Latest / INSPIRE STORY / Episode 12_ God and infinity

Transcript

Episode 12_ God and infinity · INSPIRE STORY

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Michael is our genius when it comes to technology. He
• 0:02
  forgot that he turned off a thing and then for
• 0:05
  twenty minutes he was checking for that thing. He's like,
• 0:07
  why isn't this working? He had not checked whether or
• 0:10
  not it was off. Anyway, that's fun. Yeah, hello, and
• 0:25
  welcome back to the Spire Podcast. As you can see,
• 0:28
  there's only two of us here. Sadly, Fulton got sick.
• 0:30
  He's probably like, actually, I'm not going to make guesses
• 0:33
  to how sick he is. He's probably just not feeling good. Yeah,
• 0:38
  So today we are going to do what we said
• 0:42
  we would start off with last one. So if you
• 0:44
  were able to make it to the end of last
• 0:46
  episode during Lint, we decided together to share one of
• 0:51
  our days of doing Spire s P. I r E.
• 0:55
  What did we do? And I realize I left my
• 0:58
  notebook in my room. So while you and that, I'm
• 1:00
  gonna go get my notebook.
• 1:02
  Speaker 2: Well, I feel like I have to wait for you
• 1:04
  because I can't I can't even like tell you what
• 1:06
  it is if you're not in here. Mine is on
• 1:09
  my phone. You can go first if you want, and
• 1:11
  I can just.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: Do you want us to restart the intro are you fine?
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: I don't really care.
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: This is gonna be fun. I think we should leave
• 1:16
  all of this end. I love it, okay, so I'll start. Also,
• 1:23
  last time, I remember talking about like the stuff that's
• 1:26
  in my journal a couple days ago, I was just
• 1:28
  like reading through it, like wow, I hadn't realized just
• 1:30
  how like much I think through things, and just how
• 1:35
  much I like actually like I don't flippantly write stuff down.
• 1:40
  I like actually explained my thoughts and whatnot.
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: It's good.
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, so what I did. Let's see.
• 1:49
  Speaker 2: So are we just gonna do like this is good
• 1:51
  for us to figure out, I guess, or we're just
• 1:53
  gonna say like our favorite thing from each domain.
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: Each week one day.
• 2:00
  Speaker 2: It's like, oh, you'd say everything you.
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: Did for one one day.
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Spiri, I'm gonna have to try and remember that.
• 2:05
  I might end up mixing days.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: Yes, that's fine, it's fine. I just because that way
• 2:10
  we see both the successes and the failures. So I'm
• 2:15
  going to pick up one of the good days. Let's
• 2:20
  go with Friday. So for my spiritual I put down
• 2:25
  usual routines. It's just like my normal daily prayer routines.
• 2:29
  And then I also went to Mass and so that
• 2:31
  is my spiritual side of things. For physical Friday was
• 2:37
  it was a bit rough. I was busy and then
• 2:39
  I just didn't work out. So at the end of
• 2:41
  the day, I did a brief. Oh no, I did
• 2:44
  work out. This is Friday. I did a brief full
• 2:46
  body and stretch. So I just like pull ups and
• 2:48
  just everything I could think of to do full body
• 2:52
  in my apartment and I stretched, which is good to
• 2:55
  do for my intellectual one. This is fun. That day,
• 2:58
  my mom asked me a question about it physics problem
• 3:01
  that my whole family had been struggling to find out,
• 3:03
  and so I had to explain it to them and
• 3:05
  it was great.
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: Mom.
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry that if you don't like how I brought
• 3:08
  that up, but it was fun and I really enjoyed
• 3:11
  doing that. For our relational there was two of my
• 3:17
  officemates at wash You we were just talking, just talking
• 3:22
  a lot of the hours that we were there, and
• 3:23
  it was kind of fun. E evangelical. I have a
• 3:28
  dot dot dot meaning it was as rough today Evangelical.
• 3:32
  That's one of the hard ones for me to do
• 3:33
  because I don't really try to do it attention intentially.
• 3:35
  At the end of the day. I'm like, what did
• 3:36
  I do that could fit into this? And I put
• 3:41
  I guess talking with Dominic, one of the guys wash
• 3:45
  you my officemate his named Dominic, so not the Dominic.
• 3:48
  You know, he's Catholic, and so we were just talking
• 3:51
  about Catholic things and it was cool to do that. Yeah,
• 3:55
  and then I can go into my actual journal part.
• 3:57
  But you guys don't want to hear that.
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: Okay, I'm gonna try and do Saturday because uh little disclaimer,
• 4:07
  all of my stuff is on my phone, which is
• 4:09
  being used to record this.
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: That's a hilarious thing.
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: I was like a shot on my phone. But I'm
• 4:14
  gonna try and remember Saturday. So for Saturday, Spiritual was listening
• 4:19
  to the Bible and Year. I split I kind of
• 4:22
  split Bible in year up into two different things because
• 4:25
  it was there were two things I did with Bible year.
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 4:27
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but so I listened to Bible and Year by
• 4:30
  Father Mark Schmidtz. I think I listened to like three
• 4:33
  episodes on Saturday on like two time speed.
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: I listened to like four driving around.
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: He's gonna flex on me. You just have to listen
• 4:42
  to more.
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: No, I just hadn't been caught up, and I was like,
• 4:44
  I need to catch up. Even though I couldn't make
• 4:45
  it to the meeting.
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: For physical, I was slacking on Saturday. That's been the
• 4:53
  hardest one for me. Honestly, My Saturday was worse.
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: My Saturday was a day I'm like, I did a backstre.
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: I didn't do anything most days because I finally got
• 5:04
  cleared to throw into hit again. So I've been like
• 5:07
  doing just T drills and like just soft toss and stuff.
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: What's a T drill.
• 5:14
  Speaker 2: It's like a batting tea and I just do drills
• 5:16
  and I do top and bottom hand and I do
• 5:18
  like whatever, just hitting drills on a tea, just like
• 5:21
  that kind of stuff. And I did that a couple
• 5:22
  of days, but I didn't do that on Saturday. Intellectual
• 5:26
  there's a YouTube channel called Daily Dose of Wisdom that
• 5:30
  I watch all the time. He came out with a
• 5:33
  new video or what.
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: Is it a daily dose or.
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: Like is it every day? Yeah, I don't understand the
• 5:42
  channel name because it's Daily Dose of Wisdom, but he
• 5:45
  doesn't post every day.
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: Well, he used to, and it's like I know that,
• 5:48
  like daily does of Internet used to do that. But
• 5:50
  does it.
• 5:51
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I wasn't around when you started it. It's weird,
• 5:54
  but it was what was it? It was him interviewing
• 5:59
  John Lennox, who was one of my favorite Christians.
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: I almost heard John Lennon another.
• 6:05
  Speaker 2: Dead Yeah it was not John Lennon. So that was
• 6:09
  intellectual relational. I worked on music with our friend Dominic
• 6:17
  song It's a banger. It'll come out at some point
• 6:19
  this year.
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: He has not let me hear it yet.
• 6:21
  Speaker 2: I have not let Nick hear it. There's only been
• 6:23
  like three people that.
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: Have heard Dominic. He did not break his promise to you.
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: I did not. I almost. I was thinking about it
• 6:29
  and I didn't show you because I was like, we
• 6:31
  showed it to Thomas. It doesn't have lyrics in it,
• 6:34
  but Thomas was there when we were working, So that
• 6:37
  was relational. I just thought spent that time with Dominic
• 6:41
  and then evangelical I So for this one, it was
• 6:46
  also Bible in the year, but it was because we
• 6:48
  had the discussion later and we were able to just
• 6:52
  talk about it. And I'm not saying I was evangelizing
• 6:55
  those people, but we were all able to kind of
• 6:56
  talk about our faith and talk about the Bible. And
• 6:59
  stuff to get, which could also be spiritual. It could
• 7:01
  also be intellectual, but I use that for my.
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: My favorite thing is is a dual posting. So like Thursday,
• 7:08
  I went to a Theology of the Body discussion and
• 7:10
  like intellectual, relational, evangelical all the same easy dubs, which
• 7:17
  is totally fine to do, but also on that evangelical front,
• 7:19
  which is like you weren't necessarily evangelizing I'm talking went
• 7:23
  to over the weekend Pete buack I was talking about
• 7:27
  you know, seven reasons you don't evangelize, and I'm not
• 7:29
  gonna swoirl that because that's going to be a future video,
• 7:32
  but like one of the things he was saying is that,
• 7:35
  you know, we are all called to evangelize, and if
• 7:38
  you don't feel you're ready, and then like the way
• 7:40
  you evangelize is by learning. You evangelize to yourself and
• 7:45
  with others, and so like that, talking with other people
• 7:48
  about faith stuff definitely counts.
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: And then I said something on Instagram, you guys should
• 7:54
  all do spire for a lunch too. It's never too
• 7:57
  late to start. You could start thirty days in the
• 7:59
  line if you wanted to, but it's still early enough
• 8:02
  in line that you could start it and do it
• 8:03
  for most of lunt So if you want to do.
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: Spier, still do it for forty days because lynt is
• 8:07
  actually like forty seven days long if it on Sundays
• 8:10
  and it doesn't include like Holy Week. So I really
• 8:12
  I need to do the math is to like win
• 8:14
  the actual end of the forty days, because I don't
• 8:18
  really know. I think it's forty seven days totally.
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: But you just saw us like we still screw up.
• 8:23
  We don't do it perfectly every day. There were things that.
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: We missed on some day that can be like my
• 8:27
  best day.
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: That's like that doesn't It's not about doing it perfectly.
• 8:31
  It's just about incremental steps towards uh, you know, getting
• 8:36
  better every single day.
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah, And Fulton, being sick, has done it this week
• 8:41
  and he did text me what he did because he
• 8:43
  wants to be part of that, and I asked him
• 8:45
  to spiritual. He prayed the Angelus at six twelve and six,
• 8:49
  like you said last week, Rosie, asking for specific races. Actually,
• 8:53
  that's a pro tip on praying the Rosie. Don't just
• 8:55
  like just pray the Rosarie. Intentionally pray for a specific thing.
• 8:58
  When you pray the rochi. So that's cool that Fulton
• 9:01
  said that for physical workout, focus on conditioning and full
• 9:04
  body and walking outside. That's a good one. I might
• 9:08
  use that sometime if I end up on a walk.
• 9:10
  I don't do that much.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: I'm gonna say while I walked to my car to
• 9:13
  go to school in the morning.
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: Intellectual Listening to Restore the Glory podcast, he suggested that
• 9:20
  last week. Now I know it's Restore the Glory. I'll
• 9:22
  look that up. Relational had lunch with work of with
• 9:26
  a group of people from work. That's a great way
• 9:29
  to be a relational, evangelical focused conversation with a friend
• 9:32
  from work about Jesus and the reality of what he
• 9:35
  is inviting us to. Man, Fulton beats us out on that.
