Evidence of god | Thomas - Georgia | Atheist Experience 23.19

The Atheist Experience 23.19 for May 5, 2019 Matt Dillahunty, Phil Session, & Rationality Rules.
Call the show on Sundays 4-6pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use our green call the show button to save on long-distance charges: www.atheist-exp...
Don't like commercials? Become a Patron and enjoy ad-free content: / theatheistexperience
Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
We welcome your comments on the open blog thread for this show.
► freethoughtblog...
The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting atheist-experie...
Subscribe to the ACA monthly newsletter here to get an advance copy delivered to your inbox every month, as well as access to the Thinking Allowed archive: aca.activehost...
To read the latest issue without signing-up, go here: www.flipsnack....
-------
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 organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
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)
► www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
► www.atheist-exp...
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
► www.atheist-com...
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 © 1996 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.

[@ladyaj7784]

He clearly did homework, worked to understand what was being presented to him, and stopped when he reached the end of what he could establish. I give him kudos for being an earnest and fair interlocutor.

[@easymoneysniper9013]

He stopped when he got what he was looking for totally. He's convoluting things that have nothing to do with each other and are irrelevant lmao

[@SkeletonKeey]

“The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you.” Neil Tyson.

[@cwdor]

That's right,,,,the universe is not reasonable it only works because Jahovah is causing it to work.

[@dieswartkat]

@@cwdor any proof of that? How do you know it's not one of the hindu gods?

[@MilesEdgeworth129]

@@cwdor Okay, now go ahead and provide evidence for your claim, and don't say "it's in the Bible" or "you just gotta have faith," because that's you just dodging the question. We need anecdotal evidence, otherwise your words are as empty as your head.

[@darkwind1812]

@@dieswartkat I believe in Jehovah but if a hindu god would be the true god, it means atheists are wrong anyway. Why do you use that argument?

[@dieswartkat]

@@darkwind1812 I use that argument because regardless if the atheist is wrong or not, on what basis can a person claim that it's a VERY specific deity that "causes everything to work"?

He's reading, he doesn't understand what he's talking about.

[@alifmuhammadchicago]

He seems to know the general ideas, enough at least to see how Matt and Co. have more cogent arguments.

[@dukadarodear2176]

@@alifmuhammadchicago Your name-sake The Prophet may not be happy with your reply.

[@gazza595]

@@dukadarodear2176 How is that even vaguely relevant? Most people are given a name by family and parents. Not necessarily a choice, why should he give any thought to any prophet?

[@anvb5a1]

Neither do the hosts on this very specific matter...

[@coletrickle1775]

@@anvb5a1 The hosts are talking about logical principles. Do you have trouble identifying principles of logic? Your comment suggests you probably need a logics class so you can keep up with the hosts. It's only tough when you don't know anything about logic.

[@jeova0sanctus0unus]

at least he admits when his point was refuted. That barely happens.

[@RhetoricalMuse]

Agnostic theist

[@paulmax3185]

The caller has made,what sounds like,an honest effort to have a deeper understanding of reality than many people. Which is commendable. The problem is that you can’t get there from here,so to speak. The greatest minds ever produced have dedicated their lives to answering these questions and have only gotten so far. There are some things that are unknown and will probably remain unknown or unknowable. We will continue to gain knowledge,but we are far from knowing the deepest truths. I’m afraid none of us will ever know the answers we all seek.

[@tatern3923]

I personally think it's all much simpler than people want it to be....they want reality to be this big complicated thing...but it could be as simple as the only thing that "exists" is some sort of universal energy that is deterministicly changing....and that's it. It's just a character trait humans have....they want things to be more than they are.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

My brain creates my reality. I have no memory of existing before I was born. When I die my world will vanish. When my brain dies my experience ends. The afterlife is an experience that cannot happen without a living brain.

[@MilesEdgeworth129]

I see what you're getting at... but some people might mistake you for a solipsist, just letting you know!

[@johnluke6122]

Just because you have no memory of existing before life that does not rule out an afterlife.

[@donaldsmith7824]

John Luke and so an after life proves there is no before life.

[@johnluke6122]

@@donaldsmith7824 I dont get it. Please elaborate your opinion more clearly.

[@markcostello5120]

@@johnluke6122 How can you determine that you are in an afterlife if you have no memory of existing before? wouldn't that just feel like the only existence you have ever had? Why would you question that existence to say that you had existed before if you had no previous recollection of existing? Shouldn't you stop crossing your fingers and hoping that a fairytale is true?

