Proving God Is Subjective?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Call the show on Sundays 1:00pm-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-991-9242
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
► Find all of our links here: linktr.ee/athe...
The podcast may be found at:
tiny.cc/podcastph
Talk Heathen merch can be found at: tiny.cc/merchaca
Note: We request pronouns as part of the call screening process on our shows, and we display the pronouns our callers provide. If you see a caller with no pronouns indicated, this is because they chose not to provide us with any, and we respect that decision.
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2024 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
You know what they ask expert witnesses in criminal court? They ask questions about their credentials and experience to lay a foundation first. Then they ask the expert what they believe about the alleged crime, specific to how their field intersects with the allegations, and why they believe those things about the crime. After that, the opposing side will try to undermine either the foundation or expert’s opinion by using contradictory facts and evidence. What the opposition does NOT ask those expert witnesses is, “Were you THERE?”
"There was not water on the Earth until the days if Noah."
Okay, not only is that Not a scientific fact, I don't even think that's what the Bible says!
If only Bob had actually read the Bible. Genesis verses 2, 6, 7 and 9 mention water. What does he think this water is, if not...water?
In Genesis verse 10 we have seas. What does Bob think seas are made of?
"whats your scientific proof?"
"The bible says so!"
These people forget that the bible isn't the evidence, it's the claim!
Well shit, i'm convinced!
@@realdaggerman105 same, it's literally the most convincing argent
Bob just proved that Osiris/Vishnu/Odin/Thor/Pangu/Quetzalcoatl/etc exists!
No bob. Everything you said was incorrect and we the audience are tired of hearing the nonsensical answer
No bob Hahaha 😅
I almost want to read Bob's book now to see how terrible it is, if he thinks the Bible says the Earth had no water before God decided to kill almost everyone and start again.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." keep up Lamar. 10:00
A “story“ doesn’t have to mean an arbitrary fiction. That word can be analogous to an account adequate to explain a given set of phenomena. Philosophers will often use the word story to differentiate theories of things. I think they’re getting hung up on that word and not recognizing its semantic range. Every fact is interpreted within a larger conceptual framework. That’s even true of naturalism. In that sense it’s a story.
Lol there wasn't water on the earth until the days of Noah so the people had no water to drink and all of the people in the past magically survived without any water
:50 and I know exactly how this is gonna go
20 seconds in, here we go!
Edit: one minute thirty, FML
The thing is that if you’re a naturalist then you’re committed in advance and in principle to denying design in nature no matter how uniform it is. There is literally no possible example of something, some phenomena in nature, that would contravene that starting point. In that sense, it’s unfalsifiable. If a giant face appeared in the sky and started speaking directly to me in intelligible words, that would be extraordinary, but it would in principle be no more unnatural than the flesh on the face of the person sitting next to me doing the same thing. If every time I said a magic word a gold bar appeared in my hand, the naturalist would be completely within his principles to conclude that I have only discovered a rather exotic law of nature. Naturalism is an absolute metaphysical idea. It rules out a priori empirical counter evidence. In that sense, it’s not empirical at all. It’s not an hypothesis. It’s a chosen philosophical bias.
ALL positions start from a priori assumptions.
ALL positions are by nature circular.
Here's the important part. Naturalism seems to be confirmed by EVERYTHING we can experience. There is nothing that appears to be outside of it. Is that circular? Yes? But here's the interesting bit. Even those who start with different a priori assumptions are living in accordance with naturalism. So yes, it is circular for the naturalist, but it seems to be confirmed by those who hold different assumptions, and that's a huge problem for those who argue against naturalism.
Give us a call on Sunday to discuss it.
@@sceptictakeout6809 All beliefs can reduce to a first principal or a set of first principles. But that is not circular in the fallacious sense in which naturalists argue. Descartes’s cogito, for example, is self-evident, but it presupposes a more fundamental truth which is the principle of non-contradiction. That principal is not a physical law. In fact, no physical law would be intelligible in the absence of it.
If I assume, which I do, and everyone must, that being is real, that doesn’t entail, logically or evidentially, that being is limited to the physical or corporeal. There are ubiquitous features of reality that will not admit of a physicalist reduction. For example, the intelligibility of nature and everything within it depends upon material and efficient causes, they also require formal and final causality, two principles that contradict materialism. On the subjective side, there are the beings of experience and thought that are not explained by physical processes, but rather excluded by them. So it is just clearly not the case that everything we know confirms naturalism. In fact, if naturalism were truly the case, then most everything most people think they know about reality would be false. Naturalism is a philosophical idea. It is also a universal solvent. Nothing withstands its skeptical corrosive effects, including science. Most naturalists are content to live with this inconsistency.
@@tpoy1274 Wow, no. you're so wrong. Please call the show and let's discuss it.
@@sceptictakeout6809 For example, the content of the judgement that anything is “wrong” would be unintelligible under naturalism.
@@tpoy1274 No, it wouldn't. Give us a call.
These guys are awful host. How could they not stop Bob and say stop talking about why evidence won't work and just get to the evidence . they just let him ramble for like 5 minutes about that never getting to a real point
Here the issue as I see it. It's not really possible to define what would be required for a person to go from not believing something, to believing it. `Evidence` is a loaded term in that context. Even the actual manifestation of a god, may not be enough if the individual thinks they may be an alien, or something else. It works the other way too, where someone might say they require X, but then Y actually happens and it compels them to believe. In the end, it tends to be a rabbit hole discussion that doesn't really address anything.
It’s fair enough for a claimant to propose a test and ask, “Do we agree that result X would be proof of the claim?” Then if they have that common ground to work off of, they do the test and mutually accept the result. The problem is that theists who do this aren’t proposing the test, they’re asking US to propose a test. That will never work. Why should I do the work to prove your claim?
The caller said atheists are moving the goalpost but every time when asked how do you know it’s god it’s the caller who changes the goalpost.
The more we learn about the universe, the higher the bar gets for proof of God.
I like bro Bob….he’s silly 😜
He's trying to say a terrarium doesn't need water Is that it doesn't rain in a terrarium But you do add water to it and it actually does rain in a terrarium
I’m gonna straight out say it after the whole damn painful BobDelusioooon….
Voting shouldn’t be a birthright (anymore).
Bob's mind is so open... anyone watching this channel or others like it can finish this sentence.😉