Caller's Five-Point SCRIPT Falls Apart Before Point TWO | Taylor SH & Sara LeavingFaith

Hinzugefügt: 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]All right, we're gonna bring in Jeremy from North Carolina.

[00:00:06]Hi, Jeremy. You're on the line with um Taylor and Sarah. How are you doing?

[00:00:12]>> I'm doing well, Taylor and Sarah. How are y'all?

[00:00:15]>> Good. Good.

[00:00:16]>> What do you want to talk about?

[00:00:18]>> I wanted to present five reasons to think God exists.

[00:00:23]>> Okay, go for it.

[00:00:27]Okay. The first is God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing.

[00:00:35]Second reason is that God is the best ex Yeah. The second reason is that God is the best explanation for the coming into existence of the universe roughly 16 billion years ago give or take a few billion years. That's the second reason.

[00:00:49]Third reason is that God is the best explanation for the finetuning of the initial constants and quantities given at the big bang.

[00:01:00]Fourth reason is that God is the best explanation for the objective moral values and duties we apprehend in the world as moral creatures.

[00:01:12]Um, so I guess my question is why do you think it's better that we just say it's God instead of saying or instead of admitting things like we might not have all the answers or stuff like we create morality or whatever it might be? Why do you think it's better we put God in that spot?

[00:01:33]>> U, do you have one of one of the arguments in mind that you might want to uh specifically touch on?

[00:01:40]Um, sure. People always ask me about the beginning of everything, the beginning of the universe, and they're like, "Well, God's the best explanation." I don't really think so. I don't I'm just not satisfied with this thing we created being the best explanation. I think that we It's okay to say we don't know. And on top of that, another reason I don't think it's a good explanation is because in our history, there's been so many things that we've attributed to the supernatural or to God or to Satan or whatever. And for like seizures for example, and every so many of those times when we thought it was supernatural or we thought it was like whatever, whenever we came to a conclusion of what it was or discovered what it was, it has never once been God or Satan or demons. So if we're going with things based on probability, I think it's a very low probability that it's God.

[00:02:38]Well, that's not my argument. Um, I can I can give you the the two steps and the conclusion of the argument if you'd like.

[00:02:46]>> I think for your argument to make sense, you have to answer why >> I haven't given the argument yet. I haven't given the argument yet. I've just I'm >> for your first point. For your first point, um, that you think God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe, right?

[00:03:08]That's not that's not an argument that I have made. I can repeat it if you'd like.

[00:03:13]>> Sure. What was your first point?

[00:03:16]>> The first the first summary of the the argument I gave was this. God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing.

[00:03:27]Okay. So for that first part you then have to make you have to explain why does God exist instead of nothing.

[00:03:42]I I I I can give you the argument. I understand what you're saying but I haven't really given you the argument.

[00:03:48]I've given you a summary of it. Do you understand what I'm saying? There are five steps to the argument and I can >> Okay. The first step is >> Yeah. the first step and and just tell me what you think about this. I mean, this is this sounds reasonable, doesn't it? Every everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. That's the first premise of the argument. I'll repeat it. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of its own nature or in some external cause. Now that that seems reasonable, doesn't it? Do you to Sarah?

[00:04:33]Does that does that sound reasonable?

[00:04:35]>> No.

[00:04:36]>> Everything that exists >> has everything that exists has an explanation of its existence.

[00:04:43]>> Jeremy Jeremy, I'm going to have to stop you for a minute, Jeremy. Um, okay.

[00:04:47]>> It sounds like you have a script that you're you're wanting to read to us. And I I think the first presupposition of this is you need to explain why God exists instead of nothing. I I think before you go through your five steps, we got to start there. Um, >> well, you got Well, I I'm getting to that step. You You got to let me finish the steps, though, right? I mean, I'm getting to that. That's the first step.

[00:05:17]And there there's there's five steps to the argument.

[00:05:21]Um, you see what I'm saying? So, I I need to get to step two >> to unpack what you're you're asking for.

[00:05:29]Um, >> um, I don't think I agree that everything has >> I don't think I agree that everything has like a cause.

[00:05:38]>> I didn't lost.

[00:05:40]>> Oh, god.

[00:05:41]>> An explanation. Like, what is that supposed to mean? I don't really know what that's supposed to mean.

