AS143: Atheists Say the Darnedest Things, with Elijiah T.

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:30 Thomas: Hello and welcome to episode 143 of Atheistically Speaking with your host Thomas Smith. Joining me now for the second time is Elijiah T. How are you doing?

0:00:42 Elijiah: Not too bad, how are you?

0:00:43 Thomas: Pretty good, according to the, my, my records, my archives, I have, you know, several archival staff who did some research and figured out, no, nevermind, it was me, figured out that it's been a year and a month since you were on, I can't believe the time has flown by, and I'm sure you've thought of nothing but getting back on the show. Out.

0:01:00 Elijiah: It has, I, yeah, it was pretty much the forefront of my mind the entire time, yes, indeed, yeah. He's actually almost a year old, he'll be three weeks, yeah my wife was quite pregnant when I was on your show last time, yeah

0:01:09 Thomas: Well, I know a lot of stuff has happened in that year. New baby, correct?

0:01:17 Thomas: Oh, okay. So it's shortly after. All right. I could hear it in your voice. No. Yeah. Awesome. Congratulations. And then I think you also, you got a new job, right? I've seen you tweet about it.

0:01:34 Elijiah: Well, I think when I was with you last time I was doing RV videos, and then since then I'm now working at Thermo Fisher, Fisher, the bioscience company, and I'm currently training as a fluid bed operator, which is basically a fancy way to say that I inject cell culture media with vitamins. I do it probably 250, 300 kilos at a time, so it's a very large machine, but it's cool. I enjoy it. It's much better than RV videos, and considering the fact that I went to school for biology, It's much closer to my field than RV videos.

0:01:59 Thomas: Huh.

0:02:19 Thomas: Now those who maybe maybe your newer listeners weren't back listening back at that time will probably be surprised to learn that despite your biology major, you're not just an atheist who's coming on here. You're actually Christian, correct?

0:02:33 Elijiah: I am indeed.

0:02:34 Thomas: Yeah, I wasn't sure of the precise denomination, but you're you're young. You're not young earth, right? If I remember correctly, you are at least not young. Yeah.

0:02:43 Elijiah: I am not. I don't really fit neatly into a denomination. I mean, I go to a Baptist church, but I'm also an annihilationist, and they don't really see that as a very – that's not really very well-received there. I kind of reject –

0:02:48 Thomas: Okay. I don't Remember that term off the top of my head. What is that roughly, quickly? What is? Oh,

0:03:05 Elijiah: It's a view on hell where instead of – the Baptists typically will say that hell is a place of eternal conscious torment. I disagree. I think that hell will come to an end at some point.

0:03:08 Thomas: Okay. Oh, Interesting, okay.

0:03:18 Elijiah: People in hell no longer exist, and I think the Bible teaches that. But I wrote a post on that. My blog, I can promote my blog. It's ElijiahT, E-L-I-J-I A-H-T.wordpress.com. There's a post on there about annihilationism if your audience members are interested.

0:03:18 Thomas: Oh, Go ahead, go ahead. Oh, Interesting. Okay, yeah. And while we're at it, are you at ElijiahT as well on Twitter? I think, yeah, okay. And

0:03:42 Elijiah: Everything that you could possibly get at Elijiah T. I am – so I got you on Twitter, Instagram, Goodreads, Facebook.

0:03:50 Thomas: Grindr. Yeah.

0:03:51 Elijiah: Hello, Grindr.

0:03:54 Thomas: Everybody, find him on Grindr, Elijiah is Frantically deleting his Grindr profile right now.

0:03:54 Elijiah: Yeah. We just searched me on Grindr, yeah.

0:04:04 Thomas: So yeah, last time I think we had sort of a discussion about a certain argument, but this time I have you on to discuss bad arguments that atheists have made. One or two or however many you get to, I guess. A hundred could be, right?

0:04:22 Elijiah: I have a list of eight here, but I narrowed that down from – obviously, as a Christian, I don't think atheist arguments are ultimately successful. However, there are some that are not totally unreasonable, and those are the ones that we're not going to talk about today. The ones that are going to be talked about today would be the ones that would fall into the ridiculously unreasonable camp, at least from what I see. I did my best to choose the ones that are very unreasonable, not just to promote my own special, you know, yeah.

0:04:24 Thomas: Oh, right.

0:04:56 Thomas: And I'm hoping these These are people we've heard of, at least in most cases or some cases, right? It's not just crackpots or, or maybe, maybe there's no distinction for you, but yeah.

