"As an innovator and a creator, how do I prove to the normy..." That. right there, says everything we need to know about his belief system. It's something he's constructed to bolster his narcissism.
Nailed it. Textbook narcissism. False bravado and condescension that functions to mask debilitating insecurity and low self-esteem. This guy has it in spades.
Exactly! I heard him call Matt Dilahunty a narcissist on another video because Matt filled his argument and epistemology full of holes, which is the sort of reaction you would expect from a narcissist who can't be wrong.
It's an extreme rarity, for someone with irrational beliefs, to actually stop and listen to anyone else. Because they obviously tend not to be rational people.
This guy enrages me, too. It's like arguing with one of my cousins while they're stoned. He's talking in circles and can't even accept when he's being completely irrational. Every religion with a god makes claims that their gods influence and affect reality. Therefore, we should be able to use science to see what changes those gods make upon the world. We can use science to study practically EVERYTHING happening in reality, and we have explanations for most of it (with black holes being one of the few we don't fully understand; BUT, we understand a LOT about them, so don't start making god claims about them). Everywhere we turn our scientific gaze, we strip away the mystery and wonder that is the god of the gaps and expose the mechanisms of the universe. Everywhere we've looked, we have found no evidence of a deity manipulating anything. This flies in the face of every legitimate god claim, which makes very clear that deities very directly, and often quite spectacularly, interfere with reality. The Bible features Yahweh not only having conversations with people, but even having friendly(-ish) wrestling matches with them. Norse mythology has Thor drinking from a horn to lower ocean levels. The Bhagavad Gita has gods having spectacular battles in the sky. Why are these deities SUDDENLY so afraid to show themselves? How is it for something that is supposed to be so prevalent, so true, so fundamental to reality can't show even the barest whisper of its existence NOW, no matter how hard we look?
God of the gaps. Described as an ever-receding cloud of scientific ignorance. The more we learn about the natural world, and its inner workings, the less we can attribute to god claims. It is why apologists try to create this platonic ideal of a god that "doesn't interact", therefore they can claim it can't be detected by science, and therefore we should accept it because they don't need actual proof of its existence, just the definition. Its a con game, meant to sneak in equivocations, because those apologists generally believe that god does actually manifest in reality.
At best, even if something “miraculous” did happen and was verified and repeatable, you could never be justified in drawing a cause-effect link with a god without first independently proving a god which, by most definitions of god (at least the non-incoherent ones) is impossible. So all you’d have is an event that happened with no current explanation. What the caller can’t seem to understand is even though these types of claims are unfalsifiable in nature, it doesn’t mean you get to just throw out logic/reason and accept things with bad standards of evidence, because at that point - you could accept anything on those grounds (including conflicting things) and you’d have no good justification for one over another. Even if it were somehow all true, it will still be 100% unreasonable to believe without good (at this point, I’d settle for ANY) evidence the same way it’d be entirely unreasonable for me to accept as true that there’s a tea pot at the center of the universe EVEN IF it happens to be true. Same exact rationale.
@@pidayrocks2235 Please don't 'settle' for any evidence, rather than good, out of exasperation for the depths of inanity that some people are willing to indulge, and their resilience to feeling any shame for their crimes against epistemology.
@@merbst The sheer arrogance of this claimant who pities rationalists and athiests, while he smarms out his Easter Bunny "logic" to the unbeliever swine gets him dismissed from other athiestic venues and i hope this is his last audience...
Xeno we can use any method to prove it but we need to demonstrate that the method works. The scientific method has be shown to work therefore we use it. If you have another method explain it, demonstrate that it is a reliable method and that it works and demonstrate how it can be used to prove a god exists.
Exactly. The default position is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is found and proven. No reliable method has been found to prove a god exists so the most rational and reasonable position is not to believe.
Correct. I will accept a method of proof that I am not familiar with, but then you have the additional burden of convincing me that this novel method is reliable.
@@TheTruthKiwi Your two sentences are inconsistent. If we do not have sufficient evidence we do not "not believe", we withhold belief. Those are not the same thing. If I test for "A" and my experiment is inconclusive, I do not reject "A", I just don't know.
Basically. Kudos for trying *really fucking hard* to be charitable and reach across that aisle though. Xeno doesn’t really deserve air time at all at this point IMO, but it’s their show.
He said it right at the beginning "this is just my opinion". Yes it is mate, and we have heard it multiple times from you and it is still just a random persons opinion. Not convincing at all.
That was just so many words when you could have just said "God exists because my personal experiences, and nothing else, say so. And all you have to do to agree with me is to just accept what I say."
Xeno should read the Dark Tower series. King not only injects himself in to his book, but his characters come to realize and understand that he is the author of their world.
This guy got WAY too much time to tell us about how illogical god beliefs are and we should ignore that fact. This call should have lasted five minutes as that's one of the biggest reasons for atheism so his argument only reinforces our position.
@@glassmonkeyface8609 He's one of those who peer into the ideal realm and observes things that have not yet been seen by others. … allegedly, just this is what inventors are in platonic idealism. I doubt he's come up with anything novel
If you believe everything already exists somewhere before it's created by someone like Xeno does, nobody is a creator, just an accessor of concepts already in existence.
"The proof that I'm going with isn't going to be the type of proof you would probably find substantial". That, right there, is where the conversation should end. If you can actually admit that, then you need to reflect more on what you choose to believe in. But alas, this guy keeps at it to end up making a fool of himself.
Xeno wants to dismiss evidence and science to prove god exists. We cannot dismiss our reality, but let's dismiss reality for god claims. Too bad getting out of paying taxes isn't that easy.
If a tree falls, then a tree falls, regardless of whether or not you witnessed or experienced it. If god exists, then god exists, regardless of whether or not you have witnessed or experienced him. Yep. No problem with that. Circular statement of identity. If A, then A. If you want to prove A, then first you have to prove A. Next please. You are talking shit.
The problem with Xeno is that we know trees exist and we know they fall. We even know multiple reasons for why it happens i.e wind/lightning, axe/saw/beaver, rot etc. etc We can set up a microphone and record the sound of the tree crashing even if we're thousands of miles away from the tree. We can walk into a forest and see a standing tree and then return the next day and see that it's on the ground. So far god is just a concept.
@@49perfectss that's always kind of bothered be about Eric's approach. It's too over the top nice and beats around the bush alot of the times. A more direct approach when needed goes a long way and he never takes that route. Ever. Just drags the caller on for minutes talking about something that could have been solved in under a minute.
@@thenightlifenj1 Yeah and a lot of the time they end up having to drop the call when it starts getting interesting because they took so long to get to the point instead of addressing the caller's argument directly. There are times that he hems and haws on something like "why does it matter that my thing is illogical?" and it just makes it seem like the atheist position is really weak and not well thought through. I'm yanking my hair out yelling 5 words that would have ended this immediately while he gushes poetic about how interesting he finds an entirely uninteresting claim. I think a lot of callers (Xeno, Jay. Robin, etc) take advantage of him on his own show and brag about them dogging SG and when I watch I can't say they are exaggerating. It sucks he used to be a lot better at this. I have no idea what changed but I wish it would change back.
