Fine-Tuning & the Significance of the Universe | Brian - Houston, TX | Atheist Experience 21.29

we got Brian in Houston Texas thanks for waiting hey how are y'all doing oh yeah Matt I hope you feel better soon I wanted to ask about your response to the fine-tuning argument so in your debate with Blake jente yeah you emailed a today or yesterday right yes sir yeah okay so you give Blake 13 cards and they all turn up to be spades and you say on the hypothesis that you had cheated that that would be more likely and Blake Blake agrees and says he says that's evidence that you're cheating but not proof and you agree you say we haven't determined anything about whether or not I actually cheated but it's more likely on the hypothesis that I did cheat so my question is if you're going to argue that fine-tuning is analogous to the deck of cards and then say but with the deck of cards you know if you have 13 spades and things lined up like that but that's evidence of cheating if the two things are analogous and doesn't that imply that would define tuning you also think that's evidence of cheating or agency intervention that you might not think it's conclusive proof but wouldn't that be evidence well yes but there's a couple things that are different first of all evidence for a proposition is is separate from sufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion so you can have one little piece of evidence that would be consistent hypothesis but that is not enough to conclude reasonably that that hypothesis is the most likely answer in the case of the cards we're looking at an outcome that we are attributing significance to and in the case of the universe we are doing the same thing we are this universe is significant because it's important to us there's nothing about it that is intrinsically significant and when we look around and we see what appears to be designed we are making a conclusion about a like what the likely explanation for the appearance of design but the appearance of design is not necessarily designed and things can appear designed when they're not and this is where it differs from the cards obviously if I'm dealing out cards in front of somebody you know we know that there's an agent involved who is capable we don't know that for the universe so like any other analogy it's going to fall apart at some point the purpose was to show that just because we find a significant result and we see the appearance of design that might make people suspicious about done that does not mean that we have sufficient evidence to conclude that design is the most likely answer I have a clock okay so I mean can I just ask a question actually it's a question of your math because I'm not familiar with the context of the example that you're giving so I have a quick question from that sure but like let's say that I have a deck of cards and that has a deck of cards we each have a full deck and I deal out 13 random cards out of my deck and then Matt has to deal thirteen cards out of his deck wouldn't even though my my 13 cards are random wouldn't it be just as significant if he dealt 13 random cards that matched my cards and they wouldn't be all spades they'd just be random cards but wouldn't it be amazing if he just started turning his cards and it turned out to be the same exact cards I had just turned right and in that in that example I mean I would agree that it's likely that Matt had prearranged the deck right but here's my thing what if I didn't have a deck and I didn't put those cards down and Matt put down his cards and pulled out 13 random cards like I guess I'm confused I'm saying if I had put the cards down first and he had matched them we would all be amazed but if he drew if he had laid that same line of cards but I had never laid any cards we would just say that's just 13 random cards right even if it was the same lineup of cards that we had in the first example so the idea is well that he would have the same 13 cards that you laid out right but he could lay those same 13 cards on another day when I'm not around and nobody just isn't a thirteen what you're arguing say that any 13 cards are going to be just as desert it's the odds would be the same whether they're spades are not saying I understand I think I understand so my point isn't that the constants are just unlikely what we're concerned about is what results from the constants so you know we can have 13 cards but they just sit there and don't do anything but when we adjust the constants it's not like we have kind of the same big macroscopic picture where things just vary slightly so we might have you know different types of stars or planets or intelligent life but things become pretty catastrophic I mean like if we in some cases I mean I would argue in most cases okay in most cases but still what difference does it make maybe this is the maybe this is the absolute only configuration of those constants that results in anything significant that still doesn't tell you that it was fine-tuned and what so let's say let's say a billion of different universes attempted to form over and over and over again if this is the only one that could produce what guys then it's the only one that would ever recognize right that it's the only one that could do this and that doesn't tell you the fact of its improbability doesn't tell you how it came about and unless you can demonstrate some agent capable of doing this you don't get to just make one up sure okay well I mean I guess I would kind of get into the intrinsic probabilities of theism but I think I think the issue there would be not that we're just inferring design arbitrarily but saying okay is this plausibly due to necessity and then I mean it doesn't seem like anyone in mainstream physics thinks that the constants are necessary I think Paul Davies said that there's no reason to think that that's the case but then I mean it seems highly also implausible that it's due to chance as well it's a consensus of physicists that an intelligent designer is behind our universe no and I'm not saying that because physicists don't believe in God or I'm sorry I'm not trying to argue from authority I'm just trying to say if we can reasonably eliminate necessity and chance and those are the only two naturalistic alternatives then I guess I don't see how design how did you eliminate my advice one right at that and I'm sorry go ahead how did you eliminate chance it just seems unlikely isn't that what chance is well in your example though you you said if you had 13 spades and they lined up that it's more likely that there was cheating involved yes but the I don't think we can say that for a deck of cards is because we know there is an agent here who is capable of cheating so that note we have we have absolutely concrete confirmation that this is a