Ontological Argument For God | Alejandro-CA | Talk Heathen 05.08
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 02. 2021
- Call the show on Sundays 1:00pm-2:30pm CDT:
-Use your ☎ and call 1-512-991-9242
-Or use your 💻 and click tiny.cc/callth
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more:
/ talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
Talk Heathen merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & 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.
CONTACTS & SOCIAL MEDIA
Instagram:
Eric Murphy: Erictheheathen
Vi La Bianca: vilabianca
Twitter:
Eric Murphy: @dirtyheathen
Vi La Bianca: @AuthorConfusion
/ talkheathenfg
reddit.com/r/talkheathen
NOTES
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:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2021 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Every “intellectual Christian” has the exact same condescending tone in their voice.
its an oxymoron
I’ve noticed that. And they all came after me with that tone of voice when I started questioning before I left the belief system. Wives, pastors, friends…
This is CC himself or a CC acolyte that's why they sound the same.
@@chrismathis4162 The "oxy" isn't really necessary.
oxymoron af
"'I don't know' is automatically the wrong answer."
That might be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard anyone say on any call-in show, and that's saying a lot. The caller should feel embarrassed for saying that.
The record may have been broken in today’s episode when Omar said “Saying ‘I don’t know’ is a logical fallacy” though. 😂
@@kaiza6467 I think Alejandro is fucking Omar.
@@corydorastube Who is Omar, or Is that a reference?
@@notatheist He is another caller.
We know exactly what he meant by that.
_You don't have an answer so mine is correct by default._
Unfortunately that's not how it works and I'm sure he knew that but he still dishonestly attempted to pass it off as true because theists have nothing but sophist arguments, conjecture, special pleading, fallacies, bias, cherry picking etc etc...
His biggest problem is, he doesn't realize he's in the gumball analogy, and he's the one calling even. We don't know, Alajandro, the gumballs have yet to be counted.
Worse yet, every time we try to divide and compare the mass of each 'half' of the amount of marbles, the weights are off by at least a very small amount. Sometimes, by *about the mass of one marble*.
Alejandro's got plenty of bigger problems than that. How to feed himself, do up his shoes, blow his nose....i mean, christ, he had to beg a nurse for help dialling the phone.
This is an easy one to refute. Simply asked Alejandro the question, what is my father's middle name. When he says I don't know, which would be the honest answer, then he has just refuted himself
You might think so, but someone like Alejandro would launch into a wordy explanation about how he isn't currently aware of your father's middle name, but he could logically deduce that IF your father has a middle name, the fact that someone COULD know it means that saying, "I don't know," would not be a correct answer. Because he's intellectually dishonest.
"saying I Don't Know is automatically the wrong answer"
And this little cognitive bug right here, is why so many believers are believers.
I am convinced that cognitive dissonance right there is the exact reason why there's a conflict in the first place.
"I don't know", is a perfectly good response to a question. It is also a good starting place for learning.
How many times has "I don't know," saved time and effort.
@@eamonhunt8781 i don't know.
@@eamonhunt8781 A whole heck of a lot that I know of, the exact number I'm not sure of... Which is why high quality ignorance is what we're shooting for.
Alejandro sounds like he is well accustomed to delivering lectures to a passive audience. Being interrupted and contradicted seems entirely alien to him.
Spot on.. He gives himself too much credit
This is the Modus Operandi for the vast majority of theistic callers to this show and the others by the ACA.
As Hitchens put it:
"You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever."
'Alejandro sounds like he is well accustomed to delivering lectures to a passive audience.' - An audience of one. Himself.
He must have a brainwashed audience that believes every word he says. Must be nice. I have to come up with true logic, and this guy gets away with presenting emotion and faith instead. BTW, I am not trying to convince folks about a fantasy god, I argue in court.
Actually, I’m quite used to interruptions and hostile audiences.
We didn't have all the answers until this guy came along. Let's all be thankful that this guy knows everything and we can all relax.
The ontological argument, when I learned it in college, drove me into being an agnostic. It is the most ridiculous argument in existence.
There is a lot of competition for that title.
@@stultusvenator3233 😆 first time I’ve heard this call and holy FUCK, do you imagine having the NERVE to think that not knowing is a lesser position than talking out of your ass?!? 🤩 😂
@@stultusvenator3233 The ontological argument is stiff competition for last place, though that's mostly because it was dead on arrival.
I got one that’s even more ridiculous: There is the alarm clock argument that was given on an older ae episode: because the alarm clock made a wierd sound one morning, that was proof of the supernatural. Therefore god. ;;;;;;; I S%^* you not.
@@gayesthusky2177I remember that one. The dude was misquoting a Christian apologist's analogy, can't remember who.
"You can't wake up if your alarm clock doesn't go off." Something stupid like that
I'm tired of people covertly using the word autistic in a negative connotation and playing dumb when someone calls them out on it. He basically implied that atheists are "slow" because we don't believe what he believes. People with autism are not "slow". Hearing this idiot implying that really pissed me off.
I agree completely. It is a spectrum and it is in no way related to intelligence. Thank you. 😤
I'm autistic. I dropped out of Varsity due to an inability to make personal connection and went into depression. And I got 90s for the courses I did in fact complete. So ye, it pissed me off too.
