C.

S.

Lewis once said that the value of prayer isn't in trying to change God's mind, but in how it transforms the person praying.

So is prayer really just an anxiety ritual or a self help exercise?

Does God hear your prayers?

Or is that voicing your head?

Just you know you?

What have you experienced?

Does prayer do something beyond making you feel better, reinforcing a need for more prayer?

Or is that part the whole point?

Call us because the lines are open and the show is coming right now.

Okay, Well, welcome everyone.

Today is August third, twenty twenty five.

I'm your host, Christy Powell, and joining me again today is Richard Jailver.

Hello, Yes, I am, and I'm very excited to be here and I'm very looking forward, very much looking forward to today's show.

I'm wondering what kind of I've been hitting a couple of new social media platforms with some stuff this week, so I'm wondering if that's going to translate into calls, But well we'll have to wait and see.

Yeah, new social media platforms is now like a trigger phrase for me.

I you're doing the Lord's work for lack of a better word.

Thank you for getting out there.

It's very brave.

Yeah, it certainly is on the slide.

I'm taking that and accepted it fully because yes it is.

Sure.

Well, I'm excited to talk to all sorts of new people from all sorts of new corners of the internet.

I think this topic, this discussion around prayer is going to be very interesting for you and I.

We've had a number of conversations on this show before about meditation and how meditation isn't prayer.

Prayer isn't meditating.

I don't know, We're going to get into it.

It's going to be a good time.

Yeah, absolutely, And I'm very interested in the calls takes on this as well, especially the theists.

You know that do you think the prayer is a supplementation to supplication to God?

Do you think it's only a psychological effect?

Do you think it's a mixture of the two.

Let's get into it.

If you're a theist and you believe that prayer works regardless of what aspect you think it works in, give us a call and let's have that conversation.

Yeah, we're definitely interested in talking about prayer today.

You know, of course, on talking you.

Then we're open to all of your questions about religion, secular humanism, atheistic morality, cosmology, philosophy, science, history, life, the universe, and everything.

Richard, Is there anybody else that you're hoping to speak to today?

Oh?

Yes, yes, there definitely is.

So we've had a couple of I've had a long standing kind of dialogue with a couple of theists who have both been regular callers to all of these atheist shows for many, many, many years, and I have directly reached out to to ask to call the show, and both of these guys have made excuse after excuse after excuse for not calling.

One in particular, I'm going to tell you the names that the names they go by when they call in, so I'm not docsing anyone.

It's Jimmy from Texas and Howard from Spain.

Howard from Spain.

The last time I invited him to call in stated point BLI like, the reason that I haven't called you is because I don't do calling shows anymore.

Keen fans of the eighties community of Austin will have noticed that he did in fact call into the Artist Experience last week, and I left out I pointed out this out to him.

I feel left out talked to.

Both of these guys have talked to every host on this network except me, and for some reason, I don't know what that reason is.

I'm not casting any expersions out there.

I don't know what the reason is.

For some reason, they both point blank refused to call and talk to me.

So, Howard from Spain, Jimmy from Texas, you have been called out calling.

Well, we certainly hope to hear from you.

Talk Heathen is a live call in show and we do have open lines, so get all of your calls in at five one two, four to two or from your computer at tiny dot c c slash call th And with that, let's bring in our friend Kelly Laughlin for the Talk Heathen to Me segment where we do our question of the week.

Hi Kelly, what you got for us?

Hi?

Christy?

I got it?

Actually, I got a pretty good one.

This week.

Our Talk Heathen to Me segment from or question from last week was why did Jesus come back after he was crucified?

And I could think of all kinds of good answers, but we only wanted the wrong answers.

And here are the top three that we picked.

Number three from Matt Kay, Jesus came back because he forgot his keys and wallet.

He was heard mumbling, can't wait till they invent pockets on his way out, and to be fair, I have pockets and I still leave my keys, wallet, phone everywhere.

So number two from the Life Set Faith, Jesus left money on the pool table and he was next to play.

I just got the picture of all Jesus' quarters, the Holy quarters lined up on the side of the pool table.

And number one from one of our favorite viewers, Miranda Rensberger, Jesus came back because he was still pissed at that fig tree and thought of a few more choice words to say.

Solid that's good work.

Yeah, that's that's pretty good.

Thing always bothered me.

That was like the one story I think about Jesus that really really bothered me.

But let's go to next week.

The prompt for next week will be what prayer will God always answer?

Richard?

Do you have an answer for that?

I absolutely do, and it seems to be the one that he answers constantly.

It's when theists pray to him and tell him not to show up and show as evidence of his existence.

They must be praying this day and night, and he's answering it constantly.

That's a good one, Christy.

What do you think?

Yeah, God, if you're real, if you're there, send me a sign and prove it to me by doing absolutely nothing for the next five seconds.

Yeah, works every time.

Yeah.

Great answers from you both, And I'm really anxious to see what our audience comes up with.

Remember to put it in the comments section below, not the chat on the side, and hopefully we'll bring read yours out next week.

All right, Well, thank you, Kelly, and to thank you to everybody else who works behind the scenes, all of the video operators and call screeners and hardworking engineers and folks that make us look so good.

Let's get the crew cam up and going, Hey, good morning everybody.

Thank you so much for everything that you do.

What a handsome bunch.

Okay, well, rich let's go ahead and jump into that first call with Cow's our friend HATTI.

Good morning another Hi Christy, Hi Richard, thanks for taking my car.

Absolutely what's on your mind to.

They called in last week to talk about fate and Buddhism, and during that call, the host rough line between aspects of Buddhism like meditation that are empirically verified to work in certain settings and therefore be seen as beneficial aspects of Buddhism, and kind of delineating that from aspects that are world is more in belief that are not empirically verified and which therefore are not beneficial or even harmful.

And today I would like to kind of challenge that framing.

I believe that establishing views is also very much a part of Buddhist practiced and not so much as dog mass, not as epostomic grounds for truth, but skillful means to bring about beneficial psychological change.

And yeah, I think that you're in a really good space.

Like I work in a lot of Buddhist psychology, and Richard has a very strong background in the history of Buddhism and other aspects of it.

So what is it that you are, Like, what is your kind of ultimate question here?

Some my ultimate question is like, is there ever a situation in which you would say that a holding a few, even if a few is not like comparently verified, could still be okay to hold for the benefity, Yeah, you for the sort of psychological changes.

Yeah, I would definitely say that it is depending on maybe how we define the idea of holding a belief, you know, do we hold it lightly, do we hold it with an attachment, with an unwillingness to let it go in the face of new information.

If I operate under the assumption that every stranger I meet will probably be a kind and decent person and worthy of my kindness, I think that that is a unverified belief that is a good one to hold on to.

And if that strange comes up and punches me in the face, I think it's probably a good idea for me to keep my distance.

Yeah.

No, I mean that that is also how I see it.

Views are beneficial or can be seen as beneficial in general, and then in very specific cases that they can clearly become harmful, or they can just be shown as harmful in general.

Like it could be that you hope a few and it just turns out that that view is not helping you at all, And I think in that case it is good to dlp a few, including I guess the sort of religious views that I'm holding.

Yeah, well, let's dive into that a little bit.

When we start talking about unverified religious views, what is it that you're maybe concerned about or are kind of curious about, whether or not some extra skepticism might be appropriate.

So the kind of views I hold, I think the one that is most on my mind is the view of Karma, Karma and Reebert, which I hold as very sentral to my Buddhist faith and which I obviously cannot demonstrate to be true.

Yeah, so how does it offer you benefit?