[@elkudos6262]

Phew, I'd say, Thomas is not half as bad as the majority of callers.

[@andrewlockett4569]

Crap. He's just going down the same illogical pathway, only in a far more sneaky way. There's no evidence so why would you believe it??!!!

[@VestigialHead]

@King of All Buttocks Yes but there are NO people who are far smarter than you or I that understand how evidence is used to determine what is likely to be true, that are evangelical Christians. Anyone of that level of intelligence who still believe the Christian dogma can NOT by very definition understand the evidential process. You can be extremely intelligent but never have been presented with the correct or ample information about how to determine the most probable outcome or how to use logic or reason. Consider a person who is born in an African tribe that has no access to modern education. This person could be the most intelligent man or women to have ever walked the face of the Earth. But without an education they could still easily fall for indoctrination from a young age. They have no tools to determine if it is wrong or right. If that person is then shown and taught reason, logic and the scientific process and did not then go through a profound questioning of the indoctrinated dogma then they have proven they were NOT intelligent. It would be dishonest as an intelligent person to believe any claim that does not have sufficient evidence if you understand scepticism and the scientific methodology.

[@justtheaverageone3840]

@King of All Buttocks yeah and he was honest enough to say when he was wrong or when he had no answer, i love callers and conversations like these :D

[@jackdaniels9179]

That's not saying a lot lol

[@VestigialHead]

@@jackdaniels9179 Could not care how much it is saying. All I care about is what is correct and what is false. My statements are most definitely correct. So your misunderstanding or ignorance about them is irrelevant.

[@verdatum]

GOOD CALLER. I like this guy. He's trying to learn, not trying to win.

[@justanormalday7251]

Make me a god for a day. I wouldn't let people go through all these stress to prove me.

[@pavolridrich3434]

unless you were a JOKER and selfcentered prick :D

[@Dr.TJ1]

Master Ikem Thanks for making it so blatantly obvious that you don’t understand the meaning of the words “natural selection”. It’s an enormous amount of fun for me to be able to explain the meaning to you. Whether or not your brain is capable of understanding the meaning is a different subject. Did you ever consider that the male lions with manes were the ones who were able to survive bites from other lions and predators and were then able to pass on their genes to subsequent generations? Did you ever consider that a big mane is attractive to female lions and therefore the males with bigger manes are also able to pass along their genes? Did you ever consider that males with big manes were more intimidating to other males which makes taking over a pride easier and allows the big maned males to more easily pass along their genes? Nature selected for males with big manes, that’s why most male lions have big manes. If you eliminate a creator, following the logic of how things got to be the way they are is actually pretty simple. But if you start with a creator premise, things get very complicated very quickly, such as where did the creator come from?

[@AC-gb7do]

Dr. TJ The logic bomb you dropped on him could be seen from space! 👍🏻

[@jakeallstar1]

@@Dr.TJ1 am I missing something or was that his point? I think he was trying to prove your same point in a funny way by using the creation model in a way that is clear to see natural selection is the obvious answer.

[@Dr.TJ1]

@@jakeallstar1 I always try to consider whether or not someone is being humorous or ironic when I reply, but I couldn't see any humor or irony in what Master Ikem wrote. He said that manes don't form by chance, which is a creation tip-off statement if there ever was one. Countless people still believe the myths of creation regardless of the overwhelming evidence of evolution and natural selection, so I had to take him/her at his/her word.

[@burt3724]

Hey at least this guy was up front about being a previous caller. He refined his argument as best he could, and still conceded with integrity when Matt pointed out his flaws. Love that matt gave him a tip to call back as well. This was a great call.

[@Paolo8772]

This has to be one of if not the best debates you guys have ever done! The caller was intelligent and just wanted to test his beliefs/assumptions/ assertions and conceded at the end. I don't care if he changed his mind in the end or not: I'm interested in progress for all. That you The Atheist Experience for all you do.

[@greghobbs7870]

Excellent call and great to hear an honest caller who is genuinely trying very hard to fit the puzzle together.

[@Diviance]

To be fair, it isn't hard to fit a puzzle together when you can just cut new pieces to fit while ignoring the actual puzzle.

