He Believes in a God He Can’t Even Describe (feat Matt Dillahunty)

本站添加: 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]Hey, Tim's calling from New York. Tim's DS Prorm says, "Would the line ever have a theist host?" No. Hi, Tim.

[00:00:09]>> Yeah. Uh, I was just, uh, I just wanted to hear your explanation for why.

[00:00:15]>> Because I don't need a theist host. Um, will we have theist guest, John? Sure.

[00:00:20]And there are theists um, who are also >> in favor of church day separation and, you know, are largely secular. Um, I would never knowingly have a theist host a show on here. Would I have theist on as guest? Yeah. Would I would I have a theist co-host?

[00:00:39]Yeah. Actually, I toyed with the idea of having Than on at one point. Um, >> but you know, that ship has sailed. It It is There's tons of theist content.

[00:00:54]I don't need a theist here to debunk theism with me. Um, I need theists to call in and defend it.

[00:01:04]Maybe if there was ever a theist that did a good enough job defending theism, maybe we just turn the show over to him because they've convinced us. But until then, no. I don't need a theist host.

[00:01:18]Um, can I ask you just one or two more questions?

[00:01:24]>> Sure.

[00:01:25]By the way, I'm not in charge of who's a host. I'm in charge of who's who's a host on my show. Not on on the Hangup, not on Sunday shows. So, if Jimmy decides someday, loses his [ __ ] mind and wants a theist host, um, Jimmy can do that. I'll leave, but Jimmy can do that.

[00:01:46]So, uh, you consider yourself, >> from what I have, uh, heard from you, you consider yourself a strong atheist now, but maybe at one point you weren't.

[00:01:58]Um, >> I'm a strong I'm a strong atheist.

[00:02:01]>> I'm a strong atheist depending on definitions. Um, and and not a strong atheist in an absolute sense. like I have no way of evaluating every possible god claim to determine which ones are plausible or real. But what I can say is that um the various god claims that I've evaluated have not met their burden of proof. The various high-end conceptual god things like the god of classical theism which would take care of oh I don't know how many billions of potential gods um are fundamentally untenable. And until somebody demonstrates some way to test and identify the supernatural, there's no reason to think anything supernatural exists. So every god that has um a supernatural component, which I would probably say is all or nearly all of them um can be by default dismissed as that doesn't exist until we have such reason. You know, all my positions are tentative. Even my my strong atheism is tentative. just show the evidence.

[00:03:13]>> So I I tend to think in numbers. So is there any way you could give me like a percentage?

[00:03:20]Do you think are you 99.9% certain there's not a god?

[00:03:24]>> Sure.

[00:03:27]>> I can't I can't give you numbers. I can't quantify it. But I'm I'm supremely confident that there is no God for countless reasons. Not the least of which is that nobody's proposed a god that is of any use that is consistent with the facts of reality. Um then you have divine hiddenness is is a huge problem. The um the argument from inconsistent revelation. Um I'm I'm pretty confident that there isn't a god.

[00:03:54]Not the least of which is um if there is a god why hasn't it come after me?

[00:04:04]I mean, if there is a god, it's an irrelevant god that doesn't care whether or not I believe, doesn't care whether or not anybody knows it exists, it is a useless god.

[00:04:14]>> Because my I would give you the same answer for confidence. If if you're qualifying it as gods who gods who interact with the universe. If it's gods that don't interact with the universe, I couldn't 1% like I don't know.

[00:04:28]>> Yeah. Who knows?

[00:04:31]So, so you said uh a god that doesn't interact with the universe. You put you put where >> my confidence my confidence that there's a god that doesn't interact with the universe. I mean that was that was kind of joking. I mean I I'm I still >> untestable untestable.

[00:04:50]It's a divide by zero problem at that point. I guess >> it's under. So if there's a god that does not manifest in the universe in any detectable way, its existence is fundamentally identical, logically identical to its non-existence from our perspective. And so if something is logically identical, existent and non-existent from our perspective, then both conclusions are rational. But the better conclusion is the one that Paul just said, which is it's kind of like a divide by zero. It's kind of undefined.

[00:05:22]we have, you know, oh, are you convinced of something nobody could possibly be convinced of because like, so for example, I see it list you as a deist.

