Caller's RIDICULOUS God Definition Can't Hold Up to ANY Scrutiny | Matt Dillahunty & Aaron Adair

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna welcome another caller here. Uh, it's it's weird. Did you want to I don't know if we we want to call G or Gerald or what, but calling on the topic of why is God hiding. Um, he him from DC, welcome to the show. G, >> thank you. Appreciate you. Uh, Matt, Dr. Aaron, good to be with you all.

[00:00:23]>> How we doing?

[00:00:26]>> Blessed, blessed, blessed. How about you all? I hope so. despite everything. Oh, >> I don't think I'm blessed, but I'm doing okay.

[00:00:40]>> Hello, >> Gerald. Are you there?

[00:00:42]>> Yes, I'm here.

[00:00:44]>> Okay, we lost your audio for a moment.

[00:00:47]>> Okay. No, I'm here. I'm sorry. Yes, you blanked out for a second. I was like, do I have them on mute?

[00:00:55]>> No, I think we're not muted at the moment. Uh, we're just going through all of our technical hoopla. So, Gerald, let's talk about what you want to talk about.

[00:01:04]>> Maybe I shouldn't have done that.

[00:01:07]>> Yeah, probably best to not be on speaker.

[00:01:09]>> Yeah.

[00:01:10]>> Okay. Yes, I'm I'm on the I'm on the phone now.

[00:01:13]>> Audio sounds good. All right. We wanted to talk about God hiding. So, uh, tell us what you're thinking.

[00:01:21]>> Yes. Well, um I mean I saw I thought that's what the the topic was and uh I I guess um I seemed like it had branched off into something else with the last call. I'm not really sure. But yes, it did catch my attention and uh uh Matt um I I didn't really know if when it said why is God hiding? I didn't know. I I thought maybe there was a reference to the second coming. And I know last fall uh September there was you know some some stuff going around online about um the rapture about to happen and so I didn't know but I then you all are also atheist so I was like I didn't I didn't really know where we're going with this but I do have a contribution and uh I would just say just being funny about it um I am a believer just to just to put that out there uh a person of faith um but I mean you know if we're being honest obviously there's a lot of uh discrepancies or contrad addiction in the Bible. And so, you know, just to put it out there, you know, the last time Jesus was here, if he was according to the Bible, uh, we killed him. So, if God is supposed to come back with Jesus, you know, I probably wouldn't be in a rush or probably want to, uh, scope things out a little bit more.

[00:02:35]>> Um, and I think that's one thing. Uh, >> I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[00:02:41]>> No, I'm just like I I get that you were being funny, but I mean, that was God's plan, though, right?

[00:02:48]What was God's plan >> for Jesus to come and die?

[00:02:53]>> You mean the first time around?

[00:02:56]>> The only time, >> right? Yes, that was that that that was the plan, right? So, that's what I'm saying. What's the plan the next time?

[00:03:06]Is and I didn't know if that was what the title was referencing from you all.

[00:03:10]Um, why is God hiding? Do you mean Jesus? Are you are you all referencing the second coming?

[00:03:16]>> Oh, no. No. So, just for clarity, um we we we don't when we talk about God, we're not just talking about the Christian God or your version. It's whatever God someone believes in. As far as I can tell, they either do not exist or >> whichever one does exist or whichever ones exist are clearly hiding. They're not providing. They're not they're not they're not Oh my god.

[00:03:42]>> Yes. You're saying where is where are these gods? How do we where they look like where is the evidence for the exit?

[00:03:48]Never mind.

[00:03:49]>> Oh, perfect. Oh, I got it. Oh, now Oh, now we about to get somewhere. Now we about to get somewhere because I I think I can tell you. I think I can tell you.

[00:04:00]Um, obviously, you know, there's different words for God, right? We got God, we got Allah, uh Jehovah, Buddha, you know, all of these uh names. But um and obviously we've got different uh you know uh languages around around the world too, right? Uh Matt um and you know it seems like there get we get to this confusion when we get to the word god. But we can agree on everything else. There's a word for chair in Spanish and English and you know Chinese. There's a word for table.