@@49perfectss agreed. I find it very annoying when he says "that's interesting" because it's usually something mundane and not interesting in the slightest. Like just address what the caller is saying and it's implications. If you need to get more in depth then get more in depth but we don't need to get more in depth about mundane and boring things that have no meaningful impact to the dialog other than to wax poetic.
Xeno acts like he’s orders of magnitude cleverer than the people he talks to. I’ve seen few other people so in love with their own intellect, and so convinced of others’ stupidity, but so unable to express & explain their position coherently. Dude needs a break. Edit: oh. Crypto bro. Waaay beyond anyone else. Smh 🤦♂️
I think it's basically, "I've made millions of dollars, I'm so much better than anyone else, look at how I'm so much more clever than anyone who doesn't have millions of dollars."
If the Major Oak falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, then yes, it did fall. HOWEVER, if you tell me that the Major Oak fell in the forest but no one was there to see it (including yourself) and you can't demonstrate that it did, then it would be irrational for me to believe that the Major Oak fell until you do.
Precisely. He’s trying to argue backwards and failing miserably. I want to ask him if it’s reasonable to believe that there’s a tea pot in the center of the universe, to which I’m sure he’d reply “no”, and follow up by saying “okay, so what if there really is a tea pot in the center of the universe, and that’s a truth that you’re now missing/denying”… perhaps that would get through to him.
Xeno: we use math to prove the sky. WTF does that mean? "prove the sky"????? Xeno: we can't use science to prove (my deistic) god. Fine. You want to use something else, but you can't use metaphysics or philosophy. Stop right there.
He certainly gave me something to chew on. The carpet in frustration. I wondered if anyone has listened to this drivel all the way through, then I wondered why I listened to it for a quarter of an hour.
I'm angry all the time. (seriously, diagnosed). I like listening to calls from Xeno because it reminds me what I'm angry about. People are stupid. You can't fix stupid. All you can do is hope that the next population bottleneck excludes them
Xeno might not want to use the writer analogy. In the case of the writer, everything happens because the writer makes it so. The characters in LOTR have no free will whatsoever, they're just actors on a stage. Indeed, in the context of the LOTR, Tolkien created a god and a pantheon of lesser gods to rule over the world that he himself created. So not only is there no way for Frodo to know of Tolkien, there is also a massive red herring in the way called Eru and the Valar. What's perhaps more important is the fact that in that context, the existence of Tolkien has no bearing on the lives of the people of Arda. He doesn't expect anything of them, doesn't want their praise, worship, or acknowledgement. So therefore might as well not exist, and Frodo would have no basis on which to believe that he did. Therefore he would have no honest starting point to believe.
If things exist prior to someone actually making them, how can anyone call themselves a creator? Surely they only discover rather than create? Therefore Xeno doesn't create music, he discovers music no else has discovered yet.
I hate when presups and God believers bring up metaphysics. 99% of the time they don't understand it. If you do not plug in something EMPERICAL and verifiable then metaphysics is useless.
The best part is that if for some reason any of the LoTR characters figure out Tolkien exist, the question becomes how do they know that Tolkien is not a character written by someone else? That analogy just stinks of the usual solipsistic bs.
@@Julian0101 my 11 year old got freaked out by solipsism or if we are a simulation and I don’t have all the answers so I did my best and said until I have enough evidence to know any differently, I can only live with the reality I experience. I am not convinced of solipsism because I’m not smart enough to have created everything! LoL
@@Julian0101 I'm thinking of writing a story that's about a writer creating a different story. And then have characters in that second story find out that they're just creations. Wait until they find out that the writer is just another character. Maybe that's already happening and I'm just a character in someone else's book. That would be a dream within a dream within a dream. Inception
The whole LOTR analogy is interesting because if Frodo was shown the book he would still not have enough evidence that Tolkien "created" him, he hasn't seen or spoken to Tolkien and he didn't witness the book being written....also the Bible wasn't physically written by God so here the analogy ends...
It’s even more interesting than that, given that Frodo is actually the writer. The book is started by Bilbo (as a sequel to There And Back Again) but Frodo writes much of it with contributions from the other three hobbits. So in that sense, there’s no need for Frodo to even go looking for Tolkien because, given the universe he lives in, by all evidence there IS no Tolkien. It’s only the reader who is aware of the existence of the (hidden) creator. By analogy, we can only know of the possible existence of any god in this universe by stepping outside the universe. At this point the analogy has already fallen under it’s own weight, but it’s an interesting counter to Zeno’s nonsense all the same. And, of course, it STILL doesn’t get us necessarily to Zeno’s version of god…
The pope strolled quietly beneath the scaffolding, gazing up at the artist's work and nodding appreciatively. _"The way you've painted the light of heaven streaming down through the nimbus over St. Attila's head is an especially masterful touch!"_ The artist scowled. _"Nimbus? Pfft! He's wearin' a yellow beanie!"_
Xeno's analogies are always either not applicable or only applicable in a vacuum. If music had not been conceived of yet, there is nothing to explain regarding music. If I was the first person to conceive of music & put it into practice, then (1) I invented music & it now exists, and (2) I can now demonstrate what music is. But that would mean that music was invented by man, and that's why the analogy doesn't work: he is trying to prove something that exists before man.
Dude, NOBODY can tell me anything to believe in their God. Because they'll always say I have to, when in fact, they don't have any proof that He even existed
When someone tells you god exists, you have the choice of putting your faith in the person who tells you god is real or you can choose to make your own judgement on the matter. If evidence matters at all to you, you wouldn't find it possible to put your faith in anyone's proclamations unless they can provide something more than "it's true because I say it's true".
You know I have to say that I admire the religious people that call the show. I rarely agree with them, but it takes a lot of courage to call. It really does.❤ obviously without them there would be no show.
Xeno's argument falls apart once you acknowledge that god influences our reality in any way or acts with it in some detectable way. If it does we should be able to measure its influence and have evidence of that, if it doesn't it's the same as it not existing.
13:30 - _Vi: "Are you a crypto person?"_ _Xeno: "Yes, I made millions off of it."_ No, Xeno, you did not make anything. You took millions from bigger fools who waited and then invested anyway.
Thanks for the great video and all the fantastic patience you always show to your callers. 🙂 We probably cannot do anything else than hope that this Xeno one day starts REALLY thinking critically and rationally. Poor guy. 😞
Yeah. And in the meantime we should call a spade a spade, stop indulging him and treating him with kid gloves, and call him out on his bullshit in no uncertain terms. Never mind the frigging patience!
His concept was just out there, drifting through the multiverse, and did not manifest into our reality until HE thought it. I require the spacio-temporal coordinace of his Everet Branch before I can comprehend.