possible explanation you don't have it for the universe you can't adjust any of the constants you don't have any other universe to experiment with it is all speculative and to say that it just seems unlikely that to say to imply that the mere impression that is incredibly unlikely is sufficient to conclude that there is an an agent which we can't demonstrate that is necessary and sufficient or a more probable explanation I mean that's just bizarre to me what I not know keeps us from saying that it's not more plausible that universe creating Pixies are the explanation I just want to throw in I don't know if my point is completely your non-important or if it's not being understood because it could you that I'm not understanding something but what I'm trying to say they're not with you it I just think all around in a conversation I'm wondering if I'm missing something or if everyone else is missing something here but what I'm looking at and the reason I gave the example I gave was to say if you come into it with an expectation of what it's supposed to be then you are you are more likely to think someone cheated if you come into it acknowledging that there is no expectation of what it's supposed to be then whatever you turn over is arel is like random you're just going to see it as that's what I turned over and so when we get a universe where anything happens like whatever happens happens the only reason that it could possibly be significant is if there's an expectation that it was supposed to be this way and there as far as I know is no evidence that this was like map there's a blueprint that I'm aware of that shows what the universe was supposed to be before it formed that's nothing we skipped okay that was the point of the analogy that I used her in the debate was to show that it's only significant because we imbue it with significance ahead of time right if you think it's supposed to be this way or that it was supposed to be this way then of course you're going to think that this is like what it was supposed to be but there's no reason to think it was supposed to be what it currently is and even if even if we were good to conclude that it couldn't possibly have been anything else that doesn't be only that it was this is a necessary universe that doesn't tell us anything about how or why and if we were to conclude that it's a chance universe that doesn't tell us anything about how or why maybe we're a mistake and it was supposed to be catastrophic okay so I guess when it sounds like you're kind of saying there's no reason to go ahead and and like start at the table with assigning significance to our current universe correct yeah right that index a bias that affects the conclusions you're likely there's a big difference between shooting and arrow at a at a target on a tree and shooting an arrow and hitting a tree and then going and painting a target around it right that's an example that's been used before that you understand the difference there so if you just shoot a random arrow and then go paint a target it's not amazing that you hit the target sure so I guess I just don't think it's that unreasonable to like be concerned or curious about what parameters are necessary for us to exist I mean no I think a lot of people are looking into that actually I think that's like a fair thing for science to be examining so so then I guess I don't understand the point about why it would it would be unreasonable for me to assign significance to the universe I mean although it's not it's the idea is that you're assigning significance as though people were supposed to be a result of it and that's the part where you're not showing your work it's significant to us it is not significant intrinsically it's like I have a new truck it's incredibly significant to me it's meaningless to you or here going to grab on about I have a cat right is the product of the universe potentially cat like is it possible that cats were the purpose of the universe that for that one day we would be a conduit to produce domestic sea lines and that that's what was you know tired my wife is not anything yes that is in fact the purpose of the universe I mean the idea that human beings are somehow the point of the universe is a really right I mean what Matt is saying is it may be a perspective that makes sense if you're one of the human beings but there's a lot of things this universe does and if you're going to say that something about it was was preordained why not one of those other billion things that it does yeah I think Stephen alters that the universe is fine-tuned for anything it's fine-tuned for the creation of black holes yeah like just are true in vacuum right yeah so I think I hope I didn't give off the impression that that's kind of the dichotomy I'm painting that either the universe exists solely for the purpose of human beings or it has no purpose at all I mean I think that I think the universe could have a multitude of reasons as you just mentioned for nothing and humans are just one one point that the point of the fine-tuning argument is the existence of saying not only humans but like planets and stars and any kind of recognizable universe that we're familiar with is vastly improbable so we should expect a universe that Luke Barnes has described it as something sterile sterile lifeless and featureless except that there would be nobody there to observe that and recognize it okay inter but then if there are if there are thinking beings existing then we are necessarily in a universe that supports thinking beings and so it should be completely unremarkable as thinking beings that we find ourselves in a universe that supports thinking beings it's wholly unremarkable even the catastrophic universe would be as you Niq yeah you know I mean that would be that would have its own unique parameters as well if we found ourselves in a universe that couldn't support human life now that would be more remarkable right yeah well that kind of sounds like the anthropic principle and again Luke Barnes has said something along the lines of when we examine stars and the reasons they burn the answer to that is because of nuclear reactions happening inside the stars the answer is not because otherwise we wouldn't see them right right here's something interesting when you have little children they tend to assign agency to things that don't have agency if you ask them questions like why do birds sing they will say because it sounds pretty fake like they think it applies to them so that they interpret things as behaving toward them and even something like door shutting on their hand they will say like it bit me or call them yeah Bert Bern's would be agents doors aren't right but it's still what I'm saying is they interpret these things as being for their benefit right like it's done