0:05:03 Elijiah: Well, I mean, you know, we won't talk about who I won't label people, but let's just that the arguments that are that are here are ones that are very common within the atheist community. I

0:05:13 Thomas: Okay. Okay. Awesome. Well, this is actually a topic I really like. I've had, uh, uh. Have you interacted with Jeffrey J. Louder at all on Twitter? It's secular, um, outpost, I think is his Twitter. But, uh yeah, actually, right.

0:05:29 Elijiah: Don't oh, Yeah, I have interact with, not a lot lately, but yeah, all

0:05:34 Thomas: Right. Yeah, I had him on pretty recently to talk about a bad atheist argument. So I'll let you know if we hit that one. Maybe I'll tell you to get to a different one on your list. But that's something I just was going to say. That's something that I love to talk about because there's nothing worse than an argument that's for your side that you disagree with. I actually really, really don't like that. I hate when arguments kind of are sloppy and not necessarily right. So very interested to hear. Here, why don't we just launch into it?

0:06:06 Elijiah: Right, well, my first, and I think probably one of my my favorite terrible arguments is the omnipotence paradox, where somebody asks, can God, you know, lift a rock make a rock too heavy for him to lift? And I think the reason that it's unreasonable is because it's there's basically no way that it can go through. They try to say, oh, can you know, can God do this? But, okay, so traditionally, in traditional theism or classical theism or pretty much any theistic viewpoint that exists, omnipotence is never defined as the ability to do something logically absurd. So the answer when it says, you know, can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it? No, he can't, because he's unable to do logically impossible tasks. But as a rejoinder to that, a lot of people will say, oh, doesn't that mean that God is not all-powerful?

Well, no, it doesn't, because I don't know anyone who would say that omnipotence requires you to be able to do logically incoherent things, because even if you were to do something logically incoherent, it wouldn't actually be a task at all. It would just be a series of words that are self-contradictory. But let's say that God – I had a guy that was – I think I was talking to him maybe like two or three weeks ago.

0:07:31 Elijiah: He said that the only definition of omnipotence that he will accept is the ability to do logically incoherent things. And I said, okay, let's do that then. And he goes, well, what do you mean? I was like, well I disagree with you, but let's, let'S play with that. And He goes, okay. And I said. All right. So can God create a rock so big that he can't lift it? Um, yes, he can create a Rock so big, but he can lift it. And you know what else he can do? He can lift it and that he's like, no, that doesn't make any sense. It was like you just defined mind omnipotent as being able to do logically incoherent things and he's like uh okay well you know whatever man I don't remember how the conversation ended but there's so the thing is it's it's just absurd when people try to say that it is by definition the ability to do logically incoherent things

0:07:55 Thomas: He can lift it.

0:08:09 Thomas: He can also lift it, sure. Okay, that's all very reasonable. I agree. I've never found that to be any sort of convincing argument. If I were to try to extract something, not really from that argument, but something related that I've thought about, one thing I do often wonder about, though, is why, and this, I I guess, is going to be just something defined in your beliefs. But it is a little weird to me as an atheist when we're talking about God that we always have to go to the extreme.

Why does God, I mean, especially when we are, and this may be too big of a topic for now, but when we were going into like the cosmological argument or some sort of, we're trying to establish God's existence or not, why is it always the extreme? Why is he always all powerful? Can he just be like really powerful? Can't he just be like a lot more powerful than us? I've never understood why it has to be the most powerful thing. And we have to just sort of define him into this realm of like the ultimate powerful thing rather than work backwards and say like, well, how powerful would he have to be to do what he's supposed to have done? You know what I mean?

0:08:51 Elijiah: Yeah and I think when it comes to like the Kalam argument or something you can kind of look at it and say okay so based on this let's assume that it works God is powerful enough to create the universe powerful enough to do this that and the other thing that is one I think approach to it and that you don't conclude necessarily omnipotence from that but you can conclude that he is pretty darn powerful but the the other kind of a different from a different angle kind of approach would be to say that God is the most the greatest conceivable being there's that

0:10:01 Thomas: Right. I kind of have a problem with that, but go on, go on.

0:10:02 Elijiah: Yeah I'm not gonna really go too far into that one but I guess the question that I would have would be that if God was not as powerful as possible would he really be God right

0:10:06 Thomas: Okay. Well, it depends. I think it depends on how you've established that God exists, because I think that's the, personally, you know, in my opinion, I think that's the error in a lot of these theist arguments. I could be convinced into some sort of, well, I could be convinced that some sort of deism might be appropriate based on certain arguments. Like, let's say I accept Kalam. Let's say I accept some other arguments of that type I would say then okay then I think it might be reasonable assuming I accept those arguments it's reasonable to believe in a God as you said that's powerful enough to create the universe well then that question doesn't really bother me if you say well is he really God well I don't know you're bringing in a definition from something else like maybe from I donno the Bible or someone else's writing related to the Bible or something I'm not you know an expert on Christianity but you'd be bringing in something else and saying, no, God has to be this because of this other thing.

