If something can't be shown to be impossible, that doesn't mean it's possible, it means it's not known to be impossible. You stop when you can't say more.
@@frogandspanner I mean, it does. Something is either possible or it isn't. Jackie was trying to assume that because were can't prove it's one, it must be the other. *That* is fallacious.
@@jursamaj No it does not, because possibility is not a truth statement, it's a knowledge statement. We can know that it its possible, or that it isn't possible, or we can not know about its possibility.
@@frogandspanner You are confusing its possibility with our knowledge of its possibility. Our knowledge can be yes/no/don't know, but the possibility itself is yes/no. It's right there in your own statement: "We can know that it is possible". There's our knowledge, and its possibility, as 2 separate things.
Prove your silly claim "Possibility must be proven AND impossibility must be proven. You can't assume EITHER." Of course, you won't. Your claim defeats itself.
@@EdithBromfeld I double-checked with Matt before I responded to your comment, and Matt said "If you say that something is possible, that is a claim which must be proven. If you say something is impossible, THAT is also a claim which must be proven." I agree.
@@EdithBromfeld How is the claim at all silly? For something to be possible, that means that it can happen. Imagine you fail to prove something is impossible. Does that make it possible? What if it is impossible, but you've simply failed to prove it to be, because you don't have all the information required to? What if there is NO way to prove it impossible, except it still is? Assuming something is possible because you haven't proven it impossible is making a claim unsupported by evidence. Matt's claim is in no way self defeating
1) It is not demonstrated that everything that exists has a cause. It's not clear that *anything* that exists has a cause. We do not observe things *begin to exist* . We do observe things that already exist *transform* into different things that exist. Those transformations seem to have causes, but we can't establish that such causes are necessary at all, let alone that they are mandatory. They just appear to be time contingent to us. 2) Any paradox that would seem to make infinite time impossible just as easily demonstrates that we simply do not understand infinity correctly. Perhaps all of them have answers, perhaps not, but they don't *exclude* infinite past until we can establish that we have the perfect understanding of infinity. 3) Any argument that extends "past" the big bangs automatically goes to areas where we simply do not understand. Right now as we understand things, we *can't* understand those areas. They are beyond our current theoretical limitations. Such things automatically exclude proofs because we do not even know if this universe's logic applies. "I don't know" is the only thing that attaches.
I do appreciate you taking on these questions in an honest and non-judgmental way. It will help the callers and many listeners to better accept materialism as the foundation of science.
The thing about the Kalām is that it doesn’t bring you to a god only a cause. Only when you add low bar Bill’s BS extras does god actually materialize.
i called in and asked this same question about 4 months ago its titled "Did Agriculture Ruin Humanity? Did Infinity Already Happen? (feat Gutsick Gibbon)" here are some notes for the caller: refer to the "cosmos" instead of the "universe" use the term "succession" instead of "time" keep in mind that either an infinite succession (time) or an infinite expanse of the cosmos would both prove god exists. the best argument atheists have for this predicament is that its possible the cosmos is both infinite in succession and an infinite in expanse with a finite bifurcation between the succession and the expanse which would allow for infinite non-repeatable configurations of physical "things". this wouldn't disprove god's existence but it does allow atheist a way out of admitting that there is a god while still being honest and logically coherent, but it would only take the probability of god back to 50/50 but yeah, basically, unless the physical existence of things isn't repeating, you get a god. think "boltzmann brains". but like a "boltzmann god" lol
Explain how any of what you said proves God exists? Neither an infinite regress of time or space *necessarily* implies a god. Neither does a finite regress of either
@@God-ld6ll from what I understand, it is more about the nature of those dimensions, like mathematical spaces. Something being infinite doesn't necessarily means it has no frontier, for example, if you define a function only having positive inputs, it still may have infinite outputs, but have a clear limit on its dominion (not sure if dominion is the right term). Also space and time being treated as dimensions doesn't necessarily mean that they form a euclidean space (in the mathematical sense). Saying before the initial moment may as well mean something like south of south pole.
Theists asking atheists questions about cosmology is always a bit absurd. My answer to the caller is, "Take that up with a world class cosmologist. I'm not one and I can't usefully answer that question without the requisite knowledge. Are you a world class cosmologist? No? Then do you think you're in a position to understand one way or the other whether or not an infinite universe is possible?" I would also then point out that if God is going to be posited as a necessary cause for some observed effect, we can't really posit that God as the cause until: 1. We know that god exists. 2. We know enough about the nature of that god to know that it is capable of being such a cause. God of the gaps arguments always fail on this point.
