Caller's "Guaranteed" Proof Fails Logic 101 | The Best Of The Atheist Experience

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]All right, where are we going now?

[00:00:02]Uh Y'all has brought a new proof.

[00:00:06]>> a brand new proof Y'all in Brooklyn, New York has a brand new proof for God that is guaranteed to turn us all theists. Is that an exaggeration or is that what you really think?

[00:00:17]Um well, first of all, hi. How are you?

[00:00:20]I I'm all right. Good.

[00:00:22]Thanks. It's great. Good to hear. Like I feel feel feel a little like a god because I can see you, you can see me. Hopefully after the call you will be able to see God.

[00:00:31]Maybe. Well, okay. So, I mean, it says you have a brand new proof for God that is guaranteed to turn us all theists.

[00:00:37]So, is it guaranteed or not? I haven't said the word guaranteed. Okay. But I guess the one that actually wrote it down actually felt that way. So, I maybe he's wrong. Is that right? Okay.

[00:00:49]Uh okay, great. And by the way, I if in case you will get convinced, I still I I I I I guess you will have to change the show name to atheist from atheist experience to atheist experience. But I would suggest you should keep on the show because it's a lot of fun so far.

[00:01:06]Oh, thank you.

[00:01:08]I suspect it's getting ready to be a lot of fun here in just a second.

[00:01:11]Yeah, hopefully.

[00:01:13]>> [laughter] >> I actually do appreciate very very much your your rational and logical approach.

[00:01:17]And actually that that I'm trying to appeal to. Well, let's get to your proof.

[00:01:22]Um but before I want to start about it, I just want to make sure um What what Why is there a before I mean, we just chit-chatted. Why is there a before? Why can't people just present the proof?

[00:01:33]>> No, I I wanted to present the proof. I just want to make sure that we on the same page of what they call the Big Bang. Is there a problem with that? If you have a problem with it, I'll just skip that.

[00:01:42]Okay, go ahead and make sure we're we're on the same page with regard to the Big Bang. Is that what you said?

[00:01:48]No, what about the Big Bang itself? I mean, most people have a question about how can something come from nothing? And I just want to clear I want to make sure that I understand fully what you mean.

[00:01:59]I'm not convinced that that's what's happened and nor do I think it's particularly relevant.

[00:02:03]Yeah, but exactly. Basically, what I'm what I'm what I'm trying to say is basically that there's a difference between the question something come from nothing is actually as I say, it's not it's not it's not even a question at this point because all we know usually like we are typical our typical experience is about nothing is totally different than a Big Bang nothing.

[00:02:24]>> I have no experience I have no experience of nothing. I don't know that it's possible to have any experience of nothing because anytime we would attempt to have some experience with nothing or detect a nothing or investigate a nothing, we're applying attributes to it and now it's no longer nothing. So, when people talk about >> Exactly. That's Yeah, right. You say exactly what I want to say. Okay, go ahead.

[00:02:47]No, I just want you to get to get to the proof because the thing is So, the quick my my quick take on Big Bang cosmology, it is it in its current state, it is the current best explanation for the facts that we have observed about the universe. It doesn't tell us anything. It doesn't make a a declaration of something from nothing.

[00:03:08]I I don't know how you could have a something from nothing. But you're here to essentially prove God. So, prove it.

[00:03:15]>> Yeah, but exactly exactly. I just want to make clear that point. I mean, the difference between >> Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Are you trying to have a whole philosophical conversation about how the Big Bang works as like an a side conversation before you give us the proof?

[00:03:29]That is what I wanted to do. But if you have a problem with it, I can go start it because it's relevant actually to the proof. Well, let's get to the let's get to the proof. And if there's a problem with a definition or whatever, we will try to interrupt as politely as possible and get clarification.

[00:03:44]No problem. I will start go directly to the definition. But first of all, let me make a definition of actually what he will try to prove, I guess. Okay.

[00:03:53]Okay. I will give it in a layman definition and then I will try to explain more rigorously. Okay, first of the layman definition is there exists a being that is perfect and and also the first cause. It is a being that is perfect and what?