[@reasonablespeculation3893]

Caller had no idea what he was talking about. Just reciting Sciency words, that had convinced him of his supernatural beliefs. Did he really learn anything?? .. He's got a long way to go.

[@johnpelosi4117]

I like that Thomas is such a nerd about his Sophistry.

[@danniealexander4131]

This was a good talk. I enjoyed the mental journey.

[@Camia-nb2zy]

I don’t know is a legitimate answer and usually the best one.

[@ErikB605]

Wouldn't be suprised if you could measure a persons knowledge by the amount of times they said "I don't know" throughout their life.

[@Camia-nb2zy]

ken thomas lol that’s a little to blackpilled for my liking but you do you bud

[@Camia-nb2zy]

Erik that would be an interesting experiment but admitting ignorance of a subject doesn’t necessarily mean ignorance in general.

[@ErikB605]

@@Camia-nb2zy I would even think the opposite is the case.

[@prorepair1263]

if only atheists and religious people used that answer more

[@HotelierNYC]

Love this kid. He's sweet, humble and genuinely curious.

[@sonic5d]

I LOVE THOMAS~~~ The brother is really trying to reason with Matt and the gang. I'd even say he's the most humble caller of them all from watching several of these shows.

[@andrewlockett4569]

Still stuck in a bottomless pit of delusions however. He needs to snap out of it for his own sake.

[@davidthornton2788]

Jesse Benton i agree i think hes made a good case here. He cant prove it but I like the fact when he got to the bottom of it he conceeded. I like the argument though and it was a great conversation.

[@AlexanderNash]

He's trying to smuggle in a fine tuning argument by saying that he finds it unlikely that a consciousness could have formed in a mechanically deterministic universe. Which is just an argument from personal incredulity. So it's just one of the most common creationist arguments supported by one of the most common creationist logical fallacies. He's not trying any harder than any other creationist.

[@STGFilmmakers]

This guy is the most honest caller ever!

[@Goldenrod6901]

"I can see where I must concede" HOLY SHIT that's amazing. Applause for this guy. Who cares if he's wrong. He's willing to admit he's wrong and wants to look into it further. Holy fucking shit power to you man! I wish you luck

[@pavel9652]

He conceded for the second time. Impressive, rare trait!

[@erl7466]

this reeks of an attempt to define ones beliefs into existence. i don’t need to do mental backflips to prove anything that exists, exists. y’all want to believe, then just do it, and leave the rest of us out of it.

[@badgerbush3556]

The fact that believers are looking for evidence and in doing so, engage in a desperate twisting language, logic and the scientific method, tells me that faith alone is not enough to stay the creeping doubt, religions offer zero explanatory power.

[@TheTruthKiwi]

@@badgerbush3556 Very well said. In a time of readily available information faith alone doesn't seem to be cutting it for a lot of believers.

[@badgerbush3556]

The Truth Zeus ceases to throw the lightning bolts ⚡️ for someone everyday, and well said you're observation is correct the Information age is accelerating this process.

[@unknownx7252]

The thing is the book they believe in teaches them they have to go out and make converts, so they will continue to bother you lol.

[@gabrieljaxon7164]

@@unknownx7252 but they rarely actually do that. Most congregants spend their time with likeminded others. Their “outreach” consists of visiting their own in hospital, putting money towards one family going to Sydney, London, Tokyo or Toronto under the guise of missionaries (lol), or donating school supplies to kids in their own congregation. All in jesus’ name, of course. But that’s generally the amount of effort the most of them put out. On here, it’s just theists trying to win a logic battle armed with information they learned online. Theyre not trying to persuade anyone to come to jesus. That’s why it often devolves into ad hominem name calling and threats of hell.

[@squeakD]

Much respect to the caller who was honest enough to concede at the end.

[@neilcates3499]

Well I like this caller because he is thinking and providing interesting and challenging ideas and he seems to have an open mind.

[@michaelmay5453]

I disagree, this is the standard idea that has been pushed by theists on this show for a decade now. It's just the same rehashed argument how agency is required to have a deterministic universe and its a falsity. In the end it's just a variation of the fine tuning argument and that has always been an argument from ignorance.

[@onepunch9203]

Nice. This is one of your best conversations so far.

[@joelonsdale]

Well done, Thomas. Possibly best call ever!

[@ElectrifiedBat]

At least he is a good sport about it, don't see that very often on this show.

[@paddlefar9175]

Maybe religious people are evolving and getting more civilized in their discourse? That’s a pretty cool thought though eh?

