Transcription
Welcome to the Right to Reason podcast. I am your host, Robert Stanley. Today, Kelly Clemenson and I will be verifying the validity of creationism with the litmus test of logic. Let's dip in.
It's the Right to Reason podcast.
This episode of the Right to Reason podcast is brought to you by our patrons and contributors like me. We have all recognized the value of the unrestrained marketplace of ideas and have decided to make a difference. You can make a difference, too. Contribute at patreon.com/wright and learn more about your right to reason at the right.com. Your activism is appreciated.
And we are joined again with Kelly Clemenson from Front Porch Apologetics. You can find that on Facebook. How's that going, by the way?
Good. Um, we've got some stuff on there. You can uh look in and see how the fat guy talks in there about me.
A lot of back and forth on that.
Not so much, but there's some posts on there that uh you might find interesting.
From what I understand, your plan today. And by the way, Kelly Clemenson, a new patron of the show, Kelly, that means so much to me, man. Especially since you're a Christian. I'm kind of curious before we get into your your plan, as it were. Uh I'm kind of curious why a Christian would support this broadcast.
I'm big on open dialogue. That's what our country is founded on is being able to exchange ideas. And I like it here, Robert, because, you know, I can exchange ideas with you and it gets heated every once in a while because we're passionate guys. It's still able to be questioned, answered in a civil format. And I I appreciate that and I support it because, you know, that's what we need, especially going the political atmosphere we have right now. It'd be nice to have somebody just be able to exchange ideas without the hatred goes on right now coming into play. Me and me me and your friend, Robert, I I appreciate that. You know, like you said, when you've had me on before, there's nothing wrong with having friends. You say to your atheist friends, there's nothing wrong with having friends that are Christian. And I say to my Christian friends, look, I have lots of friends that are atheists, and I'm okay with that.
I had somebody from the the kind of liberals that are more SJW cancel culture style liberal group. And they reached out and said, "Hey, just so you know, uh, this person's actually a conservative. You should probably unfriend them." And I said, "Well, why would that mean I would unfriend them?" And they're like, "Because they're, you know, they're right-wing garbage. They're some alt-right racist piece of shit." Well, maybe if we could investigate each one of those things and see if that applies about the person, you might just want to ask them. That would be one way to start. But if I started down that road, I would have to cut out most of my family, most of my friends, my co-workers. Where does this end where we just we can't talk to each other? It's such a bizarre concept to me. And the person was just like, "Well, you just you obviously don't get it." Yeah, I guess I don't, man. I guess if that's if that's the way you want to go through life. I guess I don't. But I would rather
I don't particularly want to.
Yeah. I'd rather have relationships with people that even though we disagree, we can still maintain a friendship.
That's that's why I'm I'm uh I'm glad I'm on with you. I mean, I and I support the program. I know it cost you to do it. So, I mean, the little bit of support I've given you, I mean, I'm not doing like, you know, like giving money to Israel like the government does.
It's actually it's actually just hit the black. It's been in the red for about two and a half years and from the patrons, it just now started paying for itself as far as uh the website and the RSS feed. Um and then whatever little promotional things I do, it doesn't the the time's not paid for. You know, whatever that's worth, that's that's negotiable. But
yeah,
I'd probably rate the time to be worth much more, but that's just because I have a bias because it's my time. But
but yeah, it's actually paying for its fees at this point with with the patrons that we have. So I thank you to you and thank you to to the rest of my patrons while we're on the topic. But anyway, so you have you have a plan here. You're wanting to ask me some questions rather than me asking the guest questions as it were. Right.
Yeah. We're going to put you in the hot seat, my friend.
Well, let's get started, man. Hit me. I have not prepared for this in any way and uh hopefully I don't uh put my foot in my mouth.
Yeah, me too.
So, I we actually brought you up recently on the show. I was talking to Ben Davis. Did you get a chance to hear that?
I did. Very cool interview.
Let me play that clip.
My name was mentioned.
Yeah, of course. I'm going to play that real quick just in case anybody missed it.
All right.
Where is the true reality?
Well, yeah, that's deep. Have you ever read Flatland? Have you ever uh delved into, you know, different dimensions?
Yeah. Well, I haven't read it. Now, there's a an apologist that comes on pretty regularly named Kelly Clemenson, and he he has Mr. Flatland story where he explains that uh Jesus Christ really died for my sins and that sort of thing through it, but I I don't know if that's the same topic that you're talking about.
Well, gee, that almost makes me not want to say what I was going to say now because I don't want to be on his side.
Please explain.
I mean, you know, even a stop clock can be right twice a day, right? So the the flatland thing is is a good analogy though because if you got something that's living on the surface of a piece of paper and you're looking at it three dimensions and you're looking down on it, you can see this this thing's insides. You you know if it's if it's got a digestive tract or something, you can literally see inside what it thinks of as its inards uh and and see its heart beating and its digestive tract digesting its food and all of that. So if there were a fifth dimension, since we've sort of allocated time as the fourth dimension for this discussion, if there's a fifth dimension and God exists in that fifth dimension, he could look down and he could see everything all at once inside, outside, presumably, you know, he could even see how your brain was working. And if he understood, you know, neurobiology well enough, he could read your thoughts. That's a hard perspective to imagine, you know, if you can't think in five dimensions or four dimensions, depending on how you want to look at it, whether you want to count time or not. Uh, but there are people that play that kind of game and, you know, it's valid. If you were a fivedimensional creature, you could do the kind of thing you're talking about.