0:11:09 Thomas: So I would think the appropriate amount of power God should have would be however much he's been awarded based on whatever arguments have been successful. Does that make sense?

0:11:19 Elijiah: Yeah I think it makes sense um the only I mean like like you said this is a pretty big topic and as far as um greatest possible being all that good stuff I'm far from red on that um but if in the classical theistic theistic sense if God is omnipotent then it is just basically not defined find as being able to do logically incoherent things but um yeah I mean I I agree with the the idea that if we're just looking at what's called natural theology is that if God is the cause of the universe then he for that particular argument needs no more power than the power needed to create the universe uh yeah I agree that's just it's one for that argument I I think that's that is the case but there are well

0:11:40 Thomas: Sure. Right. Off the top of your head, and we don't have to get too much into it if you want, are there other arguments that establish more power or is it once you've accepted these arguments and you accept, say, the Bible or something, then from there there's reasons why you have to believe he's the most powerful possible thing?

0:12:23 Elijiah: Again I I don't know yeah this off the top of my head would be a well I would I would be doing no justice to the the actual argument itself um but the idea that like the question that I asked before is he really God if it's possible for him to be more powerful um and I I just kind of wonder like if if there is a being out there that is not as powerful as possible like it just it doesn't really seem to be a being worthy of being called God like he could create the universe and that might just be an alien that where we are some science experiment in his PhD dissertation that he figured oh I can mess around with quantum mechanics in this spot here and then see what happens um so I mean I wouldn't call a being like that, God.

0:12:28 Thomas: That's okay. That's interesting.

0:13:13 Thomas: So perhaps, and we can move on, but I totally accept what you've presented as a bad atheist argument. I think that that definitely is one. I don't think there's any validity to that. Can God create a burrito so hot that he can't eat it? But I will say that maybe, I don't know, maybe you could see the difficulty when theists use something like the Kalam cosmological argument, in my head, I think, okay, well, then maybe if this, even if this argument is 100% true, you've established that there's a being that powerful, enough to, like, relative to how we are with, you know, computer simulation, they're that powerful with regard to the universe. So that sometimes it becomes becomes difficult to see the stretch from that to any sort of theology or more specific theology. So, I don't know, just something to think about, I suppose.

0:13:30 Elijiah: I think that's a good point because it's sort of a key to understanding the importance. It's the importance of knowing the limits of an argument. Going beyond what the argument's saying, like if we're just looking at the Kalam saying, okay, now this is definitely Yahweh. Well, that's a non-sequitur. That's not a conclusion that we can get from the Kalom. Even if the Kalam was totally 100% great, we cannot conclude by the argument itself that it was Yahweh. Yahweh is consistent with it in the same sense an omnipotent being is consistent with the Kalam, but it is not a conclusion of the Kalam itself.

0:14:14 Thomas: Sure. Okay. Fair enough.

0:14:44 Elijiah: All right, good deal.

0:14:45 Thomas: What do you got next?

0:14:47 Elijiah: Next one is one of the meme argument type things is we're both atheists. I just believe in one less god than you do. Yeah, and not to nitpick on the uh the grammar, but a lot of times you, I just believe in one less god, because the number of gods is countable, it should be, I believe in one um, but it's silly because the definition of atheism, I'm just going to accept the idea that atheists, atheism is a, the lack of belief in god, so I lack belief anyway. Okay, I was going to go off in a tangent, but okay, so I, I lack belief in Thor, right, but

0:14:54 Thomas: Okay. One God, one God fewer.

0:15:24 Thomas: Sure, okay.

0:15:25 Elijiah: I do not lack belief in Odin. This means that I do not lack believe in all gods, therefore I am not an atheist. So when someone, I understand the point they're trying to make is that, oh, you disbelieve all the other gods, I just disbelieve all the other gods plus yours. I get that, but once we start talking about what reasons I would have to believe in that particular god, God, you can't just blanketly like dismiss everything because, oh, you don't believe in Thor either. So it's a, I don't know, almost like a bumper sticker slogan that when someone says it, I almost feel like they're just not willing to actually have a conversation.

