Evidence for the Existence of God & We Don't Know | Rob - Boston, MA | Atheist Experience 22.18 -
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 05. 2018
- The Atheist Experience episode 22.18 for May 6, 2018, with Jen Peeples and Phil Session.
Call the show on Sundays 4:00-6:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
We welcome your comments on the open blog thread for this show.
► freethoughtblogs.com/axp/
CZcams comments are at present disabled in our channel, to the displeasure of some. However, each video has a prominent link to the associated open thread that appears on our blog. In the past we've tried opening up the channel to comments, but we found that a very high number of episodes wound up being flooded with a combination of spam, long winded apologists, and various obscene or misogynistic comments directed at various hosts by people with an axe to grind. This seems to be the nature of CZcams comment sections, in our experience.
We do moderate the blog, the same way that we moderate chat during the show, as well as comments on our Facebook group. For comment sections that are "officially" associated with our show (and, to a much lesser extent, channels that may give the unintended appearance of being official), we prefer not to play host to straight up ad hominem attacks and bigotry. As a general policy we do not block commenters simply on the basis of disagreement with our point of view. However, we do prefer discussion environments that don't actively chase off more reasonable contributors.
-------
The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting atheist-experience.com/archive/
You can read more about this show on the Atheist Experience blog:
► freethoughtblogs.com/axp/
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-community.org (The Atheist Community of Austin)
► www.atheist-experience.com (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
► www.atheist-experience.com/arc...
DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
► www.atheist-community.com/prod...
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.shelleysegal.com/
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1997 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Times I've heard "I have evidence for the existence of a god " 729
Times they have given actual evidemce: 0
In over 2000 years ! .............
Doesn’t god know these shows are on CZcams? Couldn’t he come down and sit for a 20’ Q and A and clear all this up? Seems a lot easier on all of us than suicide bombings and threats to burn in hell etc.
If god was real, you wouldn't have to do this whole song and dance to demonstrate it.
If I ever had to sit down and listen to this man explain anything else, my eyeballs would glaze over and I would have an aneurysm.
I know Matt loves these airy intellectual gymnastics, but to me, it just demonstrates how far removed from day to day reality the notion of an interactive god continues to be.
Jeff Tarbell
Well said.
Unbelievably far from true reality ! .......................
Mitäs tämä jeff tarbell juttu on ? .................@@juholaaksonen7455
when he said let me give another example, i was like holy shit please cut this guy off
he is claiming he can detect the unknowable, which is a direct contradiction.
Well, he/ it is a theist .................
Rob: evidence of wasting our time.
WASTING ! ! ..................
Lol!! Awesome!
Long winded and nothing much to do with gods, he just seemed to drone on and on.
very tiring BS
Russell Lee we can’t know something? Prove it.
If you can’t dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit.🤡
He just invents a definition of "supernatural" and then sets out to find an example of something that fits his definition.
4 minutes and I'm praying to a god I don't believe exists to strike me deaf. AHHHHHH!
The further I've removed myself from Christianity the more I see that Christian's like to hear themselves talk more than anything else.
Uhh, where in that long winded spiel did he ever get to proving God. All I heard was what amounts to 'Mathematics is weird.'
she called it, argument from ignorance. If you don't know what something means, then that's what it means, you dont know. You can't just say, well we can't explain it, it must be supernatural. No, it doesn't.
khaavren3 exactly. using our limits on what we can know does not make something “supernatural”. although it may in fact be true, we have no way of knowing. it becomes a baseless assertion.
As Laurence Krauss, the scientist, said of the religious. "Although I have written a scientific book, called " A Universe from Nothing" , I never consulted the religious, even though they are experts on "nothing"......
Rob (callers) best line:
What is interesting about Pi is that its absolutely *baked* into our universe. 🥁😂🥁
However it gave me hope that he'd pepper in some humor.
I am glad I am not the only person to have heard that. Dude, *has* to be a troll.
Yes, the constant that we use to find the circumference of a circle is found in planets, which are round. Why does that mean anything?
"What defines Supernatural?"
Ignorance. Next question?
I KNOW he needs to take a course in logic. His incoherent rambling is evidence.
I've noticed that a lot of these callers go on ridiculously long-winded, roundabout explanations for their proof. This indicates they've spent a long time thinking about it and connecting the dots in their head. And yet, they STILL make absolutely no sense at all, and don't seem to realise they're talking complete gibberish.