I legit had to go back and replay (at ~3 mins in) when he said the closest term to "people lacking belief" was "autistic"
@@Ray_Mac Yeah I thought I heard him incorrectly. I went back to replay that part as well. I'm still in shock.
Most autistic people are highly intelligent, especially their ability see patterns. They are especially good at abstract maths
Some years back I was speaking to the head of the Western Australian Autism Association and I asked him about the accuracy of the movies Rain Man and Mercury Rising.
He said the portrayal of the autistic characters Raymond and Simon in both movies were spot on.
This guy is one of the most pretentious sounding people I've ever heard.
I am now dumber for listening to his pretentious ass.
It was hard to listen to him speak. I would not able to have a conversation with him.
He’s an idiot. He’s wants to come across as a “know it all” yet knows shit
He is not pretentious. He called in to win an argument, so, he is going to attempt to win it. What happens after the argument will determine if he is pretentious or not. If he listens back to the argument, and fixes his faulty logic, then how can anybody call him "pretentious?"
@@francmittelo6731 he commenter said he "sounds" pretentious, it has more to do with his turn of phrase and the way he dismisses the hosts points without listening or considering them. He isn't even willing to accept they don't know something. That sounds pretentious to me. Especially considering that pretentious means attempting to impress by affecting greater importance then is actually possessed. So trying to sound smart when you clearly have large gaps in your knowledge is by definition pretentious. I'm not sure how your point even makes sense.
The first question to ask people like Alejandro is, "Which out of all the gods are you talking about?"
Eric really hit something there that I've never thought about before. The adjective is describing the noun. That's exactly what this is. Using the adjective as a thing that exists. Eric killed this call
This is your brain on religion!! 🤣🤣🤣
I think he may just be an insufferable asshole.
This made me laugh for way too long. I'm an ex addict, raised in Christianity, just making me think of when me and all my friends would inject methamphetamines and then talk about God
@ginasalinas2731 congratulations on getting clean. V-XXV-MMIV
Caller: Makes bad argument.
Host: Explains where he's wrong.
Caller: Totally ignores everything host says and restates the same argument.
I think that describes the majority of theistic apologetics.
Have you ever had another conversation with a believer?
It's so infuriating
Repeat ad infinitum
@@guygenius138 ad nauseum
Ones I heard Matt say "What really drives thiest crazy is the answer "I don't know". He's absolutely right here.
His "tallest tree" analogy would only mean there's a "greatest being" not a maximally great being. The tallest tree isn't maximally tall. For all we know the greatest being is a dude in England named Steve who's just really nice and fit. The sorta friend who helps you move. What a great guy!
And if another person does all of the things Steve does, but also give you 20 bucks just because, then Steve is no longer the greatest, the same as if another tree grew taller than the tallest tree, that first tree is no longer the tallest.
@@LordMekenshi But what if there is another guy like your Not-Steve, but instead of giving you 20 bucks he gives you a nice cold german beer? What is the golden buck-to-beer ratio to be greatest?
@Vaishino
Also, greatness doesn't follow from creation. Why should a "creator" be great, just because he created something?
What if, the creator is "Satan"? The universe created for his amusement. Everyone in it struggles in misery, with the false believe in "god" sprinkled in, just so that that hope being crushed by the reality of "hell" offers Satan the perfect flavor if mental torment to match the eternal excruciating pain.
Guess he really is the greatest being possible...
@@wurgel1 Our creator could also be a bored kid running an old version of a simulation on a shitty computer. There would be far greater people running far greater simulations on far greater computers.
@@LordMekenshi That's exactly the way that I saw it. The tallest tree right now is not the same as the tallest possible tree. Tallest tree is only a temporary attribute, because once it falls or another one grows taller, it is no longer tallest. Can we equate that to a god? Once someone gets 'greater', god will no longer be greatest.
It's also a very limited imagination that can say that a being that created everything has to be maximally great... what if there are more powerful beings, and any god that we can think of is still just a nerdy weakling getting shoved into his locker by the greater gods?
Gah, these types of arguments are what led to religion being created in the first place. If Bob over there is the strongest man in the village, there must be someone maximally strong that can lift the world!
I like Steve
Be like Steve
Eric thank you so much for correcting Alejandro on the proper usage of the word Autistic. Not to be used in a derogatory fashion as many do. My 13 year old son is on the spectrum and we applaud you and thank you.
Especially since autism is such a broad spectrum now. At this point, it might as well just be called being human.
Amen! Thanks Eric :)
I have autistic roommates who are believers so it also is just completely incorrect.
@@magnatcleo2043 No. Autism is a specific condition that is shared by a large number of people, certainly, but not all humans are autistic. You rob the ones that have the condition by making such a claim. Now this guy obviously does not know what autism is, if he arrogantly and stupidly claims that only autistic people could be atheistic.
@@magnatcleo2043 Not exactly. I'm not an expert on autism at all, but I can elaborate on it a little bit. Autism is a very broad disorder and there are a lot of different ways it can manifest in people. But that doesn't mean the definition is so broad that it essentially has no meaning.
It boils down to two main things, according to our current understanding of autism. Number one is difficulty in interpreting social situations and behaviors. Number two is restrictive behavior and patterns, such as having restrictive routines and behaviors, having very specific interests, and being very sensitive to sounds, feelings, etc.