I think the way it provides me benefit is that by really putting my actions and the consequence of our actions so central, like it really puts agency first, Like it really puts me in a position where I feel like the best way to build on my own happiness is to act today.

That I shouldn't wait for others to do it, or that I should just sort of like take my lot in life and accept that for what it is, but really that my actions is what shapes my future.

Yeah.

No, I can definitely appreciate that viewpoint, and I think that you are headed in the right direction, but maybe adding some unnecessary steps when we throw in this sort of magical play in reincarnation, Because there's plenty of evidence, or at least some pretty logical arguments to dispute the notion of reincarnation.

We don't need to necessarily get into all of that or debate whether or not it can be conclusively disproved really depends on some of our terms and how we're imagining reincarnation to exist, and all of these kinds of things.

But what I'm hearing you say is that by being mindful and intentional about your actions, you are working to the betterment of yourself and the people around you.

I think that you can just do that without having to imagine any sort of like cosmic scorekeeping.

And I wonder if it wouldn't benefit you to let go of that more magical component to it.

How does that framework strike you?

I mean possibly, I guess I think that could be separable possible basis for holding a particular article life set.

This is the one I have.

And like, if you're saying like I should reject this, then I feel like there should also be a reason for that, Like this, it should be shown like that it is more harmful than some other way in which I could maybe reach the same conclusion.

Sure, and I can definitely walk down that path with you.

I don't mean to feel like I can convince you or force you to reject some belief that you hold Deer, But I do think that there is a lot to be said about what happens when we bring magical thinking into our framework, and how by simplifying things, by maintaining what we know to be true, we can get at the heart of our goals rather than wrapping it up in some of this mysticism that can potentially lead us down the wrong path.

But before I really dive into all of that, Richard, I want to kind of get you in here to see how this framework even lines up with I don't know, maybe common thoughts on Buddhism, or how reincarnation is a necessary or integral belief or not in this space.

Yeah, I I've been quiet on purpose because I've had plenty of conversations with Calcer friends, and I know you would have somewhere to go with it, So I kind of wanted to let you kind of take the lead on this one a little bit, right, And I talk a lot on the Buddhist calls as well.

But yeah, I think, look, there's the first part of your question, Christe.

You know, what is the kind of Buddhist consideration of reincarnation?

And that depends because in religious studies, there is not a thing on the whole with any religion, and this applies to Buddhism as well.

There is not a Buddhism.

There are Buddhisms because we have to take into contact context.

It's movement through time and place as well.

You know, we don't kind of look at religions on the basis of this is the religion.

That's what gatekeepers do, that's what people who commit they're not the true Scotsman fallacy do.

And there are lots of different ideas and you know, a good example of this is in Tibet.

Tibetan Buddhism is a really really famous form of Buddhism.

It's one of the more famous schools of Buddhism.

But Tibetan Buddhism is conjoined, very much conjoined with the native Bond tradition from Tibet.

So a lot of aspects of Tibetan Buddhism are actually aspects of the Bond tradition that predated Buddhism in Tibet.

And we see this as Buddhism moves We've seen it as it's moved into the Western taken on most secular aspects where in a lot of cases people who call themselves Buddhists, who identify as Buddhists don't even accept any of those supernatural elements of it.

It's for me, it's quite clear scripturally from the kind of early Buddhist text which as the ones that I kind of look at most.

It's quite clearly scripturally that the Buddha believed that reincarnation was a thing.

It believed, it taught it as a true thing, and it taught it as integral to the Buddhist path to enlightenment.

It is a supernatural element, you know.

It's quite clearly stated on a couple of different occasions where the Buddhis tells the people around him you should And this is what gives me the kind of confidence to say that he's an integral part of what he believed Buddhism to be, because there's a couple of occasions where we say it's you should abandon the religions of your ancestors, you should abandon the religions of your family and your attachment to them.

And when you come into this this path is practice which calls our friend correctly identified as a kind of you know, the Buddhist moral system is what is beneficial to you, accept what is beneficial and rejects what is not, as opposed to the kind of hard good and evil of a lot of kind of Western religions.

And that is you know it quite clear has the stated that you know this?

Accepting this is accepting the wisdom of the Buddha, It's not.

You know, through all your family stuff aside, and accept the wisdom of the Buddha and practice this, and by practice you will see that what I am teaching you is true.

And certainly reincarnation and other supernatural aspects, including supernormal powers and things like that we're clearly stated by him as being true.

Does that mean that you have to hold to those things as true to gain benefit from Buddhist practice.

That is a very very difficult and nuanced question because it depends entirely what you think Buddhist practice is an will give you.

If you are of the kind of let's say, traditional mindset where you think that you are on this path, you will be reincarnated, you will become enlightened, but it could take eons to happen.

Then yes, you can say it's an integral aspect.

If you look at meditation practice as a utility to gain good things from.

Then no, it's not necessarily necessary to hold onto that because we can see the utility of meditation practice.

It's you know, the utility of meditation practice is well known.

It really really is well known.

You know, there's been plenty of scientific studies done on this thing where it's vastly used, as you know yourself, in kind of emotional health support and things like that, and it's used in neurological a lot of people.

Yeah, sorry, I'll watch you there for a moment, Richard Cells our friends, How did you what did you get out of all of that?

Where are you at with this conversation?

Now?

Well, I mean I would agree that there's a lot you can get out of Buddhism without the supernatural views.

Like, yes, meditation very beneficial in other contexts than the one of religious Buddhism.

I guess my intent for this call was to also point out that building up certain views is also part of that practice, and that it is also sort of within the framework of like it could be beneficial or harmful to hold this or that view.

Therefore it can be good or bad to cultivate that sort of view up to a point like not as like this is the absolute ruth, not this is a dogmap, but as like holding this view is psychologically beneficial.

So that's really where I want to get to, and then maybe we can go into specific views like karmas No.

And I feel like I'm very much on board with what you're saying.

But I would also suggest that one of the criteria for whether or not a view is beneficial ought to be your willingness to reconsider it in the face of evidence.

And to that end, I would express that holding on to a view in reincarnation when there is not any meaningful evidence to suggest it and there is evidence to suggest against it would mean that it would be in your best interest to let go of that view and to embrace a worldview that is willing to adapt to the evidence on hand.

How do you respond to that?

So I would agree that if there was clear evidence against the incarnation, I would have to drop to few.

I haven't seen it, so I mean, I've seen evidence against very crude forms of conceptualized and the organation for sure, but not necessarily in the oh like doctor spin or baths of Buddhism.

May I ask, cal's a friend if you've seen evidence for reincarnation and I'm going to go down the path with this, so just just kind of give me a quick yes or no response, Right, So you've just kind of stated, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

You know, why should you reject it if you've not seen evidence against it?

Is the general gist I got from you.

But why don't you do that with things like Christianity or Islam or any other religion the belief in though you've not seen evidence for them, but you've not seen evidence against them, So why not just accept those as well?

What's so special about reincarnation that it leads you to I think this I must set aside in this special place where using the same criteria, I will throw other beliefs away.

I'm not just picking up're not shown to be found, specifically following a Buddhist part where I have confidence that the things to Buddha thought are beneficial to me, and so I am more willing to adapt those than a belief in Toro.

I believe in Jesus.

So let's have a look at Jesus as one example.

What about Jesus's teachings do you not think are beneficial as a means of practice, because bear in mind we're putting the supernatural elements asidea.

So regarding the actual practical, utilitarian ideas that Jesus taught, love your neighbor and this kind of thing, what is it that you don't agree with with those that you do agree with in Buddhist teachings.

I think putting your faith in salvation to the power of someone else is putting yourself in a position of helplessness.