[@Diviance]

@THE PEOPLE SING More than Christians do.

[@Truther945]

@THE PEOPLE SING And xtians have the most NON answers lol

[@JaySantanaofficial]

Right, most ppl just care about the way he spoke. Lol

[@derekallen4568]

At least he acknowledges the big bang.

[@ericscaillet2232]

There is nothing more self defeating than pre determined logic.

[@johnpelosi4117]

"Can Nothing Exist?" I think it is very important to educate people in conceptualizing, in how it works, and how to apply logic to determine the difference between concepts and empirically verified content. Tracy Harris is the Winner as far as I know in questioning the whole notion of "Nothing" in that absurd call from Eric Hovind. She correctly points out that there is no example of "Nothing", yet Eric invoked "Nothing" as if it were "Something". So much hinges for Theology on the idea of "Creation" and "Creator". They will smuggle God into that Nothing without considering how meaningless and linguistic any of the notions are. I so admire @The Atheist Experience for Educating about these distinctions, thank you folks so very much.

[@johnpelosi4117]

@Anonymous Person Exactly, yet in debate, Theists who attempt the Kalaam argument consistently frame the assertion that "Something can't come from Nothing", which is why I referenced Tracy Harris's objection "What is an example of Nothing? What is this Nothing?". I am merely stressing the point that it is a meaningless linguistic fallacy which has no application in reality.

[@johnpelosi4117]

Sure. It is a concept merely. For the Full Monty we have to go Empirical Epistemology. It is there where Theism has never come close to the burden of proof. Especially when you concede, as you must, that the brief illuminating period of our species actually attaining a scientific method of investigating reality has consistently shown that "supernatural explanations" have no predictive value, except in the application of controlling human populations. You can't fool me. For a poor "soul" yearning for Heaven, the Con Man has his greatest yield. The actual oldest profession, whoring came second. I consider Theists to be obscene in Nature, for they are the oldest sucker chumps in the whole pathetic story. A real carpenter, or an Artist, or a Lover, will tell you about change, about reality, not about "Heaven", or any other bullshit.

[@johnpelosi4117]

@Anonymous Person No. If you are being serious you will know the difference between a concept in your mind, and verifying that in Reality. We have NO verifiable way of discussing this "possibility" you claim, here you are lurching down the same impossible path. Who are you to grandly say "metaphysical"? As if you could claim knowledge. I thought Theism was something humble, but it is narcissism and babyish arrogance at it's nadir. Our Species, only 100,000 years or so Existent on this speck, circling a small Sun, in a Galaxy amongst Billions, is something that you regard as more "special", and even that you have a "soul" amidst this vastness. I consider that to be an obscene solipsism. Kindly consider how thousands of years of believers have poisoned human life with their fictions, without one shred of evidence that we are enslaved by some Super Entity as you believe, but by our own invention. Show me one evidence not tainted by your own folly. I weary of this non-debate. For it is not a debate. Never has it been demonstrated that a "supernatural" cause is relevant to any event in reality. That is the real Nothing. We are Liars, that is the main Evolutionary Advantage of Homo Sapiens. But we also can thereby detect the highest degree of Truth, so your bullshit does not fly, not now, not 500 BC when Socrates called it.

[@johnpelosi4117]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 Thank you, that clears the whole thing up. Now I can go back to my life of hopeless mechanical determinism with Bjork and Brian Eno.

[@johnpelosi4117]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 Well, PURE Nihilism is a big chore, and requires a lot of costume changes, I prefer Mystery Writing, and Existential Gestures.

[@dhaisley]

So nice to see you on again Stephen. Love you and Matt very much.

[@ImperialGoldfish]

I like this caller. All religious people naturally engage in some amount of motivated reasoning, but he seems like a smart guy who's making a good faith effort to educate himself.

[@neilfreeman5824]

Someone actually prepared to listen. Good for you Thomas.

[@Defgunt]

That wetness from water is a great metaphor!

[@seraphonica]

I love how Matt agrees with his assertion and he goes off into the weeds trying to prove it anyway

[@jidey0]

What a nice and civil chat about an interesting topic.

[@michaelmay5453]

Not really, it's just the fine tuning argument with more steps and it will always be a completely useless argument from ignorance.

[@nicsanchez2255]

That was refreshing to hear someone come from an honest position. Wrong, but honest.