An example of number one is not realizing someone is happy, simply because they're not able to see the other person smile underneath a face mask, even though that person is explaining they've had a great day so far and are very grateful. An example of number 2 is every time someone brushes their teeth, they have a very specific routine: they put toothpaste on their toothbrush, then put down their toothbrush upright and put the cap back on the toothpaste, without twisting it shut. Then they brush their teeth, put their toothbrush upright on the table, twist the cap on the toothpaste shut, put that upright in the far left corner of the table, then pick up their toothbrush and put it in the far right corner. And if someone else twisted the cap of their toothpaste shut before they finished brushing their teeth, they'd get really angry and feel uneasy, to the point where they feel the need to start all over again with their routine. Then, if asked what the problem was, they couldn't explain, other than saying "the toothpaste cap is supposed to be twisted shut AFTER I'm done brushing my teeth!"
"getting back to my point" aka "I'm ignoring your response and circling back to insulting you" And that's just three minutes in.
"You're presenting a god, we're not presenting anything." Well said.
Well, they’re presenting arguments against his arguments.
@@crypastesomemore8348 Or more accurately, pointing out that his arguments are garbage.
16:12 "Everything gets caused by something else, and eventually there is a first cause." Literally two contradictory statements.
It’s a comment on the existence of Absolutes.
There must be a First, Last, Biggest, etc.
@@thegodkingalex Well, we've got exactly 1 universe we can explore and study. So that universe as far as we know is the biggest and smallest. Worst and best. Most and least smelly. You don't have the data set to make any statements in this context. Your comment is a special pleading fallacy by definition. You cannot demonstrate an infinite regress cannot be the answer. And you cannot reject that if there was a first cause, it was strictly a natural event. Or that the universe is the first cause and is eternal. This is why your position is bullshit.
@@thegodkingalex That's an assumption.
It *seems* reasonable that there must be a first and last, but these are temporal terms.
Time is a *thing*.
A quality that can be modified by environmental conditions.
Time as we experience it is a property of our universe. Physics (including that of time) breaks down when you go back far enough. The real world doesn't exist following rules humans consider reasonable.
On the macro scale energy cannot be created or destroyed. On the quantum scale energy pops in and out of existence all the time.
Within a given set timeframe, there will be a first and a last.
WE DO NOT KNOW THAT ALL OF TIME EXISTS AS SUCH A DISCRETE SET OF TIME.
@@nickokona6849
I can do all those things, but I think I’ll save them for future call ins.
@@zacheryeckard3051
You’re arguing that quantum (not Nothing) is “nothing”
How dare these atheists have their own opinions lol
Your wrong. Lol
How dare they smack "gods-believers" over their heads with facts that blow their fairy tale right out the water....
@@lexcent6271 ....honestly can’t tell if sarcasm or not?
how dare we define ourselves, that's cheating!
@@guyjosephs5654 sarcasm
Arrogance with ignorance provide the most offensive and excruciatingly painful arguments.
“Are your feet bigger than mine?”
“…I don’t know”
“Wrong!!! There was a singularity!!! So my god exists!!! Boom!!!!!”
Theists are special.
“The tallest tree, therefore, god”.
Okay dude, next argument pls
Hilarious. "I don't know" is not an answer. lol
Is there a god that is more god than god?
Yeah, he's making one hell of a category error here.
At least we did not have to gaze at the tree this time.
@@freddan6fly hahahahah!!! These comments crack me up.
Eric, thanks for calling out his use of the word “autistic”. I work in the field too and the callers use was not ok.
I'm autistic - and I'm livid.
I'm also an atheist - but the charity that I run (for the neuro-diverse) is absolutely packed with orthodox this, liberal that etc etc that painting us with any kind of brush, apart from ND (a lot of autists), is meaningless.
I also have P.D.A. - he's lucky I don't personally hunt him down with a gang of my peers (on second thoughts - that would be akin to a gang of irrationally angry cats - not a viable threat).
i have a feeling he just misspoke and meant to say agnostic
@@pd4165 really showing off your mental stability there
@@cajunking5987You're one of the last people to get to say that.
@@ragg232 thanks, 12 year old girl
Can I just say: I am in love with Denis. I demand more of him. Thank you.
I also would like to follow him
get a room.
He doesn't show up much lately. But he's an OG Nonprophet. He's in hundreds of the early podcasts. Pod feed or site archive.
Agreed!
I don't get how people can become this deluded to the point where they disregard any kind of logical thinking
Because they live in a fantasy where they think with emotion rather than logic. They are getting emotional relief, it makes them feel good emotionally and ain't no one gonna take that emotional frisson away from them. Anything that seeks to confute their assertions or question them is immediately discredited by these religious nutters without a shred of verifiable, objective data. Religious nutjobs live in the land of the flying pixie because it feels good and they are too weak to live in reality where it is unsafe.
The ontological argument is such a dumb argument.
Could we get some dressing for that "Word Salad"
Maybe a bottle of humbugsauce?
I'll take a sprinkle of Jordan Peterson.
This guy's argument in a nutshell: "Because there is a tallest tree, therefore the universe has a creator." Makes sense to me!
“You have to agree on my initial BS so that I can demonstrate my BS” -Alejandro in a nutshell
"It's not my fault your arguement sucks."
😂🤣😂🤣
I've said that about a wide variety of conspiracy theorists bad arguements.
And religion has all the markers of a conspiracy theory IMO.
The irony of him trying to explain how words work.