[00:05:48]>> Well, when I use the word explanation, I'm using it in the sense that you use the word explanation or or anyone. It's something that explains something. So, for instance, um the explanation for why I'm talking to you on the phone right now is because I wanted to give you five arguments for the existence of God.

[00:06:08]That's how I'm using the word explanation. It's it's nothing I'm not using it in any way that is is not used in in the common usage of the the English term.

[00:06:20]>> So how did you come to the conclusion that everything must have an explanation?

[00:06:26]>> Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence either in the >> How do I know that everything that exists has an explanation?

[00:06:45]Can you hear me? I think. Can you hear me? Hello?

[00:06:48]>> I I can hear you. Yeah. How do you know?

[00:06:50]Yeah. How do you know that everything has an explanation?

[00:06:52]>> Sorry, you cut out.

[00:06:54]>> Well, think about it. Do you disagree with that?

[00:06:57]>> Yeah. You have no way to know that that's correct. You're making a a presupposition because it sounds without what what exists without an explanation.

[00:07:07]Maybe the universe that exists.

[00:07:10]>> Huh?

[00:07:10]>> Maybe the universe. I said maybe the universe. I don't know.

[00:07:15]>> But why would you think that though? You see what I'm saying? That that's the question. I think when we it comes to the universe, if the universe exists, which I think we can all agree that it does, um there there needs to be an explanation for it. Unless you want to say, well, the universe is the only thing that exists without explanation.

[00:07:36]Um, you know, I mean, and you want you want to know how I know this? Um, it the belief that I have that everything that exists has an explanation. That's a properly basic belief. Properly basic.

[00:07:50]Um, the the belief that everything that exists has an explanation. That's a belief that's formed naturally in humans as they observe their physical environment that they live in.

[00:07:59]>> Okay. So, we look around question. We see a tree in the We see a tree in our front yard. We don't look at that and say, you know, that just exists without explanation. We look for an explanation.

[00:08:10]And indeed, science is itself presupposes that things that exist have an explanation for their existence. That's the whole that's the whole philosophical underpinning of the scientific method.

[00:08:23]>> Okay. So, what if >> what if the universe doesn't have a beginning at all? Wouldn't that mean there's really no explanation if there's no if it always existed? if it never even began.

[00:08:37]>> Well, if the universe is eternal in the past, and a lot of people have thought this until uh recently, um the explanation would be that it exists eternally. But you wouldn't say that it doesn't have an explanation. You would just say that the explanation is that the universe exists eternally and therefore you don't >> That's not an explanation though. That's a maybe a description of a characteristic of the universe, but that doesn't explain what caused it or how it originated or why it exists. You're just describing one of its characteristics.

[00:09:11]>> Doesn't have a cause. An eternal universe wouldn't have a cause.

[00:09:14]>> I agree.

[00:09:17]>> So, yeah. Yeah.

[00:09:22]>> Right. So this >> what I'm saying?

[00:09:24]>> No, we we disagree with your first premise on your way to your your first argument on your way to your first premise.

[00:09:34]>> So you do think that things can exist without explanation then?

[00:09:39]>> I don't know. I don't know. Can't really claim one way or the other. I don't know.

[00:09:42]>> If you don't know, then you if you don't know, then you don't disagree. You just you would not you would just say you you're agnostic about that >> and you would hold open judgment.

[00:09:52]>> You don't want to make empirical evidence to support your claim. So Jeremy, >> you you haven't actually given us evidence to support your claim. When you've made this claim, you basically have said, "Well, it just feels that way or it's natural or it's logical. I can't think of an exception. Therefore, it must be true." But we're asking you, how can you demonstrate that your claim is true? And you haven't been able to do that.

[00:10:22]>> You're asking me to demonstrate the the statement, the truth of the statement that everything that exists has an explanation either in >> the necessity of its own nature or an external cause. You're asking me to demonstrate that. I don't need to >> because you do if you want me to believe it without explanation. But you don't but you don't believe things that ju just exists without explanation.

[00:10:46]>> Right. It's not very scientifically minded, is it?

[00:10:50]>> Actually, I think it is.

[00:10:53]>> Wait, there's a lot of stuff I don't understand the explanation for.

[00:10:59]>> Huh?

[00:11:00]>> There's a lot of stuff that >> when we see >> when we see effects in the world, we look around to to we automatically look around and assume that there's an explanation for it. And so I guess what you would you would say is that there are things that exist and they don't have an explanation.