And I think that what.

You're doing in Christianity though, because surely you're doing the work health if you know, there are many many Jesus, you know, and this is a thing in Christianity, this is an actual thing where there's this argument against salvation by works and by faith.

You know, there are a great many many Christians who think you do need to do the work yourself to earn what that gift if you like that Jesus was offering.

Is that any different to doing the work that the Buddha taught you to attain enlightenment?

I mean it's different work, But like I would conceide your point that this state is something that could motivate someone to doing good things em bettering themselves.

Yes, okay, I have no further questions or honor.

CHRISTI yeah, I mean I was curious where you were looking to go with all of that, Richard, And I guess I would just kind of go back to my refrain around how there is a lot of danger in holding on to beliefs that don't have good evidence, good epistemiology behind them.

I can appreciate you isolating some of these beliefs and saying, well, I believe that following the teachings of Buddha make me a better person or help me to contribute to making a better world.

And I can absolutely appreciate that.

I also want to stress that when you accept any belief system whole cloth and without a willingness to pick and choose or to recognize or accept the pieces that don't make sense, that you are putting yourself in a position to believe things that can be incredibly harmful.

So even if you can make the claim that by continuing to believe in reincarnation that you are becoming a better person, that you are helping to make for a better world, one that I'm not really convinced of.

But even if you were to hold on too that claim.

If you are willing to accept all things Buddhism TM because they're Buddhism, then you can find yourself in some really dark path pathways where you're unwilling to accept knowledge, where you're unwilling to let go of things that are being proven to cause a lot of harm.

And so I guess I'm just not on board with this idea that we can say, well, I think it's good for me, and I can't prove that it's definitely not real, so I'll just hold on to it anyway.

It just feels like a very dangerous ideology.

Yeah, I mean I can see the danger.

I understand your point of guarding the danger that that's like following a particular view good gone with other views that are harmful, but that you take in anyway because it's sort of part of the same uh yeah, the same kind of class of you.

But I also think it can be critical here, Like I hope I can't be sure.

I'm not perfect, certainly not, but I hope that if that were to happen to me, if there was some view that tried to sneak in along with this whole karma vibut stuff that is actually harmful, I would be able to see that that it's harmful.

Yeah, and that might be where I would continue to leverage this just a little bit.

I want to acknowledge that there are many formulations of reincarnation, as you've already pointed out, and we haven't spent a lot of time unpacking yours.

But I want to put forward that if we are operating under these belief systems that certain actions have a moral valance to them, or that there's some sort of point system keeping track of things, we get into a real dangerous position of trying to evaluate these actions based on some rubric that is totally arbitrary, and that causes us to divorce ourselves from seeing the action themselves, from seeing the motivation behind them and the consequences behind them.

Whereas if we choose to be present in hey, I want to make the world a better place, So therefore I'm going to do things that work towards that end and not worry about what category rating within.

Without worrying about what some rubric says, We're going to be much more attuned to the needs of the situation and just adding in that mystical element of this is going to have an impact on my eternal soul can really get us into a place where we're missing the point of what we're doing and we're like looking for the score rather than playing the game.

So, first off, eternal soul not really a thing in Buddhism.

But also I think, sorry, what.

Is not really a thing in Buddhism.

I didn't follow the term you.

Used and the consequence of those actions.

Eternally eternal soul.

I think Calcifriend was saying.

Sure, yes, I very much appreciate that it's a little bit of a shorthand, but please help walk us through that.

I mean, I want to make more and make the point that's like what you were saying about, like seeing the intense behind actions and the consequence of actions, Like I would say that that is the core, that is actually what you should be doing when you consider karma and the way it should guide your life.

So I do not really see the problem you're setting up here.

I guess, Okay, So if I may jump in here a little bit because I think I might have a resource which might be useful for you, and it doesn't it's not necessarily like anti Buddhist or anything.

It's a useful website for kind of thinking about the horms where we employ a lack of critical thinking, which is essentially and I don't mean, you know, to be aggressive when I say that, but you know, it's essentially what we're engaging in when we're saying we're going to accept this belief because it's not being disproven.

That is technically a lack of critical thinking.

So there's a guy called Tim Farley who set up a website called What's the Horm.

It's What's the horm dot net.

It's really really useful because it actually goes into a lot of stories and because we hear this all the time as educators in this area.

We hear people saying, well, what's the harm of believing in Christianity if I'm only you know, donating to my church and I'm not you know, I'm not the one going out and blowing buildings up, So what's the harmon you hear it over it over again in your case, what's the harm of believing in reincarnation in this thing that there's no evidence for?

If if it's not being disproven, and if it's I'm not engaging any negative effects from it?

So you know, this website goes into a lot of stories surrounding why harm is caused from having these beliefs in you know, in having these beliefs and engaging in non critical thinking surrounding things and giving the excuse, well, what's the harm in it?

So it might be a decent resource for you to look at.

But I've got to say, and I'm mentally with Christy with this one.

I think when, especially when you're aware as you seem to be, and you seem to fully digest this idea that there is no evidence for it, and you know, you kind of seem to me to be presented and correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to presenting it as this kind of utility position and kind of push brushing aside this idea that well, with absolutely nothing to substantiate that this is actually true, but that doesn't really matter because I don't see bad things coming from it, so therefore the utility of it is by default beneficial.

I think that's dangerous thinking.

And I think even if we don't see active bad things coming from it in your particular case, we might look at a larger picture of kind of beliefs in rebirth and reincarnation, and we might actually find that there can be negative effect from it.

If not, and I'll give you just one quick example, it doesn't apply to you.

It doesn't apply to Buddhist belief.

There's a people who are based in the Middle East have forgot the name.

They believe in reincarnation, but in their version of reincarnation, there is no one allowed to kind of come into the religion from outside and when you are reborn.

A lot of them take on this utility position that if I say that I am from a higher class family in my past life, then a higher class family.

If they accept that, that accept that claim, then they will benefit my family by look at taking me, giving me financial incentives because they feel I am part of their direct family.

That is one aspect of a negative attitude like this.

I'm not sure, and I'll state because I don't want to misrepresent anyone, I'm not sure that occurs in Buddhist reincarnation.

I suspect if I dig hard enough, I will find cases where that does happen.

Certainly Intobetan Buddhism.

We've got cases where you know, rural people have been confirmed to be you know, the reincarnation of certain high class larmers, and they have been taken out of their pole setting and put into you know, a family or in a position where they are well well looked after, and subsequently their family is well looked after.

Is that negative?

That's that's a further conversation, I think.

But I think this goes beyond just simply saying, well, there is no harm in it.

You know.

I think if we dig a little deeper under the surface where we can find harm in it.

We can certainly find harm in Buddhism as a whole when we just lightly scraped the surface, But you know, specific beliefs like this, I think we might actually find that stuff.

Please respond to that.

No, I mean there's a sense of like spiritual classism or hierarchy that that's kind of inherent to a lot of these philosophies.

So I didn't mean to jump in their cousier friends.

Please respond that, yeah.

I mean there are a lot of views that are bad and wrong, and some of them are about the incarnation of liebirds.

I think it's a bit much, though, to sort of say, like, therefore hold none of those Like I'm sure we could look at lots of scientific things like just just look at like various racist theories that try to base themselves in forms of evolution, where I mean, any well thinking scientists dealing with evolution would be able to completely disprove that, but you would not tell them, like stop believing in evolution because those crazy guys over there are making it into this big racist thing.

So I don't think I can really follow in this line of thoughts.