[00:04:32]There's a word for car. And you know if we compare definitions like that I'm sure we would all come up with things that are similar where we would agree.

[00:04:40]Oh, okay. I agree with the Chinese. I agree with the Spanish. I agree with the French that their definition of these basic terms is, you know, pretty on par and we can agree to move forward with the translations. But when we get to these uh, you know, the religious gods, um, there seems to be this disconnect on, you know, exactly how we should follow, exactly how we should conduct ourselves religiously. I think really and truly, even if you're an atheist or whether you're a believer or not, a theist or an atheist, um I think if we just talked about what people believe the definition of God is, whether you're an atheist or not, whether you're believer or not, like, you know, I think we could get to an understanding of what believers, Christians, and otherwise are are actually trying to do. um you know what I mean? And so what I would if I could I would wonder what >> if I can try to get this a little bit >> can we get to the uh point here that I would say that even though many people have different conceptions about God >> there are some generalities about every god concept together. So one is gods are supernatural >> and I think that's a universal thing that would fit a god definition.

[00:06:02]Mhm. I wouldn't disagree with that. I wouldn't disagree with that.

[00:06:05]>> And I would say that and I would say as an atheist and a naturalist, there are no examples of supernatural entities, no evidence there is anything supernatural.

[00:06:15]Everything seems to work well on naturalism. So hence the question, if there are these supernatural entities, why can't we find them? Why are they hiding?

[00:06:24]>> Okay. Well, I didn't say that. I I I hear you. I agree with that. Um, is that your only uh definition of what you believe believers are thinking about when they uh, you know, reconcile with what God is? Because I don't use supernatural in my definition. Um, I was raised in the Christian faith. My father was an atheist, but he was raised Catholic. And my mother was also raised Christian, but she says, you know, kind of figure things she they they uh gave me room. And so, you know, I was struggling with Christianity, but I looked at other religions. I see that, you know, there's, like you say, there's some similarity all over there. And if we can get to a basic, I think a basic understanding of what all, you know, believers think we're dealing with. And if atheists could just understand what we're really after, um, and be general about it. Because let me, let me just get to the point. My father once he completely committed to atheism and tried to encourage myself, younger, you know, siblings, cousins, whatever, he would say something like, "Oh, you can't be serious. You really think there's a man in the sky somewhere?" And he would say that things like that when I was 15, 16. But as I got older, I'm like, "Come on, would you be serious?" No, I don't actually believe there's a man in the sky somewhere. You know, just a focus on supernatural things. There's more to it than that. That's very >> Yeah. Go ahead, >> EG.

[00:07:48]Yes. So, >> yes, I can hear you now. Um, just for clarity, I've done this for 20 years.

[00:07:54]It's my job. I'm a former fundamentalist Christian, Southern Baptist, occasionally Pentecostal, but mostly Southern Baptist. However, um, we address all kinds of God claims. So, what we really need is for someone to say, "Here's what I mean when I say I believe in God, and here's the justification." I I'm still talking and here's the justification. I'm still talking. I'm still talking.

[00:08:21]>> I'm listening. I'm here.

[00:08:22]>> Then then stop talking. There's a delay and it really gets >> interruption. I'm sorry. I'm sorry about the delay. Sorry.

[00:08:33]>> Tell me what God you believe in and why you think we should believe in it, too.

[00:08:40]Um, well, I'll tell you what my definition of God is. Can I start with that and then u kind of get to the rest? So I believe God is um an eternally infinite infinitely eternal creator con creator cosmic consciousness and force and power that possesses all knowledge at all times.

[00:09:13]And if you just want to get to a one-word definition, it's the entire Well, that's not one word, but it's the entire universe.

[00:09:19]>> It's every and all things. And it definitely includes >> the math and the sciences.

[00:09:25]>> Yeah. Okay.