The singularity is a conclusion we arrived at if we extrapolate expansion as far back as possible using the physics of the time. The singularity hasn't been demonstrated to have existed. Nor is it likely to exist as models of the singularity were constructed prior to quantum mechanics, which would be extremely relevant at those scales. Now, expansion itself has been demonstrated, and there is evidence that the early universe approached a state close to being the singularity. But the reason why we can't conclude that this time very close to the singularity is indication of the singularity is because trying to apply physics as we understand it breaks down prior to reaching the singularity. With this, we know two things. One is that our current understanding is in some way incomplete. And the singularity may not exist.
Trying to apply physics as we understand it does not break down. Intentionally distorting the physics to obtain a result of singularity simply breaks with physics. Spacetime is a four-dimensional concept. As such, the Schwarzschild radius is r = 0. Claiming this to be a 'coordinate singularity' upon replacing the time coordinate with fabricated coordinates to justify a three-dimensional origin point as being r = 0, distorts the physics making symmetrical length contraction asymmetrical resulting in a geometric-based impossible singularity. Neither zero-point energy nor the relativistic increase of kinetic energy nor the impossibility of mass to obtain the velocity of causality allows for indefinite contraction to a singularity. ""Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality...for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily...due to the fact that...the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light." -Albert Einstein
I don't understand why believers have such a problem with the multiverse idea. After all, they *already* believe in a multiverse. At a minimum, they believe in 3 universes: here, heaven, and hell.
We know the geometry of the universe is flat and therefore will end in heat death. We also know the number of protons and neutrons in the universe. So, no. this universe is not infinite.
@@pretzelogic2689 Neither of those things are true. The curvature could be very slight or there could be no end to the universe beyond our cosmic horizon, but we cannot see beyond the observable universe.
@@jayanderson66 I think we do but just do not realize it yet. The quantum vacuum (Nobel Prize around 2005) is what we find when we look where you might think "nothing" should be. So if we ever can look outside of our universe, we expect to see "nothing". But it's going to be the quantum vacuum -- the Cosmos.
Regarding the Kalam: theists merely replace one notion of infinity for another. The Kalam appears to rely on the assumption that something cannot come from nothing. Personally, I prefer to question the nature of reality itself, rather than the source of a reality that we don't fully understand anyway. What if all of this - in the final analysis - isn't?!? 😱
Well, no. The default position is that everything is impossible, and that things do not exist. That is the null hypothesis to reject in order to prove possibility. The real answer is that we do not know, and in theory we cant say either way, but in a practical sense, we live our lives with that null hyphothesis of non existense and impossible.
They didn’t ask Jackie to provide evidence 😂 He played them by questioning the host and not defending his belief which is what I thought was the purpose of the show.
To be fair, we don't know what the big bang was before it banged, for the simple reason that the spacetime that we inhabit formed during the big bang. We can speculate that it was a singularity or a quantum fluctuation, but we have no way of examining things that happened outside of our spacetime. Our current universe is not infinite, we just can't see the edge because the farther we look the faster things are moving away from us so the idea is that the actual "edge of the universe" is moving away from us faster than the speed of light, which means we cannot ever get any information from it as whatever it is sending our way would have to be given a speed greater than the speed at which the edge is moving and that's not possible if the edge is moving faster than light. Is an infinite universe possible without god? There is no way to tell, because the bits that could make it possible could be in the bits that we cannot see. We can think of problems that we think might occur, but in reality we have never seen anything infinite so... it's all just a big guess.
I would have pointed out that in the 2D world they could still have TIME but not depth, in that sense, there could be 5th dimensional aspects that we don't understand or are even aware of how they change/alter the previous dimensions, etc... all we *_CAN KNOW_* is what we have evidence and proof of... hence the atheist title.
There is no infinite regress if the universe has always existed. Infinite regress assumes a starting point, and there would be no such thing in an infinite universe. William (low bar) Kregg (using 'Merkin pronunciation) tries to argue for the impossibility of the infinite by assuming a beginning, and arguing that addition of the subsequent can never achieve infinity - but the assumption is rahhng!