That seems really kind of curious that I'm just saying, and I'm going to touch a direct question, Now, are you saying you're not willing to follow up on this line of thought, You're not willing to kind of engage with it and think about it and actually seek how to see if this is the case.

I'm willing to look in all sorts of things, but I am not going to take responsibility in my views because there's other people who hold other views.

I think that is a way to make an ask.

Yes, no, I very much appreciate that, And yes, there are perhaps good versions and bad versions of every philosophy if we want to oversimplify it or be reductive in that way.

Again, I don't necessarily know all of the particulars of your perspective on reincarnation, and maybe if we were to assess some of that out and get a better sense of what your philosophies are, we could be a little bit more direct.

But I think what Richard and I are trying to do is just highlight some of the common concerns that exist in this space and recognize the fact that anytime we accept a belief without good supporting evidence and we don't grapple with the epistemology of a particular philosophy, we open ourselves up to vulnerabilities.

The vulnerabilities of your belief system are something that we are not able to extricate because we don't know all of the ins and outs of it.

So if it is benefiting your life, bully for you.

You know, I really do mean that and maintain that.

There are people in the chat saying things along the lines of like, hey, it's always better to live in reality than to live in a delusion, even if it's a healthful delusion, And I would push back against that because I think that it's sort of a fallacy to have any of us believe that we are living in quote reality.

We are all experiencing a delusion and finding reality requires us to recognize that that we are all having a veil between us end quote objective truth.

I don't think that that means that we shouldn't we should give up on the search, though, that we should be willing to accept things for bad reasons, that we shouldn't be interested in what we can find empirical evidence to support.

I hope that that kind of sums it all up here.

Is there anything more that needs to be added?

I think just to tag on the end of that.

And you know this is based on what cows A friends themselves said a little while ago about other people doing bad things who have these beliefs.

Doesn't necessarily mean that you know, having those beliefs are bad if you're not employing that yourself.

If I'm representing what you said correctly there, do you not think that if that's the case, If you are completely convinced that karma, reincarnation is true, rebirth is true, and you see all around you other people who engage with this belief and they're doing it wrong in your do you not think there is some responsibility to perhaps correct them and kind of say to them, look, I don't believe you're living you're living this out correctly, you're interpreting this correctly.

I think you're wrong, and I think we need to reassess the way we or the way you're evaluating this.

And before you answer yes or no to that, I kind of also want to present the case of in certain religions there are people who are really really anti gay based on that revision, and people who are pro gay and in fact gay and practice in those religions.

And I see in a lot of those cases those gay people, all those pro gay people fighting against those kind of or doing the wrong thing in their view.

They are actively vocal about it and want to correct them and correctly so as well, regardless of any other beliefs that they hold.

Do you there's not a right or wrong answer to this.

By the way, I'm not trying to set a trap for you.

Do you think that there is a moral responsibility to call other people out who you see and think are in misinterpreting this belief?

Yes, I do think there's that more responsibility.

Yeah, well, I say it wasn't trap or anything.

I was just curious about your answer to that, and I'd be interested in perhaps a future call on counter how you might approach that.

I've certainly known you know, Buddhist monks, indeed abbots of monasteries who've seen things they disagree with and that they've seen other Buddhist people doing, and they have made a phone call and said, I do not appreciate you doing that.

I think you're doing it wrong.

Can we not engage in that behavior?

And it doesn't necessarily have to be a conflict thing, but certainly if you hold that there is a right way to behave or a right way to act when these things are mentioned, I wonder how we could challenge that in your own community and holds that thought.

Because I think we're going to get on another call in a minute.

I do appreciate your call, and Cal's friend always, we always have really really great conversations.

I'm going to let kind of Christy have the last word, because I think this is the first time he's possibly spoken to here, and I've certainly enjoyed listening to you too dialogue.

So Christy, Yeah, no, just I do appreciate the conversation, and you are You're striking on issues that are very near to my heart because it is important to me that we all recognize that our quote worldview is somewhat arbitrary and inevitably imperfect, and so sort of maximizing that bringing some intentionality to that is a very important thing to me.

I do think that we have to not only accept with humility the fact that our worldview is not always quote rational or accurate, but that we can maximize that by making certain choices about what we believe, even in the absence of all of the data that we would need in order to truly know something.

That being said, it's a dangerous world when you start to accept things because they have a certain label attached to them if you don't have any good evidence to support that belief system.

And while I very much appreciate that you are very thoughtful and seemingly very introspective about your experiences of reincarnation, I can't help but feel a little bit squeamish about it.

I would love to talk further in the future about some of your specific philosophies or understandings of that concept, because I would love to just understand better how you protect against some of the dangers that we've highlighted.

But for now, I'm just really grateful to you for calling.

Thank you for having Mike call and have a good rest at the show.

Thank you so much, you as well.

Yeah, well, Richard, that was a good time.

Forget the cheap segue here.

But speaking of good times, the Bat Cruise is coming up August sixteenth.

It's gonna be at seven pm.

This is our twenty twenty five Bat Cruise.

As I understand, there are actually still some tickets available, which usually they are long gone by now I think we've had just a few come up and some extras on hand, so if you're interested, grab them all.

You can.

Forgive me for that.

I saw the way your heart broke just a little bit as I as I admitted to that joke.

It is great when when other people make by jokes, it means I'm not going to get any flock from making them.

So it's old there, fair, I will I will take some of that heat for you.

Okay, Well, we've had some super chats come in some other things, but I actually want to jump right back into the phones because I'm very excited to talk to Eric in Ohio.

Eric, what is on your mind this afternoon?

How are you today?

It's good to hear from me.

Thank you, absolutely well.

We do for it and enjoying your conversation.

And I've got to say I can't agree with you more that you know, we ought to believe more in the things that are testable and repeatables, generally.

Sure, And I say that as a theist, believe it or not.

But the reason that I wanted to talk to you, I appreciate your scientific perspective one thing.

And my perspective didn't start out scientific, but it did end up with a good scientific base.

And I've gone through everything that I believe now and waited against the things that I used to believe with science, and I'm very happy.

I'm a very happy theist.

Now I'd like to share my perspective with you please.

The way I see things, one of two things that have to be absolutely true.

Either there's always been a guy, or there's been a universe or a little pinprick that evolved into a universe in one form or another.

One of these things have to be true.

And you know, I don't know that I can cosign that it has to be one or the other, but that's okay, Let's just keep moving.

Tell me more.

Okay, Well, one of the two things has to be true, then everything that sprang out that we have today, that we see today had to come from one or the other.

So I look at things, and I asked myself, can a dead universe evolve light and consciousness?

And I look at the things, I look at science, and I don't see where we've ever been able to produce it in a lab or ever sing observed it coming in naturally naturally for me.

So there, I mean we have not been able to replicate or truly understand a biogenesis.

I think that that's a very broad statement, something we can largely all agree on.

But does that mean that it's impossible or that it's never happened before?

You recognize that those are not the same claim.

Well, if you'll bear with me one time, you'll see exactly where I'm going with this.

The truth is, we've tried many times to replicate it and it's failed.

And I believe that the falsification procedure is what separates science from science fiction or imagination from real science.

The falsification procedure, actual testing, that's the most important step in science.

But then let's look at something else.

Okay, So if there is no a biogenesis, if we don't see a cell forming naturally then that would just and all might ever arising at all, because of all life is cell you.

Now, step two, Let's give us that miracle of one cell just falling together all by itself.

Okay, let's give us that one miracle.

We've got that one cell.

Now, our next step in evolution is this, that single cell has to become a multi cellular organism.

And that never happens in science.

We never observed in laboratory, we never observed in nature.

Now there are.

