]

I don't think he was saying any arbitrary thing could be labeled god just that whatever "caused" the universe is god. It's less arbitrary because we don't know what that is, or even if there was something/someone we could call a "cause". Why do so many of these types of theists think an assumption that sounds good means the assumption is true? Assuming cause and effect worked exactly the same before what we understand as the universe, is an assumption they think sounds good but isn't a proven fact.

[@Glasschin2.0]

At least this caller tried to listen

[@ahah86]

They need to stop with this argument. The fallacies in it have been highlighted over and over and over again and even so, they just can't let it go.

[@terrencelockett4072]

This is still a thing, but why do people think all agnostics somehow believe in god a little bit or something? They try to make the claim that agnostics are totally different than atheists or theists. Why do they think the idea of people not knowing if a god exists says anything specific about whether they believe gods exist or not?

[@franktalley]

Silly rabbits, everyone knows that homer Simpson is God, which makes Bart the son of God

[@ARoll925]

This caller is very confused

[@sohu86x]

He got fooled by a atupid argument.

[@captkalik]

Don’t people realize that if you prove the existence of god, especially your god, you’d be so famous and the news would rock the world on it’s foundation, so why do they think they can call into some show and prove it over the phone cause if you can you would be able to prove it to the world and be the most famous person to ever exist

[@marikamoreau8828]

This is me looking in the comments for the time stamp when he stops talking about his religious history. Every god damn time. Do none of them ever watch and hear "your story is irrelevant"? Every single video has to be twice the necessary length.

[@theresawilliams4296]

Another theist wirh so called proof of his god, and another thiests shot down in flames.😂😂😂 The score board shows that they are still on zero points for their proof claims.

[@a-blivvy-yus]

It's worth noting that "agnostic" is a valid term to use when describing many Christians, as well as theists of various other religions, if you're using it correctly. If you believe in a god, or multiple gods, but won't assert a confident ability to prove their existence, you're an agnostic theist. Being agnostic is the position of not asserting definite knowledge of something. You can technically be agnostic about the existence of a plate of bacon on your dining room table if you're in the next room and can semll bacon, but don't know if it's been eaten yet. Most preachers would claim to be gnostic believers, but many people of various faiths are more open to the idea that, while they believe their position to be justified, it's plausible for them to be wrong.

[@AndresCampos-zx1cj]

This male host is so annoying to me, as she makes a really good point, he just interupts her

[@Sal.K--BC]

Why does this video just end abruptly?

[@animtres]

😂😂

[@jennameg4722]

For “not taking the side of theists” he’s certainly using the same terminology and arguments theists keep presenting as unique. Any time we hear the words “first cause” most of us know exactly where the discussion is heading. Is it seriously always the same weak apologetics? That sounds rhetorical but I mean it as an honest question.

[@brucebaker810]

Proof starts 6:19

[@kriss3d]

Then he can throw out every known god because God in every single definition of any religion has been someone with a will. A cause isn't God. It's just a cause. He is trying to redefine God to something that we can reasonably agree with in order to claim that he presented proof of God. No. He just took something else and called it god. If I name my dog God then I don't get to tell people that I can prove 100% scientifically that God exist.

[@johnfleet1854]

I don't understand and have no answers therefore .... wait for it .... nearly there.... "God" - has to be right yes? .... no

[@EllasPOSEiDON]

Info about any g0d is purely fictional.

[@poohgettc]

Then who made god?

[@CyberBeep_kenshi]

These people lack self reflection..... when you are just twisting convoluted arguments around, there is something wrong.....

[@Chris-hx3om]

This is the Kalam conjecture. Been debunked (many times).

[@djehutisundaka7998]

At the quantum level, there are unobservable states and therefore unpredictable outcomes but they are not random. Observational ignorance and an inability for prediction does not make something random or undetermined. The limits to our knowledge does not limit reality. The big bang is the beginning of the expansion of the universe. The concept of the big bang does not depend upon the concept of an origin from a singularity and therefore does not depend upon a notion of time and space having a beginning. If one wishes to label the origin of the universe 'god', one can just as easily label the origin of the universe 'Bugs Bunny' and call that the proof for the existence of Bugs Bunny. Timeless and omnipresent are attributes that theists would ascribe to a god but attributes are not what theists would identify as being a god. A god possesses inherent control over some aspect of the world.