0:15:33 Thomas: Well, I, I don't know. I see what you're saying. But I think the purpose of that bumper sticker slogan, because oftentimes, you know, the memes are that I understand. I'm not, memes aren't usually going to be like the most thought out arguments. But I think the purpose of it is to try to get people to realize that they do recognize a lot of the shortcomings of the claims of other religions, and it's to try to get, you know, from an atheist perspective, it's to say, well, look at all these shortcomings, you know, what are all the reasons you, Elijiah, are not, you know a Muslim or even some further, you know, non-Abrahamic God, why don't you believe in those claims? Why don't You accept the miracle claims of some random person who has a million followers in some weird country? Like it's, that's the, what it's trying to elicit, I think. And so, yeah.

0:16:18 Elijiah: Right. Sure. Yeah. I think when it comes to like the kind of non-thinking theism, where it's like, oh, I just believe because my parents believe, then this might be something worth pursuing, but when it actually comes to somebody who's thought about their beliefs and have come to the conclusion that one particular religion is true because of certain things, um, like let's say that I was a Muslim and I believed that Muhammad was an actual prophet and he was the prophet of God, that would be the reason that I would be a Muslim. Um, and you know, I believe the Quran and all that other good, good stuff, or not so good stuff, depending. But if you, so that would be the reason that I believe that, and taking that belief itself automatically means that I don't believe the other things, because it claims to be the exclusive path to God. So, like, just having this, even if I had no idea why I wasn't a Hindu, believing one thing that is, you know, excludes things logically would automatically mean I don't believe those other things, but yeah, that I

0:18:00 Thomas: Yeah. Okay. I see your point. How would you, do you have any tips? If you were to try to rephrase that, I totally get annoyed by the grammar of that as well. But would you have any tips for something that was, is there any way you could salvage it, modify it to try to elicit what I was talking about where it's not a proof of anything, obviously, but I think it is weird. As an atheist, I think it is incredibly weird that it just happens to be that for the most part, with a very high degree of certainty, you can determine someone's religious beliefs based on where they're from, where they grew up, and they all have their arguments for why, you know, like you said, a Muslim has their arguments for why Christianity is not, doesn't quite cut it or vice versa.

0:18:52 Thomas: It is a little odd. And I think that's what it's trying to elicit. So is it salvageable? Is it a salvageble meme, do you think?

0:19:00 Elijiah: Think if you take it away from being the assertion that a theist is an atheist, and because it's just, that's just not the case, and you turn it around to being a conversation starter, like, hey, I don't believe in, um, like, you know, trying to bring up like a common ground type of thing. I don't believe in uh Allah, you don't believe in Allah, so I don't believe in Yahweh, but you do. So your disbelief in Allah is very similar to my disbelief in Yahweh, and it's just because I've been not convinced. That I think would be a reasonable way to at least start the conversation, because the next part in that would be, oh, but have you considered this, like, have you considered, like, from the Christian perspective, but have you considered, you know, the evidence of the resurrection or whatever.

0:19:19 Thomas: Sure.

0:19:53 Elijiah: Well, yeah, we

0:19:53 Thomas: Well, I have a lot of respect for that. I thinkthat makes a terrible meme, but that was like eight sentences. No, but, but I do, I do take your point. I think datat makes sense. And yeah,

0:20:04 Elijiah: Could try to defy it if you, yeah.

0:20:06 Thomas: Elijiah said, I call this stuff.

0:20:09 Elijiah: Exactly. Just a little me.

0:20:12 Thomas: Yeah. So, do you think it's more than just a semantic thing to say, it doesn't make sense to say you're an atheist with respect to Thor? That sentence doesn't make sense. More than just, oh, you're nitpicking, like you think that's actually incoherent.

0:20:12 Elijiah: Yeah.

0:20:33 Elijiah: Because to be an atheist means that you do not believe in gods. And I

0:20:36 Thomas: Sure. What's a word you could say to replace that? I'm wondering, like, Like you're, I guess just, you're a non-believer in Thor. You could just do, how about just that? Yeah, use that.

0:20:44 Elijiah: Think yeah. So, if you said we're both non-believers in many other gods, but I believe in one fewer God than, than you do, then okay, yeah, got to fix the grammar. Of course, it's mandatory. I've even bolded it in my notes.

0:20:46 Thomas: Okay.

0:20:55 Thomas: And we fixed the grammar. Definitely got to fix the grammar No, I know.

0:21:02 Elijiah: Fewer, I

0:21:02 Thomas: I totally the same way. My, I think it probably comes from having either good parents or maybe a good teacher, but I think my parents had good grammar and always corrected me. And I actually kind of like it now because it's a dying art.

0:21:17 Elijiah: Hated it when I was, exactly.