[@nicobaby6218]

Steven is not transphobic

[@gabrielesimionato1210]

I agree. He is not. But ACA denounced him for publishing transphobic contents. This is, to the best of how I understand american laws and language.

[@sophonax661]

@@gabrielesimionato1210 But the content is not transphobic. Criticism is not phobia. Even if he was wrong on some points (as he already said and apologized for) doesnt mean it was caused by a phobia. You can be wrong for many reasons and a phobia is the least probable one in this case because RR never said anything against trans people in general, he focused only on sports.

[@anthonynorman7545]

+

[@Ploskkky]

Just to be on the safe side... I denounce y'all.

[@curtisortega9057]

Dude i commented of essence of thoughts video, and he actually replied!!! Well He replied that RR is a bigot Still no progress, ill check back in!

[@terryboot7777]

Onya Thomas. Honesty from a religious person is rare.

[@Giggity341]

Really enjoyed this one

[@nwablackdeff2553]

This was a really good call. Great patience and Thomas was honest when he saw the flaws in his reasoning. Although it took a while lol

[@francischimenti1374]

Good stuff. I like Thomas. Asking deeper questions which relates to what we are, why we are, and not simply where we stand. At least he's not wasting his brain power arguing that the earth is flat.

[@hyojinkyoma9620]

This was a very informative conversation

[@pdute1]

How Many Times need we hear; "I've Conclusive Evidence......" / Only to be brutally disappointed!

[@unknownx7252]

I approach it as entertainment, most time it leaves me elated 🤣

[@deadlined1833]

This is one of the most honest and well spoken callers. His argument was garbage though.

[@cinemuh]

This caller is a very good thinker. 👍

[@misscameroon8062]

not really, he is not understanding some basic facts of natural world...like physics ,consciousness, etc., and so for...to form good thinking you must first know some basic factual information ...

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

The caller thinks he is a good thinker

[@dukadarodear2176]

I've determined that Thomas was an ok guy.

[@tedgrant2]

Proving a god exists is really hard.

[@JestaKilla]

This was one of the better calls I have seen, because dude was willing to admit when he lost the argument. That's a very good sign for him as someone open to evidence and seeking the truth instead of just ignoring everything that doesn't agree with his preconceived notions.

[@chrisrickard8404]

That was a really long-winded argument from incredulity

[@LunatheMoonDragon]

"So you ADMIT that..." is the beginning of every "gotcha" ever planned.

[@dukeemzworth3005]

One of the most intellectually honest theist callers to this show. Good job by everyone.

[@anvb5a1]

This ends like: "so, in the end, i don't know, therefor, gawd!" (cuz i like gawd!)

[@rekkwaffle7668]

I want more callers like Thomas honestly.

[@sgtStones]

I always found Thomas to be quite the likeably dude! You go Thomas

[@somerandom3247]

Rationality Rules makes me want to grow my hair out again

[@Mewse1203]

"Can "nothing" exist" No because then it wouldn't be "nothing" it be "something".

[@felixgraphx]

Thomas tries the 'schizophrenic' method. It consists as mentioning enough head-spinning phenomenon that induce the 'religious feeling'. (such as the concept of consiousness, infinity, a walk in nature to see breathtaking landscapes/stars, etc...) and then say "Therefore 'god' exists." Also, while we're at it, Matt (or other peeps from Atheist Experience) Are you aware of the existence of the 'Religious feeling'? and the way religious people hold on to or 'use' it?

[@johnpelosi4117]

Another aspect of being which Theism claims as it's own. I believe Hitchens remarks that the experience of the "Noumenous" is intrinsic and natural to our species, one which is robbed by considering it a gift from some Sky-God.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

Well, it may challenge materialism as a philosophy also. But yes, it does appear innate, and not a packaged religious bonus.

[@gp5121]

In other words the sublime

[@fr1nkly]

Yay Thomas, IMO you are in the upper echelon of callers. Seldom have I even been able to listen to an entire call to TAE. Though your points did not convince your attitude was exemplary. I hope you keep up your ontological work and keep calling the show.

[@powerpop23]

Best call ever in my opinion. Really good and deep discussion.

[@draxxthemsclounts2478]

Usually I don't want the co-host to talk, but when Stephen Woodford is there, I wish he'd chime in more often.

[@LeoWhalen1933]

This was pretty cool. The kid wasn't awfully articulate but he could hold up.