I have been a new atheist for over 50 years. My father is a new atheist. My grandfather was a new atheist. We called ourselves agnostic, but we would be more precise to call ourselves agnostic atheists .
This entire call felt like having a toddler try to tell you what the sky is.
I love when Christian’s try these “gotcha” scripts and then just completely shut down into confusion when their script isn’t followed
I bet they buy those arguments the same way stage magicians buy tricks from the magic shop.
Sounds very much like “Canadian Catholic” who Matt banned from his show. 🤔
I missed where Matt banned him. I'd love to see that clip. Do you have a link by chance?
If it isn't him, it's someone that argues like him, which is something we don't need more of.
It's not CC but this same "perfect" horseshit popped up on Matt's show on Sunday as well as them noticing the similar behavior. Along with a whole other bag of loonies, seriously it was a hilariously cringe.
It IS CC. He has a very boring life because he spends more time calling ACA than his own babyish friends.
Hey, he wasnt bad, but as i said at the time, he's no Darth Dawkins....
He's conflating two different things in order to give his weak argument more strength.
Yes: bullshit and hot-air.
You guys give me hope. You have my gratitude and respect
Them being wrong I can live with. It's the "condescending while wrong" that burns me.
I can just imagine how brutally Matt would have shut this ass down after the first few sentences...
Matt is a hot head for ratings
You can , he called under many names , try Catholic Canadian or conservative catholic
Yes, that's a mistake Matt often makes. Best to make sure the callers have enough rope and that takes a little time.
He suffers no fools and I for one love it😂
@@Mehki227It gets old. We know what Matt thinks, already. Let the caller amaze use with his genius “saying you don’t know is always the wrong answer”.
Matt would ask for syllogisms for the umpteenth time that he has has never once come close to getting. He really enjoys teaching that specific class and knows the subject matter well. But it doesn’t make a good conversation.
What if there's a few thousand tallest trees that are equal to each other in height?
That violates my God rules of logic.
I think a few thousand trees is what it took to print off that script of his. Didn’t work though, did it? lol
How equal, down to the atom for example?
Are they equal in width and density too?
Are they are the same species?
Are they spread out across the planet, or only in one forest?
How do you measure these trees?
Do you measure them all at the exact same time, to allow for growth rates?
Do they stay the same height for long? Because different species of trees have different growth rates, or due to the environment they grow in.
Are you measuring the trees from sea level or from where they touch the ground locally?
@@WhoThisMonkey they’re all in my back garden. It’s rather dark in my house now.
@@WhoThisMonkey slightly feeble argument. When you get down to asking about measuring from sea level or not. By your reckoning I’m taller than my mate who lives down the hill from me by about 90metres.
When he pulled out the word autistic I immediately knew this caller would go into a bad direction. The feeling is mutual 😂
Just when I thought I heard allll about the unintellectual arguments, here comes Alejandro with this one. Geeeeugghh!!!
LOL..... I love it. "Your god needs a god, his god needs a god, it's turtles the whole way down"
He was clearly a presuppositionalist trying to lead them down his linguistical trap.
He is probably Canadian Catholic, a Darth Dawkins acolyte.
@@blarglemantheskeptic No, i know cc's voice and shtick and that wasn't it.
@@blarglemantheskeptic He kind of reminded me of Brojo for the same reason. It's been a while since I heard his voice, but the talking points, and the presuppositionalist angle were all there.
@@nickokona6849 absolutely not Brojo. His voice is very different from this guy.
I don't know if he was from one of DeeDee's crew but he was definitely a poor copy. A very poor copy. Probably has a heavily redacted version of 'The Script'
"i don't know" is not a valid answer... Wait! Why are you pulling my hair?"
"How many hairs am i holding?"
"I don't know?"
"That's not an answer"😂
"Even if you had enough faith to fill a mountain, it still wouldn't move a mustard seed."-Aron Ra
"I don't know" is a honest answer when you don't know... claiming that "it is god" without substantial evidence that can be tested, reassessed and verified is not a honest answer...
@cmlacosta
Here is a game. If anyone in this world can play this game successfully, then she will be able to prove the existence of God with the help of science.
Let us suppose that this universe has a creator. If this creator is to keep proof of his existence in the created world in such a way that it can be easily recognized as proof of a creator, then which proof will he keep?
Anybody can play this game, theists and atheists alike, because it starts with a supposition only.
Here is a hint for those who will play this game: A creator as a creator may have some particular properties which no one else, nothing else created by him may have, simply because they have been created and because they are not the creator. If we now find these particular properties of a creator in someone or something created, then we will immediately understand that these are from the creator only because no created being or thing can naturally have those properties.
Here is one more hint: When we say about something that it is spaceless and timeless, what we mean to say about it is that it is not within any space and time. But, whatever is there in the universe is within the space and time of the universe. Being already placed within the space and time of the universe, can anything be naturally spaceless and timeless, that is, not within any space and time?
Here is one more: If there is indeed a creator of this universe, then it can be said that this creator has brought everyone and everything within the universe into existence. Whatever has been brought into existence by the creator has been given certain lifetime. Many stars in the sky have a lifetime of several billion years; we human beings have a lifetime of a few decades; some insects have a lifetime of a single day only. Can we think of anything that has also been brought into existence by the creator, but that has been given no lifetime?
When anybody playing this game will be able to correctly pinpoint those particular properties that only a creator is privileged to have, this game will be over.