So, like it was mentioned in um in Dr. Ben's observation and he was kind of reluctant doing it once you once he heard that an apologist was bringing it up. I thought that was kind of interesting. and they said, "Well, I don't know that I really want to talk about this now." But, um, some of his points was something that I wanted to talk about, Robert. Um, he imagined this guy that was supposedly the next dimension and, you know, demonstrated that like I did on the first show. I think it's the first show we ever did with me. I mentioned it.
Yeah. So, they
is that there's different dimensions. And I think from what he said, it was valid. That was his point. and that idea of different dimensions. Um he he mentioned some really interesting stuff as you just heard him talk. He mentioned that this being that would be in the next dimension if he was actually aware of neurological pathways that he would possibly know thoughts of someone before he thought them know them before they were actually spoken. So in that vein let me read something real quick. I'll make it fast. So here's the here's the the passages that are written by guys that are thousand years before BC. some guy's first century, but these guys are fishermen and they're not physicists. They're not scientists, but I think they really portray a being that's from the next dimension like what Dr. Davis was talking about. So it's Psalm 139 1-16. Oh Lord, you have searched me and known me. You know my when I sit down, you know when I rise up. You discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down. You are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue. Behold, oh Lord, you know it all together. Matthew 6:8 knows my needs before I ask him. Matthew 9:4 Jesus knowing their thoughts. Why do you think evil in your hearts? So it seems to me that you know this is the first part when he talked about knowing thoughts. Seems to me these guys are describing the same thing. So what? Thank you my friend.
Just that there's a possibility of some kind of dimension where we can read minds in it or someone from a different dimension might be able to read our mind. Is that what you're asking me about?
Yeah. Yeah. The physicist was saying that you know if this guy actually knew anything about neurology
and he was coming from as you everybody knows this guy everybody but anyway Dr. Ben Davis is from what I heard he's an atheist and he was just kind of evaluating things just from an evidential basis and saying that this thought pattern and this idea of extra dimensions is what his I just quote his term. He said it was valid,
right? I I don't object to the argument that maybe there's there's some kind of godlike being and some other dimension. It's like that line anything's possible. That's not necessarily true. There are things that if you say it's a square circle, well, that's not possible. There's things that can contradict themselves. Yeah. And so I really the only times that I object to the existence of God is whenever there's something that is logically contradictory in his nature. So I I'm really just attacking that claim. I'm not really saying there's no possibility of a different kind of God. But the God that you're describing, if you say that God can uh, you know, is so strong that he can build a rock so heavy he can't even lift it himself and that that shows his omnipotence, well, that's kind of a contradictory claim. I'm not I'm not I'm not trying to straw man and say that's your argument. I'm just saying if like if someone makes that claim, I attack that claim because I I point out that that God can exist. But saying that one day humanity might meet some kind of alien life form, we would probably regard them as some kind of divine-like thing just because of their technology. If we went back in time and I was able to predict the weather because we we have the historical records of the weather at that time or something and I or whatever then
then they would probably think I was a wizard or something and I would just explain well no it's technology you know so it that that's possible I guess I don't know.
Yeah technology is different than than miraculous events to it seems to me.
I don't even know what a miracle is. Well, I mean, the to be able to do something with technology, you know, advanced more than what somebody in the first century, if you're transported back there and you're able to bring a tank with you, for example, like the picture, they'd say, "Whoa, dude, where'd you get that from?" But that's all that is is just the ability to build something. And granted, technologies increased over time. Me and you agree on that. But the ability to read somebody's mind, I don't think we're ever going to be able to do that.
Yeah, I'm not I'm not claiming
that's what that's what he's talking about. And it's actually knowing in advance what's going to be thought and what's going to be needed.
I I just don't see how this is a good argument for God. It it would be a good argument for
he made the point. And the reason why I bring up the dimension things is because it appears to me and I I've studied it quite a bit. It appears to me that's exactly what the Bible's describing God as an extra dimen dimensional being.
No, it's not.
Because he does stuff that's that's impossible for us to do. It's miracles.
No, it's not. The argument about the the dimensional thing is just it's just it you only get one thing at a time. So if you say perhaps reality is multi-dimensional and perhaps a being from another dimension could have abilities that would seem godlike to us. That's the end of the claim. You you don't get to then take that and say therefore God because God can do conveniently.
But there there's no connection between these two things. It's just
I think there is once when you when you listen to what Dr. Davis said, he's describing the God of the Bible.