The concept of infinity is not the concept of an infinite regress. An infinite regress requires something finite originating from a greater something finite ad infinitum. An infinity is already and always infinite. There's no such thing as a singularity or of an infinite density of zero volume. Such a concept is physically prohibited by zero-point energy as well as by the impossibility of mass to obtain the velocity of causality which is shown by the Lorentz factor to require infinite energy. Apart from proving conditions of mutual exclusivity, one does not prove a subject to be impossible. One proves a subject to be possible by showing the conditions to facilitate a subject's possibility. Failing to show the conditions to facilitate a subject's possibility shows that the subject is not known to be possible and is thus only known to be impossible. There's no such thing as 'before' time or zero time after which there is a 'beginning' of time. Time is eternal as energy is neither created nor destroyed but is either transformed or transferred. The universe is one of an infinite number of universes that expand when adjacent regions of reflected CPT symmetry are undergoing compression and compress when adjacent regions of reflected CPT symmetry are undergoing expansion thus forming an oscillating multiverse (or Yin-Yang Multiverse Model). Adjacent regions of universe formation have reflected CPT symmetry thereby making one region a universe of matter with 'forward' time and the other region a universe of antimatter with 'reverse' time. As dark energy is fourth-dimensional kinetic energy noticeable at the intergalactic scale as the cosmological constant, gravitational vorticity (called dark matter) is the angular momentum orthogonal to the fourth-dimensional vector of gravitation, noticeable at the galactic scale as galactic rotation, leaving perhaps a mere 4.16% of the universe to be derived at the quantum level from the orthogonal interaction of kinetic energy to compose the fundamental forces. SU(1) ωGħ/c² = Gμν + Λgμν = κTμνξ (not κTμν) General Relativity (Gμν → Tμν0 → 1/c² → M/2c²: gravitation; the trough (Għ/c^3) of the 4th-dimensional standing wave) and the Standard Model (Λgμν → Tμν1 → c² → Mc²/2: kinetic energy; the peak (Għ/c) of the 4th-dimensional standing wave) 0D = (2^0) = T000, T001 = S0 = the SU(1) symmetry (the Għ/c^3 → Għ/c amplitude of the 4th-dimensional standing wave), 1D = (2^1) = T100, T101 = S1 = the U(1) symmetry, 2D = (2^2) = T200, T201, T210, T211 = S2 x S1 = the U(2) symmetry, 3D = (2^3) = T300, T301, T310, T311, T320, T321, T330, T331 = π4(S3) = the SU(3) symmetry.
Isn’t the show to have the caller give evidence and not call and ask questions ? You guys allowed him to shift the burden of proof ? Why do a lot of atheist allow theist to shift the burden without challenge.
Please tell me a God can exist out side of time because my faith requires me to have assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen. Or we could just Grant that since we cannot prove a God is the cause of the Big Bang, a God may have done it. Now prove your God exists.
Jackie needs to stop calling these shows and go do other stuff with his life. He always does the same BS and isn't learning anything, dude is stuck in Jordan Peterson parrot mode :(
If something can't be shown to be impossible, that doesn't mean it's possible, it means it's not known to be impossible. You stop when you can't say more.
God botherers always try (incorrectly) to assume the excluded middle applies to possibility.
@@frogandspanner I mean, it does. Something is either possible or it isn't. Jackie was trying to assume that because were can't prove it's one, it must be the other. *That* is fallacious.
@@jursamaj No it does not, because possibility is not a truth statement, it's a knowledge statement. We can know that it its possible, or that it isn't possible, or we can not know about its possibility.
@@frogandspanner You are confusing its possibility with our knowledge of its possibility. Our knowledge can be yes/no/don't know, but the possibility itself is yes/no. It's right there in your own statement: "We can know that it is possible". There's our knowledge, and its possibility, as 2 separate things.
As Matt Dillahunty has said many times. "Possibility must be proven AND impossibility must be proven. You can't assume EITHER." RockOn, Eric & Paul.
Prove your silly claim "Possibility must be proven AND impossibility must be proven. You can't assume EITHER."
Of course, you won't. Your claim defeats itself.
@@EdithBromfeld I double-checked with Matt before I responded to your comment, and Matt said "If you say that something is possible, that is a claim which must be proven. If you say something is impossible, THAT is also a claim which must be proven." I agree.