[00:04:06]And is the first cause.

[00:04:08]And is the first cause.

[00:04:11]Yeah. The first cause.

[00:04:14]So, I So, potential objection I'm going to let you continue. But there's potential points here where I'm not clear on what you mean by perfect. Um Exactly. That's what I'm going to define rigorously.

[00:04:25]That's the layman definition.

[00:04:28]Okay. Any questions on that?

[00:04:30]Well, also to assert that it is the the first cause. This is just the definition of God. Cool. I'm not convinced there is any such thing as a first cause. But that's what you're going to prove. So, keep going. Yeah, exactly. Okay, let's go through it rigorously. First of all, I said it's a being that we think being that is perfect and the first cause. For the being, what I mean by being is like objective reality, not just the subjective and not just like not what you just explained originally that not is just relative thing and we don't know about it.

[00:04:59]>> Okay, cause uh for for some reason I I'm having difficulty understanding and I don't I don't think it's I think it's a mix between um audio issues and Is English your second language or third language or fourth language or Again? Is English your primary language?

[00:05:19]No, it's not my primary language.

[00:05:21]>> Okay. And and kudos to you cuz your English is already better than any other language I would even attempt to speak myself. I'm I just recognize that as a thinking agent. I don't have to have any conversation at all about objective or subjective. So, I'm not quite sure why you're talking about that.

[00:05:42]>> So, if you are comfortable with being, whatever you define is okay. I just tried to define like rigorously might look a technical definition in science and mathematics. But it's okay. As long as As long as you understand it, I'm fine with that. So, let's go to perfect.

[00:05:55]This is one we have issues with that.

[00:05:57]So, let me try to explain what perfect is. And the word that the explanation of perfect means is independent from something else. Like unlike us, we are all dependent constantly Independent independent on something else?

[00:06:10]Yep. Okay, so Here's Here's another thing.

[00:06:15]You start describing being and all of a sudden the words objective and subjective are coming out of your mouth when that has nothing to do with being in any philosophical discussion or any discussion I'm aware of. Now we get on to perfect. And the definition that you just gave for perfect would be better applied as not contingent. That's not perfection. You're just declaring that it's not contingent on anything else.

[00:06:43]That's what I consider with the word perfect. But if you want to use it another term, I have no problem with that. Sorry. So, then if we're agreeing to use different terms, then >> No, no, no. This is This is >> said it's a layman term I would use with with a layman people and they would understand it. But if you are like you're more technical inclined use whatever technical word I'm going I'm going call it whatever whatever name apply you feel more suitable. I'm going for clarity. Here's what I don't understand. You have an You have an argument and you have terms and you have definitions for terms. So, you presented it's a perfect being that is the first cause. And then you tried to define being in a way which doesn't fit with my understanding of it. I launched an objection and you're like, okay, we'll go with your definition of being. No problem. I can Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. I'm still talking.

[00:07:37]Okay.

[00:07:39]Then you go on to define perfect and you define it in a way that based on all my understanding doesn't match with perfection. But it was a definition of something that's non-contingent. And when I raised that objection, you're like, okay, we'll go with your definition of this.

[00:07:52]This is Stop. I wasn't done talking. Sorry for that. I'm sorry.

[00:07:58]This is raising all kinds of red flags because if you're going to create a proper argument, it should be here are my terms. These are the definitions.

[00:08:07]This is what I mean when I use these terms.

[00:08:10]And then here is the argument. It should never be here are my terms. Here's my definition. But we'll go ahead and use yours anyway.

[00:08:17]And then here's the argument. Do Do you see the problem here?

[00:08:21]Not really. I'm sorry for that because as I said, I will I can only say my terms and my definition in order to proceed. But if you have a better word that you feel would help you understand it more, you can use it for yourself. I will still continue to use my words.

[00:08:39]That's exactly what I said.

[00:08:41]Okay.

[00:08:41]>> So, maybe we don't Maybe you have an I think like perfect or being have something else in mind.

[00:08:47]Well, if I just can't explain what I mean.

[00:08:50]That's the word I said. I get it. But I'm trying to get There's no We can't go forward if we're not on the same page.