[@lmoral222]

He could keep up. sure. IDK about "hold up". I give him credit too, though.

[@karsten69]

Caller: god told me this about quantum mechanics Me: Great, put him on the phone.

[@tommytwotacos8106]

This maybe my favorite discussion I've yet witnessed on this show outside of those discussions I've enjoyed purely for the pwnage dispensensed on the piece of toast that figured out how to use the phone on that occasion.

[@AC-gb7do]

Tommy Two Tacos “piece of toast” 👍🏻

[@jeffhaddick5429]

The look on Steven’s face when dude conceded 😂

[@lobomeister]

Haha, thanks for pointing that out! He is so not used to that happening ;)

[@stephensehrbrock5613]

Can we get to your argument?

[@FeyScribe]

oaky... If we take theoretical physics and multiply it based on the coaxial of the quantum relevancy, our deterministic universe is THE WORD. roflcopter

[@AC-gb7do]

Christians use word salad even more than sci-fi uses technobabble.

[@jackhartford521]

Comment #2: Also, lol quite impressed at the callers ability to concede defeat.

[@pavel9652]

Twice! Rare trait, indeed!

[@arimfshapiro7907]

I hate when callers have to read their argument.

[@pavel9652]

People in the comments are to harsh towards Thomas. He is one of the best callers in the show I have seen so far. He can provide deep conversation with reasonable understanding, is calm and honest with answers. He also admitted he had to concede for the second time! Rare trait among theists!

[@wyett123]

True. Although him saying "rewinded" was killing me 😂

[@pavel9652]

@@wyett123 Gotta love the exceptions ;) I know native and English languages fluently, and I am now refreshing German and learning Italian from scratch. Tell me more about exceptions ;)

[@wyett123]

@@pavel9652 what's that got to do with this guy saying rewinded instead of rewound? Are you implying English may not be his first language?

[@pavel9652]

@@wyett123 His accent sounds as if he was from India, in my opinion.

[@wyett123]

@@pavel9652 to me he sounded like a black man...from Georgia

[@worldpeace1822]

I learned some cool words let me stick them together to sound smart... dough failed

[@brinstarmedia1411]

this call was so much better than the last one when he called

[@TheTruthKiwi]

I didn't realise Mike Tyson had evidence of gods

[@youfilin]

Rewind is good. But you have to rewind all particles and their states, but not just a clock arrow.

[@frankanderson5012]

Twenty minutes listening to Droopy...that was painful. He just picked up where he left off before and still didn't have evidence for god.

[@maow9240]

If you saw evidence for God would you know it was evidence for God?

[@p.bamygdala2139]

@Willie Great question! How would we know if what we met was a 1) god 2) alien 3) dilusion 4) trick 5) simulation agent I'm leaning to the position that we might not be able to know if we can meet a god or not.

[@maow9240]

@@p.bamygdala2139 with that kind of perspective how would you know if i wasnt just some delusion, trick, or simulation agent?

[@superusseljames]

Frank Anderson lmao yes! He does sound like droopy!

[@alicelaybourne1620]

That was a good call to listen to!

[@sierrabianca]

What a gentleman to concede when he knew the show was over. Not a trait usually found with religious ppl.

[@LinkFanatic]

It's not a trait found in MANY people, not just religious folks.

[@sierrabianca]

@@LinkFanatic True.

[@LinkFanatic]

@@sierrabianca Thanks. We need to stop putting atheists on this big rational pedestal (r/im14andthisisdeep. Come at me bros). Everyone is capable of irrationality and does exhibit lapses in reasoning on a daily basis. Sincerely, an atheist.

[@sierrabianca]

@@LinkFanatic Don't disagree with a word you said really, all I'd say is that even if we accept a baseline of irrationality which everyone is prone to exhibit, theism adds an extra component on top of this and so it's not really a defeater to simply point out that "everyone can be irrational sometimes" and imply that theists and atheists occupy an equal footing here. Theism is often guilty of actively stoking the fires of irrationality.

[@LinkFanatic]

​@@sierrabianca I agree, but to be fair, my comment was more for atheists as a whole (at least YT atheists) and not you yourself. Like, I'm sure you've seen how almost every AXP video turns into this weird mob circlejerk in the comments section where atheists blindly assume other people's intentions and beliefs...which is decidedly NOT rational. Do you know how many times I've been called a theist simply for pointing such things out? Then they just tuck tail and run whenever they get pwned by logic. >_>

[@apple1662]

Thomas, what you are not taking into account, is that slight variations over huge expanses of time, can end up being hugely different and important.