[@klaxoncow]

Before watching the video, I'm guessing the answer is "no". Not least because, like, if this ever did happen, then it would surely have made the news headlines at some point. Even with our crazy media, they'd have mentioning it in passing at least once that it's now proven scientific fact that there really is a god, surely?

[@timothywilliams4089]

I miss these two presenters,..they were so surgically analytical.....and had a nice manner....

[@hidden546]

The thing that made the thing that has no known maker

[@Angel-nl1hp]

Basically this caller is just doing a rehash of the cosmological argument.

[@grahvis]

There are no new theist arguments.

[@chriscrilly8807]

Audio is grotesquely out of synch.-about half a second behind the picture. Most distracting. Please fix this.

[@RP-ei5vd]

Hosts need to stop talking over each other.

[@davidszeremi1786]

He proves that he can label a pencil God if it caused the universe but it doesn't prove a pencil is intelligent, involved, exists, or existed. The primordial pencil could be real but it's a big jump to call it Yhwh

[@Valicroix]

Atheist vs Theist is about belief. If you believe in a god or gods then you are a theist. If you don't then you're an atheist. Gnostic vs Agnostic has to do with claims of knowledge. If you're unsure that a god or gods exist then you are agnostic about the existence of a god or gods. No, you can't say that everything has a cause. The most you can say is everything we know about has a cause and even that appears to not be true at the quantum level.

[@Beastt17]

Sometimes I'm less than impressed by the atheist responses. The first issue here is something they touched on, but then diverted from. When you claim a necessity of cause and effect, you can't then jump to an uncaused cause, because that violates the premise of cause and effect being a necessity. If a God can simply exist, then so can a universe... problem solved. And since existence cannot be caused, an "eternal" (not "infinite") universe is the plausible answer.

[@hellmouthisnogod1843]

We don't know whether the universe is infinite; the calculations that start from a simulation beginning at a moment when the universe was some 10-to-the-power-of-minus-43(or some similar exponent) seconds result in a universe that would look like ours - but that does not include a moment of "singularity", a moment of "coming into existence" or as deists would put it, "the moment of creation". The big bang is the model that delivers this result, so this theory holds at least for the moment - it just does not include the beginning; the big bang is the expansion we observe. When or where the beginning took place, can only be guessed, but it was for certain not in the mind of a being that we would call god - until you FINALLY (you or somebody else) deliver a definition of what a god is. It seems that "everybody knows it" - and that is why we have hundreds of millions of them if we count the ridiculous number of Hindu gods and we recognize that this definition might even include the Christian angels and demons of Hell, tree gods in Africa and local mountain Gods in South America. He says "whatever gave rise to this universe" - there we are, we don't know whether it has "risen". Just one example: 100m away is the church of San Expedito - every 19th day of the month he does miracles if you give him a candle; I don't know whether he does the miracles himself or whether he takes them and bribes God to change his perfect plan if he is paid a candle and maybe hears a prayer - but if he does it on his own he is like one of the many minor gods. Simple alternative to the god idea: Spacetime is quantized, like is matter; we observe the spontaneous generation of particle/antiparticle in "empty space" (which actually does not exist), so why can't spacetime/anti-spacetime pairs (or multiplets given the number of up to 26 dimensions for our universe) spontaneously come into existence - let't say in a hyper-universe? What is that god under these assumption? the hyper-universe (who created that?), or the laws of physics that describe the spontaneous pair generation? One single spacetime element would be as close to a singularity as we may ever imagine and the energy density would make it unstable and decay into expanding heap of spacetime units forming a micro-universe which will due to the energy density at once expand - and after that aforementioned split fraction of a nanosecond the process would continue as the observed "big bang". That is highly speculative, rather inspired by my 5000 science fiction books than by physics, but it seems more plausible than any god, especially if later on this god takes a special interest in one species of vertebrae on one of billions of planets in one special galaxy out of 2 trillion galaxies.