for them or done to them although we might be moving on to the side of Brian's points okay I want to see if we can put a bow on this yeah so I guess my point it sounds like we're kind of an agreement I mean that like it's not it I'm not arguing that it's a necessary component of the fine-tuning argument that humans be the sole reason for the universe I know I already mentioned that and I'm not trying to like assign significance just because you know as humans we feel that our lives have value so that's kind of what we need to do in order to I guess just get on with our lives but I think all I'm trying to do is examine each each possibility well ears and this is the problem then right let's imagine we have a mystery and we want to list the possible solutions to that mystery when it comes to I dealt out some cards one of the possible solutions we know is possible is that I cheated when it comes to the universe what are the known possible explanations for the universe there may in fact be none but if we have no justification for saying that a god an agent is possible then we don't get to include it in the list of possible explanations and until we can demonstrate that our proposed solution is possible it's not a solution at all so I guess now I can agree with that but I guess I am under the impression that most people think theism is at least possible I think that most people think that most people probably well most people probably haven't thought about this but the fact that it's not demonstrably impossible does not mean that it's possible this is something Blake and I went over over and over again by complex position is that if you can't show it's impossible than it is in fact possible and my position is that possible and impossible are both assertions that need to be demonstrated just like guilt and innocence and you're not guilty just because we can't prove that you're innocent you're not innocent just because we can't prove that you're guilty because what we can demonstrate is separate from what is and so it may be the case that the theism is impossible but we can't demonstrate that it may be the case that theism is possible but we can't demonstrate that but the null hypothesis puts us on the side of this is not the case until such times that's demonstrated ok but I mean people have tried offering plenty of philosophical arguments for why theism should be considered possible I mean I guess you're just saying that you don't find those persuasive which is fine and I'd be interested to hear your reasons for thinking that but because they all all ultimately boil down they all ultimately boil down to you can't prove that it's impossible well I mean I think a lot of times they're just trying to draw an entrance for example the cosmological argument which I don't necessarily agree with but I think the point of it is to it's to infer something beyond the universe you know had to bring it into existence and we're not necessarily at a God yet but once we can begin to give the attributes that this thing must have for example it must be timeless immaterial none of that none of that is part of the cosmological argument well I mean that's how it's used like when William Lane Craig uses that argument I know what in Lane Craig uses uses it in a dishonest fashion because the Kalam cosmological argument begins with everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence the universe began to exist therefore the universe had a cause for its existence there's nothing in there about God or timeless or anything it just the whole thing is there must be an explanation for the the reason the universe began to exist that's it doesn't tell us any characteristic about that that's all something that Craig and others add in after the fact sometimes using other arguments sometimes just asserting it without and saying I don't have time to go through it well so I mean if if both of those premises were correct like the universe began to exist and I mean that would imply that space-time and matter or finite I guess I don't understand why it would be intrinsically unreasonable to say okay well space time and matter came into existence at a finite point in the past that whatever brought them into existence cannot also have those attributes so first of all the first two premises are not necessarily sound there are physicists who object to them and this is something that Sean Carol pointed out in his debate with William Lane Craig by having Allen blue hold up a piece of paper that says we don't know whether or not the universe and by that we're talking the cosmos not just our local presentation we don't know if it's Arnold but he suspects that it is eternal so what we have is it at best and unknown premise which makes the conclusion unresolved now you can even the thing is even if the two premises were true the only thing you have is our local presentation of the universe our local space-time thing has a point in the past where it came to be but I mean it's kind of yeah if time is part of that then it's absurd nonsensical to talk about before that because there's no time it's also nonsensical to talk about something that exists absent time because existence is temporal and we don't I don't know that we have any way to find that answer and I find this as curious because I'm sure there are people out there and you may or may not be one of them who are convinced that some God exists and started it off but they don't know much about them they're not advocating for Christianity or Islam or whatever but the whole point the whole reason people are engaged in this exercise of let's see if we can find an argument that gets us to God is because they already believe in a specific God which is how Craig goes from the Kalam to a classical theistic God to Jesus without actually connecting the dots very well and if you know we did we begin with this need to justify his belief in Jesus would he cling on to the Kalam as if it were something that was going to demonstrate a God when it doesn't well I mean I think you'd have to ask him that but I agree with you that like that that kind of chronology of argument is kind of I think it's kind of poor I mean I don't think that like a teleological argument I'm a Christian but I don't think a teleological argument or a Kalam argument gets you to Jesus I don't think it gets you to Christianity but I think it's a good way I think if you were a homicide detective and you arrived at the scene it would be important to establish that a murder had taken place before you tried to say okay this murder was committed by John yeah so I think that I think the argument and I think it I am clearly agree with that Bible Creator exists I completely agree with that and that's my problem is the the people who are offering up theological explanations