• 9:38
  He just like wins.
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: That was the best all three of ours.
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Fulton's gung ho and he's amazing. Said that he's
• 9:46
  not here today. We're going to talk about some really
• 9:48
  beautiful things being art.
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: But yeah, yeah, this is the second time. The topic
• 9:54
  today was supposed to be maybe it will be next week.
• 9:58
  It was supposed to be U what was it like
• 10:02
  glorify God through art? And this is the second time
• 10:05
  we were going to try and do it, and the
• 10:06
  first time we were going to try and do it
• 10:07
  was the last time Fulton couldn't make it. So we'll
• 10:11
  do it someday.
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: Basically, we'll make this the schedule. We'll do glorifying God
• 10:14
  through art whenever we don't want Fulton here. No, no,
• 10:18
  we missed the dude. But yeah, so today, pera Fulton's suggestion,
• 10:24
  because him being gone, he got to pick the thing
• 10:26
  for us to talk about, and we had no idea.
• 10:30
  We're bad at that, but he said to talk about
• 10:33
  how you explain God to yourself and others like, do
• 10:37
  you do it primarily emotionally, relationally, intellectually, analytically, whatnot? So
• 10:44
  what are your thoughts on how you explain God to yourself?
• 10:50
  Speaker 2: It's a tough question because I feel like so I've
• 10:53
  never really had the opportunity to talk to somebody who
• 11:00
  doesn't believe that there's a God. So it's not like
• 11:03
  I have in my head like how I think I
• 11:05
  would do it for somebody else, But I don't genuinely
• 11:09
  know for myself though, I don't know because a lot
• 11:16
  of people tend to look at God as like this,
• 11:19
  you know, Sky Daddy, the big man with a beard
• 11:22
  in the sky, and he's always like watching you and
• 11:24
  he's just like waiting to condemn you kind of thing.
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: Oh no, you did that, smite.
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: And that's again that's like the Christopher Hitchens thing where
• 11:34
  he's like, even if God existed, like I wouldn't worship
• 11:37
  him because he's so terrible and he's so awful, and
• 11:40
  it's like he's this vindictive kind of you know.
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: Hitchens know this about God. If God doesn't exist, that's
• 11:48
  the question, isn't it, Like why is it that just
• 11:50
  the existence of a god means that this God has
• 11:52
  to be like that? Like I guess he has reasons
• 11:54
  for that.
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: He does, but he you know, but obviously if.
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: God existed, he'd be will mean and terrible, which is
• 12:02
  why we believe in him.
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: Obviously, that's why people worship him.
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: I'm great at sarcasm.
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: I feel like for me, though, the way I would
• 12:10
  try and kind of conceptualize the idea of God, it's
• 12:15
  really helped to solidify in my mind understanding arguments for God.
• 12:21
  And I'm not going to talk about that right this second,
• 12:23
  but there's certain arguments like the argument from change, and
• 12:31
  it's Essentially it gets around to the point that God
• 12:34
  has to be unchanging. He has to be the unactualized
• 12:39
  actualizer kind of.
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: So fancy terminology.
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: It's fancy terminology, but it's basically just he has to
• 12:46
  be the same now as he always has been and
• 12:48
  always will be, like by definition. And there's I don't know,
• 12:55
  there's that one, and then there's things about how he
• 13:00
  has to be personal, he has to be outside of
• 13:03
  time and space and everything. And you can get around,
• 13:06
  you can use these logical kind of arguments and deductive
• 13:10
  things get to an idea of what he is. And
• 13:17
  I don't really know, like it's God is a hard
• 13:20
  thing to really conceptualize. But he's the unmoved mover, he's
• 13:27
  the first cause he's I don't know. It's a hard
• 13:33
  question because like I have it in my head of
• 13:35
  like kind of I understand now, I don't understand. I'll
• 13:37
  never understand.
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: You understand you that he should. He does exist for reasons,
• 13:43
  and you have some idea of some of those.
• 13:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's like I it's not that I understand
• 13:50
  what he is, but I think it's that I understand
• 13:52
  what he's not. Almost because again the Christopher Hitchins thing.
• 13:57
  He like says things, and I'll listen to him and
• 13:59
  I almost like convulse because I'm like, oh, that's so
• 14:02
  not true. And it's like I'm thinking, if I'm thinking
• 14:04
  to myself even right now, like how do I define God?
• 14:06
  It's like I can't even really put it into words,
• 14:10
  because I can say things like the unmoved mover or
• 14:13
  like whatever, but that doesn't Yeah, that doesn't sum it up.
• 14:18
  But I understand what he's not, which kind of leads
• 14:22
  me to understand to understand what he is and kind
• 14:26
  of a weird round about way, but I don't know
• 14:28
  how to like sum it up.
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: And that's very much into like some scientific philosophies of
• 14:34
  you know, Carl Popper or some whatever scientific philosopher of
• 14:38
  the eighteenth century something around those times. It's basically like
• 14:42
  science is falsification. You cannot ever prove something with science.
• 14:48
  All you can do is disprove things. And if you
• 14:51
  fail to disprove things enough, you have enough argument, you
• 14:54
  have enough reasons to believe it unless it eventually gets disproven.
• 14:59
  And so it's that actually, yeah, yeah, that kind of
• 15:02
  ideas like, well, clearly I know that God is not
• 15:04
  that candle that is on my You probably can't see
• 15:07
  it because it's probably crapped out, but there's a candle
• 15:09
  on the table here. And like God is probably not
• 15:13
  that there's one best thing God is, And if you
• 15:16
  want to fully disprove God's existence, you got to go
• 15:20
  through all the options.
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: So I guess if I have to define it or
• 15:26
  define God, I would say that God is the perfect
• 15:31
  being and that sounds super simple. But when you think
• 15:35
  about perfection, which I I think you want to talk
• 15:40
  about perfection forever, so maybe I'll let you talk about that.
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: But I mean, we all love talking about perfection.
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, but you we were talking about like the tomistic
• 15:48
  metaphysics of perfection. Oh yeah, But I don't know if
• 15:51
  you want to talk about that. But I'll let you
• 15:52
  talk about that if you want. But if I have
• 15:54
  to sum it up, you would be the essence of perfection,
• 16:00
  like kind of yeah, I don't know.
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: Well, in the Bible, when God reveals himself to Moses,
• 16:11
  not Moses to Abraham, he says, I am who I
• 16:17
  am all of us when we say who are you? Oh,
• 16:21
  I'm a human, I'm a man, I'm you know, five
• 16:25
  'ot ten, I'm weigh two twenty pounds. This that we
• 16:32
  can define ourselves by our qualities. God is the only
• 16:36
  being who defines himself by himself.
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: Who defines himself by his being.
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: By his being. So when it says like I am
• 16:45
  who am, another way of like translating that is I
• 16:49
  am being, I be who be? I b who by Yeah,
• 16:53
  that is another way of translating it ib hubie, which
• 16:56
  doesn't sound it sounds weird. Who ib who BEI? But
• 17:03
  like God is the essence of being. He is isness
• 17:10
  God is And there's some there's some podcast is that
• 17:16
  I listened to some like pens of the kind of
• 17:17
  stuff I think that he talks about, you know, the
• 17:20
  isness of God. Maybe it's a rob Bishop, Robert Baron,
• 17:23
  a word on fire, but like it's just a really
• 17:26
  cool way they put it. I forget the exact wording,
• 17:29
  but it's like God is is who is? That's not
• 17:32
  that but it sounds funny, but it's actually really insightful.
• 17:37
  Speaker 2: Okay, maybe it won would be helpful for us because
• 17:41
  I've I'm struggling to kind of say it, and you
• 17:46
  said it better than me. But if we just if
• 17:51
  I'm somebody who doesn't I've never even heard of the
• 17:54
  idea of a god. How would you go about explaining
• 18:00
  to me? And then maybe what would be your first
• 18:04
  step to try and show me that what you're saying
• 18:09
  is even true, because we can say it, but if
• 18:12
  it's not true, then like it doesn't matter.
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: So for someone who has never even heard of the
• 18:16
  concept of God, I would explain it differenty than how
• 18:19
  I understand it myself, because there's reasons for that, which.
• 18:24
  Speaker 2: Is fine though, because like people say, if you can't
• 18:26
  explain something to a five year old, you don't actually
• 18:29
  understand it. It's like if you can explain something in
• 18:32
  simple terms to somebody who doesn't know anything about it,
• 18:38
  because again, like I was just trying to do it
• 18:40
  where I try and say like the unactualized actualizer, where
• 18:43
  it's like I try and say all these fancy words,
• 18:45
  and it's like, do I really understand what I'm saying
• 18:47
  if I can't communicate it in simple, clear, concise terms,
• 18:52
  So I don't know.
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, okay. So if we look back thousands of years ago,
• 18:58
  thousands of years in history, even undreds of years ago
• 19:01
  that too, or even dozens of years ago, we see
• 19:05
  people trying to explain things of this world. So the
• 19:08
  history of the term god originated when humans looked at
• 19:15
  the trees or the ocean or the wind and was like,
• 19:18
  how does this work? And they came up with the
• 19:21
  idea of there is some being or some sets of
• 19:26
  beings that govern this that make this happen. There is
• 19:30
  the god of the north wind, there is the nymphs
• 19:33
  of the trees. There's the God of the ocean. And
• 19:36
  that's how you get the Pagans who believe in say
• 19:41
  the Greek pantheon, or the Roman pantheon, or the Egyptian pantheon,
• 19:49
  or the pantheon that includes thor there's a name, the
• 19:53
  Norse pantheon. All of those, which ranged thousands of years
• 19:57
  of history, believed in a multitude of God that did
• 20:01
  stuff that were the explanations for the unexplainable. And that's
• 20:05
  why a lot of scientists, not scientists, that's why a
• 20:07
  lot of people in the modern age, say there is
• 20:10
  no God, because any explanation of God is just what
• 20:14
  we don't understand well enough with science. But this search
• 20:17
  for something that explains that which is puts us on
• 20:21
  a path, and it puts us on a path we
• 20:24
  could talk about the history of the Israelite people or whatnot.
• 20:27
  But for someone who doesn't know what a god is,
• 20:30
  so what God is is that which underlies all things.
• 20:36
  So if we want to get into the tonistic you know,
• 20:39
  first mover. You know, you have a ball rolling down
• 20:44
  a hill, it hits another ball launches it rolling, that
• 20:47
  hits another ball launches it rolling. That's cause and effect.