[00:09:26]>> Yeah. G, that definition of God is not consistent with the universe. It is not consistent with math and sciences. But what's the reason for believing that there is an eternally infinite, infinitely eternal creator, cosmic consciousness in force and power that possesses all knowledge at all time?

[00:09:42]What's the justification for believing that's possible and exists?

[00:09:48]>> Sure. Well, we can interact with our natural surroundings. Uh, and we can detect uh the underlying operation or underlying code of the universe and our natural surroundings through the math and the sciences. The math and the sciences are not immediately detectable, but we've had to use uh the system of education and the scientific method to discern what's going on around us and understand how the universe works and through the math.

[00:10:18]>> None of that is an explanation for what the justification is for believing in a god. I can interact with my natural surroundings.

[00:10:25]>> Is this is this is this Matt or Dr. Aaron? I'm sorry delay on the screen. I can't see who's talking.

[00:10:32]>> It's Matt. Um, it doesn't matter who it is, but it's Matt. And here's the thing.

[00:10:37]When you say >> I just want to address >> it doesn't matter. It literally doesn't [ __ ] matter.

[00:10:43]>> Okay. Well, it matters to me. It doesn't matter to you. Just putting it out there. We can disagree.

[00:10:50]>> It'd be better if we disagreed without you talking over me when I'm trying to get to the point. Because when I asked what the justification is, when I asked for the justification is >> for believing that that God is possible, you said the justification is that we can interact with our natural surroundings. Are you suggesting >> Holy [ __ ] dude.

[00:11:09]>> I'm not here to convince.

[00:11:10]>> Holy [ __ ] Stop talking. Let me >> Oh my [ __ ] god. Can I get to my [ __ ] question?

[00:11:18]>> I didn't know you had a question. I heard your point. I'm responding.

[00:11:20]>> That's cuz you [ __ ] interrupted me.

[00:11:22]You interrupted me in mid-sentence for the third [ __ ] time. Please stop.

[00:11:26]>> It was an It'll be veryction. It's an interjection. It's an >> Okay, I'm going to mute you now. Nobody can hear you.

[00:11:34]I'm going to finish my thought and then it'll be clear that it's your turn to speak and can answer. You said that the justification for believing this God was possible and real was that we can interact with our natural surroundings.

[00:11:49]My question is, are you saying that we can only it is only the case that we can interact with our natural surroundings if in fact there is a God? Is that your claim?

[00:12:02]It is now your turn.

[00:12:05]>> No, that's not my only justification.

[00:12:07]It's one >> that's not what I said. I'm going to mute you again.

[00:12:14]I didn't say that was your only justification. I get that you're new to this and I've done it for 20 years. It's probably a little unfair.

[00:12:23]I did not say is that your only justification. I asked what is the justification? And you said you started with we can interact with our natural surroundings. So here's my question.

[00:12:33]It's very simple. It's a yes no question.

[00:12:36]Is it possible for us to interact with our natural surroundings even if there's no God?

[00:12:47]Uh, I think it got cut off in the end.

[00:12:48]It said, "Is it possible to interact with our natural surroundings if and then it's cut off?"

[00:12:54]>> If there's even if even if there's no God, >> would it be possible to interact with our natural surroundings if there was no God? That's the question.

[00:13:05]>> Yes.

[00:13:07]>> Yeah. My answer is if there is no God, whatever you think that is, we wouldn't be here. we wouldn't be interacting. So, no, God is a universe.

[00:13:17]>> I give up on you. I give up on you, G, because you refuse to answer the question that's that's asked.

[00:13:22]>> I did answer the question. My answer did not interact with the natural universe.

[00:13:26]That's my answer. We wouldn't be able to do it.

[00:13:28]>> Okay.

[00:13:28]>> See, when I ask a yes or no question, yes or no is probably best.

[00:13:35]>> Okay. I don't have to answer your question just like you wanted, but All right.

[00:13:39]>> Yes, you [ __ ] do. Actually, I'm gonna mute you again. Here's the thing that you don't get.