[00:11:18]Um and one of those things is the universe. Is that is that your position?

[00:11:24]>> I feel like um like what someone in the chat said and ex explanation is just a weird word to use in this. Like it's so to me I feel like it's lost its meaning at on this point because I don't understand what that even means.

[00:11:41]>> I know. It feels like he's trying to say cause that everything has to have a cause and that would make more sense than the the term explanation.

[00:11:51]>> So you you're you're you guys are having trouble with the word explanation.

[00:11:56]>> It seems not specific enough to the point you're trying to make.

[00:12:02]Do you mean that everything must have a cause and that you want to assert that God is the uncaused cause?

[00:12:10]>> No, that's the second argument. That's that's the argument the beginning of the universe. I I'm I I this this argument that I'm giving it's an argument that gets us to a necessary uh being something that exists necessarily. Make sense?

[00:12:25]>> Yeah.

[00:12:28]So we have heard this argument before >> and so this is not new.

[00:12:34]>> Principle this is the principle of sufficient reason.

[00:12:39]The principle of sufficient reason undergurs the scientific methodology. It states that for every fact there is a sufficient reason for why it is so and not otherwise.

[00:12:49]um that that's the principle of sufficient reason. It's um you can't even deny it. If you deny it, it's self-defeating. If someone says some things just exist for no reason at all, well, is there a reason why that is true? The answer is no. Then the claim itself becomes arbitrary.

[00:13:11]So, you know, if we're going to be rational and have >> it makes your claim arbitrary. So again, the very first premise of your argument, you cannot demonstrate to be true.

[00:13:21]You're just asserting that it's true because you think it's true or it seems logical to you, but that's not actually evidence that demonstrates your claim is true.

[00:13:33]>> What would what would you consider to be evidence for the claim that everything that exists has an explanation? What would that look like?

[00:13:39]>> You're making a pretty pretty big outrageous claim. Um I don't know if we could even test it. I I don't know that you can assert that unless you are able to measure everything.

[00:13:53]>> We're talking on the phone, correct?

[00:13:57]>> Giving me one example is not evidence.

[00:14:00]Your claim is about everything.

[00:14:05]>> Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence.

[00:14:08]>> You mean a cause?

[00:14:08]>> Either in the necessity of its own either in the necessity of its own nature or in some external cause. The sun I think you might have more success with this argument. have an explanation.

[00:14:20]Use your own words instead of reading from that giveth warmth and light and heat has an explanation for why it's there and and why it it is what it is, right? What you know, >> no, >> I mean everything that exists look at look at look around you >> ask yourself a question.

[00:14:39]>> Do I do I have an explanation for why these things exist? You have to look around you argue arguing >> Jeremy if we go by the if we go by the r like a typical definition of explanation meaning a statement making something clear or understandable we cannot assert that there there could be things that we cannot understand or that cannot be understood. So that's where I'm confused by this.

[00:15:11]I think he needs to use the word cause because that's I think what he actually means is that everything has a cause.

[00:15:20]>> No, I'm I'm using the word explanation.

[00:15:23]Um >> that's a bad word. It's not conveying what you want to convey.

[00:15:27]>> So the word Okay, let let's go to another argument that's tripping you up.

[00:15:32]Let's go to the second argument. The colon tripping you up. This talks about the beginning >> this talks about the beginning of the universe. Premise one, everything that begins to exist has a cause. Do you dispute that?

[00:15:47]>> I would dispute that the universe has a beginning.

[00:15:51]>> I didn't say anything about the universe. I said >> I know, but that's where you're going.

[00:15:55]So, let's just get there.

[00:15:57]>> But, but don't jump ahead of me, though.

[00:16:00]Let's follow the premises because everything that begins to everything that begins to exist has a cause. You would agree with that? Surely.

[00:16:11]things don't just pop into being from nothing without >> I don't know that that could be Oh my gosh, my camera looks so bad. That could be That could be the case. I don't know.

[00:16:20]Like how how would I know? I just know what's here on Earth.

[00:16:24]>> How do How do you How do you know that that that everything that comes into being has a cause? How do you know that?

[00:16:31]Is that your question?

[00:16:35]>> Yeah, I know it happens like on this planet in this universe. What about a different universe?