• 20:50
  This ball standing stationary on a table is not just
• 20:53
  going to randomly decide to start rolling at two thousand
• 20:56
  miles an hour. It needs something to hit it to
• 20:58
  do that. And so the idea is, well, if everything
• 21:04
  needs something to hit it to get moving, what started
• 21:08
  all the moving. So either there's an infinite amount of
• 21:12
  things that keep moving and it just extends on for infinity,
• 21:15
  which doesn't really understand scientifically speaking, science cannot explain such
• 21:20
  a thing except for saying, if it is like this,
• 21:23
  then this is what would happen. Or there's something that
• 21:28
  does not need to be hit to be moved that
• 21:33
  is called the unmoved mover, and that being we name God.
• 21:38
  That is the first proof of Saint Thomas Aquinas. But
• 21:42
  to someone who has no idea of God, this that's
• 21:44
  probably really confusing. But yeah, God is the essence of perfection.
• 21:51
  As you were saying, all of these things in this world,
• 21:54
  that the Egyptians, the Norse, the Romans, the Greeks, all
• 21:58
  of these people that saw good things of the world,
• 22:01
  the trees, the wind, the ocean, and attributed to some god,
• 22:07
  little g god. They saw a perfection and it attributed
• 22:09
  to a higher being. And they didn't take the next
• 22:15
  step because they had the God of the ocean, the
• 22:17
  God of the mountains, the God of the wind, and
• 22:20
  those are all different gods with different attributes and whatnot.
• 22:25
  But if you take it to the next logical step,
• 22:28
  you know, these gods then are that good thing and
• 22:32
  you have a multitude of good things, you know, and
• 22:35
  so why not go one step further and say that
• 22:38
  there is something that gives them meaning, gives them purpose
• 22:42
  and that being. You know, if you continue up this ladder,
• 22:45
  you'd eventually get to a single being because there's two
• 22:48
  of Them's like, why are there too?
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: You know?
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: What gives that the distinction? And then you can say
• 22:53
  there's a higher level of perfection that gives that distinction
• 22:56
  between these two little g gods and this pinnacle this
• 23:01
  point at the spire is what we call God. And
• 23:09
  in the sum of theology, as you were talking about,
• 23:11
  you were talking a lot about the progression of the
• 23:13
  Suma by Saint Thomas aquinas he does get into that
• 23:17
  those distinctions and to connect the dought like the God
• 23:21
  that is the pinnacle of perfection is by necessity also
• 23:26
  the God of the infinite regress, the first mover because
• 23:33
  of the metaphysical aspects of how perfection works in with that.
• 23:38
  But it's really difficult to explain God or like the
• 23:42
  essence of what a god is to somebod who's like,
• 23:45
  what is that?
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: Okay, so we obviously can't define it. Yeah, So let's
• 23:52
  say now I am a person who now understands, okay,
• 23:58
  God is the first God is the uncaused cause. So
• 24:04
  let's say I understand to an extent the concept of
• 24:08
  a God. What would be your first step if you
• 24:14
  have to convince me now that what you just said
• 24:17
  is true.
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: Ah, So if you understand the concepts like, okay, right,
• 24:21
  because say, in science or whatnot, we have models and
• 24:24
  theories for how the world works. But these theories aren't
• 24:28
  actually the world. You know, our theories of physics aren't
• 24:32
  actually the world doing this stuff. You know, we explain
• 24:36
  quantum mechanics with these mathematical computations. We throw it on
• 24:41
  a computer, it plugs for hundreds of hours, and we
• 24:43
  get an explanation for a hydrogen atom with two electrons
• 24:48
  put onto it somehow. But if you look right there,
• 24:53
  right exactly where I'm pointing, I'm pointing to a very
• 24:55
  particular atom, a very particular hydrogen atom that's doing that
• 24:58
  very same thing in interacting with billions of other atoms
• 25:02
  in ways. In physics it's called the mini body problem.
• 25:05
  It's like there's just too many bodies. We cannot physically
• 25:08
  explain it, and we have ways of putting theories around,
• 25:11
  but like it's just too much. And so it's like, yeah,
• 25:14
  I can see that, you know, we can have a
• 25:16
  theory for a god to be this essence, the pinnacle
• 25:19
  of creation, but this theory does not necessitate that that
• 25:25
  is the.
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: Truth, right, because people can say, like the infinite regress
• 25:31
  isn't isn't a problem if matter is eternal like that
• 25:36
  kind of thing. It's like they have this theory that
• 25:38
  like you don't need a first mover if there was
• 25:41
  no need for the first movement, kind of thing. So
• 25:44
  it's like you can have a theory without necessarily having
• 25:48
  that theory be Yeah, that that theory is not reality.
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I could tell you very much that
• 25:54
  not all theories are reality. I have the theory that
• 25:56
  Michael is actually a goth kid in disguise.
• 26:00
  Speaker 2: But I started wearing this black shirt man suppressed right
• 26:03
  now wearing a black shirt.
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: How dare you?
• 26:09
  Speaker 2: Yeah, sorry, you can keep going. I just wanted to.
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: Like, Okay, yeah, so I'm going to take a slight
• 26:14
  side step from the intellectual side of understanding God. Because
• 26:19
  interestingly enough, as much as I love like intellectual pursuits
• 26:23
  and intellectual understandings, like, that's not why I believe in God.
• 26:29
  Like I wasn't convinced God exists because of an infinite
• 26:34
  the failures of an infinite regressive contingency, or the failures
• 26:38
  of this or that theory, or the idea of a
• 26:41
  hierarchy of goods or this or that like that all
• 26:43
  came later. Yeah, And part of my reason why I
• 26:47
  love that stuff is because it is a way of
• 26:49
  us trying to approach some aspect of what God is.
• 26:53
  But like, when I think about God to myself, it's
• 26:57
  it's an experience. And that's like the like knowing God
• 27:02
  is an experience. And that's such a difficult thing to
• 27:05
  explain because you go out walking on the trails, you
• 27:15
  see the depths of the forest. You go up on
• 27:18
  a mountain and you see rolling hills forest. There's so
• 27:23
  many creatures, so many animals, and you're just like overwhelmed
• 27:26
  with how beautiful it is and just how amazingly cool
• 27:32
  that is, And like, why is it that the tree
• 27:37
  over on that mountain looks very similar to the tree
• 27:39
  over there, so maybe with a slightly different hue of green,
• 27:42
  such that when I view it as a whole, it's
• 27:45
  like a painting, a progression of the green color. But
• 27:48
  like there's so much similarities, there's so much connections, and
• 27:53
  everything just fits together. And I guess this is getting
• 27:57
  into a more intellectual thing, but like that that is
• 28:01
  an experience to understand just the fitting togetherness of all
• 28:05
  things like that just makes no sense. You know, if
• 28:10
  if I take a bunch of cardboard and a bunch
• 28:13
  of really really sharp knives and I put it into
• 28:16
  this indestructible box so that the knives don't cut through
• 28:19
  the box, and I shake it up. Okay, at the
• 28:23
  end of it, I'll have a bunch of scrap, a
• 28:25
  bunch of meaningless scrap. I mean, I could probably burn
• 28:29
  it fairly well. It'd be useful for like packing stuff,
• 28:32
  but it ain't gonna be a puzzle. And yet, when
• 28:37
  we look at a puzzle with all of these intricately
• 28:39
  cut out pieces, you jumble it all together and it
• 28:42
  looks chaotic and like, I can't really explain this. Look
• 28:45
  at a ten thousand piece puzzle that's pure white. Yeah,
• 28:51
  try solving that. That's difficult. People have done stuff like that,
• 28:54
  which is insane. But like you've got this puzzle, it's
• 28:58
  like it does that makes sense. It looks like a
• 29:01
  pile of scrap. But if you put the time and
• 29:05
  effort in, you'll notice that the things fit together perfectly.
• 29:08
  Each piece has a spot, Each piece fits in perfectly.
• 29:14
  It may be hard to find that, but it does.
• 29:17
  And even though there's still nine thousand crazy pieces that
• 29:20
  you can't explain, there's still a thousand pieces right here
• 29:23
  that just like fit in perfectly. And it's a puzzle.
• 29:26
  So it's like you know that it's all gonna fit
• 29:28
  together perfectly, and like that's how I view got. It's
• 29:30
  like I understand that the world makes sense, you know,
• 29:38
  I don't look go out during my day and be like, ah,
• 29:43
  what if the sun when it's up in the sky
• 29:45
  turns into a bouncy ball, falls down, bounces a couple
• 29:48
  of times, and I can pick it up and I
• 29:50
  can throw it in the other directions such that now
• 29:52
  the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
• 29:56
  That makes no sense.
• 29:57
  Speaker 2: Because that's not how it works. It's like, you know,
• 29:59
  that's not works. And there's not a chance that.
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: Some philosophers will say, actually, we don't really know if
• 30:06
  that's gonna happen, because induction doesn't prove anything. And I'm like,
• 30:10
  there is an intuitive sense we have in this world
• 30:13
  of sensibility, and this intuition, this experience of sensibility, I
• 30:22
  feel it can only be explained by God because because
• 30:25
  there's no the way, Like we we are intellectual beings,
• 30:27
  we know that to ourselves, like we we can we
• 30:31
  just know that. And you can't have sensibility come out
• 30:37
  of nothing. It just doesn't. It just doesn't make sense.
• 30:42
  I mean, sure, it's a circular argument, but everything in
• 30:44
  the end is a circular argument. And to get into
• 30:48
  like my favorite definition of God God is.
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: Oh shoot, is it really your favorite if you can't
• 30:58
  remember it?
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: Yes, because confusing God is what is necessary for God
• 31:04
  to exist. Because a lot of people say, your argument
• 31:12
  for God is circular, and like disargument for science is circular,
• 31:16
  you know, but science needs a sense of sensibility to
• 31:21
  explain the world. We go back to the Big Bang,
• 31:25
  we don't really understand what happens before that, and science
• 31:27
  breaks down at these extremes that we don't understand black holes,
• 31:31
  the really small many bodies, the early universe, and we
• 31:36
  can't explain that. And if we break out of time,
• 31:41
  science doesn't explain anything because it needs that It needs
• 31:44
  that structure. Science cannot explain creation out of nothing because
• 31:49
  it needs to have the possibility for something to be
• 31:52
  created out of nothing. So in that way, it's like
• 31:56
  you need to have this thing that it rests on,
• 31:59
  and that thing has be unexplained. God is a being
• 32:06
  that is that is his own rock he rests on.
• 32:12
  So he is a circular argument of being. But in
• 32:17
  that way he is fully self sufficient. He doesn't rely
• 32:21
  on anything else to make him be. Science relies on
• 32:24
  this essence of things can make sense in order to
• 32:28
  be it is not a circular. It crashes off somewhere
• 32:32
  and says, I stand on this rock. If this rock
• 32:35
  were the fall, I would die. God is circular enough
• 32:39
  that he is his own rock. There is nothing that
• 32:43
  if the rock disappears, God disappears because he doesn't exist.