And let me let me tell you why. Let me briefly go over that real quick. The reason why I think there has to be someone is because of physics. He was describing that in in his way and like I said, he said it was valid. And but you you look at physics principles like cause and effect. I mean, you've seen me talk about this a lot, but cause and effect is one of the examples that I think points to God. If the universe had a beginning, all things that have a beginning must have a cause just like you did. And before your mom and dad brought you into the world, you didn't exist. You were nothing. You can say apply that same principle to the universe. It began to exist. Before it began to exist, time, space, matter, and energy weren't there. So, you can make that argument and it's valid. Like he said, it's valid. Now, what started it? I submit to you that the most probable answer, I'm not saying the most the only possibility, but the most probable answer is someone that's non-spatial, non-temporal, non-material that started it.
Okay. You made two separate arguments here. One, you said it was valid. And then two, you said it was probable. Valid. Valid is making um that's a deductive argument. The probability is is induction. And
there's nothing keeps you from believing that,
right? So So you're you're conflating deduction and induction. And I would argue that you're faults on both. In reference to the validity, what is the claim? Cuz if the premises are true, it's impossible for the conclusion to be false. That's that's if it's valid. And I'm wondering is the claim that if multi-dimensional beings can exist, then God does exist. Is that what you're arguing?
Um, well, what? No. What I'm arguing is that the multi-dimensionals, I think it's obvious that it does. I I just brought up one thing, cause and effect. There's also instructions in DNA. Those had to come from a mind. You don't see instructions come from anywhere else.
Hold on. So now now you're making an argument from intuition. You're saying it's obvious that multi-dimensional beings exist.
Okay, let me let me rephrase obvious. Let's say probable. If you want to live your life impossible to induction some chance of a thousand monkeys or a million monkeys pounding away on a typewriter, by the way, you don't get the typewriter and you could actually produce war in peace. I mean, the possibility of that even with the typewriter is almost nil. If you want to believe in that possibility instead of the probability that the book was written by an author, then I can't argue with you about that. If you want to take down that possibility and live your life that way, okay, but me, I'm going to live my life that an author wrote it and that's the strong possibility. So, if that sounds better, if that sounds more digestible, okay,
that's not an argument. You said
you said that it's
people are arguing or we're discussing. Let's say
well no I don't mean argument like a like a fighting. I just mean whenever you use words like probability or validity you know it's it's it's kind of like whenever somebody says um wow that was awesome. Well colloquially we know you're just saying that was cool neato whatever but it did not inspire all. But whenever you're you're making a an argument or a claim something and you use something like it's it's more probable, you're not talking about deduction. You're talking about induction. That has nothing to do with validity. That's just whether it's cogent or not.
Well, I I don't I don't agree with you on that. I am saying that it's most probable. The most likely cause that you can imagine is a mind. And if you want to try to make some other assumption, then what you're really doing is you're putting blinders on and trying to find a different way when every single book we know of, every single one has an author.
You can't give me an example of a book that doesn't have an author. I'm not talking about unnamed author. I'm talking about no author. So, I'm just going by what we know, what we can prove. Now, like I said, it there's I and I had this on Phil's show. some astronomer, professor at one of the local colleges was on and he was astronomy guy and he started talking about all this stuff and he brought up this fact of monkey a million monkeys pounding away on a million typewriters to produce war and peace and that's the argument. Now think about that for a second. What the real idea is that there could be a book produced in such a manner is just illusion. It's saying, "Okay, there's there's there's another slim possibility this could be." Well, okay. If you want to put that together, then all right, but what's the strongest possibility? And I think that's in my opinion, that's the best way to try to adjust adjust your thinking to is what's the most probable and what's the what's the one that we see the most. And what I should I got I kind of got upset at the end of the interview. You can watch it on YouTube. It's there. But what I should have asked him because he asked me if he if so if you want to learn something why don't you come sit in my astronomy class and I got smart I like because that's what I do sometimes. What I should have asked him was okay what book are we going to be reading for this for the for the class
the text
does have an author that's what I should have asked him but my attitude got in my way and I got I got um
wait so you were you were arguing with an actual astronomer about astronomy. Well, it was about different different subjects, but that came up. Yeah.
I just I would never have the balls to do that. Even if I felt they were wrong, I would still recognize that this is someone that knows more about the topic than myself.
Well, here's the thing, and he's smart. He's he's more educated than I am. There's no doubt. He's got degrees that I don't have. But here's the difference. I have the truth, and he doesn't. Because and I'm not saying that, you know, it's it's
anybody could make that
some obscure idea of truth. I think there really is truth and the truth really is that books come by authors.
But if you can't show it, then you don't know it. And if you're going to argue astronomy with an astronomer, then you're going to have to be able to prove with astronomy
that his argument is false. And even then, you wouldn't be proving that there's a god. You would just be proving that, you know, astrophysics is errored. Well, no. Astroc cosmology is the the vast majority of the opinion in cosmology is the big bang and it says the universe had a beginning. That's me. Now, don't put me down as somebody who agrees the big bang. I don't. But even cosmology agrees that the universe had a beginning.