for the origin of the universe or whatever pick your poison have not even demonstrated that a murder took place this is why you know in Tracy and I remember our lunch we had ages ago where we came up with the the courtroom analogy and I've expanded using everything else I don't even think that the prosecutor has cause to bring the case before the court you need probable cause you need a good reason to think that you could begin to make a case and I don't see that theism has done that okay well I mean there don't think there doesn't seem to be a lot of possibilities and because there you know the universe is eternal well I mean sure the universe is eternal or it's not that dirt I mean if it came into existence out of nothing like in his book why became an atheist John Loftus says he says that naturalist maintains at the University there came into existence out of nothing is self caused which doesn't make sense because it would have to exist before it existed it's always existed or just arises it's kind of a natural brute fact but to me I think the naturalist position it ultimately rests upon there being some kind of brute fact of existence like something that just exists inexplicably because I mean I think you even agreed with Blake that we can't really have an infinite regression we ultimately have to have some kind of foundation that doesn't have anything more foundational than itself but well I don't exist I don't know for sure if there could be an infinite regress but here's the thing what's wrong and I don't want to confuse terms so for universe I tend to refer to our local space-time tracing back to bigger bang guys and then Mary cosmos would be everything that has ever existed or will ever exist and it could be that it's a multiverse popping up universes or whatever why is it why is it not the case that existence is just necessary and that a cosmos has always existed well I mean I think for the mere fact that we can imagine it having not a existed I think that that seems to me to be sufficient enough for I actually I don't I don't mean to I have I I can definitely conceive of what's currently here not having always existed but I actually have expressed problems with the idea of non-existence existing that the idea that there was a point without existence I can't conceive of that because in my mind that's an incoherent concept like to say that non-existence existed I don't know how to I don't know how to conceptualize that not only that the mere fact that we can conceive of something not existing doesn't tell us whether or not that's possible I think it may be a trick of language because I'm with Tracy it wouldn't if it existed that it wasn't non-existence and like there's a nothing that you could act upon I can't even imagine nothing hey what would it be it can't even ask what would it be because it wouldn't be I mean I don't even know how to I start really losing it when I start trying to conceptualize it's like talking on anything you getting absolute time because it can't be but in either case the mere fact that we can conceive of something doesn't tell us whether or not it's likely so are you arguing that like an actual nothingness in no space no time no quantum vacuum that's that almost seems like freezing in it I mean you just gave something you just gave parameters so that's something I'm sure I mean nothing wouldn't you disagree for example I was giving examples of something not what I would consider dying because like you have yeah that was our son boys Krauts Victor Stenger who say they say nothing is unstable but what they're referring to is actually the quantum vacuum but yeah Lorenz when I talk to my kids on the bed right yeah that's something yes yeah he's a constant thing right what physicists said referred to as nothing is not the same as what philosophers are referred to as nothing but the thing that philosophers have referred to is nothing Tracy's saying and I am pretty much in agreement I can't conceive of that I don't know what you can't even ask what I can't even if I say I don't know what it would be that statement makes no sense because if it were if you could apply the to be verbs to it it wouldn't be the non-existent thing or than nothing so there's no way to even discuss it in a coherent way that I'm aware of okay I guess that kind of makes sense so I guess my question then is like since we can't really it's unreasonable to say that nothing existed and then something began existing or it I mean if you don't like the temporal phrasing it began I mean you could say but I don't really know um while there was but one day we can say even thing I don't know even based our current models there was never a time when something didn't exist so it is that you're referring to like current inflationary models or well it even in our local time in what we perceive this time here if the if the model shows that time began with the Big Bang then there was never a time when something didn't exist but you can expand that out to the cosmos in excluding you know our universe just talking about the cosmos that's still something that exists and I find no reason to think in agreement with other physicists that it's not in fact eternal so you would need to show that it that that can't be eternal and I don't know how you would do that in order to talk about that at the beginning which is yet another problem but here's the thing and I don't mean to promise I'm not trying to do anything weird or tricky or insulting but we're going to move on to other callers in a minute but yes you're you're a Christian correct I was for many years as was Tracy and okay all these interesting philosophical arguments for the existence of God the God that I believed in was real and he had a plan and he loved us and he created the universe and he sent his son to die for our sins and bla bla bla la la la how does that make sense if we can't reasonably demonstrate that he actually exists like we want to know what's a plausible explanation for the universe and theists or Christians whatever theists would like to have God there is a plausible explanation but they can't demonstrate that it that it's possible or that it's real so they don't get to you why doesn't God fix that why is it if God has put us in this position where you and I are reasonable people and I don't find sufficient evidence even though I used to and I found flaws in those okay so why is it that a Damascus Road experience is good enough for for Paul or Saul but everybody else has got to talk about mathematical possibilities messing with the constants of the universe and even that doesn't get them to God or Jesus so I guess my argument for that would be I'm not I'm it's going to sound it's going to sound like a cop-out but let me get through it completely and hopefully it will