Times, right, so things that could possibly happen are things that we have not been able to make happen or observe happen.

It's still the same fallacy that we're pushing up against.

Well, this is pasifiability.

This is science.

This is testing science.

Okay, yes, this is testing whether or not this particular procedure will have this particular result.

And so far we have had a number of procedures and we have never had the result of creating a single cell organism out of quote nothing.

We're being very reductive here, but I think you and I are on the same page with all of that.

Our ability to demonstrate our understanding of how this has happened does not indicate that it cannot happen or has never happened.

Okay, I'll grad you that, but bear with me just a little further.

I'm taking us now from a single cell organism to a multi cellular organism, because that's step two in the process of revolution.

Okay.

The only problem is we never observed this either the eater.

Can we make it happen in the laboratory?

And what we do observe, and some people will I misunderstood this.

We do observe single cell organism is replicating over and over and over again and colonizing together, not creating a multi cellular organism, but a colony of single cell organisms.

Sure, that's been mistaken for the same thing as creating a much cellular organism, which isn't.

So we never observed that happening.

So step two of evolution I don't think ever occurs.

We don't see it in the laboratory, we don't see it in nature, and.

So there is a gap in our knowledge about how these things might proceed.

You know, five hundred years ago there were gaps in our knowledge about the electromagnetic spectrum, about the existence of radio waves and things like that.

And yet now we recognize that not only can we create radio waves, but that they are a natural phenomena that exists all over the universe.

The lack of us having knowledge of something doesn't indicate that that something can't or won't or has never existed.

This is very, very important, whether we're talking about evolution or any other idea.

What you're seemingly doing here is taking all of those gaps and squeezing in a god concept of help fill them.

No, no, no, no, not at all.

And those people, okay, help walk me through.

What's the difference?

Now?

This is this is all a stability.

Okay, it's it's all testable when these tests have all failed, that's the point.

Now, let's let's look at a couple more things.

You might are.

There going to be a third example that has the same problem as the first two, because having seventeen thousand problems or examples that all have the same problem still means that you have nothing.

That's why I'm kind of wanting to address the problem that I'm seeing.

I'm almost okay, well, let me go just a little further.

Okay, just a little further.

Then when we look at transitional fossils, Okay, I have nearly every evolutionist on no point to transitional fossils and ancestors has proved for revolution.

For instance, they'll look at the DNA of the chimpanzee and the DNA of the human being and they'll say, well, it's obvious that we have a common ancestor.

Now, that's fine if they want to believe that.

They also say all fossils are transitional.

On it's fine if they want to believe that, But there's two problems today I neither one have been tested.

For instance, if you're.

Eric, I feel I'm sorry for jumping in I feel it's time that I jump in here because I'm not a biologist.

I don't know anything about biological science at all.

So I'm not going to argue with you on any of these points because it's not my field of study.

One thing, the thing that is my field of studay is PHILOSOPHYI I don't I have no intention of learning.

It is not my field of study.

I have fields of study that I don't feel I need to add a further one on.

So there are other people who deal with this kind of stuff.

I'm not that person.

I do deal with philosophy.

And one thing you've done here, Eric, One thing you've done here is you've jumped.

You've set up a false dichotomy to begin with, which is that it's either God or this universe which has come into existence from nothing, which you have not mentioned any possibility of it being in eternal universe.

That's your first mistake here, because you've not demonstrated this dichotomy.

It is a false dichotomy.

The second thing you've done is you've said, I have problems with evolution and abiogenesis, and they may be legitimate problems, they may not be.

But even if we just say, right, look, Eric, I'm willing to agree with you evolution and abiogenesis, none of it has any evidence whatsoever.

That still doesn't get us to God.

So we're not giving scientific evidence for God here.

All you're saying is that you disagree with these other ideas.

What is the sect you know you called up with this idea, this claim that the scientific evidence for God?

What is the scientific evidence for God that you have?

Because simply saying you don't agree with other things is not giving God scientific evidence.

Everyka's still with us.

So the point is, yes, sir, and I will bring them just right back around to God.

Just a moment.

I'm just fishing out as last point.

When we say that we have a common ancestor, the problem is because of the observation of the DNA similarity.

Big.

I'm not saying we've got a common ancestor.

I've already said to you.

I am willing to agree with you that we have no evidence for abiogenesis or revolution at all.

I agree with you.

Yeah, let's say that we have simply no evidence for either of those things.

So what is the evidence for God?

Okay, pardon, but I would love to finish my point.

I'm not interrupting you, sir.

I'm interrupting you because it's really really important that I interrupt you, because we're not this.

If you know, if you want to talk about abiogenesis being false, if you want to talk about evolution being false, you are more than welcome to write a paper demonstrating these things as false, giving your evidence as to why they are false, and getting the majority of biologists on the planet to peer review your stuff and say absolute.

Eric is absolutely spot on the money.

We're going to reject evolution, We're going to reject abiogenesis.

That's fine, But you know I'm telling you I agree with you you don't need to finish your point.

It's pointless finishing your point because I want to hear your evidence for God, not your evidence against something else that I already agree with you on.

Then present it, please.

I think it's interesting that.

We just we've heard so many versions of these scripts, and when you're having when you're not having a conversation with us, it does feel you're reading from a script.

When you're like, hold on, hold on, hold on, I don't care about anything you just said.

I have one more point to make, it makes us feel like you're not having a conversation with us.

And we're very glad that you're here to help us through some of these ideas, to help us understand your point of view.

But please, let's not talk about it any further.

Present for us the scientific evidence that you have for the existence of God.

We're very interested to hear from you.

Let's really not talk about my point any further.

Are you serious?

The point is, you see, we've been brainwashed, and the brainwatching is this, we're told that we have all this evidence for evolution when none of it has been falsified.

Eric, do you have any evidence for God?

And all?

Because you start integrates on me just a little bit.

Now you've told me you're going to present me this evidence for the past three times I've spoken to you, and then you've just gone straight back and see you feel about evolution.

Yes, I'm just about there.

Wait, well, let's stop seeing just about that.

Get to this in line, fight the stall us pistol and give it to us.

Please.

This point leads to my next one.

This point leads to my next one.

You see, we don't have the DNA of the common ancestor to test that, nor do we have the DNA of any of the transitional fossils like the archaeoptrics or the theropod dinosaur it's said it evolved from.

To put these things to the test.

Sure, I mean you're dramatically oversimplifying the field of evolutionary biology.

But again, no, can you stop criticizing evolution and start building a case for the existence of God?

Or is that not where any of this is headed?

Are all of these points just to say that evolution as we understand it is incorrect?

Or did you call it because you had some scientific evidence for the existence of God?

Yeah?

Now I'm about to present the scientific evidence for God.

But I just that's the fifth time you said that, Sir, I very much don't mean to be harsh with you, but I have to point out that's a little bit frustrating.

If you have it, please please share it with us.

And now as the next thing that you say, please.

I just wanted to make sure that I just wanted to put us on the same page to agree.

First, see if we agree, you and I that there is no DNA that's been testable to prove that any fossil is truly transitional.

We agree.

No, I'm not there with you, but for the sake of the argument, for the sake of getting to the point, let's go ahead and fast forward through it.

Okay, Well, which fossil would you say we've proven is transitional?

Jesus Christ, Eric, please do you have an exist?

I mean, get to the evidence for God.

Please just give us the evidence for God.

Yes, yes, yes, biogenesis and plasma universe.

Biogenesis and plasma universe.

You see what doing by biogenesis on the plasma universe.

Well, I'm getting yes, I'm getting to that.