That time and space began
time and space and all the rest of it had a beginning. And when you hear what they say like st like um
but they're not claiming they're not claiming everything started at the big bang.
No, they do.
They don't. That's what um uh what's his name? The guy in the wheelchair. I always forget his name.
Hawking.
Stephen Hawking. But yeah.
Yeah. And Roger Penrose.
1970 they made the statement after years of consternation. They didn't like it. But they finally came to the conclusion it was just obvious.
Time, space, matter, and energy all had a beginning.
The argument of the Big Bang is that there was an expansion of space and time,
right? But it had a start point and beyond that start point there was nothing.
That's not the point.
Hawking said it again in his most recent book. He said based on the because we have the laws of physics, especially the law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.
Okay.
Now I can poke all kinds of holes in that argument. It's not because I'm smarter than he is,
but obviously they're talking
define things without going to the obvious,
Kelly. It's obvious that they're talking about nothing in a different way than you're talking about nothing. You're talking about it in a philosophical
there's nothing because if you have nothing if you have no space there's no room for matter to exist.
Nothing is a concept then when did space start to exist?
Hold up.
All these things come together in in nothing. And I grant you that there's cosmologists like like like he was and some other ones that I can't think of the names of right now, but they always want to redefine nothing.
K.
But nothing means nothing. It's not a little bit of space. It's no space. It's not a matter. Some little bump in the in the It means none.
Okay.
And the idea that matter can create itself. We just don't see that.
Kelly. Kelly, hold on.
Yeah. Okay.
You're think No, it's cool. I'm just saying
it's just my first topic. I have other ones, but let's um let's explore this one. I'm with you. And actually, this is this is jelling into some other stuff I wanted to talk to you about, but go ahead.
You are talking about a different nothing than someone like Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss is talking about. You are talking about you are talking about a philosophical nothing that is conceptual and doesn't exist because it's nothing. Nothing can exist. When they're talking about nothing, they're talking about a different kind of nothing.
And I agree. I'm not saying that those guys consider nothing the same as I do, right? Or the same as many other cosmologists.
So when So
because there's plenty there's plenty of cosmologists that that are are Christian. Actually, the majority of them are. I'm I'm doing a if this then that. Right? So if this if they are talking about a different nothing then that then whenever they say the universe came from nothing they're not talking about the nothing that you're referring to. Therefore there is no conflict here. You do not disagree with them because
the common understanding the common understanding of the word nothing
is not means nothing.
Right? The common you were born Robert you were nothing.
Kelly there was no you. Th this is this is this is an easy this is an easy concept to grasp. If they are talking about a different kind of nothing than you, then when they say the universe came from nothing,
they are
when they say the universe
when they say the universe came from nothing, they are not saying it came from nothing in the same colloquial sense that you're using it. Therefore, there is no conflict.
Well, no, that's there is plenty of conflict.
No, because you're talking about two different things.
Here's the here's the here's a lowown. Okay, cosmology is is mainly god believers. Look it up. I mean, it's just the way it is. Now, overall, the pupole that we've talked about before of scientists, the majority of them think there is a God. Now, not all of them are thinking the Christian God, but the majority of them think that God has to exist. 51 to 43. Now, in evolutionary biology, it's probably lopsided in one direction. But if it's lopsided in one direction in that that um idea discip in that discipline then it's lopsided the other way in another discipline and that discipline is cosmology because the majority of them believe that nothing does mean nothing.
Are you
let me just take the let me just take something and then I'll just shut up for a minute let you talk. So Hawking statement he said if the laws of physics exist especially the law of gravity this is the most recent book before he died he's not an atheist anymore
okay so he says if the laws of physics exist especially laws of gravity the universe can and will create itself from nothing there's all kinds of logical problems with that statement first of all the law of gravity can't move a feather an inch law of gravity is just our our our description of what gravity has effect on once that material exists. So his argument isn't valid because nothing means nothing. There's no material for gravity to act on. So his statement and it's not me that says this. Um John um Lennox is also a a PhD um mathematician and cosmologist. He works at Cambridge. He he knows um he knew um Stephen Hawking real well. But he has a he confronts that idea and he confronts it with physics. That idea is is invalid. It has all kinds of errors in that statement
because because he's what he's doing is redefining nothing.
Hold on.
But he's also redefining what we call the law of gravity. Kelly,
the law of gravity is just a description of how it works.
Kelly, if you're saying
it can't have any effect, let me just finish. I'll shut up. It can't have effect. The law of gravity can't have effect upon something before it exists. It only has effect on materials. Before materials exist, it has no ability to create anything.
That's not true. Gravity doesn't just have an effect.
Go on and listen to John Linux. He's on YouTube. John, it's L E N Ox.
A Christian apologist.
No, he's a he's a PhD mathematician and cosmologist that happens to believe in God.
Who is famous for being a Christian apologist?
He is not.
And he calls him talking. He doesn't say he's dumb.
He's not famous for being a mathematician. He's famous for being a Christian apologist.