[@ishmaelkelly6686]

Is never cease to amaze me why people go through so much lint to try to prove a god . what is any of this bullshit has to do with the proof of a God explain that to me.

[@p.bamygdala2139]

Good point!

[@TheTruthKiwi]

I'm not 100% sure but I think he was trying to demonstrate that everything is predetermined. But yeah, even if it was (which it isn't of course) that still wouldn't prove a god and especially not any specific gods. So you're right, it is bullshit.

[@TenFalconsMusic]

I give Thomas points for trying... and whilst doing so, not being hostile.

[@vsrr83]

Newton's third law is a law in macroscopic mechanics. Why do people always invoke it in context not related to mechanics? Also, in it's vectorial form, it does not apply to magnetic interactions.

[@rageofheaven]

Because people, for some reason, think that an argument is sufficient extraordinary evidence for an extraordinary claim

[@asagoldsmith3328]

CUZ 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. Hah, take that evolution.

[@asagoldsmith3328]

@Hauss of Compassion The best thing to do at that point is ask them to actually recite the full 2nd law. And then ask if they know what the other laws of thermodynamics are, which they never do, since they are just regurgitating misrepresented facts in support of a conclusion rather than actually trying to learn demonstrable facts about the universe.

[@asagoldsmith3328]

@Hauss of Compassion Well the problem here is that it only works to an extent. You can tear down every unsound and poorly structured argument to try and get to the core of a belief, but at that point many apologists and more moderate theists will still avoid admitting that faith is an irrational viewpoint and go to hard solipsism. "Yeah, everything that we can observe in our reality seems to contradict the claim of some supernatural god being, but how to we know that this reality is real." When theists consistently revert to hard solipsism to justify a subjective viewpoint that either directly contradicts or cannot be proven using the observable data, you know that a belief is too ingrained in someone to be questioned. This is evident in every single caller that responds to the question "what scientific basis do you have for the existence of God?" by asking "why do we *have* to use science?"

[@AC-gb7do]

AntiFaith “honest theists”? Those are rarer than unicorns!

[@IronJoeHorn]

This caller has called in a few times. He is one of the only callers to actually admit he is wrong on a regular basis.

[@smooth_sundaes5172]

It's a pity that people spend so much time teaching themselves science purely to be able to squeeze in the lame assed proposition of "God" wherever there is a gap in knowledge. So sad!

[@danbrooks3932]

I think they lead with the idea of god created everything and end with it

[@gainer83]

Their God is a lame ass science ban wagon rider

[@smooth_sundaes5172]

@@danbrooks3932 For sure, conclusion leading the evidence

[@sydneydinks]

At least they are looking into an evidence based system...maybe they'll turn around as a result. If you try to use science for a personal God you get atheists

[@brothersanguinary9072]

@@sydneydinks Again, we see someone who does not understand what the words "atheist" and "science" mean. Go google those words then come back and explain what you mean.

[@AC-gb7do]

Why do believers think the more word salad they toss in a conversation, the smarter they look? It’s usually the exact opposite.

[@emiel1976ep]

Thomas isn't that smart. Only positive thing is, is that he accepted the counter arguments. But this where believes that he created not that long ago. As he would have created this longer ago, that he wouldn't have admitted that he was wrong.

[@terrysteelman1539]

The problem with “rewinding” time necessarily means that the events have already taken place and are only being “replayed”. So the question becomes, “Who cares?”

[@Lupinemancer87]

It's painful to see Theists use logic and science to prove their magic, when they clearly have no understanding of science.

[@hakureikura9052]

or logic

[@cheryldeboissiere7824]

You guys are so biased that you can’t even hear how scientific this theist is.

[@cheryldeboissiere7824]

Supereterminism that dominates quantum physics, especially when it comes to quantum entanglement, is an excellent argument for the existence of godhead. The theist knows his stuff.

[@davebrown6552]

My questions the theist are fairly basic how they would recognize god if it appeared to them (how would they know it was not delusion or the devil pretending). How could I convince them if god had really appeared to me. (what questions would they ask what answers would convince them that I was not lying). How do they know the vision claims in the bible were not delusion, devil or just straight up lies. No answers so far.