0:21:20 Thomas: But yeah, but I like it because by the time you get into a job and you start advancing in life, you do find the other successful people tend to have decent grammar, you know, not always, but they tend to be able to organize their thoughts a little better. And I don't know, I like It. But anyway, so I totally agree. What'd you say?

0:21:36 Elijiah: Your, your, Y-O-U plus the R-E and Y-o-U-R, they use those, you very rarely find a boss of like a big company that uses those incorrectly.

0:21:41 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah, good point. So when I fix this meme, it's going to be "why you are a non-believer." You're a non-believer, I'm gonna fix the one thing and then make a new error just to bug Elijiah. Everyone get on that. Okay, well, I accept, I accept that criticism. Interesting. I, I think that, I think it should use non- believer rather than "atheist," because, yeah, atheist, it, you, it wouldn't really make sense to say "you're atheist," would it make sense say "you're theist" with respect to Thor? But but not, you're not a theist with respect to, you know, Yahweh, because theist is more of a general term. It's sort of, it doesn't make sense to say that, right? Is that, does that sound right?

0:22:29 Elijiah: Well, I tried to twist the argument around a little bit, just that, the wording of it, but I mean, again, Again, to say that an atheist is a theist in any way, unless I'm doing it wrong, unless I'm equivocating words, is just to, you can't say that unless all of a sudden they start believing in God. In the same way, to call a theists an atheist without equivocated, you, you're not. You can't do it.

0:22:49 Thomas: Yeah. All right. I think that's a good point. All Right. So we're two, we're 2 for 2 here. I like this. So let's, what do you got for number three?

0:22:57 Elijiah: Well, thank you. Well, I have a handful of ones that kind of are interspersed. Um, the one that I kind of want to start it off is the, uh, the "theism has no evidence," usually in all caps. Um, if you're on Twitter, "no evidence." And I think what this is, um, is either a confusion of what evidence actually is or what, you know, they're confusing bad evidence with um the non-existence of evidence. Um, a little while ago I wrote um something, I think it was Theology Mix, I'm, I blog with a blog called Theology Mix.

I can't remember exactly where I wrote this, but um, oh no, it was a while back on my old blog, hashtag apologetics, but I put it on my new one. Um, it was basically in response to this idea that theism has no evidence, and what, what I did is I looked at a bunch of different places, definitions of what evidence actually is, and I concluded that the evidence for X is something that increases the probability of X being true. It doesn't necessarily have to make it true. It just means that there is this particular thing that would lean in the direction of having X be true. So a lot of times, like, you know, from the atheist camp, you'll say, oh, theism has no evidence.

And then on the theist camp, it's like, oh atheism has no evidence, but they both like the problem of pain, or the problem with evil, or even like that religious diversity thing that you talked about, I think would be an evidence for atheism. I don't think that makes atheism true, but it is a reason to believe atheism may be true.

0:23:07 Thomas: Sure.

0:24:47 Elijiah: In the same way, if you say that the Kalam – let's just – without getting into details of the arguments because obviously I don't think the atheist ones are right, but let's say that The Fine-Tuning and the Kalom are something to believe – one reason to believe that theism might be true. So it is an evidence for theism without actually making theism necessarily true. Does that make sense?

0:25:10 Thomas: Yeah, it does. I've actually seen, You'll be happy to know that I know some atheists who have tweeted this very correction, you know, or this very, maybe you've seen it, but there are definitely some atheics who will agree with you. It's weird. I think I agree with you, but at the same time, I do struggle with it a little bit, but probably not for the same reasons that these atheists, who you are referring to when you reference this argument, probably not the same reason. The reason I think I struggle with evidence for theism or evidence for God is that God is so loosely defined or theism is so loosely defined, I often don't know how you would know something is evidence for it. So, could you give me an example of something that might be evidence for God in that way?

0:25:20 Elijiah: Yeah. Well, I mean, we talked about the Kalam before, right? So broadly speaking, if there is an entity that existed outside of nature and had the ability to create the universe, that would be at least an evidence for that particular entity, right.

0:26:21 Thomas: Sure, but I think you would have to accept that. You would have have to accept Kalam for that to be evidence. I'm talking about evidence where it doesn't prove it. I think I don't accept, based on our last debate and subsequent experience, I don'T really accept all the premises of Kalam. I don't think it's right. So, for me, I mean, from my perspective, it's not, I DON'T see where the evidence would still be for theism, but I'M totally open to that there could be in some other thing. And I'm wondering if you have any other examples you could think of, maybe.

0:26:22 Elijiah: Right.

