We All Have Faith in Something | "Brad"/Andrew - Colorado | Atheist Experience 21.08

Brad in Colorado hi Brad in here a sailor hello so Brad is on the air can you hear me okay we can hear you now yep okay yeah I guess I was just wondering why you don't believe in God hello yeah cuz we don't see any good reason to believe in God okay um what like like how about like face though how about it you know as far as as far as I can tell faith can be used as an apparent justification for anything is there any is there any position someone could prove and then not say oh I just take this on here right but like we all have faith in something no no we don't not so this is an equivocation I have trust and confidence and things and I apportion my confidence - my confidence is proportional to the evidence for it so I don't just have faith that this chair will hold me I have a confidence level that the chair will hold me based on my understanding of physics and reality in the chair if you would call that hang on if you want to call there if you want to call that face and I know that there is a colloquial hey you've all got Satan okay but that type of phase if you want to use it that way is not in any way similar to the type of faith that people are saying they're using the serve as a foundation for their belief in the supernatural or gods because that is belief in the face without supporting evidence and with evidence in the face of evidence to the contrary so you don't want to equate those two things yeah I wasn't trying to I mean that we all believe in things without evidence no that's how is it I can just a thoroughly explain that I have trust and confidence that is proportional to the evidence and you can say we all Danko's without the evidence okay so what evidence do you have that the the world's real then or what evidence do you have that logic is true ah so you're talking about both the problems before salsa's 'm in the foundations of logic first of all the logic is a presupposition the foundations of logic I presuppose that as is you know that I'm expanding reality you can call that a faith-based position and I think you could potentially make an argument for it but it's a matter of practicality the laws of logic continually demonstrate their usefulness and reliability and they seem to be true in all possible circumstances and you would have to assume that they were true in order to try to demonstrate that they were similarly I have the direct experience of experiencing a reality and what you're saying is how do you know that that's really the real reality well I don't and I'm not claiming that it is really the real reality I'm saying I experience a reality and I have to deal with the reality I experience within its framework and rules until somebody demonstrates otherwise it is to get back to the beginning of the show for both of these the null hypothesis that there is not some greater reality that I'm not experiencing there's no point to believe that until somebody demonstrates a staircase okay um yeah okay so can we talk about some pieces of evidence then or evidence for what the existence of God which God like just uh what's the state like a non personal God for now and then I don't know what I don't personal God is okay well Italy a classical deistic God sure um what you can talk about it here's one of the things the classical deistic God doesn't manifest in reality any detectable way correct yes yeah so then how could you possibly have evidence for it because it could be necessary how do you demarcate okay you could you could try to demonstrate that as necessary but I thought you were talking about evidence yeah I would say like logical arguments could be considered evidence okay go ahead okay so what you were talking about earlier about like possibility and so like in terms of the ontological argument like that's great time you're getting with premise advantages let me I will let you continue I promise but it's really good timing because as of today my entire deconstruction of the ontological arguments is now available on youtube if you google yeah I just finished watching it was interesting cool so how can you demonstrate if something is possible or not you were saying like the claim something is impossible and he needs a burden of proof and the claim that something is impossible sorry I made a mess okay possibly impossible both garena pretty sure how do you demo story say something's possible yes so the null hypothesis would be Matt cannot pick up this empty coke bottle it because that's a null hypothesis and if I've my claim is it's possible for me to pick it up boom demonstrated the possibility of that yeah if you're watching the show he just identity on coke bottle um so but okay so I want to like let's try to pick an example that's more analogous to to what I'm talking about so let's not took an action but let's pick an object so how would I demonstrate the possibility that an object exists what object well I mean I'm talking about God I mean maybe object isn't the right word but you're asking the wrong people you're asking me how do I demonstrate that God is possible when I have no reason to think God is possible and the fact that you can I'm trying to say like hang on the faculty can pick out something that we have difficulty demonstrating as possible it's not in any way a response to this issue of possibility and impossible it's all about the object that you're picking what yeah I'm not talking about an action oh like picking up the bottle is like action I wasn't talking about an action I was talking about the object okay but yeah yeah so but you don't need to show it's possible that a coke bottle exists right because you can just show that it is does exist well that's that's a demonstration when you talk about is it possible for a God to exist demonstrate that it is in fact possible how do