No, he's famous for He works He's a professor at Cambridge. Look him up. Look him up. That's all I'm saying. Look him up. It's not it's not the the idea that science has disproven God. I'm sorry that just hasn't happened.
The problem whenever you go on like a rant is
I do rant, don't I?
It's okay. It's it's it's totally cool and and I I it's just that you make multiple arguments in it. I'm not saying you're like Gish Gallop or anything. I'm just saying that you first you started by saying that Hawking Hawkings argument wasn't valid because he made false statements and that has nothing to do with validity. But then you move on to the Cambridge professor Linux Linux
and and then you moved on and that's you know argument from authority you you
the same thing using Linux and you're using Hawking and I can't remember the other guys name
I haven't used anybody I was just talking about Hawking because you brought them up but I'm just saying
whenever you make like multiple things like we can't address each each argument and we didn't even finish talking about nothing. Well, I was I was carrying on about the idea of nothing, but um I mean, like I said, nothing means nothing. I described it in you with you and with me.
But you're attributing you're attributing laws. You're attributing laws to nothing. You're saying
I I'm saying that there's no laws. If nothing is nothing, then nothing is nothing. But no laws infringe on nothing.
You're saying something
gravity can't have an effect on nothing.
But gravity has an effect. It has an effect on time. If a time doesn't exist, like I said, if there's no space, there's no place to put material.
But your claim was that
time, if there's no time, then when did space start? And that's what they say. I'm going by what cosmology says. Time, space, matter, and energy all had a had a beginning. And up until we've talked about this before as well, up until the 1930s and 40s, they didn't think that. They thought the universe was static state. That's what Coyle thought. That's what Einstein thought. That's what the majority of the cosmology thought. Even some Christians thought that ignoring what Genesis 1:1 says, but we know now that Genesis 1:1 was right. It's right
if you're saying
what we know now is that it really did have a beginning. Time, space, and matter, and energy all had a start. And if they had a start before that, they didn't exist. Start means start. Beginning means beginning.
I don't I don't think I don't think the claim is that energy began.
Well, that's what they say. I'm just going by what the cosmologists say and not just ones say the same thing. Anyway,
so can I move on to the next one?
You certainly may. Let me give you some reasons why and this is all kind of hypothetical and and phys physics or not physics philosophy but let me give you the reason why I believe that that person that is described that idea that's described in multiple dimensions is described in the Bible like I said by first century men and some guys like I said a thousand years BC they're describing the same type of individual and his abilities just like Dr. Davis said.
You mean that he can read your thoughts?
Yeah,
that's
in advance. And that's what Dr. Davis said was valid. If this extradimensional being exists and he knew anything about neurology, this quote, then he would know your thoughts.
You're just finding something that that's a simple coincidental correlation between two topics.
No, this is a physicist that was commenting on Mr. Flatland.
I I know I know I was I was there. I'm just I know what he said. He's okay. He's just
he was saying our abilities compared to what his are. Mr. Flat
is your argument. we could know things about him and he was expanding that to the next dimension for us and what that being would be able to do
if you had to to write out your argument in a sentence. Right? So if I say um
Socrates has a beard, Socrates is a man. Therefore, men have beards. Right? That's not that's not sound.
But that's but that's not my
But I know that's not your argument, Kelly. I'm just
that one that one that one has holes in it.
I know. I was I was using that as just a common example that that is used all the time. But so if you get what you're saying if you could put your claim into a sentence or an argument, what would it be?
Okay. All right. To make it simple. Okay. Since we have we since we existed in four dimensions and those dimensions that dimensions had a beginning, then it's it's reasonable. Let me say let me use the word reasonable to assume that anything that has a beginning has a cause. That's cause and effect. If you're going to have a causation for time, space, matter, and energy, then that causation would need to have power over those things. Non-temporal, non-spatial, non-material. Seems to me that's the most reasonable explanation for something that had a a commencing point. And my other my other argument is this that if you read the Bible and you take the verses that apply, you can make an argument that that being is being described by mainly in what I've got as first century men, but even seventh 7th century BC men that are describing things there's no way they could have known and thousand BC men describing things they couldn't have known. They're not advanced. They don't know these things, but they know them. They Let me rephrase that. They don't know them. They're just describing what they see. And what my point is this. The guys that followed Jesus around saw him doing some things that would line up with an extradimensional being.
Okay. So
that's about as simple as my sentences get, Robert.
Well, basically when I asked you to simplify it, you said,
"Okay, I didn't simplify it very well, did I?"
Well,
but that's about as simple as I can make it.
Okay. The simple part of it is the colum cosmological argument. Basically, anything that begins to exist has a cause,
right? And that's valid because we we don't see anything creating itself. And that idea, if you put on your logic hat, that idea should say, "Okay, well that's silly. How can you create yourself? You don't exist. How can you create something before it exists?" It just that makes no sense.
I
That's why cause and effect is a valid physics principle because it's valid. Things don't create themselves.
There has to be a causation.
I don't have a problem. reason why they go looking for what caused a fire in the local mountains is because they know it didn't start without a cause. So, let me let me just let me just give you some more stuff. Okay, just for the sake of of getting across my point.