• 32:47
  But there is no rock that God rests upon because
• 32:50
  he he is that self sufficiency. That's me trying to think.
• 32:59
  Speaker 2: What was to say? Science? So I've said this before,
• 33:04
  I think, and it's not exact because science can't prove everything.
• 33:08
  But I've heard people say, like science can prove everything
• 33:11
  except for science itself. It's like science can explain things,
• 33:15
  but when it comes to explaining why science works, it's like,
• 33:18
  m I don't, Like, I don't know. Yeah, And then
• 33:22
  the other thing I was thinking about, like Isaac Newton
• 33:25
  was a Christian, Like every major scientist that you can
• 33:30
  think of in the past was at least a theist
• 33:38
  couple years. Yeah, the atheistic scientist movement kind of is
• 33:41
  a pretty modern comparatively thing. But men expected the law
• 33:48
  and nature because they believed in a log giver, Like
• 33:53
  you don't just expect logic to come from randomness and
• 33:59
  things that don't makes like if you again with your
• 34:02
  cardboard box thing. If you have the knife and the
• 34:04
  cardboard in the box and you shook it all up
• 34:07
  and I'll cut up in the little pieces. If you
• 34:11
  shook it up again, your expectation would be that it's
• 34:15
  going to stay a bunch of little cut up pieces.
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: Wait, you mean the super sharp knives aren't going to
• 34:21
  come backwards through a piece. Put them together close enough,
• 34:24
  such as the atoms, and.
• 34:25
  Speaker 2: It's like when you shake it up again, you're not
• 34:27
  expecting it to come back together. You're not expecting order
• 34:30
  from disorder.
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: It's called the second law of thermodynamics. And do you
• 34:35
  know why we know that's true science because we just
• 34:37
  do it. It just makes sense, Like honestly, sorry before
• 34:43
  you continue. It's like the sheer amount of things that
• 34:45
  I learned as a graduate student in physics. It's just like,
• 34:49
  this is the way things are, and so we can
• 34:53
  explain it using this mathematical form and to say, the
• 34:56
  second law of thermodynamics. And we can prove the second
• 35:01
  law of thermotademics using some basic assumptions, which is the
• 35:06
  circular arguments that it's like, it's rests on what yeah,
• 35:10
  you know.
• 35:12
  Speaker 2: So I want to take a little bit of a
• 35:13
  different approach to how I would kind of come with
• 35:17
  this question. So I don't want to say this a
• 35:28
  lot of people who so science and God are oftentimes
• 35:32
  presented as conflicting entities. It's like, if you believe in science,
• 35:38
  you can't believe in God. If you believe in God,
• 35:40
  you can't believe in science. It's a way it's usually not.
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: Just prove God. Come on, what are you talking about?
• 35:44
  Speaker 2: Science can't disprove God because they're answering two different kinds
• 35:47
  of questions. So when I hear people say that, the
• 35:53
  way that I would kind of approach that, if that's
• 35:56
  something that you ever hear or you've ever asked yourself,
• 35:59
  is like, can I believe science?
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: Like?
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: And there's people who talk about like young Earth versus
• 36:05
  Old Earth like, and that's a that's a whole thing.
• 36:09
  Whether you believe it one way or the other, I
• 36:10
  don't really care. I think it's kind of inconsequential. But
• 36:14
  it's like, can I believe what science says and still
• 36:17
  believe God? And a lot of people, primarily atheists, will
• 36:23
  tell you no, And it will tell you that these
• 36:26
  two things are conflicting in that if you believe in God,
• 36:28
  that means you don't believe in science. And if you
• 36:30
  believe in science, you have to only believe in science
• 36:34
  and you can't believe in God. And that's why people
• 36:35
  like John Lennox, I don't know, I keep on bringing
• 36:38
  them up. I don't know if you know who John
• 36:39
  Lenox is. But uh, that's why people like him. Of
• 36:42
  a musician, that's why people like him are so rare,
• 36:47
  is because he is. He's a mathematician, Oxford mathematician, and
• 36:52
  he is a devout Christian, and he's just such a
• 36:54
  rare thing to see because people think that it has
• 36:57
  to be science or God. Well, like I said, they're
• 37:00
  answering two different questions. So what people don't understand is
• 37:03
  the difference between mechanism and agency. Science is an answer
• 37:10
  to the question how, and God isn't answer to the
• 37:14
  question why. So if me and Nick went out and
• 37:19
  looked at my car and I showed Nick, I opened
• 37:24
  up the hood of my car and I showed Nick
• 37:26
  the engine, Nick wouldn't say that that engine is incredible,
• 37:30
  like it's amazing that it just randomly came together one day,
• 37:33
  like he wouldn't just assume that because the engine has
• 37:38
  you know, the pistons and whatever, and it like all
• 37:41
  works together, and because the mechanisms are all tied together,
• 37:43
  and because it just works, his assumption would not therefore
• 37:47
  be that it did not need to be created. Nick
• 37:53
  is a smart person, and Nick would instead say that's
• 37:57
  amazing that somebody engineered it to work that way. And
• 38:00
  so when people see like, uh, you can talk about
• 38:05
  like the fine tuning argument for instance, where it's like
• 38:09
  if the strength of gravity, it was like, I don't
• 38:12
  even know what the number is. It's some insane number.
• 38:14
  It's like one out of one to the like one
• 38:18
  hundred thousandth power or something. It's like one part and
• 38:23
  that one.
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: Hundred thousand different or something.
• 38:26
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's way they're getting one hundred thousand. It's like
• 38:30
  one to it's like one to the one hundredth power
• 38:32
  or something.
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: That's a big nob. So to view that scale, that'll
• 38:37
  be basically saying.
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: There aren't that many of anything in the universe. Problems.
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: Well, first, there's about ten to the eighty Adams in
• 38:47
  the universe. Ten to the is it eighty three? Like photons,
• 38:53
  And so if you're doing ten to the one hundred.
• 38:55
  That's basically saying, let's make it simpler, let's just make
• 38:57
  it ten to the eighty.
• 38:58
  Speaker 2: Yeah, that's just saying that that's the number of.
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: Every single atom in the observable universe. If one of
• 39:06
  them was red and all the rest were blue.
• 39:12
  Speaker 2: The entire thing would fall apart. But they're all blue exactly.
• 39:16
  So it's like, I don't look at that and say
• 39:22
  that's insane that this randomly happened, and that there are
• 39:27
  so many other ones. Gravity is just like the one
• 39:29
  that first came to mind, like the number of finely
• 39:33
  tuned things. They're so specifically tuned for, specifically tuned for life.
• 39:41
  Like if gravity again one part and one to the
• 39:45
  one hundred, if it was any different, even the slightest bit,
• 39:49
  life would be impossible. I don't look at that and
• 39:54
  say it's so crazy.
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: Not just like life, Like, if it was that different,
• 39:58
  stars would not form, no, yeah, to remain just as
• 40:01
  constantcy of plasma, or to condense back into a black
• 40:04
  hole very quickly, and whatnot. Like it's not just saying like, oh,
• 40:07
  in life would be impossible. How do you know that? Well,
• 40:09
  because all of our science tells us that if it
• 40:11
  were this way, there would be no way for anything
• 40:14
  to be different.
• 40:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and no way for anything to be different. Actually,
• 40:19
  is the next thing I wanted to say or talk about.
• 40:22
  So agency and mechanism are two different things to answer
• 40:28
  the how and why questions science. So again, science is
• 40:36
  built on the assumption that science works like science doesn't
• 40:43
  work unless science works basically like it. It's the logic
• 40:49
  behind it is completely dependent on the belief that the
• 40:53
  logic is sound. And so if you don't have that foundation,
• 41:02
  that doesn't work at all, which means that science is
• 41:05
  a dependent thing. And so if we look at the
• 41:10
  universe as a whole, the only way that we don't
• 41:16
  run into the problem of an infinite regress, or if
• 41:19
  we don't run the problem of like what happened at
• 41:21
  the beginning to initiate the entire thing is if the
• 41:25
  universe and time and space and matter are all necessary,
• 41:31
  like if they have to exist. And even this is
• 41:36
  not a very scientific way of thinking about it, but
• 41:39
  if you can imagine something not existing, it's probably not
• 41:44
  really that necessary. Like if you can reasonable I guess
• 41:48
  I should say, if you can reasonably imagine something not existing,
• 41:53
  it doesn't prove that it's not necessary, but it increases
• 41:58
  the probability because I.
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: Can just imagine that God doesn't exist.
• 42:02
  Speaker 2: It just reason world.
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: What do you mean reason? That's it?
• 42:06
  Speaker 2: Like? Because then if you say so, if you make
• 42:08
  the assumpt like if you say I can imagine world
• 42:10
  where God doesn't exist, then I can still ask the question. Okay,
• 42:13
  then word everything come from, I can still go. I
• 42:15
  can still say like.
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: That you need to have an explanation, like if to
• 42:21
  reasonably assume that Michael doesn't exist, I could be like,
• 42:25
  but who is this person sitting next to me? Yeah,
• 42:28
  And if you don't have an explanation, oh, that's John.
• 42:30
  He just looks like some dude named Michael. Then like,
• 42:36
  if you don't have anything to explain it, that's not
• 42:39
  a reasonable okay.
• 42:41
  Speaker 2: And so I can say. Somebody could say like like, oh,
• 42:45
  I can imagine God doesn't exist, and then I would say, okay,
• 42:47
  that's fair. Let's ask these questions. Now, I can reasonably
• 42:54
  imagine the universe not existing. I can reasonably imagine nothing
• 43:01
  existing at all, nothing like you don't have to exist.
• 43:05
  And if you don't have to exist, why does the
• 43:07
  coature sitting one have to exist. If the couture sitting
• 43:09
  doesn't have to exist, why is your apartment or Saint
• 43:12
  Louis City, or the United States or the world or
• 43:15
  the universe have to exist. And then you can go
• 43:18
  on that infinite and like get all the way out
• 43:21
  and it's like nothing has to exist. And based on
• 43:24
  the science. Because I'm a Christian who believes in the science.
• 43:28
  For the most part, time and space and matter all
• 43:33
  came into existence at the same incident, which means none
• 43:37
  of them are necessary individually. I guess you could imagine
• 43:43
  that they would be necessary as a whole, but again,
• 43:46
  they don't have to exist. Nothing has to be that way.
• 43:49
  And so that's why we would ask the question of why,
• 43:52
  because science can get you from now all the way
• 43:55
  back to the point of creation, but whatever happened before
• 44:00
  for that science has no idea because that point in
• 44:05
  the creation of all of those things of time and space,
• 44:08
  matter is literally the foundation that the science is built on.