[00:05:30]Um, deism is especially ridiculous because a deistic god by definition does not interact with reality in any detectable way. So, what possible justification could someone have for believing they've detected the undetectable?

[00:05:50]Well, I would just say I believe in a providential deism, >> right?

[00:05:57]>> Explain that or do you know what that is?

[00:05:59]>> Well, it doesn't matter because that's a qualifier, right? So, you understand that that's not what we were talking about.

[00:06:07]>> You you believe you're advocating you're advocating for something like Spinosa God where it's providence where it is it is nature itself and the laws of nature and blah blah. That is not necess that's not the same deism I was talking about. But yes, um I see no justification for considering nature divine.

[00:06:28]>> Well, I believe there's a there's there's a a goal in mind, but that was programmed into the >> What what's the goal and what mind is it in? I have a goal in mind, but what what goal are you talking about and what mind is it in?

[00:06:48]I didn't say mind, but um uh >> you literally said you believe you literally you literally said you believe there is a goal in mind.

[00:07:00]>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:07:02]>> So what is the goal and which mind is it in?

[00:07:11]>> Um I guess the mind of God.

[00:07:15]What's the goal and which mind is it in?

[00:07:20]>> I'm not sure what the goal is.

[00:07:22]>> So, you think there's a goal, but you don't know what it is. And that goal is in the mind of God, which you think is the providential laws of nature.

[00:07:34]Um >> that's not a mind >> as far as pro providential deism would just mean you you don't think that God interacts currently in the world but when he or >> where's the demonstration that it's >> created where's where's the demonstration that there's a mind or that a mind created anything the universe >> well I think you'd have to have a mind to create some something with you know purpose I agree. I also think you'd have to have a mind to have a goal. Those things are intent. Those things are about agency.

[00:08:09]But you're now saying that you think there's a goal in the mind of the creator that created everything. So you've gone from just dismal and you don't know what the goal is. And you have no way of demonstrating that there's a creator, a minder, an agent who even has a goal. In that sense, is it is it comforting to believe in things while acknowledging that you cannot possibly have a good reason?

[00:08:39]Well, when I look at, you know, what's around me and the the story that seemed to be weaved, it looks like there was um agency or purpose in in that to me.

[00:08:56]>> What What story is being weaved?

[00:09:00]>> Um humanity and the the one that we're seeing play out.

[00:09:06]So when you look around at the universe at patterns changing and consciousness, you think it was intended by a creator.

[00:09:15]Why?

[00:09:23]Because I I this the story of what we're seeing. I mean, that could just be a manifestation of my brain. Of course, I >> How do we tell the difference between it just being a manifestation of your brain and you're actually correct in what your conclusion is? I feel like I asked this exact same question earlier. If you think that there's a creator with a goal and you're right and you think that there's a creator with a goal and you're wrong, how do we tell the difference between those two scenarios?

[00:10:00]How do we tell the difference between >> How would we tell the difference?

[00:10:05]>> I don't know.

[00:10:07]>> Okay. I mean, why do you believe something? Why do you believe something?

[00:10:10]If you can't tell the difference, if I were to show If I were to say, so look here, here's the thing. This is my wallet.

[00:10:19]There's at least one $100 bill in my wallet.

[00:10:23]I don't know how many more there are. Do you know how many more there are? Of course not.

[00:10:33]>> Do you believe there are four?

[00:10:37]>> I have no strong opinion. I have no strong opinion.

[00:10:42]>> Okay.

[00:10:43]Why on earth are you unwilling to make a declaration of which one you think is most likely? Is it because you have no way of telling how many there are?

[00:11:01]Um, can you I'm sorry. I Can you ask that question one more time? I I couldn't hear you.

[00:11:06]>> You You said You said you don't know how many of those bills are in my wallet.

[00:11:10]And I'm saying, are you are you saying you're unwilling to say how many there are because you have no access to a a plausible conclusion to determine how many there are?

[00:11:26]Yeah, that seems to make sense.

[00:11:28]>> Yeah. So, why is it you're comfortable making a statement about a creator when you have no plausible access to reach a conclusion about it. You have you just acknowledge you have no way of telling if you're right, which is exactly the same as you have if you were to say there's three $100 bills in my wallet.