[00:16:40]>> I just I want you to stop and think about your your question when a magician Jeremy >> because >> she understands that your question is asking us to stretch us to the limits of our imagination. And so >> God, we're going to have to do a little bit >> hang on Jeremy. Jeremy, you're going to have to let me finish here. So what Taylor is saying is just because she personally cannot think of an example doesn't mean that there isn't one.

[00:17:11]Right? So the the entire world is not limited to what we can imagine. So is it possible that there's something that exists that wasn't caused? I mean it's possible. We don't know. We don't know all that there is to know. Which is why you need to empirically demonstrate.

[00:17:28]>> You're misunderstanding the argument.

[00:17:29]You're misunderstanding the argument. I do.

[00:17:32]>> You said everything that has a beginning h is caused, right? Everything that has a beginning >> has a cause. Has a cause. Right. That's right.

[00:17:40]>> Right. Okay.

[00:17:40]>> Everything that comes into being has a cause.

[00:17:42]>> Jeremy.

[00:17:43]>> Mhm.

[00:17:43]>> Jeremy.

[00:17:44]>> Yeah.

[00:17:44]>> Yes. That's correct.

[00:17:45]>> And we are disputing that.

[00:17:48]>> Okay.

[00:17:50]>> Okay. So, as Taylor said, we don't know whether that is true for everything. It seems to be true for most things, for a lot of things. But you're >> your question is actually asking at the edge of your imagination. Is it possible that there is something that began that did not have a cause? It's a theoretical question. Maybe maybe there's something that's possible. We don't know.

[00:18:20]>> Well, I Okay. I I think I understand I think I understand the issue. You're thinking that because it's possible that something could come into being without a cause, then you can't you can't really say things that come into being do have a cause. Is that your position?

[00:18:40]>> Because it's it's possible that things don't come into being without a cause.

[00:18:47]>> We have no way to know if it's impossible >> possibilities. It's easy to say, well, it's possible that things can pop into being from nothing. But then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn't. Why not tigers and root beer and bicycles? Why don't these things come into being from nothing in our living room when we're watching TV?

[00:19:08]>> When wait, you you've made another jump here. When you say from nothing, that doesn't mean without a cause either.

[00:19:17]>> Okay. Well, you explain to me how something can come into being without a cause and it not be from nothing.

[00:19:28]>> Coming from nothing is still a cause.

[00:19:33]>> Nothing doesn't have any properties and so can't cause anything.

[00:19:38]You're talking about nothing as if it's something that has causal power. Uh the word no thing is a universal quantifier.

[00:19:46]You just said a tiger could come from nothing. I mean, we're we're dealing in hypotheticals here. Like, this is wild.

[00:19:54]>> We're not dealing with anything that's hypothetical. I'm saying that um you must be committed to the idea that things can come into existence without a cause.

[00:20:05]>> We are committed to the idea that we don't know everything there is to know about the universe and therefore cannot make these sweeping generalizations. But you don't you don't have to know everything there is to know to know that things don't come into existence without a cause. You don't have to be omnicient to know that.

[00:20:20]>> Yes, you do.

[00:20:22]>> No, you don't. You don't. And that's See, that's the thing. You're thinking you have to know all truth in order to know that things don't come into existence from nothing. If you want to make a statement, if you want to say a statement about all things, >> then yes, you have to eliminate the possibility that there is something that we have not heard of and don't know about.

[00:20:43]>> I'm not about all things. I'm making a statement about things that come into being.

[00:20:49]>> Okay. All things that come into being.

[00:20:52]>> Yes.

[00:20:53]>> The pen. All things that come into being.

[00:20:54]>> The pen on my desk. The pin the pen on my desk came into being at some point in the past, right? The pen, the writing pen.

[00:21:02]>> Giving us an example is not helping here.

[00:21:07]>> When I made for our listing, when I look at my pen on my desk, it it didn't always exist. It hasn't always existed.

[00:21:15]It came into being at some point.

[00:21:17]>> So, there's a column for that. It didn't just pop into being, right, >> Jeremy. Jeremy on my desk. Right.

[00:21:25]>> Can he hear me?

[00:21:28]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:21:29]>> Okay. I mean I mean just stop. We We understand what you're saying. You don't have to give us more examples. We get it.

[00:21:36]>> Okay. I >> We're just disagreeing with you.