Whereas we don't have any proof that even one fossil is transitional because we don't have the DNA of these fossils to prove and the DNA that we do have, For instance, might one might say that Neanderthal is a transitional fossil when the very definition and species proves that Neanderthal is the same.

Pizzis I mek Eric.

I feel like you're very dramatically misinterpreting common evolutionary theory.

You keep getting hung up on this notion of transitional fossils or transitional species, and I think that even a very fundamental understanding of evolution would tell you that, you know, Neanderthals didn't evolve into humans, that instead Homo sapiens and Homoneanderthal existed around the same time, and that there was some interbreeding and we have picked up some traits from them, but that even if we came dramatically after them, they didn't evolve into us.

They simply were and then some members of their species mutated and continued on and so on and so forth.

But it's not a pokemon that levels up as time goes on.

And again we're hearing you bash evolution, and that's fine, Like we can have that conversation, but I'm trying not to push back on everything that you say that seems irrational about evolution, because I'm so much more interested in your final point, which is my scientific evidence for the existence of God.

If that's not your final point, then I've dramatically understood, misunderstood what we're doing here.

And if it is your final point, please don't keep us waiting any longer.

Say that thing.

Please, was my point was compared to two and to show that you don't have what I was saying about an anderthal is that we are the same speed.

By the definition.

That's my head bouncing off my desk and the utter frustration.

Please, sir, if you do not mind, I would imploy you to get to the fucking evidence for God because you are really getting on my tity.

Sir, I don't want to hear another word about evolution, transitional fossils, or not all the fucking thing you were talking about abiogenesis.

Please just tell us about your evidence for God.

Yeah, Eric, unless you in case you're missing it.

Our central point here is that saying that the current conveiling operating theory that most of science relies on in order to understand a concept.

Even if you take that and destroy it and say that it makes absolutely no sense, that doesn't do anything to prop up another theory.

We are all looking for the best theory, the best organizing principles for how we understand reality, and if you have one that's better than the existing one, focus on that, focus on putting forward.

I believe that God created the universe and all of the creatures in it because of rather than all of these people who say that God couldn't do it are crazy because they can't reproduce all of these theories that they have or all these ideas that they have.

I have to say that I am not an evolutionary biologist, but your understanding of evolution feels really weak and does contradict with a lot of the ideas that I am able to wrap my head around.

I've tried to highlight some of those as we've gone along, but none of this seems to be getting us to Hey, I have an explanation for why life exists, or I have an explanation for where the universe came from.

So in absence of that, I'm struggling to understand where this conversation might go or how much more time we're really able to give it before I give poor Richard an aneurysm.

Well, you know, I just find it really, really funny that this bothers you so much, And.

It's not your ideas, Eric that bother us.

It really isn't.

We have heard so many more awful and disgusting ideas than the ones that you're presenting.

And what I mean when I say that is I don't find your ideas compelling, but I don't find them deeply upsetting.

If you had called in to say that there are no transitional species and therefore there should be no intermingling among the races, or something like that cause which I've taken by the way, that would upset me.

That would be a quote moral evil that I might get worked up against.

We are not upset because what you were saying is terribly inflammatory.

We are frustrated because it is demonstrably inaccurate and out of step with the scope of modern science and with just good logical reasoning.

And every time we try to point that out to you, you don't seem to absorb it or take it in.

So I understand that, yes, maybe there is a little bit of friction in the air, but I want you to know it's not because you called It's not because we disagree with you.

It's because we don't seem to be having a conversation with you where we're getting through to you or where you're really taking in some of the things that we're trying to express.

His concerns.

Well, you keep telling me that I'm wrong about something education, you are wrong.

None of this stuff is and it hasn't been tested, and the things that have been tested has failed.

Now that's that's the end of my conversation with that part of I'm going to cool.

Move on.

First, Is there an what I said is demonstrably wrong?

Can you show me the one thing that I've said that is demonstrably wrong?

Yes, I mean it's altome, but I know it's a jumping here.

Yeah, because it is.

A dichotome that there is either God.

It's a false die cultome that there is either God or this universe which came from nothing.

That was the very first thing you said that was wrong.

And I want to address that because I am not a biologist.

I do know about philosophy, and I know a little Whency's tiny little lemons bit about the universe as well.

So Montreal, let's talk about that and yet evidence for God.

I didn't say anything came from nothing.

I've said, well, so things have to be true.

Either everything came from a universe, or everything came from.

God, or everything came from some third thing that none of us here know about or understand.

It's the same flaw that comes in when you say, well, we've tested it and it didn't work.

I mean, we're just finding different ways to not make a light bulb.

It doesn't mean that it's impossible to make a light bulb.

What third thing?

If you can't put a third thing on the table, then it's not a false dichotomy.

Right again, So what you're saying is because there is a gap in our knowledge, because there is something that we do not know, that it can't be true.

And that's the flaw in your thinking here.

That's what I pointed out maybe a few minutes into this conversation, that you can't just say well, because we don't know something, therefore God is the only answer.

There are so many things that we don't know.

And the best way to demonstrate that is to imagine yourself calling a YouTube talk show in the fifteen hundreds, whatever that version is.

Imagine yourself going into a tavern in the fifteen hundreds, you yourself, like modern you, with all of your modern understanding, and saying to them, well, there's clearly no God because we can't recreate the creation of life, And they'd be like, yeah, you still can't do that five hundred years in the future, and you could talk through it all.

But imagine what we might be able to learn in five hundred more years.

Perhaps aobiogenesis cannot be recreated, Perhaps the scale and scope of it is too massive for it to ever be something that we could recreate in a laboratory.

Perhaps a pick came out of nowhere and just shit out a universe, and now we're all here.

I can't demonstrate or prove or test any of these ideas, but I can study the hard work of incredibly brilliant people who have worked very hard to take all of the bits of information, all of the evidence that does exist, and form a cohesive narrative around it, and then watch as other people tear down that narrative and add to it.

And then new information comes to light, and we build, and we build and we build, and at the moment we have come to a particular understanding of the origin of species that, by the way, doesn't really line up with the one that you're tearing down.

None of this gets us to God.

You can calm down, you can calm down.

I listen.

All I'm saying is you can't demonstrate one thing that I said that's wrong.

That's important to remember.

Now.

It's important for you to take in that we have done that again and again and again.

Just to put it in a super quick SoundBite, anytime you tell me it has to be this or that, and then I put forward, or it could actually be some third thing that none of us have come to.

That is me telling you that you are committing a logical fallacy, or in other words, that you are wrong.

And we have said that many times.

And if you disagree with that, okay, you can disagree with us when we tell you that you're wrong or show you how you're wrong.

But to continue to insist that we haven't pointed out any flaws, it's just not accurate.

I believe you're a special pleading so we can disagree on that.

That's okay, that's all right.

But now I'm about to turn it around on God and let's book from a different point of view.

Oh my goodness, you're buttering that biscuit again.

All right, for the eighth time, I will bite show us God.

Okay, what does the scriptures tell us Genesis Chapter one, where God brings forth the animals?

How does he do it?

He brings forth the animals and they do what they bring forth after their own kind.

Let's look at biogenesis.

Do you know what biogenesis is?

Are you meaning to say a biogenesis?

No, is meaning biogenesis and meaning life from life, meaning called gave life to things.

That's what it means.

Yeah.

Yeah, biogenesis is an observation that we observed.

Louis Passire observed it.

Yes, No, I understand the distinction.

It was just in the context of the conversation.

I wanted to make sure, with our shaky phone lines and everything else, that you were intending to say biogenesis.

I appreciate the concept.

Yeah, okay, so let's look at this now.