• 44:12
  So if you go back to that point, you go
• 44:14
  past that point, you have nothing. You have no grounds
• 44:19
  to explain it with science, Like you can't say, oh, well,
• 44:22
  this law existed in like the blah blah blah blah
• 44:25
  and these particles. It's like no, no, but because that's not.
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: How science can explain it. But like, how do you
• 44:30
  know we haven't found out a way to explain what
• 44:33
  happened before the Big Bang? Like, yeah, sure, you know,
• 44:37
  general relativity quantum mechanics don't explain that. But we clearly
• 44:41
  already know that general relative and quantum mechanics fail at
• 44:44
  some things in the universe, and so there's definitely going
• 44:47
  to be something more that we can find. So why
• 44:49
  not that thing that we find explained before the creation?
• 44:55
  Speaker 2: This is like, when I think about this, maybe I'm
• 44:58
  misunderstanding what you're saying.
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: Correct me if I possibly I don't even understand what
• 45:02
  I'm saying because I don't believe it.
• 45:04
  Speaker 2: That's a fair point. That's why I like the Devil's Advocate.
• 45:06
  Things are hard from point A just the beginning, going back,
• 45:16
  there is nothing. People tend to try and to find
• 45:21
  nothing with certain parameters, and they say, like it's this
• 45:25
  kind of nothing, and they try and explain nothing as
• 45:27
  if nothing is some kind of but like that necessitates
• 45:34
  there being something.
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: They're being the field with no fluctuations, yet.
• 45:40
  Speaker 2: Like it's not that difficult of a question to answer.
• 45:44
  It's like nothing is not a super complicated mathematical state
• 45:49
  of being or anything. It's literally the state of non being.
• 45:54
  There is nothing. Frank Turk, he's another Christian guy. Uh.
• 46:00
  What he always says is like nothing is what rocks
• 46:02
  dream about. It's there. It's just there is no thing.
• 46:08
  That's why it's called nothing is because it's no thing
• 46:11
  like that.
• 46:12
  Speaker 1: That's actually I really like because that that just shows
• 46:15
  like rocks don't dream.
• 46:17
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and you'd see that and it'd be like, okay,
• 46:20
  so why are you trying to define nothing? Is this?
• 46:22
  Like you obviously understand the concept of nothing, so why
• 46:26
  are you trying to define it into oblivion to try
• 46:28
  and accommodate for your yeah, theoretical proposition about blah blah
• 46:33
  blah blah. Like if you go past this point and
• 46:36
  we say it, if I ask you the question how
• 46:38
  did something come from nothing? You can try and explain
• 46:42
  how the nothing produced to something, but it always comes
• 46:46
  back to there is something in the nothing possibility.
• 46:50
  Speaker 1: Logic makes sense. Sorry, that's me. Yeah, okay, so I
• 46:58
  just because I said the logic thing, I something that
• 47:02
  everyone has as an assumption is that logic makes sense
• 47:07
  you can have like the principle of non contradiction. You
• 47:14
  cannot have something that both is and is not my hand,
• 47:18
  both is closed together and not close together. False. It
• 47:23
  is close together but not close together. I think that's
• 47:28
  the right number of double negatives. So anyway, we always
• 47:31
  use yeah, that's right. Sorry, we always use.
• 47:36
  Speaker 2: Yeah. I know.
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: We always use logic as as a basic thing. And
• 47:40
  so it's like, oh, but okay, maybe this explanation doesn't work.
• 47:43
  But that it was like true, nothingness does not even
• 47:46
  include the possibility of logic. I have a thought experien
• 47:51
  for you picture nothing. What do you picture darkness? You
• 47:56
  picture a vast expanse. You picture nothing, And it's like, okay,
• 48:00
  I look around dark dark. I go over here, dark dark.
• 48:04
  I go over there, dark dark. There's two things you're
• 48:06
  assuming here. One space, yep, you're excuming. You're assuming spatial proportion,
• 48:13
  you're assuming relation between points. And two you are assuming darkness. Darkness. Well,
• 48:22
  that's not nothing. Darkness is the absence of light exactly.
• 48:26
  Darkness is a concept and nothingness there is not even
• 48:29
  a concept. You cannot picture nothingness, which is why when
• 48:33
  you were saying it was like, oh you can you
• 48:34
  reasonly picture a universe that doesn't exist. No, you can't.
• 48:38
  You cannot picture nothingness. You can picture blackness, you can
• 48:41
  picture not some things, but you cannot actually understand nothingness.
• 48:49
  I under stay this thing is nothing. I put a name.
• 48:57
  Where did I put it to something? There's some concept
• 49:02
  of this thing that we call nothing that we are
• 49:05
  able to point to and name, and that means it's
• 49:08
  not nothing. And that's weird to think about. This is me,
• 49:13
  like sixteen years old, being like, whoa dude.
• 49:17
  Speaker 2: The other thing, this is totally unrelated, but you're saying,
• 49:19
  like me, sixteen years old, Yeah, it's like one of
• 49:21
  the mind boggling moments that you have where you just
• 49:25
  realize something. You're like, oh my gosh, that is mind
• 49:27
  blowing thinking about like an infinite regress and thinking about
• 49:32
  the possibility of like time stretching infinitely in the past,
• 49:39
  and I just like have this moment where I realize
• 49:43
  that if the past was infinite right now could not
• 49:49
  happen because it is impossible to traverse an actually infinite
• 49:55
  number of things, Like you can't if you start at
• 49:58
  the beginning of infinity, you literally can't reach like there's
• 50:02
  not even like it's so hard to even conceptualize. But
• 50:06
  it's like, and then people try to infinity. I don't
• 50:10
  think infinity is practically I don't think it's a thing
• 50:15
  that can actually exist. You're a science person, so maybe
• 50:18
  you can explain that to me. But I understand that
• 50:21
  it's a mathematical concept. But I think that that's all
• 50:24
  it is, because no matter how many of something there
• 50:30
  are or is, you could always count them, it's gonna
• 50:34
  be an insanely high number. Like if we say there's
• 50:39
  an infinite number of golf balls in the universe, and
• 50:44
  then you remove one of them, like how many of
• 50:46
  them are there? And it's like there's still a number
• 50:49
  of those things. It just is such an incomprehensibly large
• 50:53
  number you can't understand it. So that doesn't But that
• 50:56
  doesn't mean that it's actually infinite, because it's literally impossible
• 51:02
  to actualize an infinite number of things.
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: Do you mind if I go on a bit about infinities, Go.
• 51:08
  Speaker 2: Ahead, No, just thrill because I don't really understand it.
• 51:11
  That's my lay person understanding of it.
• 51:14
  Speaker 1: But so first, mathematically speaking, there are layers of infinities.
• 51:19
  But we're saying what you were talking about is the
• 51:22
  classic Xeno's paradox? Do you know have you heard about that?
• 51:25
  Maybe but not zeno paradox or Achilles and the hair,
• 51:30
  or there's any number of ways you can formulate it.
• 51:32
  So first Achilles is or no, let's say Zeno is
• 51:38
  trying to walk to that door that you cannot see
• 51:40
  because it's off screen. It doesn't exist, it is nothing. Yeah,
• 51:44
  you have to get halfway to the door first, so
• 51:47
  I go halfway to the door. You have to go
• 51:49
  halfway between there and the door again, so I go there,
• 51:52
  and then you have to go halfway and you have
• 51:53
  to go halfway again, and again you have to go
• 51:56
  half a quarter, an eighth, a sixteenth, a thirty second,
• 51:58
  a sixty fourth or one twenty eighth, two fifty six,
• 52:00
  five twelve ay twenty fourth or twenty forty eight to
• 52:03
  forty ninety six or something like that.
• 52:05
  Speaker 2: Good job with that multiplication A.
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: Twenty forty eight. That game really worked out. But you
• 52:11
  have to keep going and it just keeps going, and
• 52:12
  there's an infinite number of halves to get from here
• 52:16
  to anywhere else, and ritically, yeah, and then and then
• 52:20
  that's the thing. It's just like, Okay, you're right, and
• 52:23
  so Zeno's like change cannot happen. There is no way
• 52:27
  for something to move from point A to point B
• 52:30
  because of this infinite amount of time. But I move
• 52:34
  from point A to point b. This proven okay, So
• 52:38
  maybe infinity it doesn't exist. Maybe infinity is just a
• 52:41
  mathematical construct. But it depends on how you look at it,
• 52:46
  because in a way, there are an infinite number of
• 52:50
  positions from here to there unless you think about space
• 52:53
  as quantized. But that's a weird thing to think. Some
• 52:56
  scientists say that it's like, that's not how we do anything.
• 52:59
  But okay, yeah, it's a difficult thing. But a bit
• 53:04
  of explanation for those math nerds out there about infinities.
• 53:08
  There's one level infinity called countable infinites. Okay, so if
• 53:12
  you have on the number scale, I can go one, two, three,
• 53:16
  and I can set up a pattern to keep going. Okay,
• 53:19
  name any number, and I will count from one any
• 53:23
  positive integer. I will count from one to that positive
• 53:26
  number number and a finite amount of time. I can
• 53:29
  tell you exactly how long it will take. Okay, I
• 53:32
  can't do that theoretically I could, but if you then
• 53:36
  really had a number. I can't do the math in
• 53:37
  my head about how long it would take, but theoretically
• 53:39
  I could. Okay, that's count to be infinite. But how
• 53:43
  large is the set of all is the set of
• 53:46
  all integers? How large are is one, two, three, all
• 53:48
  the way up? How many of them are there?
• 53:52
  Speaker 2: I don't think that there's But that's again the theoretical thing,
• 53:56
  because there's no practical application.
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: There's no physical okay physical, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's the difficulty.
• 54:02
  A lot of people delve into the world of the material,
• 54:08
  and Plato talks about this, Aristotle talks about this, All
• 54:11
  of these ancient philosophers talk about like the world of ideals?
• 54:14
  Do we live in just a world of matter? Do
• 54:16
  we live in a world where things can happen? Am
• 54:19
  I a brain in a vat? Or all of these things?
• 54:22
  But yeah, okay, So if you don't want to say
• 54:24
  that you know numbers actually exist.
• 54:26
  Speaker 2: Well, because you can. You can make theories all you want,
• 54:34
  and you can theoreticize, is that the right word, Yeah,
• 54:38
  into oblivion, But that doesn't actually change the world that
• 54:43
  you're living in. So like you, like you said, with
• 54:45
  like you can split the distance between you and the
• 54:47
  door and half an infinite number of times, you can
• 54:52
  still traverse that distance. So the idea doesn't necessarily translate
• 55:00
  into reality. And so regardless of what the theory is,
• 55:04
  theory is we live in a world that is a
• 55:06
  certain way that we and we understand it to be
• 55:08
  that way, regardless of what the theory says.