@@EdithBromfeld How is the claim at all silly? For something to be possible, that means that it can happen. Imagine you fail to prove something is impossible. Does that make it possible? What if it is impossible, but you've simply failed to prove it to be, because you don't have all the information required to? What if there is NO way to prove it impossible, except it still is? Assuming something is possible because you haven't proven it impossible is making a claim unsupported by evidence. Matt's claim is in no way self defeating
I remember Jimmy and Paul trying to wrangle Jackie in to understand foundational tenets of his beliefs, and him just not getting it over and over.
1) It is not demonstrated that everything that exists has a cause. It's not clear that *anything* that exists has a cause. We do not observe things *begin to exist* . We do observe things that already exist *transform* into different things that exist. Those transformations seem to have causes, but we can't establish that such causes are necessary at all, let alone that they are mandatory. They just appear to be time contingent to us.
2) Any paradox that would seem to make infinite time impossible just as easily demonstrates that we simply do not understand infinity correctly. Perhaps all of them have answers, perhaps not, but they don't *exclude* infinite past until we can establish that we have the perfect understanding of infinity.
3) Any argument that extends "past" the big bangs automatically goes to areas where we simply do not understand. Right now as we understand things, we *can't* understand those areas. They are beyond our current theoretical limitations. Such things automatically exclude proofs because we do not even know if this universe's logic applies. "I don't know" is the only thing that attaches.
Oh ffs it's him again. Comment for engagement, good luck Past Eric and Paul
12:57 it's a single point in that the variables x, y, z, and time, are all set to 0 on a 4D graph.
I do appreciate you taking on these questions in an honest and non-judgmental way. It will help the callers and many listeners to better accept materialism as the foundation of science.
Oh Jackie, if only you'd use that big brain of yours for better things.
Some people are just pathologically unable to get out of their own way
Who’s to say Jackie doesn’t have other interests. Interests where his supposed big brain isn’t going to waste.
@@waynedexter True, but he does call in a lot to spew his rhetoric.
@@ZenWithKen what’s frustrating about Jackie is all the rhetoric he’s been spewing in no way convinced him there’s a god.
Holy cow. Jackie is my favorite and most hated caller.
Hate watching is real 😂
If you can't prove something impossible, it doesn't mean that it is possible. It just means that someone else might have to prove it's impossible.
The thing about the Kalām is that it doesn’t bring you to a god only a cause. Only when you add low bar Bill’s BS extras does god actually materialize.
There was a Halloween episode of the Simpsons in which Homer got switched into 3D. It was fascinating.
WTF kind of question is that? It sounded to me like "Is widespread childhood cancer possible without God?"
i called in and asked this same question about 4 months ago its titled "Did Agriculture Ruin Humanity? Did Infinity Already Happen? (feat Gutsick Gibbon)"
here are some notes for the caller:
refer to the "cosmos" instead of the "universe"
use the term "succession" instead of "time"
keep in mind that either an infinite succession (time) or an infinite expanse of the cosmos would both prove god exists.
the best argument atheists have for this predicament is that its possible the cosmos is both infinite in succession and an infinite in expanse with a finite bifurcation between the succession and the expanse which would allow for infinite non-repeatable configurations of physical "things". this wouldn't disprove god's existence but it does allow atheist a way out of admitting that there is a god while still being honest and logically coherent, but it would only take the probability of god back to 50/50
but yeah, basically, unless the physical existence of things isn't repeating, you get a god. think "boltzmann brains". but like a "boltzmann god" lol
Explain how any of what you said proves God exists? Neither an infinite regress of time or space *necessarily* implies a god. Neither does a finite regress of either
spacetime is inherently infinite. "before/after/beyond/etc." are spacetime designations.
Nonsense. Spacetime has a finite beginning about 13.85 billion years ago.
@ "spacetime has a finite beginning about 13.85 billion years ago."
"spacetime" "beginning"
@@God-ld6ll from what I understand, it is more about the nature of those dimensions, like mathematical spaces. Something being infinite doesn't necessarily means it has no frontier, for example, if you define a function only having positive inputs, it still may have infinite outputs, but have a clear limit on its dominion (not sure if dominion is the right term). Also space and time being treated as dimensions doesn't necessarily mean that they form a euclidean space (in the mathematical sense). Saying before the initial moment may as well mean something like south of south pole.
Jackie is trying to tone it down but the Jordan Peterson incel force in him is strong
He is the Jungian Archetype of a Jordan Peterson fanboy.