Everything brings forth after its own kind now compared to a biogenesis that things just fall together and evolved into everything that we see today.

I mean, we have to really play around with so many of these words.

What does it mean for something to reproduce after its own kind?

I mean, where do we get broccoli and cauliflower from?

If everything looks the same as it's always looked.

I didn't say everything looked the same as it's always some things everything adapts, Okay, right?

Sure?

So did God bring everything about after his own kind?

But what's that?

Now?

Did God bring about life after his own kind?

What was your question?

I'm sorry?

Did God bring about life after his own kind?

Not brought forth myriads of life?

Okay?

Was it after his own kind?

That is?

Was it after his own kind?

Please?

What do you mean by kind of after his own kind?

Was it after his own kind?

Or not after his own kind?

He said, let us bring forth man in our own image?

Did God produce God?

So?

Did God produce God?

We find that in now.

If you don't want to hear my argument, that's okay.

I do want to hear argument.

I'm asking you questions to direct your argument.

Did God produce God?

After I've waid it out, feel free to ask me anything you want to.

I'm asking you now, sir, did God produce God?

You're going to have to wait.

No, I'm not.

I'm asking you now.

You're going to have to answer the question.

I'm afraid did God produce God?

You claimed?

You have just claimed that the Bible specifically specifically told us life comes after its own kind.

You, sir, are on the cusp of disproving your own argument.

Did God produce God?

No?

No, no, he didn't, So the Bible is wrong?

So why are you appealing to the Bible?

And they don't want to listen.

They don't want to listen to me.

You see, God is God.

God can do anything he chose to do.

Oh can he?

Now that's very interesting.

Could you tell me, sir, what reality is?

See you don't think, sir, grow up?

Would you please?

I am grown up and I've had these conversations many many times.

That's why I'm not falling into silly, childish traps.

You've just disproven your own argument.

And learn how to have a conversation.

I'm allowing you to have a conversation, sir.

I'm asking you direct questions.

Now, would you mind asking answering the question did God produce God?

Do you believe every transitional?

It's you right?

So you are really really right.

Listen, this is going to work one of two ways.

You are either going to comply and we're going to have an actual conversation, or I'm going to mute you and I'm going to talk over you put all my points out, which you keep interrupting, which absolutely, and I'll be really, really polite, as polite as I possibly can here fucking tear every single one of your shit, eh, philosophical and scientific claims apart.

So you've got two choices.

We can have a nice conversation or I'll just put you on mute and I'll just talk.

Which is your choice, sir?

I'd like to point out there is a hypothetical third option here where the Internet just stops working or the Earth gets struck by an asteroid before this conversation ends.

You never know when there might be a third option.

Sorry, I just wanted to point that idea out.

Okay, Then he did God produce God man after his own kind, life after his own kind?

Yes?

He did?

So we we bear the same attributes as God?

Do we bear with the same attributes as godkind?

The life that God created does it bear the same attributes as God mankind?

Or all life?

Any life?

Does any life that God created bear the same attributes as God himself?

All life as our life was given as.

Aul is God's attributes having a soul, That is that the entirety of God's attributes.

So you don't believe that God is all powerful or maximumly powerful, or all loving or all knowing.

You don't believe any of those things about God, which none of life on earth holds attributes.

Well, not even all of God.

So so what all the attributes you believe God holds that make God God?

Do you when you say God, do you mean the Father, the Son of the Holy Spirit.

I'm saying the God that you believe in, sir, the God that you believe in.

What attributes make that being God?

Specifically God?

Okay, well, the Father and the Son of the Holy Spirit.

So the Father of the Son and the Holy Spirit make God God?

Is that what susation?

They can cut through a little bit here, Eric, I believe what Richard is trying to establish is that you said that each creature recreates after its own kind because God created it that way.

You also said that God created man after its own kind.

And we're trying to figure out how you're saying that this piece of ancient poetry that would disprove evolution, or that would be a better theory or that would replace evolution, actually is even internally consistent when we consider the idea that God did not recreate us after his own image or after his own kind, or did he like what are the criteria for that?

Now, God didn't create a bunch of little gods, okay, but everything he created he created to bring forward after its own kind.

This might be some of that special pleading that we talked about earlier, But in any case, we have failed to disprove evolution, and more importantly, we have failed to prove evidence of God.

And I think that next time you give us a call, I would encourage you to choose one of those missions and not both, and to narrow the scope a little bit so that you can feel very comfortable and confident that the thing that you are ready to say is a thing you are absolutely assured of and well versed in and able to very efficiently explain to us.

Again, disproving evolution does not prove God.

Disproving evolution is far from what happened here, Richard.

Is there anything else that you want to make sure to hit on?

Yeah?

I think look before we get to the evolution thing.

Because when I'm not, as I said at the start, I'm not a biologist, I don't particularly enjoy talking about evolution and aghborigenesis.

It's not my field of study at all.

When I have seen it, it has been from places like the Creation Institute, and when I've read their papers on the subject, what they do is they always attack evolution or a biogenesis.

Never ever do they seek to try and prove that God exists.

And this is very disingenuous to me.

You know, you don't need to attack.

And here's the problem.

Here's why.

Let's say that we don't just have as very often in science, we don't just have a single theory of evolution and how life evolved or how life formed on this planet.

Let's say that we have one hundred different theories.

Now, the way we get our theory into being accepted is not by going through each one of those hundreds possible even thousands of alternative theories and breaking down what you think the problem is with them.

The way we get our theory as the accepted theory is by showing that it works, it is repeatable, and it has explanatory power.

And what this does is it gives the people in your field of study the means to go out and replicate this and to test this for themselves and to say yeah, actually this does have like this works, and it has explanatory power.

So you don't need to spend hours and hours and hours trying to disprove something you don't agree with.

All you have to do is show that there is a strong theory out there, and by default that thing that you don't agree with will not be accepted anymore.

And you know, this is what happens all the time in science, and it happens from the tiny, littlest, mundaneish things to the great, great, big theories.

Is people come up with stronger ideas and those stronger ideas are tested and found to be better than the competitors.

And this is why I don't hold Eric.

It's not again, it's not something against you, but I don't hold with this idea of Well, I don't like the idea of that, so I'm going to pull it apart because that proves nothing.

That doesn't prove God.

You know, we've talked about two different areas today which I would have loved to have a conversation, and we've talked about philosophy and the universe, and we could have had great, great conversations on those roads, but just wanted to return to this thing, which is throwaway.

It doesn't matter in the conversation about whether God exists.

It really does.

Doesn't matter whether evolution or abbiogenesis are true.

When we're talking about whether God exists.

What matters is that the God hypothesis is tested and shown to be the strongest idea out there.

And you failed to do that.

Well, that's because you won't let me.

Look.

The first thing I proved was you don't have any credible evidence for either aenator evolution.

But to even throw on the table everything that you're saying.

You may have heard a little beep there, sir, and that was me muting you because I've just given you a lengthy explanation.

That's why I do not give a fuck about either of those things.

And the first thing you returned to was that I'm going to leave it in Christy's hands whether it unmutes you or ends the call, because frankly, I am done with this conversation.

Yeah, I think I'm there as well.

I do want to say again, Eric, I know I've tried to kind of sum up this call a handful of times, and I really want you to kind of grapple with this very core notion that disproving one idea does not imply this other idea.

I would also just kind of highlight that your disproving process maybe lacks some meaningful rigor some understanding of what it means to have a transitional fossil and you know, some of these other points.

But regardless, I do very much appreciate your willingness to talk to us and to work through all of this.

I want very much for you to understand that your ideas are not inflammatory, even if a little bit your behavior kind of is.