• 55:11
  Speaker 1: And there is truthness to theories even if they are
• 55:13
  not the truth, because part of this world underlies a
• 55:19
  sense of logic. And I'm not talking about like symbolic
• 55:21
  logic as you learned in high school or this or that.
• 55:23
  There is some aspect of things can make sense, as
• 55:26
  I've talked about. And so when we judge theories, we
• 55:30
  see how self consistent they are. So, yeah, you can
• 55:34
  theorize about anything, and it can be and it can
• 55:37
  say whatever. It's like, Yeah, I could theorize, you know
• 55:40
  that I can both be here and not here.
• 55:42
  Speaker 2: Theorized, not theoretic sized size, that's not the right word.
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: A theoretician or a theorist the yeah, but like that
• 55:55
  is not internally consistent. I could set up a sense
• 55:59
  of set of rules to explain something and then follow
• 56:03
  through that set of rules. They're called axioms and come
• 56:06
  to a contradiction where one of the axioms pushes it
• 56:09
  up against the other and they do not like each other.
• 56:13
  So you cannot have both of those axioms set. That
• 56:15
  is an inconsistent theory. So when we talk about like, oh,
• 56:20
  you can theorize anything, Yes, you're right, but until we
• 56:24
  have a contradiction, that theory so far as we know
• 56:27
  is true, that's the principle of falsification or whatnot that
• 56:32
  you talk about. But okay, so let's look at the
• 56:35
  consistency of me walking from here to the door. And
• 56:38
  you say, oh, there's not an infinite number of points,
• 56:40
  You're like, okay, But if there is an infinite number
• 56:42
  of points, and then you say, but I can walk there,
• 56:45
  and I'm like, okay, yeah, so there's an but I
• 56:47
  can use my theory if there's an infinite number of
• 56:49
  points and add on an axiom or something that allows
• 56:53
  me to explain going from point A to point B
• 56:55
  without breaking my idea of an infinite number of points.
• 56:58
  And that axiom is just simply you can traverse like
• 57:01
  you can go through an infinite number because when I'm
• 57:04
  going from point A to point B, that is a
• 57:06
  sense of time and I can say it takes me.
• 57:09
  I have to go halfway to the door, and I
• 57:11
  have to go halfway again, and I can say, to
• 57:13
  explain this, each subsequent step takes half as long. So
• 57:18
  in a sense, you are multiplying two infinities together in
• 57:21
  a weird way. You're combining two infinities, and you're getting
• 57:25
  that door as the result, and mathematically it is weird.
• 57:30
  It works out, but it's consistent, and so it's like, yeah, yeah, I.
• 57:33
  Speaker 2: Don't like it. That's internally consistent. But I think my
• 57:36
  problem is that a lot of the times it seems
• 57:38
  like they aren't externally consistent, like it I don't know,
• 57:47
  because even when you're saying, like, uh, you split in half,
• 57:51
  but then it only takes half as long, but it
• 57:53
  doesn't matter because there's an infinite number. So even if
• 57:57
  it only takes half as long, you still would not
• 57:59
  ever reach the end because it's still a time and
• 58:04
  there's still an infinite number of things we asked for first,
• 58:07
  and affinity doesn't happen fast, but it doesn't matter because
• 58:11
  infinity doesn't end. So it's like you still could not
• 58:13
  reach the end of infinity, and people, yeah, there's like
• 58:18
  maybe you can explain this to me later, because probably
• 58:20
  nobody wants to listen if you ask this kind of question.
• 58:23
  But there's like the different sizes offah, and people say,
• 58:26
  like there's like a bigger infinity, and when you add
• 58:29
  the bigger infinity the smaller infinity, it's like the bigger
• 58:32
  one just swallows up the smaller one. But it's like
• 58:34
  what happened to the smaller one, Like like you can't.
• 58:38
  That's again one of the theoretical things. I just don't.
• 58:40
  I don't understand the way its Okay, so before I
• 58:44
  feel like maybe we're getting.
• 58:45
  Speaker 1: A little bit no, okay, I'll make it quick. Okay,
• 58:47
  go ahead, because you asked the question and it's a
• 58:49
  fascinating thing, and let's go into the mathematical and be like, yeah,
• 58:53
  we don't have to talk about this, but it doesn't
• 58:55
  even necessarily make sense physical, but like, let's talk about
• 58:57
  the mathematical to try to understand the different levels of
• 58:59
  infinity and why we know that there are different sizes.
• 59:03
  So the ascountable infinity that I'm saying, give me any number,
• 59:06
  any integer, and I can count to it in a
• 59:09
  finite amount of time, and that finite is important because
• 59:12
  that gets read of the infinite. Okay, so we define
• 59:15
  it by finite values and just say give me a number,
• 59:20
  and I'll go to it. But I don't ever put
• 59:24
  a limit on the numbers. Give me a number, I'll
• 59:26
  not go to it, I'll go past it. That's how
• 59:28
  we define countable infinity. I'll go to a number and
• 59:31
  go past it. Any number you give me I can
• 59:33
  go past it. So therefore there is no finish, because
• 59:36
  if there's a finish, i'd say give me that number,
• 59:38
  I'll go past it. That's the normal sense of infinity.
• 59:41
  Then the next level of infinity, so far as we know,
• 59:44
  is called uncountable infinite. And this is if in the
• 59:49
  numbers sense, accountable infinite is all the integers. Uncountable infinite
• 59:54
  is all of the numbers, the entire real line, all
• 59:56
  the irrational numbers. And the way this is different from
• 1:00:00
  the countable infinites is give me a number. There is
• 1:00:04
  so like I cannot set up a pattern.
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 2: There's an infinite number of numbers between one and two.
• 1:00:09
  Is that kind of what you're gonna get? Yeah?
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, but there's also countable infinite number of
• 1:00:13
  numbers between one and two, which is weird because like
• 1:00:16
  the number of rational numbers between one and two is
• 1:00:20
  equal to the number of integers from one to infinity,
• 1:00:26
  equal to in the weird mathematical sense. But there is
• 1:00:30
  no pattern that I can set up saying I'm going
• 1:00:32
  to do this than this, than this, that is going
• 1:00:35
  to guarantee in a finite time. That's the important part.
• 1:00:37
  In a finite time, I will not guarantee to get
• 1:00:40
  any number you pick any irrational number. If you pick
• 1:00:44
  a random irrational number and I go on my pattern
• 1:00:47
  from this number to this number to this number, there
• 1:00:49
  is no guarantee that I will ever get there in
• 1:00:52
  the finite amount of time. In fact, it's almost guaranteed
• 1:00:56
  that I will not. And that's different levels of infinity. Yeah,
• 1:01:00
  and there's different ways you can talk about it, but
• 1:01:02
  you don't want to go too much into that. We
• 1:01:04
  can talk about that later.
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 2: So I'm trying to think of a way to tie
• 1:01:09
  it all back together because we just have a theoretical
• 1:01:12
  discussion about infinity that this is probably today. We've wanted
• 1:01:18
  to talk about this forever and we were finally we'll
• 1:01:21
  just do it today. We tie this all back together.
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: Okay, you talk about infinities. Some people call God the infinite,
• 1:01:31
  the one who is infinitely perfect.
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 2: So yeah, sorry, actually go ahead, No, that was my question.
• 1:01:39
  The way that we've been talking about infinity, I wouldn't
• 1:01:44
  say the infinitely perfect, but the way we've been talking
• 1:01:50
  about infinity relates to a mathematical or like based off
• 1:01:54
  of time kind of thing. This this is something that
• 1:02:00
  I realized recently. And again, this is one of those
• 1:02:04
  things where it's like I think it and I can
• 1:02:07
  say it. I don't know if it's true, so don't
• 1:02:09
  take my word on this. We know that God doesn't
• 1:02:12
  experience time like we do. Yeah, but I was thinking
• 1:02:20
  about it recently and I kind of came to the
• 1:02:22
  conclusion that maybe God doesn't unless he forces himself into
• 1:02:28
  time like he did with the incarnation, he doesn't really
• 1:02:34
  experience time at all because he is completely outside of it.
• 1:02:40
  So unless he enters into it, he doesn't experience it.
• 1:02:42
  And so if I say the universe can't be infinite
• 1:02:48
  because it's impossible to traverse an actually infinite number of things,
• 1:02:53
  somebody might say it, Well, you say God is infinite.
• 1:02:56
  I don't really say God is infinite in the same
• 1:02:59
  way that we think of it because he is completely
• 1:03:01
  outside of time. So the concept of infinity doesn't even apply.
• 1:03:05
  He transcends, He transcends. The find that he transcends time
• 1:03:09
  and space and matter completely, and so it's it sounds
• 1:03:14
  like it sounds like I'm trying to like just avoid
• 1:03:19
  the question. But by definition he has to be that way,
• 1:03:26
  so he can't the concept. Again, I'm just gonna say
• 1:03:30
  it again, the concept of infinity doesn't really apply to
• 1:03:35
  a being who is by definition outside of that concept.
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Completely, I can definitely see this distinction and that
• 1:03:44
  that's a very interesting distinction you think about.
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 2: Yeah, because like and it was. It was always one
• 1:03:48
  of the things that hurt my brain. I don't want
• 1:03:50
  to say it doesn't, because it still does when I
• 1:03:52
  like really try and think about it too much. But
• 1:03:54
  it would always hurt my brain. I'm like, I can't
• 1:03:56
  even conceptualize something existing forever, Like if I think about God,
• 1:04:03
  I can't. I can't picture this is where the universe starts, and.
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: You can picture. I can go to a point and
• 1:04:11
  I can go beyond it, but I cannot picture like
• 1:04:13
  the entirety.
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 2: Of because because there's not like I can you do that.
• 1:04:18
  But it's like even if you say that's all of time,
• 1:04:20
  it's like past that complts.
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah, Basically I'm saying, come here, I can go there.
• 1:04:25
  Come here, I can go there, like and you.