This dude was more effective than melatonin.
Rob left that call utterly convinced that he proved the supernatural with -1.
Human beings have a tendency to look for patterns, and that’s clearly happening here. How many calculations lead to products that don’t catch our eye? He’s only noticing it BECAUSE it results in a uniform number, which tickles his fancy and makes him want to find a meaning for that feeling.
My eyes glaze over every time a Theist tries to provide 'evidence' for God(s) using math LOL...
Sounds like a huge god-of-the-gaps all over again.
Thank you, Rob from Boston....your seemingly never ending "description" fixed my many years of insomnia! Like hearing yourself drivel on, do you???
I think Jen was doing her grocery shopping online through most of this call.
His claim that e to the I pi = -1 is unknowable is wrong. There is a relatively straightforward way to prove it.
The caller confuses "we cannot know" with "can't be known".
I hope that when Rob collects his Nobel prize he calls in again.
Okay so euler’s identity is e^iπ = -1. Cool. But the more general formula (called euler’s formula) is e^iθ = cosθ + isinθ. This is a description, based on the Taylor series of cos and sin, showing how you can find the point of any dot on the complex unit circle, just by knowing it’s angle. So for example, θ=π, e^πi= cosπ + isinπ = -1+0=-1. easy enough. No outside universe knowledge needed :P
Finally. Comments are back on.
Gawd he loves the sound of his own voice.
typing "euler identity explained" into youtube search window leads to the explanation why this is so.
I found a pattern in certain numbers and therefore God.
And labels them transcendental / supernatural.
We thought thunder came from the Gods 1500 years ago.
Ah, so he defined supernatural as something that can’t be used as evidence.
Great, that means that god can’t be used as evidence.
Now what.
Einstein says the only thing more dangerous than ignorance is errogance
His claim that you can't multiply two transcendental numbers and get a whole number is wrong. e.g., pi x (1/pi) = 1
Rob: “I’d rather present the stronger of the two.”
It wasn’t very strong.🤡
Rob, there is a whole field of applied Mathematics called Theoretical Computer Science that studies what demonstrably cannot be known (or can't be "decided"), and there are many things that cannot be known (an infinite number to be more precise) and they have nothing to do with a god. You should read some papers by Alan Turing.
Pi is not an infinitely long number in all bases. In base Pi, the number is rather short.
well... that's true x")
Pi is an infinitely long number.
The fact that we shorten it to use it more easily is not related to the actual number.
He should have made two categories for the things we cannot know, things that are real and things that aren’t, because you can’t know that something is real if it isn’t, then the challenge is to distinguish between the things we can’t know and are read and the things we can’t know and aren’t real, because if we can’t know either of them, then they’re indistinguishable
so if sqrt(-1)= i
-i*i=1
so 2 transcendental number can give a whole number, so the argument fall apart.
Of course we know why e^(i * pi) is minus 1. You don't have to invoke Euler's formula to find two transcendentals that multiply to an integer. Just try pi and its reciprocal.
Of course we know why pi and e arise regularly. pi arises from circular symmetry including conic sections.
e arises regularly because e^x is the unique solution of dy/dx = y subject to y(0) = 1; that is when the rate of change of a quantity depends on its current value.
I did my masters in math and I heard Euler's name pronounced both ways too in my classes
So if human beings never learn how to understand exactly what a dog thinks in real time, then is he saying that their thinking is supernatural? Or that the thing that separates us from gaining that knowledge is supernatural? Although we can consistently reproduce responses of agression, sadness, happiness ect. (According to what we think those emotions are) and have the ability to manipulate responses from dogs; we may never learne how to communicate with dogs our exact thoughts. This doesn't mean that what's blocking us from that knowledge is supernatural right? That would be an argument from ignorance I think
What he's saying is that there's nothing, in principle, that stops us from understanding exactly what a dog thinks in real time. Because it's all a purely physical process. However the mistake he makes is that just because you can define something it doesn't mean it exists.
I love Jen👍👌👏💙💜! She is AWESOME☺☺👏💖.
pumpkin cake
She truly is! I really enjoy listening her. So much substance.
Maybe I missed it but I feel like they really dropped the ball here. They didn't have much of a rebuttal at all...they just claimed it was an argument from ignorance.
True it doesn't prove God but they should have also explained to him why his numbers dont prove the supernatural.
Gibberish
Jen says little. But when she does, she nails it.