On music: Music is the name we give for a collection of specific tones that the human ear and brain find pleasing. Those tones were always pleasing to us, even before we had the idea to try making them on purpose. So whether music existed before we had a concept of music depends on what you mean by "music", do you mean the tones themselves as they are, or the action of making music, or academic music theory? Then yes, no, and no, respectively. In fact they pretty much arrived in that order, and the first one, the tones, existed before we did. Every time anything vibrates at 110, 220 or 440 times per second, that's what we call an "A" note. Lots of things vibrated 110 times per second before humans knew what an "A" was, or tried to make one, or even evolved in the first place.
awesome vibes from xeno. His immediate humility following the: “have you never created anything?!” - moment is a perfectly executed method of behaviour to become objectively likeable
I just don't really understand why a deist would keep calling in to try and prove their concept of a god. I understand why a theist would, especially someone like a Christian or Muslim. There are consequences for either believing in those gods or not. I get why people evangelize those religions. But, what difference does it make to believe in a god that started the universe and no longer interacts with it? Why even bother contemplating such a god? If they come to that position because they think something had to create the universe, then even the mechanism that started the expansion of the universe could theoretically be the god they are describing, even if it's a natural force. I don't find any use in calling whatever started the expansion "god." And the fact he's called in to this and other shows to prove his god is very strange to me. If that god exists, we have no way to access that knowledge and it would have no impact on our daily lives. I personally don't see the point. He can believe in his nebulous god if he wants. I don't know why he would bother to prove it to others when it's unfalsifiable, like Vi mentioned.
Morons like this do not get it, that absence of proof negative is NOT the same as proof positive, NOR even the same as proof of theoretical possibility.
I just listened to this and I have to agree that I found it frustrating... Xeno sounds like a nice guy - but I'm a bit confused about what the actual discussion was about. To me it seemed as if he started by saying that he believed that a god existed somewhere... and that some sort of metaphysical proof did exist. But not only couldn't he offer any sort of proof... but he actually agreed that such proof may not currently exist... or even currently be possible... To me this seems to be a form of "extended solipsism". If a god exists, but there is no way to discover it, or demonstrate its existence, then we have no basis to form any specific belief about that god. So, at that point, haven't we essentially admitted that there is no point in simply trading conjecture about something that we can never even hope to agree on? I'm willing to concede that any god that Xeno proposes MIGHT exist - contingent on the condition that we agree we have no way to know whether it exists or not. (I'm even willing to admit that it is MY "rationalist default condition" that, since we have no specific facts to discuss, there's no point in talking about it.) (I'll also admit that, even if that god is totally non-interactional with the real world, I would still be interested in knowing about it - simply out of curiosity.) At one point Xeno mentioned "a metaphysical proof"... But, to me, what he offered was a meta-metaphysical proof... a metaphysical claim that a metaphysical proof MIGHT exist... (It seemed to me that the discussion reached a point of "you cannot prove that such a proof doesn't exist so I choose to believe that we will eventually find it".) And, without even a theory about what such a proof would look like, or how it could be caused to exist, I don't see much to talk about. I can cheerfully agree that something might exist out there somewhere that we cannot detect in any way today but may someday be able to detect... (I was kind of hoping that eventually he was going to offer at least a theory about the existence of some sort of metaphysical proof THAT HE COULD DESCRIBE OR PROVIDE.) However, without any further details, I just don't see much to talk about.
Maybe someone's just hard head. Just forget it. Let them live their lives. For they just hold on to each other and take the ride. For so many things don't make sense around them. Never see what's beyond before they leave. For it should least try to connect' that it may be a keeper. You cannot wrap your head around it. Maybe that's what stopped you' for a lot of false books have got in your way.
The problem is that Xeno is assuming the thing exists before there is any evidence for it, which is not a good idea. Then he cannot know if it's just a figment of his imagination, or is actually truth. It is arrogant to assume with our human minds, that we can know what we do not know or cannot demonstrate.
With the music analogy, I had a thought: Let's someone born totally deaf can understand the concept of music. They just don't have the ability to experience music 1st hand. What if a god exists beyond our senses. We could just be "blind" to any gods, and we could theoretically be able to "see" them just as we could theoretically cure deafness eventually. The Still currently unprovable, but an interesting though IMO. (my favorite is still the "God is a 4-Dimensional being" theory)
However we could test and demonstrate the direct effects of "god's manipulation of things within our reality. " the "god's " concept is useless in the causes and effects that are at the core of how things operate . If you can study and test out something within our reality and, as a factor, whether you include "god" or not in the process you end up with the same result, that added factor is pointless and mainly useless. As for the "beyond our senses," that would negate every account in the Bible about claims of people reporting interacting with "god"...And if either God made those people to be able to detect him and we're not or chose to make himself shown or heard to some and not others, who's fault is that? That's playing favoritism and I wouldn't be chasing or bragging about a dad who's clearly not making the necessary efforts to give me necessary indication of his existence or his intention towards me. And i wouldn't give a hoot about or lose sleep over a "dad " who shows special preference to some and not others.
"god exists and heres all this info about him, but i cant prove any of it and god doesn't interact with reality, but i know all these different things about him" i truly do not understand how anybody could possibly think that presuppositionalism is a good idea
That caller, like most god believers = "We cannot use Science to prove my god, but he is real. You just have to Believe, before you believe, and then... YOU WILL BELIEVE!!!" .... smh... Using that "logic", my god is the only real one... Praise be the Magic Toe Nail!!!!!
@@Heathen.Deity. it's what happens every time there's a bubble, people become millionaires by asset valuation, then there's a crash and everyone wonders where their "money went" (it never existed because you didn't have a buyer for your momentarily valuable stuff)
Anyone who makes a profit "off of" something rather than "from" something should be awarded the Nobel Prize for literary slovenliness and trash English.
Is it just me or is trying to use a fictional story to try to prove that another story isn't fictional not exactly the best way to go about doing that?
I have paused at 16:03 to read the comments section and regain some of what remains of my dwindling sanity. Question: Another coffee or dig out my straight jacket before unpausing the video? 🤔 Ah, the agony of choice! 🤦♂️ 🤣 Edit: As it happens, Vi rescued this call soon after I unpaused and it improved greatly 🤣 p.s. I've also become a patron 👍
The problem, Xeno, is that your method of going “outside” of science to prove god is that science is the best method we have to show what’s real. You can’t prove things exist using “metaphysical” proofs, it doesn’t work. So until you come up with a method that is outside of science to prove god, we’re justified in not believing in the god. You can’t say just because we can’t prove it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s a burden of proof shifting fallacy. Ask yourself, what is the difference between a god you can’t show exists and a god that doesn’t exist?
What I’m hearing is that we don’t have the tools to prove a god exists, so we have to make some up. How, when we don’t know where to look or even what to look for? And how do we test the test?
I hate the old there would be no science without philosophy argument. We continue to evolve our thinking. We have always used some kind of philosophy because it takes no kind of expertise to do it. Science was developed as a way to test our philosophical hypothesis. I don't know why some people try to minimize science by using that frame of thought.
The hosts touched on the crux of this whole argument. Rationality depends on one’s access to evidence and ability to conceptualize it. A medieval lay person with no access to education to inform them that the earth orbits the sun would be irrational to believe that is the case (unless their raw observation skills are that astute). Rationality doesn’t simply mean you come to true conclusions. But rather you use the data available to come to the best conclusion. Such a lay person would be completely rational to believe everything orbited the earth and irrational to think otherwise. Proper use of rationality doesn’t always lead to correct conclusions, but rather the best conclusion available. Same with god from Xenos example. A person has no reason to believe a god exists. Even IF it does exist, it’s irrational to believe so at that time until it’s demonstrated. Vice Versa, it’s rational to not believe in a god even if such a being exists if it’s not yet demonstrated.