I do I that's not my problem that's the whole red no not one second stop that is my whole point I say demonstrate that it's possible for God exist and the people who are convinced that a God exists say how can I do that I don't know how I could demonstrate then why the hell can you possibly believe it if you have no idea how to demonstrate the possibility of the thing that you think is actually the case that's your problem not the problem the people who aren't believing it I know I understand I think we're getting confused here I'm not saying like it's I'm asking you because I think I can but you don't find it very convincing so I just want to ask like is there a way to show that something possibly exists without demonstrating it actually does exist sure I think somebody could show that there's a possibility of a certain type of planet with a certain type of atmosphere and to say that it's possible for such a planet to form and I never make that claim because anyone use the information that we have on current planets and you would use the information that we have I assume like with gravity and how planets form to say that you could have a planet that has a predominant atmosphere of you know whatever nitrogen or something even if we hadn't necessarily found a planet like that we could say that it it seems to be something that this universe could actually produce it doesn't mean that it has produced such a planet it just means that there's no reason to there there's no reason to think it's impossible and based on what we do know it seems like it is possible yes how you derive a null hypothesis essentially a null hypothesis would be it is not possible for a planet like this to actually exist and then you use the evidence for what we understand about accretion discs in the formation of planets a here's how it could happen the laws of physics do not render this impossible as matter of fact they may render this light and probably exactly exactly and that's what I'm talking about so forgot nothing about the laws of physics tell us that it's impossible that's not what I said not what I said either I said based on what we know we would have reasons to believe that it actually could happen yes this one man we're back to not just that it couldn't the mere accident we can't show something is impossible doesn't mean it's possible and if we can't sir I mean it yeah even not being able to show that it's impossible doesn't mean that it's not impossible okay so maybe I could do that so let me present another argument to show that it what we know about the world seems to lend some credence and then from there we can use the modal ontological argument to drive it as being necessarily exists in our world done well no we actually can't but go ahead with the first part okay um well I mean so okay so why don't we take a look at the one of the versions of the cosmological argument which version um let's say like or we could say the Kalam I guess okay what is the conclusion to the Kalam cosmological argument um right so well can I talk about like why I think the conclusion we come there we can can you answer the damn question about what is it I know you're going to go on about how okay the therefore the universe center cooks cool what does that have to do with the God at all was gotten any premise or the conclusion no but okay so now that means that you are using the conclusion from the Kalam as a premise in a different argument right no kind you think I could explain something real quick so I don't understand how you could possibly say I know you've got your hackles up because I'm cutting you off but here's the thing you said let's start with the Kalam cosmological argument the quagga cosmological argument I have objections to but the conclusion of it is therefore the universe had concrete existence we both agreed in the Kalam says nothing about God does not include God or a thinking agent in its premises or its conclusion correct yeah okay to one credit manager what I'm saying is you wanted to use not the Kalam cosmological argument but the conclusion of the Kalam as a premise and a new argument for the existence of God correct I sure that's all I was that's all I was asking and you said no reflexively okay because I because I always say you're thinking of the traditional leichter Quran which I'm not using so sorry okay you've got some new versions of club does it end with a different frickin conclusion well I'm trying to imply think okay look like okay yeah let's just say yeah so can we agree on the conclusion there and then work from there oh can you so I can't actually agree on the conclusion but the point that I was making is this if you say you want to argue for the existence of God and you want to begin with the Kalam you can't do that what you have to do is use the conclusion of Guam as a premise and a new argument because your new your argument has to contain something about God right right but so I then pretty good that argument not the Kalam okay well I don't know if I have that worked out in premise form so that's why okay then call us back when you do okay well I mean you let lots of people go on and give their arguments and like I've never you just said you don't have it I would have a lot Haven but if you don't have it it's an it's an informal argument I haven't have you paid inside well tell you what you got a minute a half go okay so from the conclusion of the Kalam we can derive that this cause is immaterial powerful transcendent etc and if we can agree on that and then I would like to move on to like a fine-tuning argument where I can show that this thing is most likely intelligent no so what you're getting is the same thing that we like you're not presenting any new or novel this is what we like Craig does all the time let me present the Kalam and then for that always say what kind of cause could it be