I think in order to say that God should you know appear physically to everyone like Paul's Damascus Damascus experience I think you need to show that given let's say Jo Jo has an experience he's an atheist and he becomes saved I think we would have to know what happened throughout the rest of Joe's life all of the encounters he had from that point on maybe he met with some people and I don't know prevented their salvation so I don't know how Jo would do that but I think we would have to have some kind of omniscience to know okay this you know if this person were to become saved it would ultimately be better for all of humanity but we don't I don't think we have any way of determining that I'll tell you right and I tell you why it's still a cop-out because Blake has used this answer as well the idea that we don't have sufficient understanding why can't God give us sufficient understanding I mean I guess these are good questions I mean I guess it would be possible I don't know our relationships may be hindered if we have too much insight into God's foreknowledge I really don't know yeah we just create a question I just have a question which is you know you were you are leaning a lot and this is not just like a criticism I'm just going to springboard off of this but you are leaning a lot on the idea of if you look at all of this stuff it kind of looks like a murder right like what you're kind of we're arguing was that it does sort of look like a murder and so maybe we should look at who did the murder right I mean that's kind of what it boiled down to is that you felt like the the when you look at it these constants and things make you think that there may be an intelligent designer there somewhere right I mean it's that pretty much correct I'm not misrepresenting me okay so when I look at the idea of what Matt is describing and he's saying if there's this God that really cares whether or not we understand that it exists and created the universe why is he making it so incredibly difficult when he has reached out and made it very simple for some folks who with Paul I would say that if we're reading that story God seems to have really cared whether or not Paul believed in him and did certain things and God sent him this message like directly to kind of say here's the here's the deal here's what I want from you but for the rest of us that are having to look at all these things that you and not are talking about as far as like okay so I have to go up and read some physics and I have to get and if it's that difficult to demonstrate that God exists or that a God was involved in creating the universe doesn't that seem to point to the idea that the God doesn't really care if we connect it to the universe or if we know that it's there maybe they care maybe it cares about Paul knowing but it doesn't seem to care if I know because it's making it real hard for me to come to understand a lot like a lot of people aren't even going to understand what you and Matt are discussing and so this is putting it outside the range of most normal people that are going about their daily business sure and I guess I wouldn't say that like I think the fine-tuning argument is absolutely necessary I think God has reasons for putting certain people in certain situations where they'll come to believe for different reasons I think it's important for people to try and understand why they believe but I think like the fine-tuning argument specifically only gets you to kind of like a deistic type creator but I think that's a necessary step along the way if you're trying to establish that Christianity is true but to your point about is it actually an economic on vanity is it actually a necessary step I mean if Jesus were just to appear right in front of me I would have skipped this step about deism right right that I mean and why do you think that God has reasons for treating people differently well but even if God has reasons for treating people differently than wouldn't it just make sense to say that if a person went through I mean hey I know that just making sense this and make it you know right right real or anything but what I'm saying is if somebody goes throughout their life and they never believe that a God exists it seems that God didn't really care - if that person believed or not that's not one of the people that he was focused on as far as this person needs to understand and believe in me it seems like if God wants you to do that and if you're saying that he drives you in certain situations in order to sort of help push you along in that direction that all the people don't get pushed in that direction then it makes sense to assume that God is not worried about whether or not they believe well I think it's possible that God could have some good reason for allowing unbelievers to exist why not even that person yeah well maybe that person doesn't personally have an interest in in you know examining the evidence for God's existence but maybe whatever you like that that examine examine examine and they and they don't find it compelling why why doesn't Matt why does it match - I'm not even saying why doesn't he find it compelling what I'm saying is the fact that he doesn't find it compelling then if I believe that God has this plan for person that's individual it seems that the plan format is that you would look at the evidence not find it compelling and become an atheist um what was the question it's not so much a question as doesn't then see him if God has this plan where he like gives people the prompts that they need in order to find him in different ways that the people who never find God then he's not really worried about whether or not they find him okay so you're saying if people are examining and they don't find God then God is doing something wrong God should no I don't think I'm doing something wrong I'm saying that it seems that he doesn't if he cares about a person believing and then he puts them in an edgy direction he should be more concerned no I don't I'm saying that apparently apparently the right yeah apparently his plan for the atheist is that they just are going to not believe in that's okay and I guess I would go back to my point maybe he has some good reason for allowing unbelief um the problem that can have interesting debates but I don't know my problem here is and you've done this and and Blake has done this and that's why I asked the question I'm indigo you think God's got a good reason or maybe it's possible that God has a good reason all of those are built on a foundation that you're convinced there's a God and that he knows and has plans and has a better understanding of things that we do and you're fine with the idea that even though it doesn't make sense to you you're you trust that it makes sense to God and what I don't understand