The movie Xeno was talking about is the Last Action Hero. He thinks he is the little guy that can go across movie script. In Xenos epistemology, Barby, the movie, is a documentary.
See my reply about George Burns talking to the audience above. I haven't read Heinlein for 50 years. In his book, do the characters talk back and forth or is the conversation just one way??
@@jonerickson2358 The premise of the story (spoiler alert) is that all stories are real in some alternate Universe, and that all Universes are fiction in some other universe. The protagonists travel between these Universes, turning up in places like Oz, and even interacting with characters from other Heinlein novels like "Time Enough for Love". I don't think I've read the book for forty years, so I can't recall exactly how the interaction plays out; it is at the very end of the story and is quite brief, perhaps only a few sentences. I'd call it the litery equivalent of a Stan Lee cameo.
@@NealeBaxter I found the conversation a bit "spacy" like a good night in the old days of being stoned, but also a bit of truth in it. It is like the movie or story is one reality, and the author's life is a separate reality and "the rule is" you can't just jump from one to the other. ie, god and science are two different realities. According to the rule, science can not prove or disprove god. Neither can "god" jump from his reality into ours. That makes Dobbie Gillis' (are you familiar with him??) dialog to the audience kind of like the bible, telling a story from one reality into the next. Religious people want the bible to be magic; one reality connected to another reality. Or they claim their "mystical experience" is somehow proof rather than realizing they broke the rules and have turned the television show or novel into something it is not! Neale, just a few thoughts, but I have to give the guy on the atheist show some credit for thinking outside of the box, but no credit for breaking the rules. What do you think?
I’ve noticed waaaay too many theists/deists who are programmers wanting to make claims about some abstraction of god! It’s constant: “I’m a programmer and I use unreal engine so who programmed the universe?” It’s feels like a direct comparison to the analogy of “everything looks like a nail to the hammer.”
Music did not exist before humans invented it. Naming a series of sounds "music" was done by humans. The concept does not exist out side of humans. Its not like dogs or horses understand and create music. The fact that birds "sing" is not them creating music as we know the concept, its them trying to attract a mate.
Guys, Xeno is a troll whose goal is simply to take up air time from the ACA show he calls into w his ridiculous, circular arguments that don't go anywhere. Stop taking his calls!
@@ImStayGold42 Just because it's explained to him doesn't mean that he gets it. Some people just don't know how to think properly. I wouldn't call him a troll, but he definitively needs to understand why most of the shows he talks on don't have him on anymore.
@@biggsnwedge7237 i really suspect he is. On a previous call he referred to himself as a platonist, yet now he's acting like he never heard the term before. I doubt thats something that entirely slips your mind.
This argument seemed to be heading into a support of being convinced solely on the “possibility” of a God’s existence based on abstracts becoming realized. In the end, a deist god is not really useful. At least not yet.
Yes you will. If you don't believe, after you die Eru will throw you out of the walls of night and you will be butt fucked by Morgoth for ever and ever. But he loves you.
"As an innovator and a creator, how do I prove to the normy..." That. right there, says everything we need to know about his belief system. It's something he's constructed to bolster his narcissism.
A hard core magical thinker conceited techie narcissist....
Nailed it. Textbook narcissism. False bravado and condescension that functions to mask debilitating insecurity and low self-esteem. This guy has it in spades.
And then project his narcissism onto anyone who disagrees with him like matt
Exactly! I heard him call Matt Dilahunty a narcissist on another video because Matt filled his argument and epistemology full of holes, which is the sort of reaction you would expect from a narcissist who can't be wrong.
the entire call i wanted to just scream "XENO...SHUT UP FOR JUST ONE SECOND AND LET ERIC AND V GET A POINT OUT. HOLY FUCK."
I am this way, and I'm glad I read this as the vid starts .
At least I can be pretty certain of how I'm gonna be in just a few short minutes. 🙃
It's an extreme rarity, for someone with irrational beliefs, to actually stop and listen to anyone else.
Because they obviously tend not to be rational people.
This guy enrages me, too. It's like arguing with one of my cousins while they're stoned. He's talking in circles and can't even accept when he's being completely irrational.
Every religion with a god makes claims that their gods influence and affect reality. Therefore, we should be able to use science to see what changes those gods make upon the world. We can use science to study practically EVERYTHING happening in reality, and we have explanations for most of it (with black holes being one of the few we don't fully understand; BUT, we understand a LOT about them, so don't start making god claims about them). Everywhere we turn our scientific gaze, we strip away the mystery and wonder that is the god of the gaps and expose the mechanisms of the universe. Everywhere we've looked, we have found no evidence of a deity manipulating anything.
This flies in the face of every legitimate god claim, which makes very clear that deities very directly, and often quite spectacularly, interfere with reality. The Bible features Yahweh not only having conversations with people, but even having friendly(-ish) wrestling matches with them. Norse mythology has Thor drinking from a horn to lower ocean levels. The Bhagavad Gita has gods having spectacular battles in the sky. Why are these deities SUDDENLY so afraid to show themselves? How is it for something that is supposed to be so prevalent, so true, so fundamental to reality can't show even the barest whisper of its existence NOW, no matter how hard we look?
Yup. Rationality and theists do not mix well.
God of the gaps. Described as an ever-receding cloud of scientific ignorance. The more we learn about the natural world, and its inner workings, the less we can attribute to god claims. It is why apologists try to create this platonic ideal of a god that "doesn't interact", therefore they can claim it can't be detected by science, and therefore we should accept it because they don't need actual proof of its existence, just the definition. Its a con game, meant to sneak in equivocations, because those apologists generally believe that god does actually manifest in reality.
At best, even if something “miraculous” did happen and was verified and repeatable, you could never be justified in drawing a cause-effect link with a god without first independently proving a god which, by most definitions of god (at least the non-incoherent ones) is impossible. So all you’d have is an event that happened with no current explanation. What the caller can’t seem to understand is even though these types of claims are unfalsifiable in nature, it doesn’t mean you get to just throw out logic/reason and accept things with bad standards of evidence, because at that point - you could accept anything on those grounds (including conflicting things) and you’d have no good justification for one over another. Even if it were somehow all true, it will still be 100% unreasonable to believe without good (at this point, I’d settle for ANY) evidence the same way it’d be entirely unreasonable for me to accept as true that there’s a tea pot at the center of the universe EVEN IF it happens to be true. Same exact rationale.
@@pidayrocks2235 Please don't 'settle' for any evidence, rather than good, out of exasperation for the depths of inanity that some people are willing to indulge, and their resilience to feeling any shame for their crimes against epistemology.
@@merbst The sheer arrogance of this claimant who pities rationalists and athiests, while he smarms out his Easter Bunny "logic" to the unbeliever swine gets him dismissed from other athiestic venues and i hope this is his last audience...
Xeno: "How you would prove something to someone when you can't prove it to them?"
Me: ...
You and us both
Xeno we can use any method to prove it but we need to demonstrate that the method works. The scientific method has be shown to work therefore we use it. If you have another method explain it, demonstrate that it is a reliable method and that it works and demonstrate how it can be used to prove a god exists.
Exactly. The default position is to withhold belief until sufficient evidence is found and proven. No reliable method has been found to prove a god exists so the most rational and reasonable position is not to believe.