[00:21:39]>> I thought that I thought that would be helpful.

[00:21:41]>> Okay.

[00:21:41]>> So So don't worry. We have the cognitive ability to understand what you're saying. Um we we're just disagreeing.

[00:21:49]And I think it is be probably more beneficial for everyone if we just jump to the end of your argument.

[00:21:56]>> Well, you can't jump to the end of an argument because that's that's not how syllogisms work. A deductive argument is is constructed by following premises in an argument which lead logically to a conclusion. If the if the argument is valid, >> you you were the one who wanted to move on to another one because we didn't even accept your first premise. So, we've already said no to your first argument.

[00:22:19]>> So, I moved I moved on to another argument that you seemed to be more familiar with, but I can if you want to move on. You're very familiar with all of your arguments.

[00:22:30]>> You're very familiar with them, but you don't seem to really muted what I mean by explanation. You don't know what I've >> Jeremy. Um well that's why I was trying can you just make can you just make a short summary of the entire thing just go ahead >> try make >> so the second premise of the art okay the first premise is everything that begins to exist has a cause you dispute that which means that you think things can come into being without a cause which is literally worse than magic at least in a in a magic show when you have a magician and you've got a hat and he pulls the rabbit out Okay, at least you've got the magician there.

[00:23:12]>> Can you keep going?

[00:23:14]>> Skip the example.

[00:23:15]>> Yeah. So, so the second premise of the argument is the universe began to exist. That's the second premise. Now, this is confirmed by separate philosophical arguments and corroborated by scientific research.

[00:23:29]>> No.

[00:23:30]>> Um, Stephen Hawking Steven Hawking famously said, >> you're wrong. Um I'm I'm wrong about what >> about that it is confirmed via science that the universe had a beginning.

[00:23:43]>> I'm I'm wrong on that. Okay.

[00:23:45]>> Correct. You are wrong.

[00:23:48]>> Okay. Why do you think that?

[00:23:52]Be >> because I read physicists.

[00:23:57]>> You you read excuse me >> physicists. I I read their work.

[00:24:03]Okay. And what have they said?

[00:24:06]>> They have said that we aren't able to do the math about what happened before the big bang, but there are several hypotheses for what would have been beforehand. Um, so we don't know, but there are several ideas about what it could be like. It is not confirmed that the universe had a beginning. That would is incorrect.

[00:24:26]>> Jimmy says first premise false. Jimmy says first.

[00:24:31]I said there's scientific support for the claim that the universe began to realate philosophical arguments.

[00:24:40]>> Jeremy, can you hear us when we're talking?

[00:24:43]>> Okay, Jimmy says a bunch of laughing.

[00:24:45]>> First premise, first premise fails because it counts on the laws of the universe applying before the universe existed.

[00:24:53]>> That's not what my first premise counts on.

[00:24:56]>> It counts on things not coming into existence without a cause. That's what it counts on. Things can't just come into being >> from nothing without a cause. That's what the first premise counts on. It doesn't count on >> any universal laws. Um, it counts on the medical metaphysical principle. From nothing, nothing comes. Surely you believe that >> Sound of Music from nothing nothing comes.

[00:25:19]>> Who could think something different?

[00:25:21]>> Jeremy, I I am being sincere when I say I don't want to cut you off, but we have a hard stop tonight. We have to be done by 9:00. there.

[00:25:30]>> Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time.

[00:25:33]>> Thanks for calling in. Have a good night.

[00:25:37]>> You too. Bye. Bye.

[00:25:38]>> Bye.

[00:25:43]>> Oh god. Sorry. I lost it a little. Nah, that's okay. I liked it.

[00:25:51]I just We weren't going to get anywhere anyways cuz he wouldn't he wouldn't accept our disagreements at the beginning. So there's only so much you can do with that.

[00:26:01]>> I just I hate being spoken to that way that like >> No, I know the man's playing.

[00:26:05]>> Yes. His assumption that if we disagreed with him, it was because we were too stupid to understand what he was saying.

[00:26:12]>> Unfortunately, I feel like that happens a lot on here.

[00:26:17]>> Good times. But we're going to read super chats now.

[00:26:19]>> Hey, if you liked that clip, you'd love the whole thing.

[00:26:24]Hit like, subscribe, leave a comment.

[00:26:26]patreon.com/calltheline.

[00:26:31]That one sucked.