Omg this is painful
"we don't know everything, therefore some things we can't know, therefore the supernatural exists, therefore god exists"
I can’t believe you let this man talk so long.
His whole argument has a fundamental glaw: he wants to separate things into things we can know and things we can't ever know but he can't demonstrate that there are things we can't ever know. Just because we don't think we can know them doesn't mean we actually can't know them.
It comes down to him arbitrarily defining things as unknownable without sufficient evidence that it actually IS unknowable.
WOW....I guess we will just keep wondering.
Existence of the Cosmos as a single entity, not as a compilation of parts is not measurable, not repeatable, cannot be measured, cannot be directly "known". We know existence actually exists, but we are unable to do anything but accept that existence just is. This, however, still falls into the category of "Natural".
Oh my goodness…🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️
I think he's confusing mathematics with reality.
Mathematics was invented by humans, fairly recently.
Reality is just what is and is nothing to do with mathematics.
In the same way, the rules of chess have nothing to do with my garden..
Such an incredible number of words used to say essentially nothing. If ASMR was intended to induce suicide, this caller would be a star.
This is the longest version of, i do not
Math can't compete with a potluck. Nothing to do with God either
There are things that are unknowable. .. therefore the Unknowable exists? And we're gonna call those things that don't manifest 'supernatural?
I don't think that works, mate.
Translation: if you can define it and measure it and it's repeatable then it's natural
But there may be one-off occurrences that are natural, things in nature that we haven't thought of measuring because maybe we might never have the tools to measure, and unknown and maybe unknowable concepts to us, but it may still be natural, so the definition fails at every step, and it's the "god of the gaps" all over (in this case it's "supernature of the gaps")
How can you study something that you can't currently understand?
So, making shit up can be deemed supernatural.
Also, just because you can imagine some sort of god, one that cannot be "known", it still is unjustifiable to believe it exists without evidence for it's existence. Remember that any particular god may not even be possible.
This callers entire speech was an overly complicated tautology. He defined supernatural as that which we cannot know, and stated that therefore the supernatural exists because there are things which we cannot know.
Well thank you future politician because you said absolutely nothing. All he said was
"the unknowable exists, therefore the supernatural exists"
which is equivalent to
"the unknowable exists, therefore the unknowable exists"
since he defined the supernatural as the unknowable. What a useless definition.
Please, which of the gods is he talking about? Cos, I'm confused
Why should one thing that the product of 2 transcendental numbers that go on forever can't give you a whole number? There are innumerable transcendental number that go on forever, and when multiplied together give a whole number (ex: 1/e is transcendental and e*1/e=1). So Why shouldn't e^i*pi=-1 a whole number. Indeed if you understand the geometric interpretation of complex numbers it makes complete sense.Any complex number can be represented with a real and imaginary part, which can be drawn as the two coordinated on the cartesian plan. But that same point can also be uniquely identified by an angle and distance from the origin (polar coordinates). And when you multiply 2 complex numbers together using basic arithmetic (and just defining i*i=-1), if you look at the result, the new distance from the origin is the product of the distance of the two initial complex numbers and the new angle is the sum of the two initial angles. And so when you multiply 2 numbers you end up adding 2 other number (angles, which brings to mind the transcendental number pi); this automatically makes one think of logarithms, and of course the inverse function exponential (thus the transcendental number e).So in the end there is nothing magical about finding e and pi in a formula for complex numbers. It's perfectly logical and makes perfect sense. If you think that this formula or indeed any mathematical formula proves the existence of God, then why not go for a simpler one and say that 1+1=2 so therefore God. Indeed for most mathematicians both formulas (1+1=2 and e^i*pi=-1) are just about as easy, natural and obvious.
The very idea of " unknowable" is ridiculous. Unknown shrinks daily, and nothing has been demonstrated to be unknowable.
Pick, E, and I...how about 10/3? It meets the same criteria.
I don't know why he went with PI and E he could have just said irrational numbers...they don't terminate or repeat...ooooh spooky.
DID THEY FINALLY REACTIVATE THE COMMENTS SECTION?
Gwamii.
What makes you think that?
No time to answer, have to play video games.
Faith is
based on INFORMATION, laws, words, messages EVIDENCE from
God about unseen or invisible things.
Was his name 'Oiler' because he was from Huston?
The quote about the universe being queerer than we can imagine is from Haldane, not Eddington.