Are we going to address Kalam?
Sure.
So,
and it's actually was Colam's argument in instead of being um
William was his name
William L Craig. No, I'm not a big fan of his, but it was actually the Colam and um who was a 12th century theologian that I'm trying to think of. Got a sign with his name on it. But anyway, those two have a debate. This name will come to me in a minute.
Colam and guy um
you talking about Anel?
No, it was one of the theologians. So, his name will come to me. His real famous Catholic theologian. They had a debate and from what I gather, Colam actually was the one who made that argument.
St. Augustine
about Yeah. Augustine. That was it. So he was the one that actually I don't actually I don't think it is Augustine but anyway he was the one that actually came up with that idea. So you're right it is Galam's idea and he was a Muslim.
Yeah.
That cause and effect is valid.
There's been begins to exist as a cause.
That's if you just consider that minus the God idea. Okay. Just consider that as a logical argument. It's it's it's obvious nothing can create itself. That's not possible. Yeah.
So you have to have a causation. Now what what in the evolutionary idea now the causation they have the same they have the same issue.
Kelly please
what they're supplanting a designer with is a rand a random causation but they're still pointing to a causation.
There's no
there's no off switch on your argument.
I tried to I tried to like
that's what I came on to do. Put you in the chair.
I said well I mean it's yeah you could just talk at me.
Well, I but I I don't want to do that, Robert. I I want to hear what you have to say, so I'm going to shut up.
Well, no, I'm not asking you to shut up. Okay. Kalam cosmological argument has two big flaws in it, and I don't know if you are aware of this, but I think after I present them, you might consider
Okay.
not listening to Muslims anymore.
Well, okay. I me and you agree that for the most part, he had a valid point. I mean, that that part I
keep using this word valid and it's it's actually not valid. Hey, go tell me tell me what the problem with this.
It's not valid because it says therefore God and the
Well, no, he didn't say that. Palam's not making that argument.
Yes,
he said there's a cause.
No, let me read it to you. Uh, whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe had a cause of its existence. The cause must be timeless and material and personal. The cause must be God. That's the modern version of it. But that's basically the same argument, but just from the the way that you're framing it, the universe
is valid to me. I agree with him.
It's not valid. You keep using this term valid. It's not valid.
Sure it is. Until the point
it is neither valid nor sound.
And I get it that most of the audience doesn't like that word.
The conclusion the conclusion does not necessarily follow
is valid.
Hold on. Let me show you what's wrong with it and why it's not valid.
All right. Go.
The conclusion does not necessarily follow from the argument. So the argument is whatever begins to exist has a cause and it ends with saying the cause is God. There is no connection between those two.
Take take that part out if you want.
So we'll take out the God. Let's just address the the initial part.
So I can I can demonstrate God a different way. But go ahead.
Fair enough. Fair enough. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Right.
I am very comfortable with this argument but only because I'm making a presupposition.
Yeah. The only way I can accept this is to presuppose that something can begin to exist.
Well, we do know that from cosmology about the universe,
right? But but that doesn't mean that everything began to exist. It just means that that which started at the big bang or a better way to say it honestly is that which expanded at the big bang.
Yeah, it really is. But I I don't want to I don't want to get back on that because we just want
Let me that because what I said was just not accurate. It
cosmology does say that that it did expand but they also say that it had a beginning and beyond the vanishing points.
It's claiming that time and space began
and by began they mean expanded. That's
that's the beginning of universal expansion. That doesn't mean that nothing existed before that. And whenever they use the term nothing they are simply referring to a different kind of nothing than the colloquial philosophical conceptual one that you are.
I I get the argument. I've heard it
right because we just we just went through it and and you're bringing it back up.
It's not a logical argument because again, if you have no time, then when did things begin? If you have no space, where did they begin? If you and if you have saying material minus space, where did the material exist? Right?
These are all valid questions
of somebody that says, "Well, it didn't really have beginning even though we said it did."
You love that word valid.
Here's the thing. Here's the thing. Here's what I think.
I didn't even I didn't even show you the flawed argument yet. You're already jumping over.
You told me enough of it that they don't think nothing means nothing.
I said there were two. One, no, that was just responding to you saying that it came from nothing. And we got back on that tangent. There was Okay. One was it actually isn't valid. It's not a valid argument. There's a logical flaw in its validity. The other and therefore it cannot be sound. Okay. And the other one is that the universe began to exist. That's not necessarily proven depending on what you mean by universe.
We're mixing words here. universe is where we are.
Now, if you're going to go to the multiverse thing, I'll tell you that that um Stephen Weinberg said that as pure speculation. Stephen Weinberg's an atheist cosmologist and he's on YouTube and he says so. That's pure speculation. We have no way of knowing that. So, if you want to import possibilities, like I said when we started this whole thing, if you want to live your life on possibility, okay, I'm going to live mine on probability.
But you're not saying everything began to exist at the Big Bang.