[00:08:57]And so, if somebody said, "Hey, there's a perfect being." In my head, I'm already thinking about a thinking agent and wondering what we specifically mean by perfect. But when you described your terms for being, you talked about um Well, for perfect, you described something that was uh not contingent. And for being, it was something that is objectively real.

[00:09:21]Uh nothing in your definition of a being included anything about a mind or agency or any of that.

[00:09:27]>> No, I'm not I'm not including that part of the word being or perfect clearly.

[00:09:32]Can Can I Can I I think that I understand what you're trying to say when you use the word perfect because So, for example, okay, this is the problem is if you were to ask me what a successful person looks like Matt and I are going to have completely different definitions of what a successful person is, right? So, that's where we're kind of getting lost. But I think I see where you're going with this perfect being non-contingent or independent because if you were to ask me what I think like a perfect thing would be would be that it's no longer growing and that would mean that it's you know essentially dead or whatever which would mean that it's no longer dependent on anything like if we're growing we need other things to fuel us we need things to keep us going so is that kind of what you're saying >> it's a good example but it's it's a little bit hard to explain because you're actually talking about something that's not found completely different than everything that we experience you know but let me give an a different way of explaining it maybe that will help you understand I would say that if something is perfect I would say it's like independent it is in the default state of it's it's default state I mean everything in the world we don't have really a default state you can say whatever you call default but it's not a true default state because our true default is to not to be that's what our default state is in the world How do you know we have a default state Exactly what I'm saying you don't have Okay It it the No No no Yeah I'm saying that this this thing that we I'm talking about is actually in its default state >> Which means it doesn't exist Yeah that that that's where I go to okay so when in nonexistence so that's I you know >> I was about being that it is actually existing that was that was actually a meant with being So it's a non-existent being No I that's exactly what I said that being means it exists and that's what I want to prove This is why this is what the demonstration was a minute ago you just said that our default state is not being and that that >> our but I'm going to show you that there is >> Okay Stop Stop let me finish my [ __ ] thought I sat here and listened to all that Sorry I I was thinking you're Oh my god I'm not saying that our default state is the same as this perfect being state that's not what I'm saying I'm saying if you say our default state is to not exist you are already wrong because if I don't exist there's no me and there is no default state so the default state for me must necessarily include existing you can't say the default state for X is not existing and now you you're trying you're going to try to argue for something whose default state is to exist when I would argue that my default state is already to exist You don't or I forgot already or Hello I can't hear you anymore I cuz I stopped talking Oh you want me to already continue I mean I'm I'd like you to address what I said Oh okay I wasn't sure that you finished because earlier I was thinking you were already done and so what are you talking about Okay so so now so now you know what it sounds like when I'm actually done things get quiet >> Okay no problem you know you were quiet there for a second but okay I will wait longer no problem Okay so basically as I was trying to explain that to you basically as when I'm saying that our default state you can call our default state to exist but actually there is no real default state but I'm saying default state I mean with lack of anything else Wait there's no real default state but this is a what Exactly that's what I'm trying to say there's no real default state What the [ __ ] does any of this have to do with proving that God exists let's get to that because everything that you've said is far as I can tell wrong or conflicted you can't say there's no default state but our default state is this and now I found something else that has a default state that is something different Do you have an argument do you have it like written down with premises in a in a syllogistic structure Yes Get to it What I'm trying to explain to you but you since you have a problem to understand what I'm saying I'm not exactly sure if I can proceed Okay so so Just get if you have it written down as a [ __ ] syllogism get to it >> No problem I will go ahead and I will try to prove that no problem I will go ahead and you will understand what I'm >> What is premise one Okay I said that there is a being that being by I mean