0:26:56 Thomas: I

0:26:57 Elijiah: But This is the point that I'm trying to make here is that this may be a bad evidence for it. Right. It may be something that you don't accept personally, but to say that it is just simply not evidence, like, OK, so for for for me, I do accept the Kalam. Right. So it is an evidence for me to accept that particular thing. Thing. You do not. So it is not an evidence for you. But so to blanketly say that theism has no evidence would be to just ignore anybody and everyone who thinks that the Kalam may actually go through.

0:27:32 Thomas: Don't know about the, see, okay, let's pretend, I'm not sure if I agree with you still on that. Let's pretend the Kalam is the only evidence in the earth, just for the sake of argument. So we're just the Kalum is the Only Argument That Exists. In that world, you're saying, even if I don'T accept the Kalom, there's still some evidence for theism, correct? Just to to make sure I have you right. But I don't know that that's true because I don't accept the Kalam because I think the premises are wrong or I think there's a problem with how you get from the premises to the conclusion. So, in the end, there's just like one premise that I might agree with and then a totally faulty one. I don't see how in that world, I don't, I'm not sure I see how there's evidence for God.

It sounds like you're saying, well, other people see it as evidence for God or they see the argument is valid, therefore there's some evidence for God there, but couldn't they just be wrong? I mean, if in my view someone else is just bad at deduction or for some reason doesn't see the flaw in the deductive argument, I don't think that constitutes evidence for theism. Do you understand where

0:27:32 Elijiah: Okay. Right. Yes. Yeah. Yeah,

0:28:40 Thomas: I'm coming from?

0:28:40 Elijiah: I know. I know where you're going. Let's turn it around, though. Let'S say that The only evidence against God is the problem of pain. Now, obviously, Obviously, I don't think the problem of pain or the problem of evil is actually an evidence is is actually a disproof of God. You might I'm not sure where you stand on the problem of evil. But let's say that that is the only evidence against God's existence. Would I even though I disagree with it? Do I think it still would lead someone to think that God does not exist? Yeah. So I think that even if my

0:29:14 Thomas: Okay, but in that example, what was evidence against God was not the problem of pain. It was pain because that was one of the premises and you just reject the point where the data, one of premises which is pain, which is something we have, you reject that that then leads to an argument correctly that goes against God. Whereas I'm not seeing which one of the premises of Kalam, if I don't accept where they go, I don t see which premise itself is is evidence for theism. Does that make sense?

0:29:14 Elijiah: Right, Not.

0:29:52 Thomas: No. Okay. I also have a hard, kind of a hard time because I think that it's, you can't quite turn the tables when, because that brings a burden of proof questions, I think, because it's hard to think of the only evidence against something, you know what I mean? Versus the only evidenced for it, I thing is a big difference.

0:29:52 Elijiah: Sure. I'm following you. There, well, Yeah, I mean, let's, I was just, you know, turning it around because let's, let's imagine that, you know, that they're all the evidence for God is really dang great and there's no reason to do disbelieve that God exists. And okay, let's, let's actually, let's not even think about God. Let's think about evolution because I've studied that. Let's say that the only argument against evolution being true is that the mechanism of genetic change is not adequate with is That a reason to think that, you know, that is that an evidence against evolution? Well,

0:30:14 Thomas: Yeah. Okay, Okay. Okay. It doesn't sound like it because it, I mean, do you think that the mechanism is not adequate or not? I mean if you think it's not, that it is adequate, then I don't see how someone else thinking it's not adequate could be evidence for, against it. Does that make sense?

0:31:07 Elijiah: Okay, so actually it makes sense. And this, I guess, would be where the, they now are not the analogy, but like the, the different arguments would kind of fall down because, oh man, so I'm, I'm kind of at a at an impasse at this point because I, given that, um, let's not talk about evolution anymore. Because, cause that's going to, it's going things, given that there are particular things that would increase or decrease the probability of something being true. You accept that, right?

0:31:25 Thomas: Okay. Okay. Sure.

0:31:37 Elijiah: Okay. So let's not talk about any particular argument. Let's just talk about X or the existence of X. There might be, you know, there's a, B and C that would be, would give more credence to X being true. And then there's, um, you know, one, two and three that would say okay, no, this doesn't actually lead to X, this would lead away from X. See, those two, the things that exist, those two, those two categories of things, things for X and things against X, can both simultaneously exist and something be true about X because

0:31:36 Thomas: Sure I, I agree in principle and that's why I'm totally open to this. Like there There might be, you know, something that like, like you spelled out would be evidence for God. I'm still having a hard time finding what that actual thing is. Let me, let me give a, we can move on if you want, but I think this is kind of interesting. So I want to try to make a quick analogy. If this fails, feel free to say, yeah, we Can, we move on. But I, I oftentimes, I think a good analogy is when you're trying to figure out who did a, you Know, who committed some crime, because oftentimes that that's where we're familiar with the term evidence, mostly, I think, or everyday people. So, let's say there's a murder weapon is left. Now, the murder weapon is red. And we've got two suspects.