is how can anybody be comfortable with that the idea that yeah that's a really difficult question and it doesn't seem to make sense with what we know and understanding about reality but I'm just going to trust that God has a good explanation that he's not willing to share with us how is that anything other than blind faith and couldn't you use that same excuse to justify any position and any religion I think you could if you if you didn't have like any kind of underlying foundation so for Shen's I mean the foundation for belief is the resurrection I mean that's what what Christianity stands are called on so but I mean if we have good reasons for thinking that Jesus actually rose from the dead but without all these questions about I'm sorry well first of all I would argue you don't I mean I've debated Michael going on yes as well that would be but in long conversation but let's assume for a second that we had really good reason to believe that Jesus died was buried and came back to life how did it happen what's the explanation for how it happened well I think you would if you're kind of hinting at maybe alien fitted or maybe there's some other mechanism I'm not hinting at anything I'm asking how do we go about determining what the most probable explanation is and how could we ever say that a miracle from a god that we haven't demonstrated is in this whole thing Tracy talked about you know you found a murder what what the US are doing is claiming a murder when we have no evidence that a murder has ever occurred or that a murder is even possible okay and so if we if we've never had a murder two priors this is this is basically like one person on a planet alone it's found dead and somebody wants to conclude it's a murder just because the suicide seems unlikely if we got an instance where there's no demonstration I mean technically we wouldn't even know what murder was right so the idea like a higher power I mean we don't have examples of that so you're saying it's not like a reasonable explanation right yeah you don't get to just pause at an explanation you need to demonstrate that your explanation is in fact one of the possibilities not and you can't do that by just saying oh it's not impossible and yet somehow you get to this oh well if we had a good foundation like the resurrection that then my answer is why on earth would even if we agreed that Jesus rose from the dead we don't have an explanation for how you don't get to just say that it happened and that consistent with my god beliefs and therefore that adds credence to my trust in God and oh and it's worse than that because we don't have good reason to think that Jesus actually died and was resurrected so I mean I would take into consideration I mean I know you don't think there's good evidence for the resurrection but if there was I think we would also have to consider Jesus own divinity claim so it wouldn't just be some guy being raised from the dead ad I guess my question there would be there's a lot of things that we're assuming if we go this route it's like first of all we're assuming that if an intelligent designer existed this would be the kind of universe that would want to create and I don't know that especially if we're saying that that designer is so beyond us that we can't even conceive of it or can't even understand it or understand its motives or reasoning then how can we possibly say this is the universe it would make and then when it comes to the idea of a resurrection how do we know that a divinity that resurrecting someone from the dead is something in divinity would even care about or want to do how did we make predictions and I don't know that if we if in fact we lived in the universe where there was a God who came down in in human form in sub sense and had a bad weekend and then resurrected himself I don't know how we could conclude that that is a reasonable intelligent or good God the when you add in the idea this blood lust and substitutionary atonement and the absurdity of coming down and you know being a sacrifice to serve as a literal for rules you made up I don't know how any of that gets us to this idea that oh well of course that's a good god a conversation that took place this weekend and I think I'm probably up to wrap it up after this there somebody approached me with this idea of people who were traumatized as children because they were told that you are so bad God had to kill his own son for you now for me it was very different you know I was I walked down the aisle at a revival around the age five I was active in a Southern Baptist Church and my perspective was this was not you were so bad somebody had to die for you it was you were so loved that there was a willing sacrifice for you so there's two ways of looking at right this thing but I'm finding that the idea that you were so bad that somebody had to be killed at least for a weekend is perhaps a more accurate because if it were all about you being loved then you could be forgiven without the weird bloodlust what is it about the blood magic that I know I know the words oh jesus was repear in perfect and we were required a perfect sacrifice the one sacrificial lamb that was blemish free to serve and absorb for all of our senses I know the words how can how does that possibly make sense if I'm God that I have a creation that I know is imperfect and I I want to forgive them because they're never going to be worthy on their own and so my best plan is to take human form and have myself tortured and killed for a weekend and raise myself up and then make the future of people's salvation contingent upon whether or not they accept this when the only record is written down in ancient languages that change and morph where the stories conflict such that a mere two thousand years later nobody could have a reasonably warranted belief that this actually occurred at most it would be a tentative faith of I am going to trust that these authors are accurately representing what happened but we don't have evidence for how is that a good plan and how is that even a good thing that I need to kill myself temporarily I mean none of that makes sense to me so in Keller has kind of an argument for why the crucifixion was necessary that I thought was kind of interesting I mean it might not like the sacrifice of life itself but I mean he says you know if I break someone's lamp I can either just forgive them and then go without the light or they can give me the money for the replacement or I can pay for myself but either way there has to be some kind of payment for that so I think if I think God's sacrificing of Jesus demonstrates that sin is like a it's a real concern for him it's not just something arbitrary that he can just kind of wave off and I think I think if he were to just say well I don't really care