[00:13:45]You you were asked what's the justification for believing in a god and you gave a one a part of it. Okay? I don't know if how much time you've spent studying logical fallacies and the structure of arguments. But if you say basically you could structure that is it is possible to it is it is possible to justify a god belief because we can interact with our natural surroundings. But if it's the case that we can interact with our natural surroundings if there is a god and if there's not a god then that cannot possibly be a justification. You have now I if I understand you correctly said that it is not possible for us to interact with our natural surroundings if there's no god. Is that correct?

[00:14:32]>> Say if that's what you want me to say.

[00:14:34]What I said is if the >> Okay, I'm going to mute you again because you were talking even before I unmuted you. I'm trying to understand your claim.

[00:14:45]Is it your claim, yes or no, that if there is no God, we cannot interact with our natural surroundings?

[00:14:56]Is that your claim?

[00:14:57]>> That is not my claim. That is not my claim.

[00:14:59]>> Okay. What is your claim?

[00:15:00]>> That is not my claim.

[00:15:03]My claim is God exists and we can interact with God right here and through our natural universe. That's the only way. That's how we exist because God exists. The universe is here. We didn't get here first and then see the universe come into existence. The universe is here and then we show up. You didn't do it. I didn't do it. My mom, dad didn't do it.

[00:15:27]We haven't met any scientists that put this all together. Something's going on.

[00:15:32]that now.

[00:15:33]>> Okay, Gerald, it sounds like you're making a bit of a different argument here.

[00:15:36]>> I know the two of you, >> go ahead. Y >> I think you're making a different argument. You're switching from interactions are only possible with God to God was necessary to create the universe. I think you're switching between arguments. Uh so which of those two would you rather go?

[00:15:51]>> Arguments as I want to prove the >> Well, let's focus on one rather than jumping between the two.

[00:15:57]>> Pardon?

[00:15:58]Let's just stick with one of the arguments rather than jumping between the two for the sake of clarity for our audience. And for >> I told you what my claim was. You wanted to know what the claim was. I told you what else you want to know.

[00:16:10]>> Jesus.

[00:16:11]>> Can I talk to you about uh systems, human systems? I think this might get somewhere. And if this doesn't, you know, and I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just letting you know how I believe. Okay. We've already talked about how there's multiple languages. We get along with all these words. But >> I'm going to mute you. I'm going to unmute you in a second without asking any question and all I want you to do is actually listen to what Dr. Adair asks or says and wait until he's done and then respond to it. This is the way conversations happen. Your job here is to defend your God belief, not to talk to us about systems or anything else.

[00:16:48]And you have now contradicted yourself by saying it's not possible for us to interact with reality if there's not a God because God had to be here first.

[00:16:56]And then when I said when I went to clarify it, you reversed that. So we're setting all of that aside. And Dr. Adair is going to ask you a question to see if we can save this useless conversation of you wandering all over the place. So just listen to him when I unmute you.

[00:17:10]He'll say something or ask a question and then you can respond to that and maybe that'll work as a reset because all we want to know is do is there a good reason to believe what you believe or not. That's it. So he's going to ask that. Here we go. All right. And to set up my question, let me point out three possibilities to show that there is not synonymity between the things you were saying. There could be a universe. No gods ever existed. universe exists without any supernatural at all. Another possibility is the Dist model. God creates the universe and then lets it run. And then there's what you were seem to be talking about, Gerald, where there is a universe that is continuing to exist because God is part of it. Those are three different models. And so because they're not the same, the fact that you're talking about creation versus interaction, these need to be separated out. So you've made I think two different arguments at this point. Interactions with the natural world possible because of a everpresent consciousness and you've made an argument about creation that we would not exist if we're not this god. So I see two different arguments. Which of those two would you like to talk about and defend?

[00:18:30]>> Um I'm not here to defend anything. I'm just here to give my views. I can give as many arguments as I want. If you don't want to hear any other arguments, say it's all good. I was ready to move on to another argument. If you don't want to hear these arguments or these positions, >> the whole point of an argument is you put up premises and then you defend those premises. So, we see if we actually accept your conclusions. If we just throw out premises and give a new position, I'm not defending anything.