Well stated. Always amazes me how ppl can dance around this subject.
Correct. I will accept a method of proof that I am not familiar with, but then you have the additional burden of convincing me that this novel method is reliable.
@@TheTruthKiwi Your two sentences are inconsistent. If we do not have sufficient evidence we do not "not believe", we withhold belief. Those are not the same thing. If I test for "A" and my experiment is inconclusive, I do not reject "A", I just don't know.
@@scambammer6102 Well I do not believe because I think it is almost infinitely more likely that the universe and life originated naturally.
I love how you guys have just become the "callers who can't call into any legit show for conversation" show.
I think even they have their limits to their patience.
Basically.
Kudos for trying *really fucking hard* to be charitable and reach across that aisle though.
Xeno doesn’t really deserve air time at all at this point IMO, but it’s their show.
Well, Mr. Dillahunty has to heal somehow......
In other words the non sensical insane deluded tap dancing boring word wafflers
@@gowdsake7103
Yes 😂
Xeno is so impressed with himself that he can’t not believe an infinitely more impressive being created someone as impressive as him.
He said it right at the beginning "this is just my opinion". Yes it is mate, and we have heard it multiple times from you and it is still just a random persons opinion. Not convincing at all.
So, you don't want to throw out all of science and just blindly believe in some random woo woo? :p
That was just so many words when you could have just said "God exists because my personal experiences, and nothing else, say so. And all you have to do to agree with me is to just accept what I say."
Oh man, I didn't listen long enough. He's a Platonist? Ugh, no.
Xeno should read the Dark Tower series. King not only injects himself in to his book, but his characters come to realize and understand that he is the author of their world.
such a great reference! (I still remember when the Gunslinger came out, and all subsequent books in the series... Wizard and Glass was amazing...)
This guy got WAY too much time to tell us about how illogical god beliefs are and we should ignore that fact. This call should have lasted five minutes as that's one of the biggest reasons for atheism so his argument only reinforces our position.
I can see they're trying to drum some reason into him but honestly, pissing into the wind would be more productive.
I totally agree w you. Unfortunately Eric & Vi are giving him what he wants. 🤷♂️
@@ImStayGold42 Yeah and I don't know why they are doing so. Very frustrating.
Yes, Yes, a thousand times Yes!
Poor Xeno, he went on and on talking and talking about rubbish. Cant get him to make a valid point. I would like a break from him
Xeno is a creator and innovator.
Just thought some people may not have caught that bit. It's easy to miss.
He's also someone who creates and innovates.
I finally caught it the 7th time... but even before he said it the sentence already existed... but wait, if it existed, how did HE.. create it???
@@glassmonkeyface8609 He's one of those who peer into the ideal realm and observes things that have not yet been seen by others.
… allegedly, just this is what inventors are in platonic idealism. I doubt he's come up with anything novel
If you believe everything already exists somewhere before it's created by someone like Xeno does, nobody is a creator, just an accessor of concepts already in existence.
And he made millions cause he is a genius, this guy is Kanye West without money and fame, and maybe antisemitism
Xeno just likes to listen to himself talk.
He must sleep well !
Cocaine can do that.
And no one else does, cause he is such an insufferable idiot
Apparently he believes that not only can he invent something from nothing, but that everything that will exist already exists.
@Uncle Carmine No, I dont
What a joy to listen to grown adults 'philosophize' as they gaze into the hidden mysteries of each other's navels.
*HEY!!!* I RESEMBLE THAT REMARK!
"The proof that I'm going with isn't going to be the type of proof you would probably find substantial".
That, right there, is where the conversation should end. If you can actually admit that, then you need to reflect more on what you choose to believe in. But alas, this guy keeps at it to end up making a fool of himself.
Xeno wants to dismiss evidence and science to prove god exists. We cannot dismiss our reality, but let's dismiss reality for god claims. Too bad getting out of paying taxes isn't that easy.
If a tree falls, then a tree falls, regardless of whether or not you witnessed or experienced it. If god exists, then god exists, regardless of whether or not you have witnessed or experienced him. Yep. No problem with that. Circular statement of identity. If A, then A. If you want to prove A, then first you have to prove A. Next please. You are talking shit.
This should have been what was told to him immediately. I don't like how Eric seems to be fan boying these dishonest callers.
The problem with Xeno is that we know trees exist and we know they fall. We even know multiple reasons for why it happens i.e wind/lightning, axe/saw/beaver, rot etc. etc
We can set up a microphone and record the sound of the tree crashing even if we're thousands of miles away from the tree. We can walk into a forest and see a standing tree and then return the next day and see that it's on the ground. So far god is just a concept.
@@49perfectss that's always kind of bothered be about Eric's approach. It's too over the top nice and beats around the bush alot of the times. A more direct approach when needed goes a long way and he never takes that route. Ever. Just drags the caller on for minutes talking about something that could have been solved in under a minute.
@@thenightlifenj1 Yeah and a lot of the time they end up having to drop the call when it starts getting interesting because they took so long to get to the point instead of addressing the caller's argument directly. There are times that he hems and haws on something like "why does it matter that my thing is illogical?" and it just makes it seem like the atheist position is really weak and not well thought through. I'm yanking my hair out yelling 5 words that would have ended this immediately while he gushes poetic about how interesting he finds an entirely uninteresting claim. I think a lot of callers (Xeno, Jay. Robin, etc) take advantage of him on his own show and brag about them dogging SG and when I watch I can't say they are exaggerating. It sucks he used to be a lot better at this. I have no idea what changed but I wish it would change back.
@@49perfectss agreed. I find it very annoying when he says "that's interesting" because it's usually something mundane and not interesting in the slightest. Like just address what the caller is saying and it's implications. If you need to get more in depth then get more in depth but we don't need to get more in depth about mundane and boring things that have no meaningful impact to the dialog other than to wax poetic.
Kilgore Trout met the author who created him, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr, in one of the books. It's not impossible. It's up to the author.
Also when the gunslinger travels between worlds and meets Stephen King.
Animal Man met Grant Morrison.
I think in the SCP universe, some SCPs have met their creators.
Deadpool kills the Marvel writers in Deadpool kills the Marvel universe.
“How do you predict the future?”
With science, to some degree of certainty
By reading the enrails of sacrificed boars, obviously :P
Xeno acts like he’s orders of magnitude cleverer than the people he talks to. I’ve seen few other people so in love with their own intellect, and so convinced of others’ stupidity, but so unable to express & explain their position coherently. Dude needs a break.
Edit: oh. Crypto bro. Waaay beyond anyone else. Smh 🤦♂️
The break he needs is a leg if he does not stop dribbling shit from his mouth.
I think it's basically, "I've made millions of dollars, I'm so much better than anyone else, look at how I'm so much more clever than anyone who doesn't have millions of dollars."
If the Major Oak falls in the forest and no one is there to see it, then yes, it did fall. HOWEVER, if you tell me that the Major Oak fell in the forest but no one was there to see it (including yourself) and you can't demonstrate that it did, then it would be irrational for me to believe that the Major Oak fell until you do.