[@logicmofo4810]

Science does not claim the big bang to be the "beginning" of the universe. If anyone thinks it does, they've misunderstood how science explains the big bang.

[@perkeyser2032]

"I've done research". Do you mean you watched a documentary or watched youtube for an hour? That seem to be the new definition of research according to callers of this show. I've heard it so many times it's not even funny. Thank god for real scientists, for religion is the cross we have to bear.

[@ianp3112]

Anytime someone starts with, "would you agree", they are really saying " I know I'm right and nothing you say will convince me otherwise, since I lack any modicum of critical thinking", the conversation is OVER! Nice puns, BTW! Cheers

[@3dge--runner]

Idk, I liked this caller. Respectable, honest and at least put forth a good effort.

[@noco3126]

NOT "rewinded" - It's "rewound" That was painful

[@JaySantanaofficial]

Calm down, it’s not that serious.

[@JaySantanaofficial]

ci rob it’s their way of ego, remember these people grew up in the 40s-50s.

[@noco3126]

@ci rob But having knowledge of the systems you employ to communicate, especially when phoning in to a show to debate the existence of God (big topic that requires some attention to detail), helps people to take you more seriously...Plus, it's not very phonoaesthetically pleasing...any other pacific complaints about my complaints?

[@noco3126]

@myself to myself bravo

[@Ignirium]

grammer.. i hope that was annoying to read also lol grammer grammer grammer

[@sanmigueltv]

Thomas’ phone call was determined.

[@mxysptlk23]

Big words, poor grammar. That’s a red flag

[@thedancingveganatheist6310]

At least he's honest and open-minded.

[@baconair]

Rationality Rules!

[@billgreen576]

Thomas from Georgia makes the first tentative steps towards realising that what he currently believes about god(s) may not be correct. Remember Matt was Thomas some years ago. I look forward to seeing Thomas in the co-pilot seat sometime in the future.

[@tonymitchell8563]

Guys like this lose it when you move them off their script or flow chart.

[@steevrawjers]

I must concede Now that is a great step in the direction of higher education Honest and respectful caller in my opinion

[@Ilnath]

No clue what's he's talking about!

[@Eyrie007]

Thomas is just spouting word salad.

[@Brammy007a]

When you figure out what Thomas is talking about, please tell Thomas.

[@toserveman9317]

He's trying to get to a variant of "fine tuning" I think. "The ocean was made for fish and therefore god." Wrong x 2... 1 The fish were selected BY an ocean. Whatever the ocean and fish formed into... there you go; it doesn't have to be this stuff. OR even fish-like things /life at all (so be it). 2 Even IF (fine tuning), it wouldn't be evidence for god (or bigfoot dood it) without god (or bigfoot) already being in evidence. (God would need to be a demonstrated reality for it to be a potential source for what dood the fine tune.) THEN ultimately the argument drifts (especially if not challenged correctly) to "chimps can't just "randomly' type out Shakespeare." "..."Information" and "math calculations." Challenged by 'astronomical probabilities' and or 'multiverse /Darwin super cosmos.' AND challenged specifically by natural selection resetting their calculation each time a new word is randomly generated. I.e a new typewriter is built with the recent word as one of the stroke potentials -- "gradualism" I.e their "math" calculation is deeply flawed since it is a strawman. The determinist /random model doesn't go from 'letters to Shakespeare' but from letters to words then phrases etc as the typewriter key potentials. Both fine tune and 'information calculation" pretend the universe has to throw a certain `craps roll AGAIN. BUT whatever happened from [deterministic] "heat dispersion" is simply what happened. The branching tree looks like it does just because (that's the way dispersion built it) -- it's doesn't have to match up with this tree branch-pattern again.

[@ishmaelkelly6686]

I do, it's a thing called a word salad , he think that if he use scientific words and methods to try to prove God, proves God which failed every time.

[@AlexanderNash]

He's trying to smuggle in a fine tuning argument by saying that he finds it unlikely that a consciousness could have formed in a mechanically deterministic universe. Which is just an argument from personal incredulity. So it's just one of the most common creationist arguments supported by one of the most common creationist logical fallacies.

[@MrRobbish]

You cannot attribute the "butterfly effect" to a butterfly. Which is what this caller is trying to do.

[@rebel7867]

?

[@dukeemzworth3005]

We have found our 'doubting Thomas'.