oh well it needs to be you know immaterial and eternal and powerful and an agent and thinking and none of those things are ever actually demonstrated and and the reason is we don't know what could have caused the universe it's just a ball of assertions it would have to be transcended from the universe correct it so if in fact the universe had a cause that was external of course it would have to be external okay and this thing would must be in material about you but we haven't demonstrated that the universe had a cause that was external all the way all the way down with that urn all that we demonstrated from the Kalam which by the way is also flawed is that the universe has a cause see you've never let me present the Kalam argument so my argument isn't that okay in Caesar says the cause fine go ahead and juice you want to put money you want to put money on this because that's my new thing is I'm willing to put money on this so that when people do exactly what I say they're going to do after they deny that they're in claim they're going to do something different the ACA gets donations for that okay just what am I going okay so if the universe began to exist them and how to transcend and cause the universe began to exist therefore it had transcendent guts I reject the first premise okay so why do you reject the first premise because you haven't demonstrated that the universe beginning to exist and what that actually means with respect to our local presentation the universe second premise your first premise was if the universe began to exist it had a transcendent cause for its existence yeah you were talking about the beginning of the universe right that's in your first premise what part are you not able to read the words if the universe began to exist right okay but my second premise is the universe did begin to exist you would desire to the first comments if you were objecting to causality it has ended cuz I read your first premise if the universe began to exist in how to transcendent cause that is your first premise yes I'm saying that has not been demonstrated to be the case that that a if a universe begins to exist that it necessarily has a transcendent cause we don't know what type of cause might qualify to start the universe it could be a non transcendent cause how did you rule that out because everything we know about the world tells us that's very likely not child and telogen till we give me an so example is something that caused itself to exist no but I couldn't give you an example Black Swan until we found one either that's the fallacy you're engaging in it's not I'm sorry okay so you can say it's not I can say it is please demonstrate I know that you cut me off before I could explain why okay why that's why why isn't it you know what I'm not being concerned about what you think's fair okay um okay so I was wondering so you consider yourself an atheist correct I don't just consider myself I am okay um so I consider myself devilishly handsome that may be up for disagreement but I am in fact an atheist I do not believe that it God exists okay so what evidence do you have for that I don't have to demonstrate that a god doesn't exist I'm not claiming that a God doesn't exist or that this is a position I do not believe that it God exists because there hasn't been sufficient evidence what this is this is a very first question you asked which I answered immediately um right well that sounds like an agnostic I mean but when you have a burden of proof for your position what is my position well you're Nate is what I know what is my position because I'll bet you a dollar you get it wrong okay well I'm just I mean I don't know your I've already told you twice that's why I'm willing to bet on it I've told you twice now I do not believe that a God exists does that mean talk never you have no son fate isn't from no you're not you're not white which definition from what yeah dictionary.com no Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy so here's the thing I don't give a rat's ass about what the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy says the definition of atheism is because dictionaries are not prescriptive they don't get they do not tell you what words mean they just started describing usages yes and I just told you what I mean when I say atheist okay so you're what redefining atheist no I'm not readable I'm not redefining a theist and atheist is somebody who believes that a God exists right yeah and an atheist is somebody who does not believe that it God exists right it needs to stop yeah okay okay there you go all right that's some skid agnosticism in Gnosticism don't address belief do they uh well I mean it depends all days right not they address knowledge it's right there in but when you get to define the words however you want and then when I try to say well not necessarily and then you say well no I'm telling you how I use them I'm also telling you what the common usage is okay could you be an agnostic theist someone who believes that because knowledge is a subset of belief right oh sure why are you laughing and saying oh sure these are knowledge as a subset of belief right yes okay and therefore if he is amazing ISM address belief and Gnosticism and agnosticism address knowledge then those become a subset of the belief right okay so you have a question that what would you call someone who needed buoys that got it this or that God is not equipped non-existent oh wait a minute wait a minute preset again because you did something you said there's somebody who doesn't believe God exists and doesn't believe God doesn't exist yeah anything available are you've already changed the usage theists believe God exists atheists do not believe God exists this is not the same as believing God doesn't exist it is these people are unconvinced that a God exists not the time icon holds no beliefs