[00:18:54]I'm just telling you my belief.

[00:18:55]>> Are you willing to admit Are you willing to admit Are you willing to admit that the first one was an epic failure that nobody should pay any attention to?

[00:19:04]No.

[00:19:05]>> Okay. Then why should we keep listening to you?

[00:19:08]>> Again, I'm not here to convince you. I'm just informing.

[00:19:12]>> I'm sorry. Do you understand what the purpose of this show is?

[00:19:16]>> No. I just ran across on YouTube. It says the line. People calling in and talking. It says, "Let's talk." Yeah, I understand.

[00:19:22]>> We're talking.

[00:19:23]>> No. No.

[00:19:23]>> Probably trying to get >> The purpose is the purpose. The purpose, the purpose, the purpose, the purpose, the purpose, the purpose is for you to defend your [ __ ] beliefs.

[00:19:34]>> Well, you should have told me that. Your producer should have told me that when I got on the [ __ ] phone, dumb ass. How the [ __ ] I was supposed to know on the screen.

[00:19:41]>> I'm sorry that you're an epic [ __ ] failure at this, dumbass.

[00:19:45]>> Okay. Okay. Great. Great. It's reviews.

[00:19:49]Can I give you my next perspective and then you can call me?

[00:19:52]>> Why would I listen to a [ __ ] thing you ever say for the rest of forever?

[00:19:57]I don't know. I don't know, man.

[00:19:59]>> I don't either because you're not willing to defend your beliefs. You have these nonsensical positions. And I'm still [ __ ] talking. I'm still Okay, now you're done talking.

[00:20:11]>> I've done this for 20 [ __ ] years. The show's been on forever. I'm sorry that the call screener didn't tell you that the entire purpose of this [ __ ] show is the thing that this whole [ __ ] show is about. I'm sorry that you think your entire duty in life is to come and just tell people what you think without providing any [ __ ] justification for it. You are a shitty Christian. You are a shitty believer. If in fact you're advocating for for Christianity at all, you have absolutely [ __ ] failed to do that.

[00:20:46]And your definition of God is an eternally infinite, infinitely eternal creator cosmic consciousness in force and power that possesses all knowledge at all times. An absolutely useless panaceaic definition of a god that is neither testable nor identifiable nor justifiable. And we repeatedly asked you what the justification was and you gave a terrible justification. And it wasn't it wasn't even possible to use your justification because your justification began with we can interact with our natural surroundings. So we asked you this show exists for you to explain what you believe and why we should believe it.

[00:21:29]I'm sorry that you're random that you're the type of person that sees something like this on YouTube and decides to call in without figuring out what the hell's going on. I mean, we've only done this stuff for decades. Um, it's wild to me.

[00:21:47]All we're trying to do is say, "Hey, G believes in a God, does G have a good reason?" And the answer is no. And G doesn't care to defend anything. When G finds out his first reason isn't going to be accepted, he wants to just moved on to another one. Let's say for a second that somebody said, "I believe the mood is made of green cheese." And we said, "Why should we believe that?"

[00:22:11]And they said, "Ah, a little bird told me." And we say, "Oh, that's not a good enough reason." Okay, fine. Let me go on to my next reason. Why? Why didn't you start with your best reason? Why didn't you start with any reason that we could actually understand and investigate?

[00:22:29]It's because you don't have a good reason. You don't understand what a good reason would even look like. You don't even understand what a definition of God would even look like. You engaged in a bunch of sophistry and language vomit.

[00:22:40]An eternally infinite, infinitely eternal, that is nonsense speak. It means nothing. It contains no information of any use to everybody. A creator cosmic consciousness. Okay, that at least contains some content. You think there's a God that created everything. What's the reason for thinking that? You don't provide any All you're all you did was get to I didn't create it. My mom and dad didn't create it. Cool. Those are all whoms.