And I hope that you're willing to go back and rewatch this conversation and just recognize the ways that you maybe failed to address some of our concerns and to carry a back and forth conversation with us, which is really what we're here to do, rather than listening to you read a script or force us to work through a certain series of points.

With all of that being said, very lad to have gotten to talk to you, and I highlight some of our misgivings with your thinking on all of this, And yeah, just very much appreciate the bravery it takes to have this kind of conversation.

So with that, Richard, you and I can certainly move on, but you know, it's kind of a good time.

You are way too nice, Christian.

I didn't have a problem with the guy personally.

I just it frustrates me when you start off.

I'm going to go into a bit of an explanation about a couple of things that are very often misused by theists.

One is this idea that there is either God.

And I'm going to clarify this by saying, I am aware that he said this was not his position, but we get very often get this thing way say there is either God or this universe which comes from nothing.

He did say, that wasn't what he said, and I accept that, but that is not the only option.

And we can have an eternal universe into not necessarily an eternal universe, but eternal causes into the past.

And as much as they like to say that's not possible, it is possible.

There's no reason why that is not possible.

And after thousands and thousands of these conversations have yet to hear a reason as to why that is impossible.

Nobody thinks that, Nobody who studies this thinks that is impossible.

And I'm clarifying this here because I'm not saying that everybody who studies things this thinks that this is the case, but nobody who studies it thinks it's impossible.

And there is also this idea when we get onto necessary beings, God being a necessary being, which in philosophy means that this thing has to exist.

There is nothing stopping the universe itself or the pre state of the universe before it came into what we call the universe, nothing stopping that being a necessary being in and of itself.

It is true that we either have a necessary being or an eternal regress a series of contingent things.

This is true, and there are lots of different tiny subtleties regarding all them, whether they multiverse ideas or all these different things.

There are lots of different variations.

But that is the dichotomy.

There is something that is either eternal, which is a necessary being which has by necessity necessity to exist, or there is a series of contingent things which may go on forever or may get to a point where we get to a starting point a contingent thing.

Now this is very very important.

That's the dichotomy.

That doesn't mean that the dichotomy is either God exists or we have an eternal regress.

Because philosophers are not in agreement with what in necessary being is, They're just not there.

So we shouldn't mistake this true dichotomy as well.

Either God exists or we have an eternal regress, because that's not the case.

That's not the case at all.

That would have made a very very interesting conversation.

Unfortunately, that's not the conversation we actually got.

Yeah.

Yeah, And I don't mean to belabor the point or continue talking without Eric here, but I really want to stress to Eric or any other future callers, pick one, you know, pick one idea to discuss with us, one thing that you want to really focus on, because the fact that your argument is huge does not make it more likely to be true, does not make it more compelling.

If you can prove one thing to be true, that would honestly be fascinating to me and would meaningfully move the conver station forward into a place it's never been.

The effort to call in with like seventeen different ideas that all have the same central flaw to them is not compelling in any way.

Yeah, well, it's been a fun show.

We've definitely had some interesting conversations.

I want to make sure to take a quick moment to thank our top five patrons this week.

Number one we've got oops all Singularity.

Two Deanna Kerns.

I hope I'm saying that correctly.

Three Dingleberry Jackson for Coleve Helvetti, and five Ja Carlton.

Our honorable mention this week is Mark Lagusker.

Again.

You can find that at tiny dot cc slash Patreon th if you'd like to support the show and receive some of those extra tier benefits.

And Richard, do you have a I believe we have some super chats that came in.

You have those in front of you.

They are sorry, let me hit this quickly, A ten dollars donation from our friend Miranda Rensberger, with the greatest of respect, Richard.

The chat collectively begs you to fix your headphone cord.

Maybe I should have read that one off a little bit earlier.

I don't know if you're dealing with some tangles.

I know I was at one point A five dollars donation from some kind of dicky.

That's fun.

Another Buddhist caller.

Don't you ever attack Christianity?

I love that critique.

Actually, yeah, five dollars from and I'm going to say this with Gusto Daisy with three whys in an exclamation point, who says, here's a couple solitary bucks for wrestling with the God of the Gaps.

It's good work if you can get it.

It's good work if you can get it.

And then another five from some kind of dicky offering if you can't put anything else on the table.

Wait, how did God get on the table?

I feel like I just came in in the middle of that story and I'm fascinated to learn more.

All right, well, that is all of our major points for today.

I suppose there's nothing left to be done but to bring Kelly back in to help us wrap up the show.

Kelly, what did you think?

How is your patience when you don't have your microphone on and you're not able to like actually weigh in and yell back.

It was really hard listening to that.

It really really was.

I'll tell you I was like pulling my hair out at some points because I wanted to get involved in some of those really bad takes on evolution and creation.

So yeah, I have to say, like I know, I've tried to be very level headed and nice.

Some people in the chat accusing me of being much too nice as Richard did, and that's fair.

But when I think, the thing that probably gets under my skin the most is when somebody says that they are under my skin because I just can't handle their argument.

Like ladies and gentlemen, I have worked in a psychiatric hospital where I have been bit on and pissed on by people who are just really out of their mind.

I have sat in session and held space and offered compassion as people have worked through the shame and the guilt that they experience having assaulted miners Like I have been in the trenches on some really challenging ideas and experiences, and ain't nothing nobody got to say about evolution gonna get me down into my feelings.

If I'm upset with you, it's because you're being a jerk about it.

Yeah right.

I don't get upset about the things they're saying.

I get upset about the fact that they just won't listen or look at any facts or deny the facts.

You know.

It's one of these things like I always get with Christians if they always get this idea that if you don't understand what they're saying, then you obviously or if you don't agree with what you're what they're saying, you obviously don't understand it.

Right, So they got to keep saying the same things over and over and over, like all of a sudden, you're gonna go, whoa, you're right even when they're wrong.

So yeah, I kind of and I felt like that was what was kind of happening just now.

So yeah, yeah, and that's something I hate doing as well, I actually and and I find it infuriate, and so I apologize listeners.

I find the infuriating when I'm listening to a call and the whole say, look, just for the sake of argument, I'm going to agree with you, but it got to the point where it didn't see any other line to go down with that.

Yeah.

Yeah, fair to say.

Well, sometimes if you do that, though, Richard, you can like kind of stretch it out to the to the ridiculous, you know.

And I think sometimes you can pointing out how you know, if you can just take it to like complete satire and say, well if if you if you're thinking that where you can also think this way with the same ideas, right, So yeah, that's like a.

Line of scripture that we're using to disprove evolution also disproves the creationism that we were here to supplant it with exactly.

So, yeah, there can be some value in holding off on some of those things, But in any case, you can't fight crazy.

I hate to even hear myself say it, but that's a little bit where things got there at the end.

I appreciate y'all going through this with me.

I hope that somebody out there learned a little bit of something.

And yeah, with that, Kelly, remind us what the question of the week is, so that everybody can join in and participate in the chat and look forward to seeing us next week.

Of course I will.

The question of the week this week will be what prayer will God always answer?

I think interested in your answers?

Yeah, I think we get some really good, funny answers to that one.

That's a good question.

All right.

Well, we just want to say, as we do every week, that whether you are well organized in your arguments, whether you are rational in your beliefs, we still want to hear from you.

We want to have those conversations to everybody out there who doesn't believe this is your community and we appreciate you being here.

And if you do believe, we don't hate you.

We're just not convinced.

We want the truth.

So watch Truth Wanted live Fridays at seven pm Central Call five one two nine nine nine two four two, or visit tiny dot cc forward slash call tw