This is a future atheist
Nothing supernatural about it. The values are angle-dependent, and go from higher to lower ,..therefore AT SOME POINT they must get to -1. He fails to mention that it only gets to -1 when the angle equals pi...
Call again Rob
I find this caller to have been rather good. Thumbs up, i understand where he's coming from ^^. Still not good enough for me though...
Who says there is a why
Isnt this like what kent hovind says?
This was actually one of the best callers I've ever heard call this show. Very articulate. Gave me some food for thought. And extra points for sounding like he has all his teeth in his mouth!
The Dweeb unfortunately it wasn't dealt with very well, and it could have been. This is not a new argument.
He is "talking" well, but isn't anything new. His whole concept is that "there is something we cannot know as our brains and tools might not allow it" - but he is going to "assume" that it is "supernatural" and assume that whatever he cannot understand is "supernatural". That's like saying - if you are a peasent in medieval age, and if you don't know why lightning occurs - then it must be "Thor" - since I cannot know and so, I assume it is "supernatural" and is a god named "Thor" with magic.
The Dweeb I agree that he was very articulate. But he still came back every time to "I don't know, therefore God, therefore supernatural". Still a huge leap. But I did like him. Someone I could have a conversation with.
except he's trying to redefine (in a wrong way since he's just making assumptions) a whole field of study that already exists. There is a whole branch of applied Mathematics that studies and proofs what cannot be known or decided. It's called Theoretical Computer Science and has been definde (or discovered if you want) by Alan Turing and many other mathematicians in his period. And of course, the infinite number of things that demonstrably cannot be known have nothing to do with the natural, nor the supernatural.
And yet he said nothing
His definition on supernatural is way off.. Supernatural does not equal what we cannot know. It's just something outside our natural world, which we may know about in the future.
If (e^pi)*i = -1
And i*i = -1
Then e^pi = i
if e > 1
and pi > 1
Then e^pi > 1
i < 1
therefore 1 < 1
Something is broken here, and I think it’s step one.
Corrections:
Step 1: e^(i*pi) = -1, not (e^pi)*i = -1
Step 3: e^pi = 23.1... (easily calculated)
Step 7: i cannot be compared on the same number line as 1. However |i| = |1|; absolute value of i is not less than absolute value of 1, it is equal.
For some reason, this reminds me of flat-earthers "explanations" ....... ? ................
I am guessing this is Mr Steven Pinker.
Hate to 1 spend the night at this dude's house as a grandchild.
OMG. Matt would have cut this guy off after five minutes.
Well, that was completely pointless.
What a boring long tapdance,....
You need to think harder.
You want there to be a God. Someone you can talk to when alone in your privy.
Someone who will cuddle you after you die. Someone invisible, timeless and outside of the universe.
Hmmm. Can't help you there dude.
Rob was wrong, and he fundementally misunderstood whatn transcendental number is. First, i the square root of -1 is not transcendental, it is an algebric number. A transcendental number is defined as a number real, or complex is not a root of a polynomial with rational coefficient, and i is the root of x^2 + 1 = 0. So whatever, the subsequent things he mumbled was just wrong. Surely pi is transcendental, and 1/pi is transcendental, but pi*1/pi = 1 which is not transcendental. On the other hand, he wasn't too wrong about unknowable, say halting problem which has been proven that it is unsolvable, and in fact, it is also proven that the set of unsolvable problems is bigger than solvable problems. For all solvable problems are countable, and the set of all problems is uncountable which is much bigger.
If God is real and actually exists, God should be able to convince everyone that it exists. No people should be involved at all.
In short: I don`t know, therefore "god" .........................
oh ffs longest build for afi. seriously anti climactic.
Mathematical relationships exist, therefore god.
The main problem in the world is that people think that religious dogma, going through the motions, is religion. It is not. There is real religion, but very few know what it is. So, what is commonly referred to as religion is "religious dogma", not actual religion. Since both side s of the argument seem to have the same misconceptions, then they cannot truly argue, and there is little point, except that people should try to find some truth from this.
Religion IS religious dogma
To most people.
All that without providing any clue of whay 'religion' actually is.
To you.
Because to me, religion holds no value.
In principle I have not win the lottery, but in principal i CAN win the lottery in future i.e. I WIN the LOTTERY ? .................
That was straight from ken ham or kent hovind, one of them, he just tried the same ..................
I PIE,, or I SPY ..................
6mins is all i could take..waffle followed by more waffle.
Thats alot of word salad god damn lol.