0:32:59 Thomas: One is right-handed and one is left-handed. In my mind, now, this is going to sound a bit like a straw man, but it's just an analogy. In My Mind, the Kalam is like saying, well, wait a minute. Left-handed people always use red knives. So therefore, the fact that this knife is red is evidence that it was left-handed person suspect. Now, you may not accept that argument, but the fact that the argument is there is some evidence that the left-hand person did it. And I say, well, that's a faulty premise. So, therefore, I don't accept that as any sort of evidence that the lefthanded suspect did it." So, that is an analogy for what I am saying.

0:33:39 Elijiah: Ultimately you don't think, okay, so the, the idea that all left-handed people use red knives is actually demonstrably false because, you know, well, not necessarily all left-handed use red knives, I bet you I could find one left-handed person that's never even touched direct, um, So it's, it's not true that

0:33:52 Thomas: And it's a, it's a faulty premise and I feel the same way with the Kalam argument, there's a failty premise in there, and That, so by analogy, now I obviously, I don't think it's as obviously faulty, it may be something that seems a little less faulty, but ultimately when you decide it's a bad premise, even if, you know, even if it seems like it's good, it doesn't really matter once you've decided there's a bad premise. I don's see how it's any evidence that the left-handed person did it, I dunno.

0:33:55 Elijiah: Okay. Okay.

0:34:22 Elijiah: So to continue the crime analogy, let's say that we have well you know, just because everyone's familiar with OJ simpson type of stuff let's see that we have a knife and a glove the knife is the is owned by the the suspect um the suspect carries on him Let's say that it's a you know we're talking about evidence for oj being the murderer I don't let's just Suspect.

0:34:23 Thomas: Sure Sure. Sure, sure. I see where you're going and I like it.

0:34:47 Elijiah: Okay So you have the knife and you have the fact that he carries a knife, so he owns the knife, um, and he knows how to use the knife, let's say he was trained in some kind of, you know, martial art with the knives, um, so there's a handful of evidence, handful of reasons and evidence to think that the suspect is the killer, right? It turns out that there is blood on some gloves and those gloves are not the right size for the suspect, the suspect has gargantuan hands and the the the bloody gloves do not fit, assuming that the gloves never change, the same name change sizes or whatever, there is those that glove that doesn't fit that we know was associated with the murder Is an evidence against the suspect doing the murder, but the fact that it's his knife and he knows how to use it is evidence for it. So In that Case,

0:35:47 Thomas: Absolutely. And that's where I return to the fact that I accept that. And I think that such a thing could exist. But when we come to the Kalam, I don't think that works because of what I just laid out. So if I've identified a false premise, I think the Kalam is either the glove or the knife. I don't think it falls into either of those categories. Whereas I could, I could be convinced, absolutely could be convinced that there's some other phenomenon. Maybe it's fine tuning. Maybe it's something else that where that could be in our evidence for God. But I, that where the Kalam is, I'm not sure I, I see it because if, just if any, if there's any argument, like the one I brought up with this, the stupid left handed knife thing. If there's anything where you don't accept, you think there's a logical problem in the premises, I don't see how that could be evidence for the conclusion. Does that make sense?

0:35:49 Elijiah: Right, Right, Yeah,

0:36:40 Thomas: Okay. Okay, so I'll leave it open. I don'T have to put you too much on the spot. If you can't think of any immediate example that might be better for evidence for God, that's fine because, you know, putting people on the spot is tough and I see where you're coming from.

0:36:40 Elijiah: I Think they make

0:36:55 Thomas: But at least you see the argument I'm making, I hope.

0:36:54 Elijiah: Yeah, Yeah, And I think the, the point that I'm making doesn't necessarily rely on the fact that I would have an argument right now that could be used because I mean that we would, you disagree obviously, but the fact that if, if someone says there was no evidence for the suspect to murder that person is demonstrably false. Because What

0:37:05 Thomas: Sure. Yes, I agree in the analogy you're talking about. Yeah,

0:37:18 Elijiah: Yeah, So I think that is the more meta issue that, that I think is the problem here, where it says theism has no evidence, is that it's just a blanket statement that is basically dismissing a proper understanding of evidence, I think. So

0:37:33 Thomas: I agree. And that's why I started with saying the problems I have with this are probably not the same as the people you're talking about. I think you're right that there are people who just say no evidence when really they mean there's more evidence for atheism from their perspective, or they've made a judgment and they think the evidence that atheism is more likely on the evidence. I'm guessing that's what they mean. But I will say that I think for different reasons that I've outlined, I don't fully know that I know of any evidence for God. But you can hit me back later if you think of any way you want to try to argue with that. And I personally, we don't have to talk about it now, but I go back and forth with fine tuning because I actually, I'm not totally sure how that's evidence for God.