at all there is no such thing well no but if somebody doesn't believe a God exists there the non-theist there they're an atheist there's there's no middle ground between I believe and I do not believe right those are the only two possibilities you're accepted it's true where you have not read doesn't you have to accept either one no yes it does well it's so here's the thing let me stop stop stop this is really easy a or not a those are the only two possibilities correct yeah okay I believe and I do not believe those are the only two possibilities right yes okay what does doesn't mean you have to hold one of those what if you just acknowledge that those are the only two possibilities that everything either believes or does not believe what's the other option you are no I elating the wall I say every hold on no no no I didn't say everyone need to believes or not believes I said there's two possibilities that doesn't mean every single person I'm to hold to one of those people grab you are not even listening listen I believe or I do not believe those are the only two possibilities correct it's a direct logical logical negation it is a and not a I believe I do not believe okay yeah those are the only two possibilities right beep yeah okay holding a Woody's no they're not they are the only two possibilities there's no not holding there what not saying is there are the people that believe it and then there's everyone else and though everyone else is people who don't believe it so you're either among the people who believe it or you're among the people who are not believe it seems a bit absurd then because wouldn't it like I mean I mean I don't know our house would be an atheist then because a house does not know because that's not a capacity for belief what we're talking when I you know you're defining eight now even if I use the word bald what you're saying is oh well a rock is bald know because bald applies to things which should or could have hair and so you wouldn't call a house bald just because it doesn't have hair because you're using bald to apply to things that that can have to have a capacity for hair this is when there's beliefs right we all understand what we're talking about are the things that have the capacity for belief you disagree with one so the definition of bald is having a sculpt holy and the destination of sculpt is the skin covering the head so rockers and has been covering that okay we have like there's bald animals you know that you could be bald there's a dog could be bald on its butt right and I would call a dog ball parents could have hair on its skull but no but however however you define bald everything is either bald or not bald correct correct yeah but I'm just saying like everything my Grand Prix thing either believe me or does not believe correct right so why don't right now the Atheist know the ten you're holding now does not believe a theist is a thinking agent who could potentially believe that does not believe okay it's basic diversity ignition it's basic set theory we just never got past the first damn thing can i plug Austin Klein's yeah about.com a theism agnostics of about.com website he has some really good articles on the definitions of atheism going back to the 1800s all the way through different sources so that people can see how varied and broad the definition of atheism is and has been for centuries and the big thing is as I pointed out in another video I don't care what label you put on it we need to be talking about the concepts so there's there's a claim some God exists everyone either accepts that claim or they don't there's another claim no God exists everyone either accepts that claim or they don't what you're trying to do is say that atheists accept the second claim and what I'm pointing out is that they reject the first claim the null hypothesis is that no God exists until such God has been demonstrated the default position is rejection and disbelief of a claim until it has met its burden of proof it is not a responsibility of atheists who are rejecting the claim that God exists to then prove that God doesn't exist okay um yeah so I mean you want to move on to crawlers or can I ask another question I'll let you ask another question I mean maybe it might be too big to get into but there's no what here yeah with your like grid like Deeping the fine-tuning argument is one that holds any weight like I feel like it would hold at least some like one and like in a Bayesian sense okay so it's more likely say good no no go finish well yeah I think it's more likely under theism that we would see the various client aining of constants yeah Blake and I had this conversation and/or in order to determine that something is more likely given X you have to have some understanding of whether or not X is possible whether or not X is probable in order to compare how likely it is as an explanation of something else if we have no demonstration that theism is possible or probable then how can you say it's the best explanation well because if the various margins for the fine-tuning constants are very small and not like extraordinary as we see them that could be considered what I mean if that were just as this is an argument in WikiLeaks so this is an argument that the fine-tuning of the apparent fine-tuning the universe seems so unlikely therefore we are justified in leaping to a supernatural explanation with no demonstration that it's possible or probable this is all right you know when I did my video on fine-tuning I can deal cards out and you'll get all 13 spades that's incredibly unlikely it's a perfect bridge and we know it has happened in bridge tournaments at least once I believe even though there have not been enough hands of bridge played to exhaust all possible combinations yeah so if I dealt you 13 spades we talked about this yesterday is it more likely that it was