by being mean existing objective reality that is actually a thing but perfect I'm I'm saying it's perfect because it's independent of something else I mean it's in the default state Stop default by avoiding everything else Stop >> default Okay Do you actually have a syllogism written down with premises because that is not a first premise and and if the thing you're trying to prove is that there is a being a perfect being you don't get to use that as a premise Why not Because it's the thing you're trying to prove and if the thing you're trying to prove is your first premise your argument is necessarily circular and therefore fallacious Okay okay let let me continue but I have not >> Wait do you understand what that means >> So no problem Do you understand what that means >> Continue no problem Okay no problem I will Y'all Y'all >> Oh no problem Y'all do you understand what that means I understand what he means but I have not done I'm not yet done yet with this definition So so then how okay so do you know what I asked you for the first premise do you have it What do you call what is the what's premise I'm not exactly sure >> Okay you need to go study logical syllogisms because you cannot you cannot make an argument and call in and tell me that you have an actual syllogism with premises and then say what's a premise I'm not exactly sure what it is right are you want me to tell what the argument is before I define what I'm exactly trying to argue >> I'm saying you don't have the first clue how to make a valid and sound argument and before you call in to do so you should probably go and study what a valid and sound argument is it is an argument where the structure is such that true premises would necessarily lead to a true conclusion and it is sound if the premises are accepted as true and so you have premise one all men are mortal premise two Socrates is a man conclusion therefore Socrates is mortal Your premise one when I asked goodbye I'm going to hang up I swear to the God you think is [ __ ] real I have a question Go ahead Y'all where did you get this I figured it out on my own Yeah So so where did what struck where did you use to figure it out A lot of reasoning a lot of studying Studying what Science What does that mean Science physics So so when you were building this syllogism when you were building this proof for God what were you using cuz you can't just say the word science and that that doesn't really tell me anything No and this what I wasn't using in this personal I don't know my logical arguments Yeah for this argument what did you use where did you get it Or what did you use to create it These are my arguments From where I figured it out on my own From I'm not taking it from anywhere it's my own arguments >> So you've never looked up the structure of a syllogism I haven't done it so like to send it in a mathematical journal but I do have the structure of what I'm saying the problem is I can start saying but since you don't know my definition of God Well but hold on you will actually have a hard time seeing what I'm going so that's what I tried to first give you my definition of God Well the thing is that we when so I've been learning actually from Matt and others about the structure of an actual argument rather than just going with you know I feel like this is true and I feel like this kind of makes sense and so then that must make it logical but that there's actually logic is actually a thing that you can you can add up you can there's a actual structure as if it's a math equation that you can use to figure out if argue if your argument is in fact proven one of the premises So do you know what that is >> Do you know what that is I started my argument I just I just tried to first to give my definition what I'm trying to Okay so where did you learn about that I'm saying it's my own definition So you didn't learn about it from anywhere you didn't learn about how to structure an argument from anywhere you just made it up What do you mean by I didn't learn how to make structure an argument >> Where did you learn how to structure an argument A lot of arguments a lot of scientific mathematical proofs and I like them very much So where did you learn how to structure an argument I'm not exactly sure what you're asking He didn't He didn't he never has that's the problem you you have no idea You have no idea how to structure an argument which is why on multiple occasions when I asked you for your first premise you instead went on about the very thing you're trying to prove So I'd recommend maybe going and looking up online how to structure an argument and then there's going to be a ton of articles there try to find something that ends in dot org Okay can I can I repeat a second what I what I'm just trying to say Sure >> If you want me to to to skip the step of definition which I think is crucial um I can go straight to the arguments I have no problem with that the premises and whatever you want to call but whatever if you don't want me or don't want me to hang up, then it's no problem. Whatever you decide.