[00:11:49]You'd have no way of telling that you're right. Actually, you would have a way because we could open it and check and there's not. Um, but so in this case, there's a way to move forward and test it, but in the absence of your actual ability to test it, you're unwilling to make a statement about what the likely answer is. And yet, when it comes to something beyond the scope of reality entirely, you're willing to say you're convinced there's an agent behind it, even though you admit you have no way to test it.

[00:12:20]Why are you okay believing something that you acknowledge could be right or wrong? You have no way of determining which one of those two is more likely.

[00:12:32]>> Well, I'm not convinced. Although I like you said, I believe. Um, >> that's literally what it means to say I believe that my No, no, no, no, no, no.

[00:12:43]Belief is literally the state of being convinced that a proposition is true or likely true.

[00:12:51]So you cannot say you believe it and then say you're not convinced because now we're no longer speaking the same language. Are you convinced that there is a God?

[00:13:07]>> Man, I I I I disagree because there are levels of cannot disagree with a [ __ ] question. How do you disagree with a [ __ ] question? I >> You cannot disagree with a question in the same way that you seem to know that would you would you would you No, no, no, no. You can't explain [ __ ] because you don't know that belief means you're convinced. And when I ask you about it, you say you disagree. How can you disagree? Does I believe mean I am convinced?

[00:13:44]I feel like you're not going to take any answer but yes.

[00:13:48]>> I I would have taken no. I would have thought you were ridiculous, but I would take a no. Either saying I believe X is functionally equivalent to I am convinced X is true or likely true or it's not. Do you think those two are functionally equivalent?

[00:14:09]I if if I'm convinced someone committed a crime, that doesn't mean I'm 52% sure.

[00:14:16]I can't convict him on%.

[00:14:18]>> I didn't say anything about a number, Tim. If you're convinced that somebody committed a crime, is that the same as saying you believe that person committed the crime? Yes or no?

[00:14:31]>> I I think that's a stronger statement to be convinced. That's my opinion. And I you can be mad. I didn't ask what I feel.

[00:14:37]>> You see, here we go. I I'm not going to be mad at you. It's useless to be mad at you. You are dishonest. You refuse to actually address it honestly. The fact of the matter is if somebody says, "I'm convinced this person committed a crime." And somebody else standing next to him saying, "I believe they convinced the crime." They are functionally making the same statement from an epistemic declarative statement. It merely means I am convinced that this proposition is likely true. And that's exactly what it means for belief. And it it doesn't matter if you think one of them is stop.

[00:15:11]It doesn't matter if you personally think one of them is a stronger statement than the other. That's like saying one of them means I really really really believe. Well, I don't give a [ __ ] because you either believe or you don't. I didn't ask how strongly you were. I didn't ask if you were sure. I didn't ask if you knew.

[00:15:30]I asked if saying I'm convinced of X is the same as I believe X and you would not do it because the second you acknowledge the truth of that you have to then go back to when you said believe and then denied that you were convinced that you were wrong. The reality is are you convinced there's a God?

[00:15:51]>> No, I'm not convinced.

[00:15:54]>> Do you believe there's a God?

[00:15:56]>> I do.

[00:15:58]then you are irrational and I'm done wasting my time here.

[00:16:03]>> All right, have a great night.

[00:16:06]>> Have a bad night, but have a better tomorrow.

[00:16:12]All right, I don't need to get into pedantics of esoteric versions of definitions just so you can avoid the fact that you think there is a god that you have no ability to know anything about, no ability to test, and that that God's existence and non-existence are functionally equivalent and untestable, unfalsifiable.

[00:16:38]It's silly. And if you're going to go so far as deny that saying you're not convinced that a god exists, but you believe that a god exists. Um you're like one of those people who who who think that um oh beliefs don't matter but knowledge matter. No, beliefs matter. Belief is the state of being convinced and we act in accordance with our belief. We don't act we don't wait until we have knowledge. Knowledge isn't even particularly well defined. In philosophical circles, you have justified true belief which has loads of problems with all aspects of that. And I my contention is that when people say they know something that functionally they are expressing a confidence level in a belief and that's why for me the definition of knowledge that I would use is knowledge is a belief held to such a high degree of confidence that it would be worldview altering to discover it's wrong. That's the level of confidence people are expressing most of the time when they say, "I know that I know that I know that I know."