Now, try to crack the nut, if you can.
@@udaybhanuchitrakar8812 What is the point of your game?
Pre-supposing that a creator exists kinda renders it moot.
@@zacheryeckard3051
If you can successfully play this game, then you will definitely come to know that there is a creator of this universe. However, if you do not have a thorough knowledge of both physics and philosophy, then it will be a bit difficult for you to play it.
That is all I have to say about the game.
@@udaybhanuchitrakar8812 No. That'a stupid.
You're assuming the existence of a creator. Presuppositional apologetics doesn't work.
Also, you can VERY easily play this game and realize that nothing with those traits exists and that no evidence of such a thing exists.
Arguing that non-existence is one of its traits doesn't help your case.
The god of the bible is not compatible with the traits your game would produce, too.
Same for all abrahamic faith's and most if not all others.
You're not being clever, least of all by avoiding actual discussion.
The abrahamic god (and every other human god I've been I produced to the concept of) does not exist. I can say that with the same certainty that I can say faeries do not exist.
@@zacheryeckard3051
Okay, let me admit that I am stupid and that you are highly intelligent. As you are highly intelligent, so I hope you will be able to answer my question that will appear at the end of this post.
Two reasons can be given as to why an entity may be spaceless and timeless:
1) Reason A: If the entity is not within any space and time, then it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. We can also say that it will be spaceless and timeless by default;
2) Reason B: If the entity is placed within some space and time, and if it is forcefully deprived of space and time, then also it will become spaceless and timeless.
For 1), we can give the example of the entity from which our known spacetime has emerged. In this 21st century, physicists are no more saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying it is emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, not being within any spacetime, it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists are describing it not as spaceless and timeless, but as non-spatiotemporal. Whatever may be the nomenclature, the concept remains the same in both cases; the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime and so, it is naturally non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless.
For 2), we can give the example of black hole singularities. Earlier, it was known to us that black hole singularities were point-like. Now it has been known that they are not point-like but rather one dimensional ring-like. In case of black hole singularities, whether they are point-like or ring-like, space and time almost contract to zero due to a tremendous gravitational force.
Now, suppose there is one more entity within the universe that is also spaceless and timeless, but for which neither Reason A nor Reason B can be thought of as its cause. Here I am speaking about light. Light is within the universe, but as per SR both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So, within the space and time of the universe, light occupies zero space for zero time, which is tantamount to saying that light is spaceless and timeless.
Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason A? No, we cannot say so, because we know very well that light is within the space and time of the universe.
Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason B? No, we cannot say so, because we are not aware of any force that is active in case of light due to which space and time contract to zero for light.
If light is spaceless and timeless neither due to Reason A, nor due to Reason B, then what is the reason due to which it is so?
Moreover, no black hole is as big as the universe. So, the length that is almost contracted to zero in case of black hole singularities is nothing compared to the entire width of the universe. But for light, the entire width of the universe is contracted to zero. If a tremendous gravitational force is responsible for the contraction of a black hole’s size of length almost to zero, then which force is responsible for the contraction of the entire width of the universe to zero, in case of light?
Does anyone have a clue about it? Can anybody say what the cause is due to which light is spaceless and timeless?
As you are highly intelligent, so I hope we can get an answer to this question from you.
His 2005 timeline is ridiculous. He hasnt talked to enough atheists. He talks like he’s a big thinker but is demonstrating he’s not a deep thinker.
What do you want to bet he was a teenager or close to it in 2005?
Or he is getting his script from someone else
I live in a state where there's mighty Moose. Has he actually talked with any atheists or has he talked at them? Has he spoken with any atheists? The Moose in Maine may have a better understanding of reality.
@@tomjackson7755:Side bet: He went to Catholic schools and revels in the dogma and rhetoric.
@@ericwilliams1659: Priests imo. It's sad really, he seems like a bright guy but religion is blocking him from reality.
I and my son are both Autistic. Thank you for calling it out when he used it as an insult.
christian, what did you expect
Oh the irony of Mr A and his 'marbles on the table ' argument. Its obvious where those same marbles came from! 😉🤣🤪
Instead of trees, I wish Eric and Denis would have taken him down the road of "Can you go north of north?"
Above the North Pole?
@@vinfishin2582 Nah, more North than that.
@@t.ist666 ill meet you at the North Pole. Ill bring a hot air balloon and we go together 😁😁
@@t.ist666 you mean North-er-er-er?
@@t.ist666 Magnetic north or Polar north?
Is this Canadian Catholic? Gee, that Sheldon Cooper-esque tone of voice is common among loons!
He spoke two sentences and I was sure it was him. Odd that they didn’t pick that up
@@maxnyman It wasn't his accent and it wasn't his vocabulary. CC chews his words and the positioning of the voice is more in the back of the throat. His r's are a bit harder, too.
CC is also a lot more belligerent. None of the vocal tics were there.
I'd have to go back and listen to some of CC's calls, but I can see why you'd think it's him.
I wonder if CC gets off every time he calls the ACA feeling more and more stupid, or more and more convinced he's right.
If it's not him the similarity is uncanny.
If it is CC she stayed surprisingly calm compared to the usual calls. But then again it is mainly on the calls to Matt where she gets fired up.
I'll show an interest in a God when it shows an interest in me.