[00:19:58]So, how long is this call been going now? And all I said from the beginning was present your argument.

[00:20:04]And and I said that if when we started going down the definition road, we had some objections or dis- or disagreements and you're like, "Fine, do whatever you want." And then I said, "Okay, it's best if you just present your argument and if there is some point of contention or some something that needs clarification, we can interrupt you as politely as possible to try to get it in." And then I asked for the first premise or for you to present your argument and that's when we find out that you don't know what the hell a premise is at all or how to structure an argument. So, what reason will we have?

[00:20:36]No, I do know how to structure an argument because >> No, you don't. No, you don't. You've already demon- >> what the word premise exactly means.

[00:20:44]Okay.

[00:20:44]>> I was thinking it's it's the definition.

[00:20:46]You want the definition first. Yo. Yo.

[00:20:49]I'm going to pause right now and I'm going to let you talk.

[00:20:53]And I would like for you to present your argument.

[00:20:58]And as soon as it leaves a properly structured argument, I will just hang up.

[00:21:04]Is that okay?

[00:21:06]Okay. Do you Do you understand I I want to know if you understand why it's important that it be properly structured?

[00:21:12]And We can talk about that after I hang up.

[00:21:16]Present your argument.

[00:21:17]>> Okay. I fully understand that why you want me to be in in structure >> Present your argument.

[00:21:23]No problem.

[00:21:24]Okay. Basically, when we look at the universe, we >> [snorts] >> Goodbye.

[00:21:32]No argument starts with basically when we look at the universe.

[00:21:38]So, there's a reason why and I don't I don't require everybody to always be prepared to present an actual syllogism, premise one, premise two, conclusion or multiple premises that lead to a conclusion.

[00:21:52]But if you don't have any understanding of that, then that means that you don't know anything about fallacies.

[00:21:58]That you don't understand anything about logical structure and why we actually rely on it. Because ages ago, it when it comes to like uh propositional logic and syllogistic logic, Aristotle and his band of merry logicians went through all the potential possible forms and named them, things like Barbara and Celarent and things like that.

[00:22:17]And it is about a major premise and a minor premise and the connecting terms and determined which structures and and this is how we get to validity, which structures uh are such that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true or more accurately, if you accept that the premises are true, you must accept that the the conclusion is true uh or you are now being illogical, irrational.

[00:22:42]They also showed which structures are invalid in structure where even with true premises, the conclusion isn't necessarily true.

[00:22:52]And we make use of that because if your argument is fallacious, which means invalid in structure, a formal fallacy, we have no way of telling if the conclusion is true or not.

[00:23:07]You you you just if you construct an invalid argument, it doesn't matter. It's a complete waste of time to let someone go through an invalid structure because whatever conclusion they reach, you will have zero way to tell whether or not the the conclusion is true.

[00:23:24]It's Socrates is a man, all men are mortal, peanut butter's awesome.

[00:23:29]That's in- that's invalid because the terms in the conclusion have nothing to do with that. It's not the only There's tons and tons of fallacies. But peanut butter may or may not be awesome, but because the structure is invalid, you don't know.

[00:23:42]That is the importance of understanding this. Now, that doesn't mean that everybody calls in needs to present this strict syllogistic structure.

[00:23:51]But if you're going to make an argument, essentially a premise is here is item one that is this fact. Do you agree or disagree? Are you accepting that this is true? It's not basically when we look at the universe.

[00:24:05]That that that's just not going to get us anywhere. So, all you have to do, if you have a proof of God, is to spend a day looking into logical fallacies and logical syllogisms and try to put yours into as close to a structure You can still have conversational thing.

[00:24:25]You know, how would I argue on behalf of um I don't know.

[00:24:31]These are roasted crickets.

[00:24:32]I don't have to do syllogisms. I can say, "Okay, here here are some various data points that we can take and maybe these are real crickets, maybe they're not.

[00:24:41]Uh I I am already convinced that these are most likely real crickets because they say roasted crickets. I know that this is popular. I know that we we did some at least a new thing that's on the rise and we talked about it. You can go through all this and it they look like crickets.

[00:24:56]Um We've seen crickets before.

[00:24:57]>> We've seen crickets before. These could be though completely fake. I mean, these these crickets might not be real. And so, one of the things that you could possibly do is to taste it.

[00:25:07]Have you ever eat one of those fake grapes? Yeah.

[00:25:10]>> [laughter] >> Except that I don't know what an actual cricket tastes like.

[00:25:15]And so, I could taste this and I could say, "Well, that doesn't taste like a cricket, it tastes like peanut butter."

[00:25:27]That's pretty good.

[00:25:29]Hey.

[00:25:31]I don't know if it's an if it's a real cricket or not still.

[00:25:34]But it does not taste bad.