0:38:24 Thomas: But I go back and forth, and I think I know of another atheist who is very open to evidence for God and against, you know, and looks at evidence the same way you do. And he also goes back and fourth because there's no clear reason why God would need to fine tune a universe. And I think that knowledge, like would God fine tune the universe versus not, versus would God just create a reality in which you wouldn't need fine tuning?

Like how do you evaluate the probability there, and and is it coherent to say that it's evidence? It may be evidence, I guess, for a certain conception of God, I guess, maybe that's where it would make sense. Like if you, if you conceive of God a certain way, or if you have a certain set of assumptions, this can be evidence for those assumptions.

But that's why I come back to a lot of what God is, is very badly defined, um, or there's no way to really pinpoint like, like, how do I ask you, Elijiah, your God that you believe in, would he create a universe that's fine-tuned or would he created a reality in which you wouldn't need to fine- tune a universe? It would just, there wouldn't be such a thing as a giant spectrum of constraints where he would need to dial it in. Does that, you see where I'm going with that? I mean, we don't have to talk about that now, but

0:39:39 Elijiah: I saw that you went like in six or seven different

0:39:41 Thomas: All right. All right. Well, they're coherent to me, but we don't have to, we can move on to your next argument if you'd rather.

0:39:42 Elijiah: Directions with it. Well, Okay, So just Oh, No, I, I see where you were going with, I'm just saying there's like five Or six different ways you could have gone, but When it Comes to the particular argument from fine-tuning, it's not necessarily about, um, okay, well, it is what it is, is we see something and we're looking for what is the best explanation. It's an abductive reasoning sort of like, you know, looking at a crime scene, you see X, Y and Z and they're like, what is the best explanation for this? The three options for the fine-tuning argument, at least William Lane Craig style, would be chance, design or necessity. And then if you rule out chance and rule out necessity, then you're left with design. Like if chance and necessity cannot possibly be it, then you are left with the design in the same way that, you know, let's say that you see a pattern of rocks on the ground and you're like, okay, there are 10 different ways that this could have been. And let's just say that we exhaust all the possibilities and we rule out all but one.

0:39:50 Thomas: Okay, sure. All

0:40:42 Elijiah: We're left with that as almost like a process of elimination type of thing. So the fine-tuning argument is a process of elimination where you're either picking A, B, or C, and you rule out A and C. And so you're left with B.

0:40:56 Elijiah: So like in a multiple-choice test at school or something like that, where if you know that whatever the answer to the question is, if you it's definitely not A and it's definitely not C because you have reasons to think otherwise, then B is by default, if it is totally, um, you know, uh, it exhausts all the possibilities, then B is the right answer. That's how the fine-tuning argument. Yeah.

0:41:21 Thomas: Right, yeah. Yeah, I think definitely going to have to be a different podcast or something. I see where you're going. I think that's interesting and it's something to think about. I Wonder if you do this process of elimination and you get to design, and then you say, well, there's no conceivable reason I could think of that someone would design something like that in that manner. Like, why would they even bother putting these rocks in that way? You could start to think, well, did I mess up one of the other options? But, uh, but no, I, I take your point, so I'll think about that. And, uh, let's, we can, we can go on to your next argument if you're, unless you had anything else to say about that one.

0:41:31 Elijiah: Right, Well, I mean, there's a lot to say, but I think, um, the

0:42:17 Thomas: Oh, well, you'll have to wait until Thursday to find out more about Elijiah's bad arguments that atheists make. This was one of my favorite episodes, these both, because there's a lot more and it's just as good. So I really, really enjoyed this recording. It was great. I think I was inspired by these arguments and I thought of new things. And I hope you guys followed me along with that and maybe you can give me some feedback if I had any good ideas that you liked or if I have any bad ideas. I usually get that feedback too. Okay, so that's all for today. I will see you guys on Thursday and of course you can find the bonus content every week with Jake Farr-Wharton. A very good episode this week as is every week and find that at patreon.com/atheist.

0:43:07 Thomas: Thank you so much to everyone who has pledged. I really appreciate it. All right, I will see you with some more of Elijiah T on Thursday.