• 1:04:28
  Speaker 2: Just keep doing that, but it's like that doesn't apply, yeah,
• 1:04:31
  because it's just, uh, there's the classic thing of like time, space,
• 1:04:37
  and matter all depend on each other to exist. Because
• 1:04:40
  if you have time or sorry, if you have matter
• 1:04:46
  but no time or space, where and when would you
• 1:04:49
  put it? If you have space but no time or matter,
• 1:04:52
  or when would you put it? Or like, just like
• 1:04:54
  there's that kind of thing, And so they all have
• 1:04:58
  to come into existence at the same point. And so
• 1:05:00
  whatever cause those things to come into existence by definition,
• 1:05:03
  has to be outside of them. And so I think,
• 1:05:05
  I I'm not gonna speak for anybody else. I know
• 1:05:08
  I have always understood the idea of God existing eternally
• 1:05:12
  completely wrong because I've been trying to understand it based
• 1:05:17
  around my definition and my kind of like preconceived notions
• 1:05:21
  of like what time is, and I like I experience
• 1:05:25
  time the way I experience it, And I'm trying to
• 1:05:27
  conceptualize infinity based on the way, or an infinite being
• 1:05:31
  based on the way I experience time. But again, unless
• 1:05:35
  God enters into time, he doesn't really at least I
• 1:05:41
  would say he probably doesn't really experience it the same way. Like,
• 1:05:45
  it's not like God has existed forever in the sense
• 1:05:50
  that we would think about forever, because he's outside of
• 1:05:54
  it forever.
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 1: We so, like I do agree, like he is outside
• 1:06:00
  there are forms of explanation. I have a question for you.
• 1:06:03
  Is there something about God that we can understand?
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 2: I feel like not completely.
• 1:06:09
  Speaker 1: No, that's why something that we can understand somewhat. Is
• 1:06:14
  there anything related in any sense to God that we
• 1:06:20
  can come to some form of a possible understanding.
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 2: Are you trying to leave me in direction with this question?
• 1:06:27
  Speaker 1: No, I just wanted to see to see how you
• 1:06:30
  how you think about that?
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 2: So what I would say is we can know about
• 1:06:36
  God what God has revealed to us mm hmm, because
• 1:06:40
  I think that He has revealed himself in time he
• 1:06:43
  has entered into time.
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: Do we know the everything about how He has revealed
• 1:06:48
  himself to us?
• 1:06:50
  Speaker 2: We could ever even begin to scratch the surface.
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: Okay, so there is a large amount of what that
• 1:06:56
  God has revealed himself to us. So he is outside
• 1:06:58
  of time he's outside in this unexplainable manner, and we
• 1:07:01
  cannot approach that in any sense of the word. I
• 1:07:03
  agree with you on that. And then you say that
• 1:07:06
  God has revealed to himself us to himself in some way,
• 1:07:10
  or revealed him to us in some way, and I
• 1:07:14
  could talk about it like the world he gave us
• 1:07:16
  is part of it, part of his revelation to us.
• 1:07:20
  The concept of logic from which we can derive mathematical
• 1:07:23
  formulations is part of that. But so like we can
• 1:07:27
  understand some aspect and at some point it's like, yeah,
• 1:07:31
  we can. We can keep understanding more, because do you
• 1:07:34
  ever think that in this world we were to understand
• 1:07:37
  all that there can possibly be known about how God
• 1:07:39
  has revealed himself to us. So there's always more we
• 1:07:42
  could learn in this world, and so we can extrapolate
• 1:07:44
  like we can in this world. There's this infinite way
• 1:07:48
  of understanding God because we can never reach it. That's
• 1:07:51
  one explanation of the word infinite is unreachable. You know,
• 1:07:56
  it's an infinite distance from here to China for me
• 1:07:58
  to walk there because I can't walk there because there's
• 1:08:01
  water in the way. That Okay, not not the best
• 1:08:03
  definition but yeah, So let's because now that we know
• 1:08:09
  that there's scales of understanding stuff, can we conceptualize what
• 1:08:13
  it is like to be unable to understand something greater?
• 1:08:19
  And this is where I have Yeah, this is where
• 1:08:21
  I'm leading to. So I read a book recently, flat Land.
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 2: It's also sorry disclaimer, I'm I'm saying a lot of
• 1:08:28
  things that I may not understand. I'm just trying to
• 1:08:31
  get thoughts out that. It's like, I think about this
• 1:08:33
  stuff a lot, and I have questions that nobody really
• 1:08:37
  seems to be able to answer about some of it.
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 1: Please don't ever only say stuff that you understand. Don't
• 1:08:44
  understand anything that.
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 2: I Pretty much everything I say on this podcast I
• 1:08:47
  don't understand.
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: But so here's a book. I'm holding a book for
• 1:08:51
  those who are listening on the podcast AKA Nick in
• 1:08:53
  three days, that's me, I'm Nick. I take one page
• 1:08:58
  of this book. Okay, and this is our universe. Okay, Sure,
• 1:09:05
  we might live in a four dimensional space time, we're
• 1:09:07
  an eleven dimensional height whatever, whatever, consider this is our
• 1:09:10
  universe where we can go ford on the page, left
• 1:09:13
  and right on the page. We cannot go up and
• 1:09:14
  down the passage of time would then be explained by
• 1:09:18
  this is our universe, and this is our universe one
• 1:09:21
  second from now, and this is our universe two seconds
• 1:09:24
  from then, and then this is our universe moving through
• 1:09:26
  time as this sheet moves into this sheet moves into
• 1:09:31
  this sheet. Okay, and when we're on this sheet, we
• 1:09:34
  can look into the past in some way and be like, oh,
• 1:09:36
  I understand how this worked, but that's not where I
• 1:09:38
  am now, because I'm still on this one flat sheet. Okay,
• 1:09:40
  this is just in the past. So this is the
• 1:09:42
  universe now, and then this is the universe a second
• 1:09:46
  from now, et cetera, et cetera. But this is a
• 1:09:50
  two dimensional universe. We live in a three dimensional universe.
• 1:09:53
  We can look at this book as a whole, and
• 1:09:56
  we can look at each of these pages and see
• 1:09:58
  how it progresses through time. So it is possible for
• 1:10:02
  there to be conceptually speaking, of course, which is how
• 1:10:06
  we always have to talk about things. It is conceptual
• 1:10:09
  for there to be some existence that cannot understand something,
• 1:10:15
  but some other existence can. So two dimensions cannot understand
• 1:10:20
  three dimensions, but three dimensions can understand two dimensions. And
• 1:10:24
  what we do when we talk about God in this
• 1:10:26
  infinite sense is we extrapolate that God, being out of time,
• 1:10:32
  would in a sense, be able to look at time
• 1:10:33
  as a book and it wouldn't take him time to
• 1:10:36
  flip through. He just see it all at once. And
• 1:10:39
  that's like his being out of time. It's like he
• 1:10:40
  can see all things at once and he is not
• 1:10:43
  subject to time. And you get some really weird, seemingly
• 1:10:46
  contradictions that don't contradict once you delve a bit deeper.
• 1:10:51
  But it's just confusing as all get out, because like,
• 1:10:54
  once you stop talking about time, we don't understand anything.
• 1:10:58
  We need time, we need change to be able to
• 1:11:01
  understand things, and if it's not there, we can't. But
• 1:11:05
  we try and we try, and we talk about infinities.
• 1:11:09
  We say okay when this two dimensional world and it's
• 1:11:12
  like okay, but there's an infinite number of times we
• 1:11:15
  say this sheet stacks up infinitely, like we can talk
• 1:11:17
  about this and yeah, it's not the way it actually is,
• 1:11:21
  but it's the only way we have of approaching it
• 1:11:24
  so far as we know. So yeah, I'll agree with you,
• 1:11:27
  Like these ideas that the infinite seem a bit iffy.
• 1:11:30
  My brother who loves talking about like math, stuff with
• 1:11:33
  me is also like that. He's like, I don't really
• 1:11:36
  believe there's different levels of infinity, and it's like, yeah, no,
• 1:11:39
  there's mathematically makes sense, but it just it just doesn't
• 1:11:41
  sound like practically, yeah, it just doesn't. And it's like, yeah,
• 1:11:46
  you're probably right, but it's like the best we got.
• 1:11:52
  These these ideas of the infinite are the best we
• 1:11:55
  got at explaining something like God. The closest we can
• 1:12:00
  get to explaining God in this conceptual framework, because there's
• 1:12:04
  other ways of approaching God is through extrapolating odd infinitum
• 1:12:11
  to the infinity and saying, well, God isn't here, God
• 1:12:15
  isn't here. If you pick any point, any explanation, I
• 1:12:20
  can say God isn't this, He's something beyond that any point,
• 1:12:24
  and then I can go further, and that's infinite. And
• 1:12:26
  so we say God is the end of that, the
• 1:12:29
  end of this thing that never stops. That makes no sense,
• 1:12:32
  but it's the best we got.
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 2: That's really interesting that you just brought to that, because
• 1:12:36
  we should probably end soon. While we were talking about earlier,
• 1:12:40
  like almost at the very beginning, about how there are
• 1:12:44
  these different things but there's always something greater and how
• 1:12:47
  God is at the top of that is on the
• 1:12:49
  top of the spire. Yeah, yeah, that's it's two different things,
• 1:12:56
  but it kind of plas it all together. It's kind
• 1:12:59
  of an annoying that we spent so much time.
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 1: It was really good and so I could talk about
• 1:13:05
  for this is stuff I think about all the time,
• 1:13:07
  and it's sometimes it's a little scary to think about.
• 1:13:09
  And I don't really talk about it with a lot
• 1:13:11
  of people because a lot of people get like freaked
• 1:13:12
  out by some ways or say, oh, I don't understand that,
• 1:13:15
  and it's like I don't either. Can you help, Like
• 1:13:18
  I don't care that you don't understand it. I don't
• 1:13:20
  understand it either. It's like, can you figure out how
• 1:13:22
  to understand something a bit better?
• 1:13:24
  Speaker 2: So please?
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 1: I hate it when people are like, oh, you're so smart,
• 1:13:28
  I can't understand this thing, and doing like, oh I
• 1:13:31
  have so.
• 1:13:32
  Speaker 2: Much because I know everything wise because I know that
• 1:13:35
  I know nothing.
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's like I have so many words to say
• 1:13:38
  about like people's idea of what's smart is and it's
• 1:13:41
  it's a it's a big annoyance of mine that people
• 1:13:45
  belittle themselves because they're like I'm not smart, Like you
• 1:13:48
  was like, Okay, sure, I'll admit I have a mathematical
• 1:13:51
  mind and I can conceptualize things mathematically in an easier
• 1:13:55
  way than some people can, and for those people approaching math,
• 1:13:59
  it's like it's a little harder for them, And so
• 1:14:01
  in that way, I am smarter in the very specific
• 1:14:03
  sense of mathematical conceptualized blah blah blah. To some people.
• 1:14:06
  It's like people don't give enough themselves enough credit. I
• 1:14:10
  see such intelligence in people that does not show itself
• 1:14:14
  in the sense of being able to do mathematical computations.
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 1: Sorry that Yeah, that's no.
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 2: I was just gonna say it, like because it is
• 1:14:23
  amazing and I love talking about it, but there's so
• 1:14:26
  much more that I wanted to talk about. Yeah, like
• 1:14:30
  if no, because I was doing it too. So it's
• 1:14:32
  not like it's your fault. If I didn't have my
• 1:14:34
  computer here, i'd probably just talk for like three hours.