Precisely. He’s trying to argue backwards and failing miserably. I want to ask him if it’s reasonable to believe that there’s a tea pot in the center of the universe, to which I’m sure he’d reply “no”, and follow up by saying “okay, so what if there really is a tea pot in the center of the universe, and that’s a truth that you’re now missing/denying”… perhaps that would get through to him.
JRR Tolkien didn't throw Frodo into Mt. Doom for not knowing who he is....
It's not a difficult conversation. It's pure unadulterated bullshit.
💯
"Does that make any sense ?" NO !
Xeno - the chocolate fireguard of callers.
Xeno: we use math to prove the sky.
WTF does that mean? "prove the sky"?????
Xeno: we can't use science to prove (my deistic) god.
Fine. You want to use something else, but you can't use metaphysics or philosophy. Stop right there.
He certainly gave me something to chew on. The carpet in frustration. I wondered if anyone has listened to this drivel all the way through, then I wondered why I listened to it for a quarter of an hour.
I had to stop halfway because i was slowly turning into a vegetable.
@@adriangeh6414 I listen to these shows at x1.25 speed as background entertainment while walking my dog.
That statement led me straight to David Eddings and The Belgariad and King of the Murgos.
this guy was so stupid I had to turn it off after about two mins... kinda too bad, but this dude was just gone...
I'm angry all the time. (seriously, diagnosed). I like listening to calls from Xeno because it reminds me what I'm angry about. People are stupid. You can't fix stupid. All you can do is hope that the next population bottleneck excludes them
Xeno might not want to use the writer analogy. In the case of the writer, everything happens because the writer makes it so. The characters in LOTR have no free will whatsoever, they're just actors on a stage. Indeed, in the context of the LOTR, Tolkien created a god and a pantheon of lesser gods to rule over the world that he himself created. So not only is there no way for Frodo to know of Tolkien, there is also a massive red herring in the way called Eru and the Valar.
What's perhaps more important is the fact that in that context, the existence of Tolkien has no bearing on the lives of the people of Arda. He doesn't expect anything of them, doesn't want their praise, worship, or acknowledgement. So therefore might as well not exist, and Frodo would have no basis on which to believe that he did. Therefore he would have no honest starting point to believe.
If things exist prior to someone actually making them, how can anyone call themselves a creator? Surely they only discover rather than create? Therefore Xeno doesn't create music, he discovers music no else has discovered yet.
I hate when presups and God believers bring up metaphysics. 99% of the time they don't understand it. If you do not plug in something EMPERICAL and verifiable then metaphysics is useless.
EMPIRICAL
What an incredibly round about way of arguing for the god of the gaps.
In this analogy, why would any of the LoTR characters even ponder the existence of Tolkien?
Exactly. Tolkien isn’t saying in the book that he inspired the book and you must believe and follow my rules or you’ll be in hell.
@@trishayamada807 Right. By doing so, he would be making himself a character in the story.
The best part is that if for some reason any of the LoTR characters figure out Tolkien exist, the question becomes how do they know that Tolkien is not a character written by someone else?
That analogy just stinks of the usual solipsistic bs.
@@Julian0101 my 11 year old got freaked out by solipsism or if we are a simulation and I don’t have all the answers so I did my best and said until I have enough evidence to know any differently, I can only live with the reality I experience. I am not convinced of solipsism because I’m not smart enough to have created everything! LoL
@@Julian0101 I'm thinking of writing a story that's about a writer creating a different story. And then have characters in that second story find out that they're just creations. Wait until they find out that the writer is just another character. Maybe that's already happening and I'm just a character in someone else's book. That would be a dream within a dream within a dream. Inception
He really likes to hear himself talk.
No, I should NEVER believe something you won't prove to me.
That is just me being gullible. I don't intend to be gullible.
As Aron Ra is fond of saying, the only ones that need you to believe are charlatans and con men.
Hey now y'all, Xeno is an *innovator* thus he has access to a higher source of knowledge!
No I absolutely reject his ridiculous idea of something existing prior to an existing. I did not exist prior to my parents having sex
I don't know how the hosts tolerate Xeno's ramblings.
They are probably short of callers and desperate, and drag it out as long as they can.
The whole LOTR analogy is interesting because if Frodo was shown the book he would still not have enough evidence that Tolkien "created" him, he hasn't seen or spoken to Tolkien and he didn't witness the book being written....also the Bible wasn't physically written by God so here the analogy ends...
It’s even more interesting than that, given that Frodo is actually the writer. The book is started by Bilbo (as a sequel to There And Back Again) but Frodo writes much of it with contributions from the other three hobbits. So in that sense, there’s no need for Frodo to even go looking for Tolkien because, given the universe he lives in, by all evidence there IS no Tolkien. It’s only the reader who is aware of the existence of the (hidden) creator. By analogy, we can only know of the possible existence of any god in this universe by stepping outside the universe. At this point the analogy has already fallen under it’s own weight, but it’s an interesting counter to Zeno’s nonsense all the same. And, of course, it STILL doesn’t get us necessarily to Zeno’s version of god…
Xeno hit the weed before he called.
The pope strolled quietly beneath the scaffolding, gazing up at the artist's work and nodding appreciatively.
_"The way you've painted the light of heaven streaming down through the nimbus over St. Attila's head is an especially masterful touch!"_
The artist scowled. _"Nimbus? Pfft! He's wearin' a yellow beanie!"_
Xeno's analogies are always either not applicable or only applicable in a vacuum.
If music had not been conceived of yet, there is nothing to explain regarding music.
If I was the first person to conceive of music & put it into practice, then (1) I invented music & it now exists, and (2) I can now demonstrate what music is.
But that would mean that music was invented by man, and that's why the analogy doesn't work: he is trying to prove something that exists before man.
Yup. Irrationality 101
Dude, NOBODY can tell me anything to believe in their God. Because they'll always say I have to, when in fact, they don't have any proof that He even existed
Literally...cool story Bro. No matter how deep you think you are
Dear Xeno, Please answer the question. Regards, missusgumby
When someone tells you god exists, you have the choice of putting your faith in the person who tells you god is real or you can choose to make your own judgement on the matter. If evidence matters at all to you, you wouldn't find it possible to put your faith in anyone's proclamations unless they can provide something more than "it's true because I say it's true".
Billy and Xenos are the forces that build these shows.
Vi steered and supported this call masterfully. Given other calls with Xeno, this is truly impressive
You know I have to say that I admire the religious people that call the show. I rarely agree with them, but it takes a lot of courage to call. It really does.❤ obviously without them there would be no show.
0:34 - "...basically go where science can't." - Of course! Science can't get into your fantasies.
Xeno's argument falls apart once you acknowledge that god influences our reality in any way or acts with it in some detectable way. If it does we should be able to measure its influence and have evidence of that, if it doesn't it's the same as it not existing.
Go where science can't take us? How does he know that? Science cannot prove it...or disprove completly...YET!
Anyone who claims that they KNOW that God exists and KNOW what God wants of us is automatically an arrogant person. There is no way out of that.....
13:30 - _Vi: "Are you a crypto person?"_
_Xeno: "Yes, I made millions off of it."_
No, Xeno, you did not make anything. You took millions from bigger fools who waited and then invested anyway.