what people do I think I mean I don't think he would that would be a very loving God or he would have I care I care what people do I don't ever feel the need to kill somebody based on what people do right so I don't I don't have kids but I have family with kids I don't ever feel the need to beat kids or threatening torture in a basement based on what they do I think that you know it's it seems possible and we can demonstrate that it happens that you can encourage right behavior with reason and even when it's difficult I there's nothing that there's nothing Tracy could do to me that would make me feel that I needed to kill someone to make up for it or that I should die for it I mean what have I done it was like maybe a shaman army with a knife in self-defense like yeah I know potentially do so they but but generally speaking to just say oh and we'll do this one thing one time and that will make up for everything that not only everything that has happened but everything that will ever happen they I don't know it's a system that never made sense to me even when I believed it right well I mean these are all yeah right theological questions why doesn't God answer any of these great theological questions we just supposed to trust that he's got good reasons for not answering these questions well I mean if you're asking like why like why did God feel the need to kill Jesus I mean I think the Bible has explanations for that you just might not find out that there was no there is no need when it comes to God right I mean God is is he bound by no I'm not saying he he has to do it in order to you know just because he's God but maybe he had a lottery right I mean he even had other options with regard to the university would have produced he produced the universe to do what it does right I mean everything that people do he built the universe kind of saying this is what this is the one I want I want Ted Bundy to rape and murder a 12 year old and I want Tracy to have a birthday cake when she turns 13 and I want Matt to Mary Beth and I want someone else I want to you know that one woman that murdered her children like drama Nevada I want her to do this and so everything that people do he had foreknowledge I assumed when he produced the universe and he chose that universe and said this is the one I want and then he blamed everybody for doing what he pretty much set it up so that they would do is that what I understand um so I mean I agree that God had foreknowledge and I think he goes into my torture any other choice right he had foreknowledge of what this universe would produce any chose to any rate universe okay then he's responsible for what he's produced right he knew what would happen and said this is what I want to do well I mean I don't think that that seems to me like it would be kind of arguing you know parents are guilty for if they have a kid and the kid misbehaves no Eric well let's say that I knew I wanted to get pregnant and I knew that if I had a child it would go out and murder like it would become the next Hitler and I said I'm going to have this baby and I know that this is going to happen did I how am I not responsible for it I have a choice whether or not to have that child or let's say I could have another two million different children and I choose the ones that's going to become the next Hitler aren't I responsible for that decision instead of choosing the one that would bring about world peace you can take the cat you can take the kid out of it if I get out of my car in the freeway and I know absolutely certain even though I don't think we have absolute certainty about anything but if I were in fact in possession of perfect foreknowledge that when I got on the freeway I was going to fly off of a ramp and smash into a building and kill 20 people wouldn't I be responsible for that action if I if I could not get in the car but I chose to get the car knowing what would happen that makes me responsible yeah I mean you guys are making good points I guess I would say maybe God is like responsible for for the existence of the creation but not the sin within the creation did he know what it would be before he created it or not yeah but including shoes other could he have chosen other universes with other outcomes could he had chosen a universe where you were here holding my positions and I was there holding your position sure didn't eat shows that he chose this particular universe and we didn't have choices he put it into production and put it into play and he knew what we were all going to do he knew what Tracy would do from start to finish before she did it and he chose for that Tracy yeah if he didn't make a choice if this was the only University create then knowing what would happen doesn't make him responsible but the the triple threat of knowing what would happen choosing this particular one having consequences and creating it make that's how you get to the responsibility an action knowing the outcome that could have been different means that each other's universe Andy chose the one in which I'm destined for annihilation or hell assuming you know I don't change my mind candy he then blamed us said we should die for it and then kill his own child flashed himself to atone for us it's really weird and it's one of the reasons why you know I'm writing a book on called if I were God and it's one of the many questions that are in there because the world that we live in does not make sense under any theistic God an ocean and that's why when we get into these conversations quite often it's well I don't know but I trust that God knows which we've heard multiple times a couple times today and I don't know that's certainly not good enough for me I am troubled by why that's a good enough answer for somebody else because I remember as a kid whenever my parents would say because I said so yeah that's never a satisfying answer even if it turned out to be true even if my parents had really good knowledge and information and we're doing what was in my best interest it wasn't a satisfying answer I obeyed because generally I'm not always I wasn't perfect because I had good reason to think that they knew best and I definitely understood that I was going to get punished if I didn't and yet I don't have any sort of confirmation like that about God it's it's as if theists you're telling me that my mom who I've never met and don't know anything about has been leaving notes for me with them and they will give the notes to me and it's all instructions for my mom and it's all a bunch of stuff that I don't even have any way of assessing whether or not this is coming from my mom it's weird but I'll not know we're running short of time we've gone on for a long time appreciate the call Brian yeah and yes sir thank you all so much sure have a good day