an honest deal or that I cheated or that God gave me 13 spades um I guess they would depend on your prior credence for the likelihood that a God exists yes and then the various conditions around that dealing okay how do you determine how likely it is that God is going to give you 13 spades I guess that would be based on the other equal way if I based on the the other various evidences for God I'm not waiting on any evidences for God what I keep hitting is arguments and fallacious appeals that something is so improbable that therefore were justified in thinking that a God we're not more I mean it's not in absolutely not gun argument but I think we should admit on some level that it does have some makes god light slightly more likely how can it make something like a god more likely because the likelihood under atheism is just better or no god it's just so small that matter really really okay so what other universes do you have to investigate how do you know that this isn't the only possible way that a universe could have formed right so well what we know about these constants is that they're not that way for any big they're not fixed there's a whole batch of arguments of why they're not fixed but they could easily be another way everything we know about physics tells us that there's nothing necessary about these laws and sort of another set of laws well see I find this incredibly problematic because we have exactly one universe to investigate right we know how things are okay but there are certain constants that we can look at and see well okay this one actually got it you know the likelihood of it being like this is actually quite high because there's not a lot of other options but for some of them you can look there may be no reason at all so there may be some that this is the only option for that factor oh yeah there's how do we happen we determined that it's not the case for all of it okay because it's just it's not it's okay so the conditions under that one that make it likely aren't there for the other one I don't know how you know I can't so first of all you're not answering the question but I don't know how you can talk about likely how many universes do we know of okay so I think the huge problem here is I guess you're a frequent wit frequentist I mean I think that huge problem here is that you can't address a question without trying to put to label it because all I am saying all I asked was how many universes we have great because you're okay but I know we're you okay so so as far as we know one you know what Brad I'm done because all I asked was how many universes we have and your as far as we know one why would we talk about universes that we don't know about I asked what the actuality was and you can't even just say one I mean I don't have infinite knowledge right so the question was how many universes do we know about not how many universes actually exist or have you notice how many more how many you're done you're done you're done no no no no no no you're done the question was not how many universes does an infinitely knowledge to being know about how many universes do we know about it's not a trick question it's one douglas adams gave a really great response to this idea of the anthropic principle in fine-tuning that if a you know puddle gained consciousness looked around it would find hey look at this hole it's perfectly shaped me write a complete inversion that the poet the water fit what the hole was similarly when we talk about these things people say oh it's amazing that the University student just seems so fine-tuned for us well first of all all the best evidence points to the fact that we evolved to fit the universe that we find ourselves in additionally Hawking has pointed out that if the universe is fine-tuned for anything it seems to be fine-tuned for the creation of black holes which is antithetical to life and we know that the vast majority of the universe is also antithetical to life that there are the building blocks of life all over the place but you know if I just stick you I don't even have to stick you out and spacings hold you underwater for a while the idea of look it's all comes together just for us it's so monumentally arrogant but then to say I just can't imagine how this could have happened unless there was a creator and that makes a creator likely is fallacious no matter how unlikely it is you need to demonstrate that it's actually impossible in order to say that a creation is that a creator is necessary you don't get to necessity by saying oh this is unlikely you get to necessity which is an absolute by showing that the alternative is in fact impossible and if all your argument is is that it's unlikely therefore that raises the probability of God you are wrong demonstrable fallaciously wrong doesn't raise the possible does it what it also raised the possibility of universe creating Pixies when it raised the possibility of any other explanation that is sufficient to explain this this is the problem when you say oh of course it seems like God is the answer because you have invented a panacea you have a being that can do anything and therefore it will be a sufficient explanation for anything but it will never be a necessary explanation until you demonstrate it so when you say in a completely abstract you know a piston are not in a philosophical context is it possible for an all-powerful being to create a universe of course you can find a being that can do this I it's it's a credibly frustrating to just how many universes do we have how many universes do we know about one that's I mean a soul that's right for you I don't know why didn't just shut up and leave you you do

Channel: The Atheist Experience

Views: 186,846

Rating: 4.8055654 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: FGjWD0k35Sc

Length: 32min 2sec (1922 seconds)

Published: Sat Dec 09 2017