No, that's that's what the Big Bang is. It was down to a singularity and before the singularity existed, nothing existed.
Is that your claim?
I get it. They're trying to redefine nothing. Robert, I get it. And here's my reason why I think they are.
Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Kelly, do you even do you even believe in the Big Bang?
What's that?
Do you even believe in the Big Bang?
No.
What's the
Cuz I don't I don't I've never I've never seen an explosion cause order.
What the hell are we talking about?
Well, I'm just going by what the standard cosmological argument is.
You're making the same argument. just you asked me a question, let me finish. The standard cosmological argument is that there is a beginning. Now, you can redefine nothing if you want, but beginning means beginning. That's a standard cosmological argument. Now, I don't agree with the big bang because it's it's an explosion. And I've never seen an explosion cause the order that we have. I've never seen that and nobody else has either. You put a stick of dynamite inside my house, okay, maybe five, and you're not going to create an ordered environment. You're going to create an unordered environment. Order requires maintenance. Order requires intent. Explosion doesn't have intent. An explosion is an explosion. It causes disorder. The anthropic principles over 900 settings in the universe that are set to to within 1% for us to be here. I don't see an explanation of explosion causing that. That just that makes no sense. That's not logical.
You are a
So yeah, I don't I I use the big bang because that's what standard cosmology says. I'm only using that just to demonstrate the fact that they believe there was a beginning, too.
I know. I know.
They didn't used to think that.
You're doing you're doing the same thing with the big bang that you did with Dr. Ben Davis's claim about the possibility of multi-dimensions is you're just taking you're taking one thing. You're taking I know I know you're just taking and stop saying valid but you're taking one thing that seems to be correlated to something that you believe in and going look that proves it but I don't believe that.
Okay. Well, all I'm doing is going by what's what is as I said probably. Now, if you want to confuse possibility into the argument, okay, but I don't live my life on possibility. I live on probability. Can we jump to something else real quick just so I can get this passed?
Yes, sir. and and uh if it's all right, we we probably ought to make this the last one because we're coming up on our mark, sir.
So, the ability of the creator beyond space and time would be able to do these things. John 2:es 1-11, turn water into wine, control of time. John 7 1-10, healing of a servant from a distance. Acts 8:39, Philip Philip transferred transpl transported from one place to another instantly control of space. Matthew 14:22-33, Jesus walking on water. Exodus 14:19-23 parting of the Red Sea. Water as walls on both sides control the matter. Mark 4:35-44, calming of the storm. Matthew 17, Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus is seen as light. God tells Moses that he dwells in unapproachable light. And also in 1 Timothy says the same thing. Psalm 104.2 says the same thing. What I'm what these all demonstrate is first century observers observing a being doing some very odd things. And I submit to you that they're observing an extra extra dimensional being that is also described as disappearing into the clouds when he left. So from those things I think it's reasonable to deduct
That also Genesis 1:1 and John 1 all talk about a being that was there before time, space, and matter and energy. And I think it's valid to make that conclusion that it's an extradimensional being. That makes sense of what the things he did. That I agree with you and I'll admit to you that they are miraculous in our observation. But miraculous is also saying that instructions can come from random causation. So I believe that the atheist and the Christian, the theist should I say, both believe in miracles. It's just the Christian admits to it.
>> Do you believe in ghosts? Like like actual ghost ghosts not like the Holy Spirit or like you know demons tricking you into thinking that but like do you really like ghosts? Do you believe?
>> Okay. Ghost is a term that's that's you know kind of arbitrary. What I do believe is extential beings. I do believe in ghosts.
>> And I believe in some of them are good and some of them are bad. Yes.
>> All right.
>> And I do believe they can make an appearance.
>> But I mean I mean ghosts like um in scary movies in the colloquial sense. Do you believe in that?
>> Like Casper? No.
>> Right. Okay. All right,
>> give me one.
>> But I do believe in I do believe in I do believe in beings I know
>> that we can't see with our eyes and that can't affect
>> I know I'm not I'm not referring to that. I'm just I I just wanted to see I just wanted to see if you actually believe in like Casper the friendly ghost. Name
>> name one part of your argument that I could not replace the word God with Casper the friendly ghost. the argument that you just made about Ben Davis, multi-dimensional beings, being able to do things that appear supernatural to us.
>> Okay.
>> Name name one part of that.
>> And let's just assume that it's this character. Casper the friendly ghost had an origin in time and space. God doesn't God doesn't have an origin inside time and space. [laughter]
>> That wasn't part of your argument.
>> They don't have an origin commencing inside time and space.
>> Kelly, I understand. I understand. But that wasn't part of your argument. Well, yeah, it is. That's my whole argument is God's outside time and space in another dimension. And the things that we see here and that's the reason why I'm not a Hindu. I'm not ragging on Hinduism, okay? I'm not trying to put anybody down. But when you go about listening to what they have to say, it makes no sense. God's inside the universe. And you can't matter doesn't create itself. It doesn't it doesn't work that way. God can't be inside the universe as they suppose he is. That's not possible because the universe had a beginning. How can God exist inside something that had a beginning? Now you're trying to tell me that there's something before that that wasn't I mean that just you evaluate that on an engineering level and it doesn't work.