Channel: The Atheist Experience

Views: 285,436

Rating: 4.8048782 out of 5

Keywords: atheist experience, the atheist experience, theatheistexperience, atheist, atheism, atheist vs christian, atheist debate, religion debate, atheism debate, Matt Dillahunty (Broadcast Artist), belief, faith, reason, rational, proof, evidence, logic, fallacy, religion, religious, science, secular, Skepticism, skeptic, questioning god, doubt, is god real, agnostic, agnosticism, evidence for god, Christianity, Islam, morality, evidence for jesus, Jesus, Jesus Christ, debate, Bible, Bible contradictions

Id: o5xAf2_xR5o

Length: 52min 56sec (3176 seconds)

Published: Wed Jul 26 2017

Reddit Comments

[u/ambrofelipe]

Wow, I didn't know they still filmed this. I used to watch it about 10 years ago when I became an atheist.

[u/Calaifur]

I'd recommend watching this video on why a lot of the members left the ACA

TL:DW, they had a guest (Rationality Rules) come onto the show after he made an 'Transphobic' video, they told Tracie that they would have him address the video on stream (for Talk Heathens) but never did, so Matt said he would instead, but never did. Along with Moderators of their forum being told to not censor people for spouting Homophobic slurs and being overall bigots to any minority group. because of this and a few others things, Tracie, Jen, Clare and a few others left the ACA and are actively speaking against it

I will say that I did enjoy watching their content before this controversy though

[u/EmptyAl58]

Brilliant. Brian Houston is leader of the Hillsong group of churches. One can only hope.....

[u/SoldierOfGods]

Who is the Christian God? How do you take it down?

[u/138cbc138]

Sure miss Tracie. I listened to last weeks episode with the two new ladies. Good hosts although very weak at providing rebuttals against soft ball assertions. eg, the “sitin there” guy.

[u/kiko5566]

“The triple threat of knowing what would happen, choosing this particular one, and then creating it – that’s how you get to the responsibility”

What I comment here will be under the presumption that God exists (yes, I know not the popular view around here…)

Matt is correct when saying that God has full knowledge of “knowing what would happen” (50:40) in regard to what he calls the “triple threat” when talking about the universe.

However, claiming that God “choosing this particular one” (one being the universe), is not valid at all. I’m sorry, but God never intended for the world to be the way it is now, i.e., the existence of serial killers, the Holocaust, children having cancer, etc. The reasoning behind the chaotic world we live in is because of the imperfection (sin) of humans. Of course, Matt and Tracy are under the impression that if God loved us so much why did he not create us to have “sufficient knowledge”, or why did he not create a perfect universe. Well God did try…

I would reference the Book of Genesis here, but I know this would not help my argument at all towards the majority of people on this subreddit (I think) because I am sure many of you would claim that “fairy tales do not exist”. In this case, I will give you the ‘logical explanation’ you are looking for…

It is the fault of human nature that we live in this world. God never had, has, nor will ever intervene to commit the evil acts we commit every day, nor intervene in the situations we find ourselves to be in. Now if you are under the impression that a loving God would intervene in everything we do and everything that happens for the sake of perfection, then that is not true love, nor true freedom from a loving God.

I don’t know how to make some of you understand this concept because it seems that the presumption for some of you is that God must intervene and make everything perfect; he must be this kind of ‘authoritative’ parent that is responsible for his ‘careless children’. How dare he allow his children to misbehave…

During the end of the discussion, Brian seemed to fall short in some of his arguments when he starts saying “You guys are making good points” (03:14) or “maybe” (03:12) this is the case and so forth. It then affirms the viewer, who may happen to be an atheist, to feel good about their current understanding; thus, these viewers are subject to continuing in the way they perceive this (without feeling any need to change their minds and feeling good about being an atheist because the Christian in the discussion is starting to sway in his arguments)

This was a live discussion, so it makes sense that Brian could not answer everything as clearly as he wanted to on the spot.

There is way more that I could write regarding this video, but I’ll just stop here.

Message me if you want to continue discussing this or feel free to downvote this to your heart’s content…thanks for reading.

EDIT: returns/spaced out post

[u/MEWilliams]

How can an atheist watch a show "religiously?" 🤪