[00:23:08]And when you talk about the origin of everything, you don't get to presume that it's a who that did it. You don't even get to presume that there's an origin that you have any access to investigate.

[00:23:21]You also say that this thing um has force and power and possesses all knowledge at all times.

[00:23:30]How do you know that? How can you possibly know that there exists some being that knows everything at all times?

[00:23:42]You haven't even give 10 seconds thought to what a justification would look like, let alone whether you have one. And now you're mad that we're expecting a justification and you didn't know it and you're not ready for it. Maybe you should call back when you're ready.

[00:24:01]So, how do you know that this being possess? How do you know it's even possible for some being to possess all knowledge at all times?

[00:24:12]That's the only question I have left.

[00:24:15]>> You're trying that. I don't believe God is a being. I never said that.

[00:24:21]>> Okay.

[00:24:26]a creator >> pretty much synonymous with you're saying God does not exist.

[00:24:32]>> Something with no being doesn't have existence.

[00:24:34]>> Yeah. So you you define God as a creator. I'm sorry that the contexts in English convey that a creator that possesses all knowledge. I'm not aware here. How does anything other than a being possess knowledge?

[00:24:55]I'm sorry the beeping uh cut you off and you >> It wouldn't happen if you'd stopped interrupting. What? How do you How do you know that it's possible for something other than a being to possess any knowledge, let alone all knowledge?

[00:25:11]>> Well, we live in the age of technology right now. I mean, AI is all over the place. So, I mean, the technology can possess knowledge and information and data. Also uh we can look around at our natural universe, look at these solar systems and understand that uh the sciences and the chemicals and the mathematics is all there to make these things operate and we are not in control of that and we haven't determined an actual source that we can you know tangibly touch and you know photograph and say oh there's the reason the you know the lavas are exploding and the gases exist and the planets are orbiting and there's time and face and so again anything about anything this is amazing.

[00:25:57]>> So when you when you describe it as a creator why is it wrong to assume that that's a being? What creates other than beings?

[00:26:10]>> Well our natural universe has been created. I don't I'm not aware of being now see here's the problem G. You don't listen and you don't think. The question was, >> I do both.

[00:26:21]>> No, no, you don't listen and you don't [ __ ] think. The question was, >> "What other than a being creates?" And your answer was, "Well, our universe was created." So, you've already I'm sorry.

[00:26:34]I don't know why you're opening your [ __ ] pie hole right now cuz I'm still [ __ ] pointing out how you just screwed this all up.

[00:26:41]My question was what other than a being creates? And you could have given an example of our universe creating something even though that's not the case. But instead you went to our universe was created. It's like it's like me saying what other than a human makes a sandwich and you say there's a sandwich over there. That's how ridiculous it is. You are not listening. You are not thinking and you are not responding in any way that defends anything you've said.

[00:27:16]Can I store information on a computer? Yes, I can. Does it mean there's knowledge on the computer? No, it doesn't.

[00:27:27]that computer doesn't have knowledge or and by the way this was about all knowledge at all times.

[00:27:36]But you're the one that called it a By the way, here we go.

[00:27:41]What is conscious that isn't a being? Name something that is conscious that is not a being.

[00:27:53]>> I believe the universe is conscious. I don't care what you believe. I need you to demonstrate that something is conscious. I don't believe the universe.

[00:28:01]I don't believe the universe I don't believe the universe is conscious. You might as well have said you believe your to Hang on.

[00:28:08]>> I'm going to have to mute you again cuz you're so bad at this. I'm going to let Aaron jump in here. But you might as well have said that you thought your toenail was conscious. I asked for a demonstration of something conscious that's not a being. But go ahead. Sorry, Aaron. in the uh back and forth there.

[00:28:23]He said the double slit experiment and that means G is going for some quantum woo. And I'm calling it woo because that is not what quantum mechanics tells us.