[@smochygrice465]

Nope 😎

[@joeblow5588]

The Argumentum Sagani "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Can someone please provide an exemple of an "extraordinary evidence" ? In the 3000 years or so of recorded philosophy and scientific findings I am sure there must be at least one "extraordinary evidence" of some "extraordinary claim"

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

You mean the Shroud of Turin isn't good enough for you?

[@joeblow5588]

@@holgerlubotzki3469 Ok. Thanks for the response What is the "extraordinary claim" and the "extraordinary evidence" with the Shroud of Turin ?

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

@@joeblow5588 I was asking if the Shroud of Turin might be the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary g0d claim. (YT really needs a sarcasm emoji..)

[@joeblow5588]

@@holgerlubotzki3469 The Shroud of Turin is not an extraordinary evidence. It's an extraordinary claim.

[@steveyuhas9278]

It's really bizarre to me that we even have these niche interpretations of god. Imagine a world where we had never heard of any other god concept and they tried to explain this to you. Without the frame of reference of classical theists and their beliefs, this caller's definition of god is a distinction without a difference. It's essentially meaningless to put the label god on it. It adds no new information, understanding or explanation. If we didn't have the term god or the concept of it already, this viewpoint wouldn't just not make sense, it quite literally COULD NOT exist. This does not serve any purpose other than allowing the caller to be in the "god club" on a technicality. Why even bother? I would really love to hear someone try to explain this definition without referencing any other god concept. I don't see it being coherent. And that means this definition is pretty useless.

[@dalecs47]

"The universe in infinite so believe in my god and give me money.

[@joed9305]

Not sure if I've seen this one yet. But before watching I'm going to bet on no. Let's see...

[@joed9305]

Nope... oh well. 😢

[@TimHonisett-m1x]

Why dont they get to the point rather than tell a story

[@markwoods4439]

I have a question can god, of any kind, prove themselves?!!

[@brianmonks8657]

Infinity doesn't exist as a quantity. If you are starting with the Universe being infinite you are starting with something that isn't true.

[@donnievance1942]

Wrong. A universe with an infinite past does not entail the existence of anything infinite at any point in time. There is no principle of mathematics or physics that is violated by the past having been infinite, anymore than that the infinity of the future violates any law. You guys can make such assertions all you want. All they are is assertions. They have nothing in mathematics or physics to back them up. Actually, the 1st law of thermodynamics suggests otherwise-- "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." In fact, the concept of dynamic process as being a limitless succession without a beginning or an end is the most parsimonious concept. If this conception represents existential truth, then looking back to any moment of the past involves no paradoxes-- we only see what is happening at any given moment as a natural consequence of what happened in the previous moment. There is no violation of the causal principle, and no conceptual problem arises. It is only the concept of an absolute beginning that creates paradoxes. Any "beginning" is anomalous and requires some kind of incomprehensible "cause" which must remain anomalous, as having no cause itself. On the other hand, a dynamic process with an infinite past manifests no moment which is unexplainable. The events of every moment have their explanation in terms of the events of the preceding moment. The fact that an infinite past is intuitively incomprehensible to you is irrelevant. If you think that, "I can't comprehend infinity, therefore my God exists" is a logical entailment, then you fail at the most basic employment of logic. Sticking your God into any model explains nothing, anyway. You have no model of your God that provides any explanatory method that can be applied to anything. It's a useless concept. It boils down to "I can't explain X, therefore magic." Such a mental process only works for imbeciles. No one can "explain" reality and the universe. Sticking in an assertion of magic and magical entities, doesn't do anything to resolve that fact. It's a resort of the drooling class. The theoretical physicist David Bohm made an extremely compelling argument that reality can never have a comprehensive analytical "explanation." And your God doesn't provide any such explanation. So, what's your shtick?

[@ronwhitehouse23]

Before I do that!!!! Alarm bells ringing bullshit alarm