This will never stop being funny
A good reply to "Is there a tallest tree?" would be "Is there a fastest unicorn?" . Another approach would be to point our that there probably isn't one tallest tree. Tree height has limitations so it's likely that there are thousands or millions of trees that at any given time reach the tallest possible height.
I’d suggest that it’s not a good approach to talk about how there could be multiple trees at the tallest height. I’m not suggesting that’s an incorrect thing to say, just that as a response it would seem to give too much credence to the analogy. There are some key problems with the analogy like:
1. We know trees exist. Arguing about whether god is the maximally greatest when we have no evidence a god even exists is not analogous to anything about trees.
2. There happening to be a tallest tree doesn’t mean that tree is maximally tall.
The analogy is completely broken. If you focus on the fact that multiple trees could be the tallest (and especially if you word it as tallest “possible” height) the theist will think they are right. They have other reasons for thinking there is only one god so it’s not a challenge to them to propose the idea (without evidence) that there could be multiple.
@@JohnSmith-fz1ih But it would force them to accept that there isn't necessarily a single God, because there could be any arbitrary number of them that meet the same criteria. And that is tantamount to proving them wrong because they need there to be a single God (assuming it isn't a polytheist making this argument of course, I guess then you'd be in more trouble).
@@Krikenemp18 how would that prove them wrong? The tree is an analogy- there might be 2 trees at the same height that are both the “tallest”, but there is only one concept of “tallest”, just like there is only one concept of “greatest being”. Whether there a multiple of these beings is irrelevant: only the singular concept is necessary for the ontological argument.
@@crypastesomemore8348 but a singular concept of "greatest being" doesn't imply there's only one entity *_fitting_* that concept. The second you have more than 1 greatest being, you no longer have a singular first cause...
@@crypastesomemore8348
There's also only one CONCEPT of "triangle." But there are infinitely many conceptual INSTANCES of triangles, whereas there are NO physical objects which are true triangles. These physical objects are only ever approximations at best.
In short, proving that something may exist conceptually is not at all the same as demonstrating that it exists physically. Pretending that it IS the same is a tediously unoriginal form of sophistry.
For 'new atheist', read 'vocal atheist'.
His issue is also one of correlation/causation.
A lot of "groups" have grown over the last 10-20 years. Why? Cause of the internet. The ideas and people have existed before, but they were rather isolated in their environments.
@@cy-one That's his big mistake at the start. He fails to realize that the internet has brought things into view that have existed for decades beforehand, but just went unnoticed because they weren't as accessible before the internet. In the case of atheists, he also doesn't get that the term hasn't been redefined. The definition of atheism has been corrected, since theists have been, and still are, getting it wrong. It's not our fault that he doesn't like that a centuries old mistake has been corrected.
No such thing as a new atheist its that simple
Haha, "I don't know how many marbles there are in the jar"
Alejandro: "you're wrong"
Everyone with a brain: "what"?
The second he stated 'I don't know' was a 'wrong answer' I knew Alejandro had problems with reasoning and logic.
Or maybe with expressing his ideas. Technically it is "wrong" in that it doesn't match the (unknown) correct answer, whatever that would be.
@@irrelevant_noob
No, the position of "I don't know" is valid during any enquiry based either on inductive or deductive inference.
In the case of induction, where we're trying to develop a general account of a process from specific observations, "I don't know" can either mean that not all possible observations have been gathered, or that their combined effect is inconclusive. We don't know who won an election until sufficiently many votes have been counted. We don't know the value of a single vote until we have observed it.
In the case of deduction, as in formal systems such as mathematics, there are many conjectures whose present value happens to be "I don't know," for example P=NP. Someone might know, but not me, and not yet. That's simply being TRUTHFUL. But there are propositions in any nontrivial system whose values are undecidable, as Gödel proved. Here the only CORRECT answer is "I don't know (and neither do you.)"
@@starfishsystems it's a valid statement to make but an incorrect "value" to be used as answer. (Unless in exceptional cases where the question would specifically ask about the person's knowledge status.)
"God is maximally great."
"Okay, I'll accept that definition for the sake of discussion. Please note that it is greater to *not* exist than to exist."
"Ha, you accepted-- Wait, what? No! My argument requires that it be the other way around!"
"Okay. Prove that it's greater to exist than to not exist."
"Isn't this god greater than any other if he can do all these amazing things while also not existing?"
That's a way to argue by seemingly illogically standing on your head. I like it!
If something does not exist, it can’t be great.
@@thegodkingalex If something is defined into existence, it doesn't mean it exists.
@@thegodkingalex Sure it can. Things that do not exist are not limited the way that things that exist are. Things that exist get damaged, but things that don't exist are eternally inviolable. Living things that exist make mistakes, but things that do not exist don't. Living things that exist sometimes make mistakes, or act hypocritically, or don't live up to their own standards, but things that do not exist never do those things. No, it's far greater to not exist than to exist. QED
You have to show a God that got high before you can show me the most high God. 😂😂😂
Ya. He's completely lost sight of the fact that we can tell there's a tallest tree in a set because we have many trees in the set to compare it to. We have exactly 1 universe we can investigate, and zero gods that are in evidence.
Caller: botches the gumball analogy.
Me: Can't wait till he encounters Schrödinger's cat.
Thank You! I have heard this argument go round and round, and I am screaming Adjectives aren't Nouns!!