[00:28:35]The idea that the double slit experiment somehow shows consciousness is faulty reasoning. It is something that early uh uh theorists in quantum mechanics were talking about. But guess what? It's not the 1930s anymore. And after further realization about how quantum mechanics works, how things like entanglement work, we actually now understand no it does not require conscious observations to get the effects that you see in the double slit experiment. The idea that is being talked about here is when you are not looking and you're letting uh light go through two slits, you get an interference pattern that looks like uh the two slits interfering. If you are observing which slit the light goes through, you get single slit interference. Somehow us looking changes things and then people say, "Oh, by our conscious awareness of the thing is changing it." No, it's actually the op it's the observation which requires interaction. Namely, how do you tell that light goes through a slit? You have some sort of device that notices the light going through a slit and that means it's interacting with the light.

[00:29:36]If you're doing with this with electrons, you might see, oh, an electric charge went through. How did you notice that? You interacted with the electron and so on. We actually know that is the way quantum mechanics works and all the stuff about consciousness creating the universe because quantum mechanics is nonsense that almost no modern physicist adopts today. And if you are looking for a modern physicist who tells you otherwise about it, I'm the modern physicist here in the room.

[00:30:04]So, please at least take my authority uh over what you may have heard on the internet.

[00:30:11]>> Absolutely. All due respect, absolutely.

[00:30:15]May I pose a question? May I pose that same question to you all? And I respect that uh answer, Dr. And I appreciate your um your knowledge and your um expertise in that area. Both of you, both of you actually. Uh Matt, as well, 20 years. Uh Matt posed that same question to you. Can you tell me, give me an example, something that is conscious, but is not a being or is that something that can exist?

[00:30:38]>> You can ask the question. My answer is no. I'm not aware of anything that's conscious that wouldn't qualify as a being.

[00:30:45]>> What about plant life, trees and flowers responding to the sun or it seems like there's some awareness there or something like that. Venus fly traps. It seems like there's some >> It seems like it seems like there's a it seems like there's awareness and there may or may not be consciousness, but if there's consciousness that would make it a being.

[00:31:07]>> I don't know about that. I like that term entity that you used uh earlier.

[00:31:12]>> An entity this my my my glasses are an entity um in in some respect but agency is what we describe with conscious. You described it as a consciousness. Do you are you aware of any consciousness that is ab that that exists outside of a brain >> outside of a nervous system?

[00:31:35]>> Consciousness that exists outside of human brains.

[00:31:40]>> No, I didn't say the word human. Why do you keep adding stuff?

[00:31:44]>> I was It was I was clarifying. I think you can tell by my tone. I was clarifying.

[00:31:48]>> No, I can't tell because you've demonstrated a a serious bit of confusion about a number of topics. So, and you misrepresented this. So, all I'm asking is you said that in your definition of God, it was a conscious creator.

[00:32:02]And I'm not aware of conscious creator being used in anything that's not a that isn't describing a being. Does this conscious creator have a goal, an intent, a plan?

[00:32:19]>> Yeah, I think there's a plan. There's probably several.

[00:32:22]>> Name something other than a being that has a plan.

[00:32:34]All this is happening because you objected to me naturally inferring from you claiming it was a conscious creator that you were that had knowledge. A conscious creator that has knowledge I'm still [ __ ] talking >> planet.

[00:32:50]>> I'm still [ __ ] talking.

[00:32:53]>> Go ahead.

[00:32:55]>> You said Oh my god. Shut up.

[00:32:59]>> You didn't say anything. I couldn't.

[00:33:02]>> Now you're shut up.

[00:33:04]You said it was a conscious creator with all knowledge at all times.

[00:33:10]To me and virtually every other person that spent more than 20 seconds thinking about this, that is wholly consistent with what we would call an agent, a thinking agent, a being. All of those are tied to those things. consciousness, knowledge, a plan, creativeness, a creator, not merely a natural process.

[00:33:35]All of that is consistent with a being.