I know Zeno gets clicks on the other skeptic shows, but it’s getting just painfully redundant at this point
Thanks for the great video and all the fantastic patience you always show to your callers. 🙂 We probably cannot do anything else than hope that this Xeno one day starts REALLY thinking critically and rationally. Poor guy. 😞
That is very optimistic of you :p
Yeah. And in the meantime we should call a spade a spade, stop indulging him and treating him with kid gloves, and call him out on his bullshit in no uncertain terms. Never mind the frigging patience!
If he (God) wants me to believe in him, he has to prove himself to ME. So far he has done a lousy job on all terms!!!
Hi! I am David. Having introduced myself I am now demonstrably infinitely better than god at proving I exist.
How is this hard for theists to get?
I suspect that Xeno's blind spot encompasses his entire intellect. Round and round he goes.
Xeno seems to think he is smart. He is not.
St. Vi 😇
The thumbnail makes Vi look like she has a halo! lol
His concept was just out there, drifting through the multiverse, and did not manifest into our reality until HE thought it. I require the spacio-temporal coordinace of his Everet Branch before I can comprehend.
On music: Music is the name we give for a collection of specific tones that the human ear and brain find pleasing. Those tones were always pleasing to us, even before we had the idea to try making them on purpose. So whether music existed before we had a concept of music depends on what you mean by "music", do you mean the tones themselves as they are, or the action of making music, or academic music theory? Then yes, no, and no, respectively. In fact they pretty much arrived in that order, and the first one, the tones, existed before we did. Every time anything vibrates at 110, 220 or 440 times per second, that's what we call an "A" note. Lots of things vibrated 110 times per second before humans knew what an "A" was, or tried to make one, or even evolved in the first place.
awesome vibes from xeno. His immediate humility following the: “have you never created anything?!” - moment is a perfectly executed method of behaviour to become objectively likeable
It’s a manipulation tactic.
... will this work for people who haven't seen the movie... as an avid, omnivorous reader born of a reading family who loved Tolkien I am weeping!
I just don't really understand why a deist would keep calling in to try and prove their concept of a god. I understand why a theist would, especially someone like a Christian or Muslim. There are consequences for either believing in those gods or not. I get why people evangelize those religions. But, what difference does it make to believe in a god that started the universe and no longer interacts with it? Why even bother contemplating such a god? If they come to that position because they think something had to create the universe, then even the mechanism that started the expansion of the universe could theoretically be the god they are describing, even if it's a natural force. I don't find any use in calling whatever started the expansion "god." And the fact he's called in to this and other shows to prove his god is very strange to me. If that god exists, we have no way to access that knowledge and it would have no impact on our daily lives. I personally don't see the point. He can believe in his nebulous god if he wants. I don't know why he would bother to prove it to others when it's unfalsifiable, like Vi mentioned.
Morons like this do not get it, that absence of proof negative is NOT the same as proof positive, NOR even the same as proof of theoretical possibility.
I just listened to this and I have to agree that I found it frustrating...
Xeno sounds like a nice guy - but I'm a bit confused about what the actual discussion was about.
To me it seemed as if he started by saying that he believed that a god existed somewhere... and that some sort of metaphysical proof did exist.
But not only couldn't he offer any sort of proof... but he actually agreed that such proof may not currently exist... or even currently be possible...
To me this seems to be a form of "extended solipsism".
If a god exists, but there is no way to discover it, or demonstrate its existence, then we have no basis to form any specific belief about that god.
So, at that point, haven't we essentially admitted that there is no point in simply trading conjecture about something that we can never even hope to agree on?
I'm willing to concede that any god that Xeno proposes MIGHT exist - contingent on the condition that we agree we have no way to know whether it exists or not.
(I'm even willing to admit that it is MY "rationalist default condition" that, since we have no specific facts to discuss, there's no point in talking about it.)
(I'll also admit that, even if that god is totally non-interactional with the real world, I would still be interested in knowing about it - simply out of curiosity.)
At one point Xeno mentioned "a metaphysical proof"...
But, to me, what he offered was a meta-metaphysical proof... a metaphysical claim that a metaphysical proof MIGHT exist...
(It seemed to me that the discussion reached a point of "you cannot prove that such a proof doesn't exist so I choose to believe that we will eventually find it".)
And, without even a theory about what such a proof would look like, or how it could be caused to exist, I don't see much to talk about.
I can cheerfully agree that something might exist out there somewhere that we cannot detect in any way today but may someday be able to detect...
(I was kind of hoping that eventually he was going to offer at least a theory about the existence of some sort of metaphysical proof THAT HE COULD DESCRIBE OR PROVIDE.)
However, without any further details, I just don't see much to talk about.
Maybe someone's just hard head. Just forget it. Let them live their lives. For they just hold on to each other and take the ride. For so many things don't make sense around them. Never see what's beyond before they leave. For it should least try to connect' that it may be a keeper. You cannot wrap your head around it. Maybe that's what stopped you' for a lot of false books have got in your way.
The problem is that Xeno is assuming the thing exists before there is any evidence for it, which is not a good idea. Then he cannot know if it's just a figment of his imagination, or is actually truth.
It is arrogant to assume with our human minds, that we can know what we do not know or cannot demonstrate.
the best part is how the crypto bro can't stop talking about crypto stuff
He's pretty proud of himself, that's for sure
Oh is he a crypto bro? I hadn't caught that. hahaha
He probably spent the first few minutes of the call actually figuring out how to work it into the conversation, LOL
With the music analogy, I had a thought: Let's someone born totally deaf can understand the concept of music. They just don't have the ability to experience music 1st hand. What if a god exists beyond our senses. We could just be "blind" to any gods, and we could theoretically be able to "see" them just as we could theoretically cure deafness eventually. The Still currently unprovable, but an interesting though IMO.
(my favorite is still the "God is a 4-Dimensional being" theory)
However we could test and demonstrate the direct effects of "god's manipulation of things within our reality. " the "god's " concept is useless in the causes and effects that are at the core of how things operate . If you can study and test out something within our reality and, as a factor, whether you include "god" or not in the process you end up with the same result, that added factor is pointless and mainly useless.
As for the "beyond our senses," that would negate every account in the Bible about claims of people reporting interacting with "god"...And if either God made those people to be able to detect him and we're not or chose to make himself shown or heard to some and not others, who's fault is that? That's playing favoritism and I wouldn't be chasing or bragging about a dad who's clearly not making the necessary efforts to give me necessary indication of his existence or his intention towards me. And i wouldn't give a hoot about or lose sleep over a "dad " who shows special preference to some and not others.
Deaf people can still experience music. Not being able to hear, doesn't mean it can't be detected in other ways.
The patience they display is incredible
"god exists and heres all this info about him, but i cant prove any of it and god doesn't interact with reality, but i know all these different things about him" i truly do not understand how anybody could possibly think that presuppositionalism is a good idea
That caller, like most god believers = "We cannot use Science to prove my god, but he is real. You just have to Believe, before you believe, and then... YOU WILL BELIEVE!!!" .... smh... Using that "logic", my god is the only real one... Praise be the Magic Toe Nail!!!!!