I am much more interested in the question if a god is possible, without needy, superstitious people making up nonsense.
Theists asking atheists questions about cosmology is always a bit absurd. My answer to the caller is, "Take that up with a world class cosmologist. I'm not one and I can't usefully answer that question without the requisite knowledge. Are you a world class cosmologist? No? Then do you think you're in a position to understand one way or the other whether or not an infinite universe is possible?"
I would also then point out that if God is going to be posited as a necessary cause for some observed effect, we can't really posit that God as the cause until:
1. We know that god exists.
2. We know enough about the nature of that god to know that it is capable of being such a cause.
God of the gaps arguments always fail on this point.
The singularity is a conclusion we arrived at if we extrapolate expansion as far back as possible using the physics of the time.
The singularity hasn't been demonstrated to have existed. Nor is it likely to exist as models of the singularity were constructed prior to quantum mechanics, which would be extremely relevant at those scales.
Now, expansion itself has been demonstrated, and there is evidence that the early universe approached a state close to being the singularity. But the reason why we can't conclude that this time very close to the singularity is indication of the singularity is because trying to apply physics as we understand it breaks down prior to reaching the singularity.
With this, we know two things. One is that our current understanding is in some way incomplete. And the singularity may not exist.
You raise some very important nuanced points, that many people seem not to be aware of.
@andreasplosky8516
Yeah. There's a lot of miscommunication about this topic. Even for me.
Trying to apply physics as we understand it does not break down. Intentionally distorting the physics to obtain a result of singularity simply breaks with physics. Spacetime is a four-dimensional concept. As such, the Schwarzschild radius is r = 0. Claiming this to be a 'coordinate singularity' upon replacing the time coordinate with fabricated coordinates to justify a three-dimensional origin point as being r = 0, distorts the physics making symmetrical length contraction asymmetrical resulting in a geometric-based impossible singularity. Neither zero-point energy nor the relativistic increase of kinetic energy nor the impossibility of mass to obtain the velocity of causality allows for indefinite contraction to a singularity.
""Schwarzschild singularities" do not exist in physical reality...for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily...due to the fact that...the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
-Albert Einstein
@@djehutisundaka7998
I think you conveyed a similar meaning. But maybe there's some nuance. As I said elsewhere, I make mistakes.
Never mind the singularity, just give us reasons to believe your God exists. Outside of space and time means non-existence to me.
I don't understand why believers have such a problem with the multiverse idea. After all, they *already* believe in a multiverse. At a minimum, they believe in 3 universes: here, heaven, and hell.
We know the geometry of the universe is flat and therefore will end in heat death. We also know the number of protons and neutrons in the universe. So, no. this universe is not infinite.
@@pretzelogic2689 Neither of those things are true. The curvature could be very slight or there could be no end to the universe beyond our cosmic horizon, but we cannot see beyond the observable universe.
Yes but we know nothing of the cosmos.
@@jayanderson66
I think we do but just do not realize it yet. The quantum vacuum (Nobel Prize around 2005) is what we find when we look where you might think "nothing" should be. So if we ever can look outside of our universe, we expect to see "nothing". But it's going to be the quantum vacuum -- the Cosmos.
Regarding the Kalam: theists merely replace one notion of infinity for another.
The Kalam appears to rely on the assumption that something cannot come from nothing. Personally, I prefer to question the nature of reality itself, rather than the source of a reality that we don't fully understand anyway. What if all of this - in the final analysis - isn't?!? 😱
Well, no. The default position is that everything is impossible, and that things do not exist. That is the null hypothesis to reject in order to prove possibility. The real answer is that we do not know, and in theory we cant say either way, but in a practical sense, we live our lives with that null hyphothesis of non existense and impossible.
They didn’t ask Jackie to provide evidence 😂 He played them by questioning the host and not defending his belief which is what I thought was the purpose of the show.
To be fair, we don't know what the big bang was before it banged, for the simple reason that the spacetime that we inhabit formed during the big bang. We can speculate that it was a singularity or a quantum fluctuation, but we have no way of examining things that happened outside of our spacetime.
Our current universe is not infinite, we just can't see the edge because the farther we look the faster things are moving away from us so the idea is that the actual "edge of the universe" is moving away from us faster than the speed of light, which means we cannot ever get any information from it as whatever it is sending our way would have to be given a speed greater than the speed at which the edge is moving and that's not possible if the edge is moving faster than light.