[00:25:39]Well, chocolate >> There's a little aftertaste There's a little aftertaste at the end of it.

[00:25:44]Have I done anything to show that it's actually a cricket?

[00:25:46]No, but I've made a case Oh, good good, drink it down.

[00:25:50]I've made a case for why it might be reasonable to presume that, but we haven't actually demonstrated that this is the case. A lot more needs to be done. And so, if you want to prove that a God exists, um if you don't come with something like here are my various facts and here's how they weave together to get to this conclusion, you haven't done anything.

[00:26:10]And if it's impossible for you to put your argument into a properly syllogistic structure, uh there's no way for us to analyze it.

[00:26:17]Do you remember the day that I met you?

[00:26:20]Probably not. Yeah, I didn't think so.

[00:26:22]You were here and I came up to you and I was like, "I Can I give you a hug?" And you're like, "Well, yeah, I love hugs."

[00:26:28]And then I was like, "You taught me what a fallacy is." And you just kind of looked at me >> [laughter] >> like, "Okay."

[00:26:34]And I was like, "But that was such a huge thing for me because I had never heard that word before."

[00:26:40]This is This is a little bit over a year ago. I didn't know what a fallacy was.

[00:26:45]>> Yeah. And so then after I started looking it up, I'm like, "Oh my God, I do that. Oh, I do that, too. Oh my I do that, too. I do that." And I was like, "Oh my I need to start all over again."

[00:26:55]So, >> Start from scratch. I recommend if you are learning how to build your own structural arguments and you want to know if it's actually flawed or not, maybe look up like like Matt said what what fallacies are and that might be very helpful to show you how easy it is to be tricked Yeah. because there's so many little like a little twist here and just a tweak there and it all of a sudden the whole meaning of it completely changes. Yeah. I I'd say the best thing to do is run over to Wikipedia and look up validity versus soundness. There's a pretty good there article there or there has been to cover the difference between validity and soundness and there'll be links to other things and follow those around and spend a day soaking that up. And then there's also websites like Your Fallacy Is that will go through logical fallacies and and help you figure those out. But at the end of the day, I don't know how much of the the problem was one of language or definitions. But the reason there were red flags right off the bat is if I say, "Here are my definitions that I'm going to be using in this argument." And and whoever I'm talking with says, "Ooh, that's not how I understand that term. As a matter of fact, what you just defined has has a different term."

[00:28:06]You can say, "Okay, use whatever term you want in your head, but here's what I mean." And that's important. So, on that front, he's right.

[00:28:14]Um but if you are so non-standard, it's like I'm going to say peanut butter is awesome and by peanut butter, I mean um little insects that uh crawl around uh on the ground and if you roast them and pull their legs off and add a little salt, that's what I'm going to call peanut butter.

[00:28:36]All right. Well, now we've already departed uh because to me, that's cricket. Okay, fine. Just use cricket in your head, but what know that when I say peanut butter, you should translate that to cricket.

[00:28:46]That's too much. And if you're doing this for the for for being and for perfect and who knows, maybe you're doing it for exist as well. Oh, by exist, I don't mean it actually exists.

[00:28:58]I mean, it's a concept in our heads.

[00:29:01]It's There's a lot of work left to be done.

[00:29:04]Anyway, >> Just at that point, realize that if you don't know what it is that you're thinking of, maybe you don't know what it is that you're thinking of. And it would be it would be fine except in in another circumstance. Like, you'll you can feel free to email in and try and make your argument as structured and simply as possible. But I don't feel like I mean, it's it's we've been on for 50 minutes and have taken two calls and we spent forever trying to get to anything that was close to an argument.

[00:29:30]And it would seem to me that if there were an actual argument for the existence of God, one that is virtually guaranteed to convince us and turn this into the theist experience, uh it should have taken about 2 minutes to get through the initial argument so that we could start asking questions.

[00:29:47]Yeah.

[00:29:49]Well, what do I do?

[00:29:50]>> keep trying, please. Uh let's go with Sean in Alabama.

[00:29:55]Hey Sean.

[00:29:56]Hey Matt. Hey Jenna.