>> So you don't believe in nothing either. Neither of us believe
>> I believe nothing inside our dimensions but no I don't think that that ends it. I believe there is a next dimension that caused this.
>> You and I would both agree.
>> Let me put it that way. There's a next dimension that caused this one.
>> There has never been a time that there was nothing. We both would agree with that. Well, no, that's that's not true because Hawking and Penrose said in 1970,
>> but you don't agree with that.
>> And he said again in his most recent book that was nothing. That's his statement, not mine.
>> Stop stop using that word whenever referring to them because you know,
>> well, that's what he said.
>> But you know,
>> I was about what he said.
>> But it doesn't matter. I can I could say something in a different language and you could misunderstand it the word.
>> Yeah, we need to we would need to have the same language to communicate, wouldn't we? Right. So you're conflating terms whenever you say nothing and the way that you and I are using it and the way that these physicists are using it. Right.
>> Well, you say these physicists and there's you're you're putting in a group of the majority and they're not. That's not the majority.
>> Do you believe in nothing?
>> I believe nothing existed first in this dimension. Now let me repeat that because I don't people thinking the wrong thing in this dimension. Yes. It had a start and before that this dimension didn't exist.
>> So in that sense
>> as same with you. You're here now and before your mom and dad brought you here, you didn't exist.
>> Right? So, in that sense, you and
>> there's nothing about you that existed.
>> In that sense, you and Hawking would agree,
>> right? And that's all I'm saying. Now,
>> so if you agree with him,
>> here's the last thing that I want to mention and then I'll shut up. Okay? When you start when you start blinding yourself to possibilities, that's when you start making assumptions like what Stephen Hawking did. And I'm I'm just telling you what Lennox is is saying. Once you start blinding yourself to the supernatural, all you have left is the natural and the natural can't explain itself. If you let me let me make another simple simple um um example. Okay,
>> last in my local mountains. There's somebody lost in the local mountains. Okay. And we're going to start a search and the guy that's in charge of the search says, "Okay, well, I know he's not in I'm going to give you a town in [music] the local mountains. I know he's not in Running Springs, so we're not looking there. We're going to look everywhere else for this guy, but I know he's not in running springs. If the guy they're looking for is in running springs, they're never going to find him. That's what the materialist is doing about the universe. They will not allow for nothing because they don't like nothing. They have to redefine it. They don't want to look at the supernatural because they have their blinders on. So, my idea about searching in the mountains for a person is the same idea that Richard Lewanton brought up in his book. You don't read the whole thing. Just look up Richard Lewanton. We cannot allow a divine foot in the door. And he gives you the same concept that I just explained. If you're not going to be willing to look for the supernatural, then you're [music] going to be stuck in the material. And materialism can't explain itself. And Richie Lewan says the same exact thing that I just said and several others do. I'm not bringing anything new. I'm not bringing anything necessarily theistic. Okay, I guess it is theistic, but leave God out of it for a second because all you guys out there, you don't like the word God. But that's okay. I don't mind that. But I what I'm bringing to the plate here is that those thought those thoughts are logical to assume and that these first century people that wrote the Bible were describing an extradimensional being.
>> Kelly, thank you so much for uh coming and talking to us today, man. I'm going to let you have the last
>> I am always happy to be on here with you. One of these days I'm going to get out to see you
>> and we're going to sit down. You can have a regular beer or I'll have I'll have a what do they call the nonoff telephones or maybe I'll just have a beer. You'll have you'll have a near beard
>> and we're going to sit down and we're going to have a talk.
>> You're going to set me straight. I'm sure
>> these days we get to meet face to face and I I would like that cuz Robert I consider you my friend and the reason why I come on here not only to you know talk to the rest of the guys out there. If I ever bring stuff up that sounds like I'm angry but sorry I'm not. All I'm trying to do is get out in the truth and sometimes I get a little diligent about that. But um I want to thanks Robert for letting me come on. I appreciate the show like we did at the opening. I think we need this. We need to have the ability to talk about stuff without getting angry and without hate moving into this picture. And that's why I appreciate the show and that's why I support it. Robert,
>> hey, Ging with the gang.
>> Yeah, it is always great talking to you, dude. I love talking to you.
>> Me, too.
>> All right.
>> I appreciate it. Later, man. [music]
>> Thank you to Kelly. Thank you to Dave Blair. Thank you to our patrons. You can also support this broadcast at patreon.com/wright and learn more at the righttoreason.com. Next week, Tracy Harris, Ethan Dodge, and Ryan Mcnite will be discussing something that I am really [music] looking forward to helping to present. Truthandtransparency.org. If you haven't already subscribed to this broadcast, I would encourage you to do so. For those of you that frequent YouTube for your podcast, click subscribe and remember to ring that little bell thing that they have. so that you're able to catch this next episode. And most importantly, remember that you have the right to reason. [music]