[00:33:37]And as soon as I said the word being, you called me out. I didn't say it was a being. Okay? And then I explained why I naturally inferred it was a being and how I do not understand what your justification is for pretending that it's not a being. And I gave you multiple opportunities to to provide consciousness outside of a brain and nervous system, consciousness that isn't a being, a plan that doesn't come from a being, creating a creator that isn't a being, and you epically failed and didn't even attempt to justify that. Now you're coming around, you're like, "Well, I just don't like the being label. Maybe I maybe I like the entity label." Um, did you just call just completely waste time?

[00:34:21]Because all we're trying to do is figure out what the [ __ ] you're saying is real and whether or not there's good reason to believe it. And you're sitting here nitpicking over whether or not it should qualify as a being while saying it is a conscious creator that has all knowledge at all times. I I find this cartoonishly stupid.

[00:34:45]Let's try again.

[00:34:49]What reason do you have to think that it's possible for anything, a being or not, to possess all knowledge at all times?

[00:35:01]Go ahead, Matt. I'm sorry. I need to apologize.

[00:35:08]Your previous question, I needed to take a moment, a beat, and think before I spoke. I don't have this conversation every day. I'm very appreciative that the two of you are here to engage that you have an audience. Okay. The answer I came up with to your previous question because you said I didn't make an attempt but I did. It just took me a moment to gather my thoughts. Planets.

[00:35:33]Planets have plans. They have designs.

[00:35:37]They have multiple stages that they go through. We here on Earth, we're familiar with the previous pangia stage.

[00:35:46]There are multiple stages to the planet.

[00:35:48]I have >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, G. I'm sorry, G. That wasn't the question I asked you. Um, and now you're saying that planets have plans.

[00:36:04]I'm going to need you to define plan.

[00:36:07]>> They got a whole little They got a whole little They have a whole plan. That's why they're called planet.

[00:36:12]>> Oh my god.

[00:36:13]>> Theory. Look up this origin.

[00:36:18]>> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You are absolutely a troll. They're called planets because they have plans. No, they're called planets because they wander. Um but I I am uh holy [ __ ] It took forever to get this troll to give away the whole game.

[00:36:40]Good job, G.

[00:36:43]Planets are called planets because they have plants.

[00:36:50]Oh my gosh.

[00:36:53]Um, hey, hey G, I'm going to bring you back for just a second. Um, >> yeah, >> thanks for being really funny, but don't call and waste our time again. I know it's fun to troll, but we we're not going to be >> Good luck. You got a great >> No, no. You don't love us. You're a troll. You're a trolling piece of [ __ ] that wasted my time and my audience's time. Don't call back.

[00:37:17]>> But thank you for admitting it. They're plan. They're called planets because they have plans.

[00:37:25]I think we have to now change some of our geology books. It shouldn't be pangia. It should be plangia. So that way we can keep this uh this joke of an etmology going.

[00:37:35]Somebody in chat said that plants have plans because that's why they're called plants.

[00:37:41]>> And their plan is to stay in place.

[00:37:42]They're that's why they're planted.

[00:37:44]>> Yeah, they're planted. Yeah. What else can we do?

[00:37:47]>> Um hey, noted Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga. He has a plan, but then he's a being as far as I can tell. So, so we're back to that.

[00:37:58]>> Oh, bananas have plans because they're plantation or plantains. There you go.

[00:38:02]>> Plantaines have plans. Hey there everyone. We want you to check out our live shows. Six days a week, six shows a week, five days a week, six shows. And also, there are other channels coming.

[00:38:14]And this part is meaningless, but you could support this channel by watching the live shows, by checking out another episode. Tell the algorithm you want to stay here. You're not going to go off to some video of some super rich guy committing war crimes. You're going to stick around here and maybe you'll leave a comment. Or what else could they do, Eve?

[00:38:33]They could head over to patreon.comcalltheline, right? Am I looking?

[00:38:39]>> That's That's another thing. And they can like >> and they could subscribe. No, you got it right. I got it wrong the first time.

[00:38:44]>> And they could also comment.