Is an infinite universe possible without god? There is no way to tell, because the bits that could make it possible could be in the bits that we cannot see. We can think of problems that we think might occur, but in reality we have never seen anything infinite so... it's all just a big guess.
An infinite universe isn't possible with or without a god, so the question is meaningless.
I would have pointed out that in the 2D world they could still have TIME but not depth, in that sense, there could be 5th dimensional aspects that we don't understand or are even aware of how they change/alter the previous dimensions, etc... all we *_CAN KNOW_* is what we have evidence and proof of... hence the atheist title.
There is no infinite regress if the universe has always existed. Infinite regress assumes a starting point, and there would be no such thing in an infinite universe.
William (low bar) Kregg (using 'Merkin pronunciation) tries to argue for the impossibility of the infinite by assuming a beginning, and arguing that addition of the subsequent can never achieve infinity - but the assumption is rahhng!
Jackie, still gishgalloping through concepts you don’t begin to understand.
Long words are no substitute for actual thought.
The concept of infinity is not the concept of an infinite regress. An infinite regress requires something finite originating from a greater something finite ad infinitum. An infinity is already and always infinite.
There's no such thing as a singularity or of an infinite density of zero volume. Such a concept is physically prohibited by zero-point energy as well as by the impossibility of mass to obtain the velocity of causality which is shown by the Lorentz factor to require infinite energy.
Apart from proving conditions of mutual exclusivity, one does not prove a subject to be impossible. One proves a subject to be possible by showing the conditions to facilitate a subject's possibility. Failing to show the conditions to facilitate a subject's possibility shows that the subject is not known to be possible and is thus only known to be impossible.
There's no such thing as 'before' time or zero time after which there is a 'beginning' of time. Time is eternal as energy is neither created nor destroyed but is either transformed or transferred.
The universe is one of an infinite number of universes that expand when adjacent regions of reflected CPT symmetry are undergoing compression and compress when adjacent regions of reflected CPT symmetry are undergoing expansion thus forming an oscillating multiverse (or Yin-Yang Multiverse Model).
Adjacent regions of universe formation have reflected CPT symmetry thereby making one region a universe of matter with 'forward' time and the other region a universe of antimatter with 'reverse' time.
As dark energy is fourth-dimensional kinetic energy noticeable at the intergalactic scale as the cosmological constant, gravitational vorticity (called dark matter) is the angular momentum orthogonal to the fourth-dimensional vector of gravitation, noticeable at the galactic scale as galactic rotation, leaving perhaps a mere 4.16% of the universe to be derived at the quantum level from the orthogonal interaction of kinetic energy to compose the fundamental forces.
SU(1) ωGħ/c² = Gμν + Λgμν = κTμνξ (not κTμν)
General Relativity (Gμν → Tμν0 → 1/c² → M/2c²: gravitation; the trough (Għ/c^3) of the 4th-dimensional standing wave) and
the Standard Model (Λgμν → Tμν1 → c² → Mc²/2: kinetic energy; the peak (Għ/c) of the 4th-dimensional standing wave)
0D = (2^0) = T000, T001 = S0 = the SU(1) symmetry (the Għ/c^3 → Għ/c amplitude of the 4th-dimensional standing wave),
1D = (2^1) = T100, T101 = S1 = the U(1) symmetry,
2D = (2^2) = T200, T201, T210, T211 = S2 x S1 = the U(2) symmetry,
3D = (2^3) = T300, T301, T310, T311, T320, T321, T330, T331 = π4(S3) = the SU(3) symmetry.
Isn’t the show to have the caller give evidence and not call and ask questions ? You guys allowed him to shift the burden of proof ? Why do a lot of atheist allow theist to shift the burden without challenge.
Please tell me a God can exist out side of time because my faith requires me to have assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen.
Or we could just Grant that since we cannot prove a God is the cause of the Big Bang, a God may have done it. Now prove your God exists.
Jackie needs to stop calling these shows and go do other stuff with his life. He always does the same BS and isn't learning anything, dude is stuck in Jordan Peterson parrot mode :(
They need to stop taking his call
Literally 3 seconds in, and I'm out. Done. I cannot stand anymore of the j. p. bullshit. 👎
Enough with Jackie, guys. Seriously. This is sad now.