When I was in high-school in the 90s, lack of belief, as a posted to anti-belief, was more commonly referred to as agnostic. Agnosticism was more improperly overused and not discussed as a subset belief. Also, with the Christian stranglehold on America including the satanic panic, people were more scared to use the term atheist. That doesn't mean they didn't exist or that there weren't movements. As Eric said, labels change. But the concept and people always existed.
Yes, I considered myself agnostic for that reason. But that usage of agnosticism was again an attempt by theists to segregate their opposition. When I learned what gnostic was, and what the prefix 'a' meant, I immediately identified as an atheist.
Not long ago....I was trying to explain my position as an agnostic atheist to someone (with a PhD, so not a complete dummy).
I think it was their first time having to consider the idea, because it caused a mental blockage - their world excluded the two being different spectrums.
This was Europe and I know the other person to be irreligious and decently intelligent.
It's going to take a long time.
I also spectacularly failed to pull the 'doctor', which was a definite bummer. She won't speak to me now, but I don't think it's a metaphysical issue.
I have had this discussion since the 90s as well. We got the dictionary and all agreed that just not believing someone’s claim that gods exist fit the term well enough. Even back then, people still said “I don’t know…”
I remember as a kid, I was often asked questions where I responded "I don't know," and I got the response "ThThe at isn't an answer," and people got increasingly mad at me when that was all I could say. The thing was I genuinely didn't know.
I don't know if this is a thing anywhere else, but here in America there seems to be a demand for all the right answers, or we're expected to conform
And that's really problematic in our culture. But I'd much rather hear someone say "I don't know" than just make stuff up. Because I value honesty.
I know I heard this in school, but it was also used when kids weren't paying attention, when the answer was literally written on the board, or when everyone was habitually trying to get out of answering (particularly in math).
not even the right answer in alot of cases, just an answer, it is so dishonest, people are terrified of not knowing something, so they make shit up
The term "I don't know" is correct for anytime one doesn't have a justifiable answer. To answer otherwise is to be subjected to an accusation of lying. But some persons just want an answer whether it was right or wrong.
“You are just using words wrong” lol
" but I have a script!!!!"
I think the reason why he was putting so much focus on the "new" vs "old" was because he has a problem with how "new" atheist give the answer of I don't know instead of taking a definite point.
Which apparently happened in 2005.
Yeah, I've noticed that over the years. So many want to complain that some of us are not willing to jump to conclusions or make unsupported claims like they are, and instead just step back and admit they don't know something and withhold judgement until more evidence is found.
To those complainers, I'd like to say right now, you DO NOT have to make a claim or accept a claim right now if you are not yet convinced. Just admit you don't know, and just keep studying until you are convinced of one conclusion over another. No need to rush, just take your time. Nobody has any business forcing you to make a choice before you're convinced, so be honest with others AND yourself.
If you don't know, you don't know. And that's okay, because the next words in your mind should be the same words as many others when they could admit they didn't know : "Let's find out."
And isn't that what we all want? To figure this all out?
Theists in general try to make this distinction all the time. It's something I heard about conservative voters in my country. Conservatives tend to be more effective at mobilizing their voters is because they tend to focus on being against something. It's why conservative voters have a stereotype of being less educated. You don't require much of a brain to say "I'm against x" than to say "Here's what I stand for, and why".
@@projectknm8670 wow so well put!
Really, he just want to back atheism into a corner so he can invalidate the one thing that only a minescule minority of atheists claim.
I've ran into this sorta of reasoning with other theists. Using an analogy as actual evidence, as if reasoning that way proves something tangible. An analogy is simply a tool to help convey a concept or idea to help the listener better understand. That's it. You can use an analogy to even explain false things.
In that sense that one can use an analogy to explain fictions like Harry Potter or politics.
@@letsomethingshine yes
I was giving a presentation at a large company and someone was arguing that the analogies I was using weren't perfect.
I had the presence of mind to point out that a 100% accurate analogy is actually the same thing, so not an analogy at all. They have to be imperfect.
@@pd4165
Yes. In this sense, analogies are roughly like scientific models, but without the same commitment to rigor.
Analogies can be used to introduce an unfamiliar topic by casting it in more familiar terms (for example, electricity is analogous to water pressure IN SOME RESPECTS) but with the understanding that the analogy will break down if we try to infer too much from it.
Useful scientific models are the kind that suggest testable hypotheses. While we are never sure that a model is perfectly correct, we take it as a possibility worth seriously investigating. We never take analogies that seriously, because we already know they will break down. They're more like training wheels.
That said, there is probably a gray area in between the two, typically where a research topic is in an immature state of investigation. The various possible avenues of investigation have to be described somehow, but we don't know which if any will prove fruitful. These are somewhat more than analogies, yet not mature theories.
"Mmhmm...mmhmm..mmhmm..okay? Mmhmm...okay? Okay? Okay? Mmhmm..mmhmm...okay?"
Gotta love it when a theist explains atheism. 😂😂😂
“If ThErEs A tAlLeSt TrEe, GoD eXiStS!” One difference, trees exist.
Underrated comment
Lol right? I can compare actual trees, I can't call up Krishna and Jesus and ask to compare them 🤣
He's constantly making category errors here.
Yep. It's really annoying to listen to.
My money is on he listened to Ben Shapiro and was tricked into thinking Ben Shapiro has anything valuable at all to say about apologetics.