13:47 - “I make millions off of it”… I call 100% BS, especially as I’m yet to hear an honest thing come out his mouth during any of his calls.
his wallet probably has seven figures next to it, but he won't sell that much before it either crashes or becomes otherwise unredeemable
@@benroberts2222 seven figures… if the first 4 or 5 are zeros. 😂
@@Heathen.Deity. it's what happens every time there's a bubble, people become millionaires by asset valuation, then there's a crash and everyone wonders where their "money went" (it never existed because you didn't have a buyer for your momentarily valuable stuff)
Anyone who makes a profit "off of" something rather than "from" something should be awarded the Nobel Prize for literary slovenliness and trash English.
@@ewg6200 indeed. I suspect his academic abilities are evenly pitched across the board.
Is it just me or is trying to use a fictional story to try to prove that another story isn't fictional not exactly the best way to go about doing that?
The fact that so many theists use philosophy to try and prove God makes me think philosophy is a worthless endeavor
God exists on the blockchain
I have paused at 16:03 to read the comments section and regain some of what remains of my dwindling sanity.
Question: Another coffee or dig out my straight jacket before unpausing the video? 🤔
Ah, the agony of choice! 🤦♂️
🤣
Edit: As it happens, Vi rescued this call soon after I unpaused and it improved greatly 🤣
p.s. I've also become a patron 👍
Welcome aboard!
The problem, Xeno, is that your method of going “outside” of science to prove god is that science is the best method we have to show what’s real. You can’t prove things exist using “metaphysical” proofs, it doesn’t work. So until you come up with a method that is outside of science to prove god, we’re justified in not believing in the god. You can’t say just because we can’t prove it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. That’s a burden of proof shifting fallacy. Ask yourself, what is the difference between a god you can’t show exists and a god that doesn’t exist?
Xeno asking for a definition of pettifogging is hilarious considering that’s his default tactic in his calls. 😂
What I’m hearing is that we don’t have the tools to prove a god exists, so we have to make some up. How, when we don’t know where to look or even what to look for? And how do we test the test?
I hate the old there would be no science without philosophy argument.
We continue to evolve our thinking. We have always used some kind of philosophy because it takes no kind of expertise to do it. Science was developed as a way to test our philosophical hypothesis. I don't know why some people try to minimize science by using that frame of thought.
"To detect my imaginary friend All I have to do is use imaginary tools."
love your work guys - big hugs...
The hosts touched on the crux of this whole argument. Rationality depends on one’s access to evidence and ability to conceptualize it. A medieval lay person with no access to education to inform them that the earth orbits the sun would be irrational to believe that is the case (unless their raw observation skills are that astute). Rationality doesn’t simply mean you come to true conclusions. But rather you use the data available to come to the best conclusion. Such a lay person would be completely rational to believe everything orbited the earth and irrational to think otherwise. Proper use of rationality doesn’t always lead to correct conclusions, but rather the best conclusion available.
Same with god from Xenos example. A person has no reason to believe a god exists. Even IF it does exist, it’s irrational to believe so at that time until it’s demonstrated. Vice Versa, it’s rational to not believe in a god even if such a being exists if it’s not yet demonstrated.
You can’t “travel the land,” only the words of the book.
Xeno thinks he’s deep but his brain has turned into mush and falling out of his ear.
The movie Xeno was talking about is the Last Action Hero.
He thinks he is the little guy that can go across movie script.
In Xenos epistemology, Barby, the movie, is a documentary.
The time to EXPECT someone to believe your claim is when you demonstrate your claim.
What's the difference between a god that's unknowable/undetectable and a god that doesn't exist?
In the book "Number of the Beast" by Robert Heinlein, the characters therein _DO_ interact with the author.
See my reply about George Burns talking to the audience above. I haven't read Heinlein for 50 years. In his book, do the characters talk back and forth or is the conversation just one way??
@@jonerickson2358
The premise of the story (spoiler alert) is that all stories are real in some alternate Universe, and that all Universes are fiction in some other universe. The protagonists travel between these Universes, turning up in places like Oz, and even interacting with characters from other Heinlein novels like "Time Enough for Love".
I don't think I've read the book for forty years, so I can't recall exactly how the interaction plays out; it is at the very end of the story and is quite brief, perhaps only a few sentences. I'd call it the litery equivalent of a Stan Lee cameo.
@@NealeBaxter I found the conversation a bit "spacy" like a good night in the old days of being stoned, but also a bit of truth in it. It is like the movie or story is one reality, and the author's life is a separate reality and "the rule is" you can't just jump from one to the other. ie, god and science are two different realities. According to the rule, science can not prove or disprove god. Neither can "god" jump from his reality into ours. That makes Dobbie Gillis' (are you familiar with him??) dialog to the audience kind of like the bible, telling a story from one reality into the next. Religious people want the bible to be magic; one reality connected to another reality. Or they claim their "mystical experience" is somehow proof rather than realizing they broke the rules and have turned the television show or novel into something it is not! Neale, just a few thoughts, but I have to give the guy on the atheist show some credit for thinking outside of the box, but no credit for breaking the rules. What do you think?
I’ve noticed waaaay too many theists/deists who are programmers wanting to make claims about some abstraction of god! It’s constant: “I’m a programmer and I use unreal engine so who programmed the universe?”
It’s feels like a direct comparison to the analogy of “everything looks like a nail to the hammer.”
Music did not exist before humans invented it. Naming a series of sounds "music" was done by humans. The concept does not exist out side of humans. Its not like dogs or horses understand and create music. The fact that birds "sing" is not them creating music as we know the concept, its them trying to attract a mate.
Guys, Xeno is a troll whose goal is simply to take up air time from the ACA show he calls into w his ridiculous, circular arguments that don't go anywhere.
Stop taking his calls!
I really don’t think he’s trying to waste time, he just doesn’t understand why he’s wrong
@@biggsnwedge7237 the reasons why he is wrong are explained to him in detail every time he calls. He is chewing up show time.
@@ImStayGold42 Just because it's explained to him doesn't mean that he gets it. Some people just don't know how to think properly. I wouldn't call him a troll, but he definitively needs to understand why most of the shows he talks on don't have him on anymore.
@@biggsnwedge7237 i really suspect he is. On a previous call he referred to himself as a platonist, yet now he's acting like he never heard the term before.
I doubt thats something that entirely slips your mind.
@@biggsnwedge7237 he knows exactly what he's doing.
This argument seemed to be heading into a support of being convinced solely on the “possibility” of a God’s existence based on abstracts becoming realized. In the end, a deist god is not really useful. At least not yet.
deist god is just semantics, replacing various aspects of nature with "god".
The possibility is there BUT if it is not demonstrated its speculation
I can’t be tortured if I don’t believe in Tolkien. That’s the difference.
Yes you will. If you don't believe, after you die Eru will throw you out of the walls of night and you will be butt fucked by Morgoth for ever and ever.
But he loves you.
@@asagoldsmith3328 but he loves you! I died! LoL Sorry I didn’t catch your reply earlier. It made my today start with a laugh. Thank you!
@@trishayamada807 Carlin's wisdom is ever green
Xeno needs to show what Bible is the correct one and what denomination is true!!!
Xeno is now a name that if I see it as the caller, I can skip the video because his calls are always boring
You don't want to hear how "creative" he is and how much bitcoin he apparently has? :p
If everything exists before it’s made, then nothing is created
Can't believe he couldn't track the LOTR example.