This whole thing reminds me of a Ben Shapiro script. It's boring and lazy.
@@nickokona6849 listen to the Canadian catholic calls. This is him.
"god exists because it has to because i said so!" Alright, im convinced!
A level of circularity that would make St. Anselm blush.
I've really enjoyed watching Eric grow. Kickin' ass, man!!
Me too
I ran into a Twitter user that used this exact script. They went in circles for weeks compounding fallacy upon fallacy until Twitter suspended their account - the user was also fond of homophobic remarks.
For the record, there is no reason to assume that a "first cause" isn't quantum mechanical.
You’d need to argue that Quantum can’t not exist.
@@thegodkingalex not at all. The evidence already tells us it can't not exist:
Energy exists and cannot be created or destroyed, meaning there is no reason to believe there was ever a time energy didn't exist.
Planck's Constant tells us the minimum energy possible is non-zero
As long as energy exists, quantum fluctuations happen
So, you have zero reason to propose a cause outside of already well evidenced physics. Until you can provide a zero energy state for us to examine, the claim of a god as first cause is dismissed as unnecessary.
@@thegodkingalex what does that even mean? As far as we can tell so far, everything that exists can’t not exist, because it does exist and doesn’t not exist. We can’t observe something not existing, so we have no idea what it means to be able to not exist.
alejandro: how many gum balls are in this jar
atheist: i dont know
alejandro: wrong answer, the answer is god
I sometimes don't understand some of the concepts put forward and I appreciate it when examples or analogies are used. I find it really helpful.
Thanks for confirming it was a presuppositional argument. I thought thats where he was going and glad to see I was correct in my assumption.
"I don't know" is the wrong answer!
😂😂😂
He's correct in a sense but it's a pretty useless sense. For instance, if you were to ask a blind person "is the sky blue" and they said "I don't know" then they have not given you the correct answer because the correct answer is "yes". The reason I say that it is useless is that, disregarding the fact that they would have been told) a blind person would be unjustified in answering "yes" because they don't have enough information to draw a justified conclusion. "I don't know" isn't really an answer to the question at all, but rather an acknowledgement that providing an answer to the question is not justified based on the available information. To provide the correct answer they would have to simply guess and be correct by accident. To provide an answer one way or the other is either foolish or arrogant. In the case of the caller and his ilk, it's the latter.
This is a clearly a caller who cannot separate ontology and epistemology, ironically, in his head.
@@wunnell strictly speaking, if there is a "sky" at all, it's not blue. It sometimes looks blue to us. Other times it's red, yellow, purple, or black. But that's treating an abstraction as if it was an existent thing.
@@nickokona6849 , yeah, but we're not speaking strictly when we say the sky is blue, are we? I find it difficult to believe that you didn't understand what I meant so why post something irrelevant simply to muddy the waters?
wunnell for the same reason I say something when people say stuff like “it’s like the chicken and the egg”. We know what came first. It’s a bullshit colloquialism that makes false statements. In a discussion where language is so important to be accurate, being accurate is paramount.
*"Am I wearing pants?"*
"I don't know."
*"That's the wrong answer"*
You can hear the moment his barin breaks down and that is at 14:30. 🤣
Why does it always take 5 hours to formulate an argument?
This tallest tree guy has called before
Yes, and the woodpeckers have made further incursions into his brain!
That 16:50 comment "how did we know the first mover didn't blow itself up in the process"
Great point about descriptors/adjectives.
Here is my rebuttal for saying "I don't know" is the wrong answer to some question.
I will ask he/she, "What did I have for dinner on Dec 1st last year?" and see what the answer will be.
Food
@Alex 0597 wrong, it was a meal supplement drink!
@@Alex-0597 Not necessarily. Maybe they didn't eat or drink anything that day, meaning the correct answer would be "nothing".
Has this guy gotten his script from Darth Dawkins? You can literally hear when he loses his script.
I really really really really really want to know what people like Alejandro are smoking and just why they seem to be so incapable of thinking like a normal person and also having an honest conversation and straightforwardly answering simple, easy to understand questions!!
Dude clearly eats cabbage all day just so he has enough of his own farts to smell.
These word games have never made god exist , i doubt it
This chap is so smug, can't believe this call went on this long.
yeah that condescending tone gave me a tumor
Delusional people often are smug.
@@powbobs then at least 3/4 of the world would be often as smugg and pretentious as this guy. I would lose my mind if that was treu.
“I don’t know” is the most intelligent stance to take on this topic to me.
Caller : ”Can there not be a tall tree"??
me : "Can there not be a largest unicorn"??
What does autism have to do with Atheism??
absolutely nothing. It was meant as an insult to atheist.
@@DimTavis1 It fell really flat. Some people tell me I'm "on the spectrum" and the reasons they do make feel much prouder than the reasons why I call myself an Atheist.
As someone *with* Autism, I can safely say it's a mystery to us as well.
I missed where Alejandro says something about autism...anyone have a time stamp??
@@BryceWayne it's early when he compares atheist after 2005 to autistic people.
I can objectively count the marbles, measure the height of the trees, and the depth of the oceans.
I've got no tools to objectively measure the "greatness" of a god, or a god to measure the greatness off.
"Just turtles the whole way down." lol
Lol. Loving the elves in the back playing with Eric re Louisiana and Los Angeles. Keep the gag going chaps, it’s fantastic, 😂😂