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 1: Yeah, because it's like we didn't even been going for
• 1:14:40
  a little over an hour.
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 2: Really, I kind of am like closing it anyway.
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 1: Well, it took us like twenty minutes to get started,
• 1:14:46
  that's true. So like the actual video which you guys
• 1:14:48
  are watching on his screen. It says it's been one
• 1:14:52
  hour twenty two since it started. I bet you it's
• 1:14:54
  only been like an hour five, an hour ten.
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 2: Yeah, like we didn't even get to touch on like, uh,
• 1:15:01
  causal chains or like the moral argument.
• 1:15:04
  Speaker 1: We did talk about causal chains.
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 2: We did a little bit. So yeah, there's so there's
• 1:15:10
  so much.
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 1: There was something you would talk about earlier that just
• 1:15:12
  like if I don't it's in my brain. If I
• 1:15:15
  don't exist and this couch, then this that couch doesn't
• 1:15:18
  need to exist. That's the argument of contingency. But you
• 1:15:20
  did it backwards, which is really interesting because because you know,
• 1:15:24
  Thomas the Kuyt is an argument contingency says, if I
• 1:15:27
  exist and I'm sitting on a couch, and clearly the
• 1:15:30
  couch exists, but you kind of like went backwards. If
• 1:15:32
  I don't exist, then the couch doesn't need to exist
• 1:15:35
  because like the couches here because I'm sitting.
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 2: Like and the for you the couches.
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it's weird things, but like it some people can't
• 1:15:44
  tell the difference between the contingency versus the cause and effect.
• 1:15:48
  But one is temporal, the other is not. Contingency is
• 1:15:52
  not temporal, which is why it's hard to understand me.
• 1:15:57
  Sitting on this couch does not necessitate a time dependence
• 1:16:00
  of the couch existing necessitates a now dependence. And Riley
• 1:16:05
  just walked past really concerned for me.
• 1:16:09
  Speaker 2: But yeah, there's there's just so much.
• 1:16:13
  Speaker 1: There's so much like we we can't like talk about
• 1:16:16
  all these proofs for God because we could talk for
• 1:16:18
  hours about any of them and get what my problems.
• 1:16:22
  Some people might think.
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 2: Nowhere, Yeah, we don't. And that was kind of the
• 1:16:25
  thing with this is that just walk it doesn't even matter.
• 1:16:32
  But we didn't like get anywhere, I guess. So it's like,
• 1:16:36
  if you're listening to this and you're expecting some kind
• 1:16:38
  of like massive conclusion to like, oh, this is how
• 1:16:41
  like that we didn't get God exists.
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 1: That's my conclusion. I can't tell you how I got there.
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 2: But it's just if you're listening and you're confused, that's okay,
• 1:16:51
  because so are we, and.
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 1: So is Alex O'Connor, and.
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 2: So is Alex O'Connor, and so is Richard Dawkins, and
• 1:16:58
  so was Christopher Hitchens and Plato Aristotle.
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 1: We are all confused people. Some some of you listening
• 1:17:06
  might know the name boy number confused. It makes no
• 1:17:09
  sense to people who weren't in on that joke, But
• 1:17:11
  I'm boy number confused. But we are all confused because
• 1:17:16
  that's the state of being we live in, yea. And
• 1:17:19
  what do we do with that? We strive towards an understanding.
• 1:17:23
  And that is what Plato did, that's what Aristotle did,
• 1:17:25
  Saint Thomas Aquinas, that's what sh Dawkins does, that's what
• 1:17:28
  Alex o'canna does, and we all do it in our
• 1:17:29
  own different ways. But like, we can't say that a
• 1:17:33
  confusion means that we have no understanding of things because
• 1:17:37
  we are all confused.
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 2: Well, yeah, anyway, the other the other big because we're
• 1:17:46
  not going to make this into like a philosophy like
• 1:17:49
  apologetics podcast. The only the other argument for God that
• 1:17:52
  I want to talk about at some point is the
• 1:17:55
  moral argument, Yes, because that has a lot of practical implications.
• 1:17:59
  It's like, if right and wrong exists, what do you
• 1:18:01
  do with that? But like, how do you know the
• 1:18:03
  right and wrong?
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we'll get at that.
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 2: I do want to talk about the moral argument because
• 1:18:08
  I think that that's the most compelling case for me,
• 1:18:13
  That is the most compelling argument for God.
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 1: There was probably about seven minutes ago when I time
• 1:18:20
  stamp it was probably exactly right, I doout it. But
• 1:18:24
  where I was saying, it's like, and these are like
• 1:18:27
  that's all we can do, Like that's the best we
• 1:18:29
  got for explaining God in this conceptual, mathematical way. That's
• 1:18:32
  the best we got because it's other ways that are
• 1:18:35
  better at reaching God, and the moral is one of them.
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, And it's like again it's the how versus the why.
• 1:18:40
  It's like asking the scientific logical questions that are super
• 1:18:45
  intellectual and like haughty, No, that's not the right word.
• 1:18:49
  Super like there's a word for that. I can't think
• 1:18:53
  of what it is, super.
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 1: Like temporaneous stylistic zootopia. Uh, I'm just trying to think
• 1:19:01
  of lot.
• 1:19:01
  Speaker 2: Super intellectual and hard to understand. I don't really understand
• 1:19:05
  how they understand them. And then there's the why. And
• 1:19:11
  there's more of the emotional kind of moral ethical questions,
• 1:19:16
  which is you know what the moral argument is all about.
• 1:19:19
  So it won't be next week, probably, but at some
• 1:19:22
  point in the future we'll talk about that. Yeah. And
• 1:19:24
  then I'm sure that there's.
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: And if onny It puts the comments saying I want
• 1:19:27
  to hear about the moral argument. We'll do it a
• 1:19:29
  lot sooner than we.
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 2: Will do Maybe we'll do it in two weeks instead
• 1:19:32
  of a year or something. Who knows, but well, I
• 1:19:37
  guarantee that we'll talk about we'll have forgotten forever and
• 1:19:41
  when mister Cobb does it with us. Anyways, that's all
• 1:19:48
  we got I think right now.
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 1: Anyway, without a fool here, it's hard to get a
• 1:19:52
  point inspire.
• 1:19:55
  Speaker 2: But yeah, yeah, if you gain anything from this, if
• 1:19:59
  we talked about anything that you didn't understand, if we
• 1:20:01
  helped you understand something, if we said something that you
• 1:20:04
  think we didn't understand, you want to explain it to us,
• 1:20:07
  leave a comment, dm.
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 1: Us, please disprove some of argue against some of the
• 1:20:13
  things I say. If I made a lot of claims
• 1:20:15
  about science and mics a like, I believe you that's
• 1:20:17
  probably how the math works. Disprove me, please, because then
• 1:20:20
  it'd be fun to have a good conversation.
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 2: And then prove to me that actual infinites can actually exist.
• 1:20:26
  Try and leave a comment explaining how infinity can practically
• 1:20:29
  exist in the physical realm, and I would love to
• 1:20:32
  read that, because I don't think you can do it.
• 1:20:34
  There's a challenge.
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 1: I don't have to rely on conceptualizing.
• 1:20:37
  Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, I don't think you can do it. So
• 1:20:40
  if you want to challenge, then go ahead and do that.
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 1: You're going to make me lose faith in science and
• 1:20:45
  able to explain things because infinity doesn't exist.
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 2: Maybe it does, and I'm just not a scientist.
• 1:20:51
  Speaker 1: So's hilarious is there's a series that I just watched
• 1:20:57
  clips of but I haven't actually watched Young Sheldon what not.
• 1:21:00
  And at one point, this little kid that thinks he's
• 1:21:03
  so smart and whatnot and it is smart in many
• 1:21:05
  ways or whatever says zero doesn't exist, and they proved it,
• 1:21:10
  and then they went through a couple of things. It's
• 1:21:11
  like zero doesn't exist because zero is the concept of nothingness.
• 1:21:14
  Nothingness doesn't exist, so therefore zero doesn't exist, and it's
• 1:21:16
  like everything's false And I'm like, what, that's nonsense. But
• 1:21:24
  it's like that idea of like you have if you
• 1:21:26
  deal in the conception, it's like you're missing the physical
• 1:21:28
  and it's like, I've never thought about it that way. Yeah,
• 1:21:31
  is there something that you want to finish us out on,
• 1:21:33
  some way of wrapping up what we've talked about.
• 1:21:36
  Speaker 2: I don't even know, man, I can't in my own head,
• 1:21:38
  I can't even remember everything that we talked about, because
• 1:21:41
  we talked about a lot. But I would say this
• 1:21:46
  because this is what led me down the road of
• 1:21:49
  trying to understand all the stuff more. And I obviously
• 1:21:52
  don't after you listen, if you got this far, you
• 1:21:55
  know I don't understand it.
• 1:21:56
  Speaker 1: But you don't have a very low view count.
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah, even if they watch all the way through, they're
• 1:22:02
  gonna be like, what did I just listen to this dream?
• 1:22:06
  But allow yourself the freedom to ask questions, because, like
• 1:22:14
  I was saying, I was having trouble understanding God being infinite.
• 1:22:20
  And that doesn't mean that there's not an explanation for
• 1:22:23
  how God could just exists like there. That doesn't mean
• 1:22:28
  that there's not an explanation for how God could be
• 1:22:31
  who be? God be, who be? But if you never
• 1:22:36
  allow yourself to ask for the explanation, if you never
• 1:22:40
  allow yourself to seek that explanation out, then when somebody
• 1:22:43
  asks you. That's the big thing with this the There
• 1:22:48
  might be some people who are gonna be convinced by
• 1:22:50
  intellectual arguments and stuff, but more often than not, that's
• 1:22:56
  not gonna be what convinces people. However, I've had actually
• 1:23:02
  I lied earlier. There was an atheist that tried to
• 1:23:04
  talk to me one time. So there I'm not gonna
• 1:23:07
  tell the story of it because it's whatever. But there
• 1:23:09
  will be people who ask you intellectual questions and they say,
• 1:23:13
  what about this? And how do you explain this? And
• 1:23:15
  how do you explain that? And why does God allow this?
• 1:23:18
  And why does God not allow that? And it's like
• 1:23:20
  they will you will get these questions, and when you
• 1:23:23
  get those questions, if you don't have some kind of answer,
• 1:23:27
  you'll start to ask yourself the same question. If you
• 1:23:29
  don't seek out the answer, then it'll plant a seed
• 1:23:32
  of doubt in your heart, and if you don't try
• 1:23:34
  and find the answer to it will grow and it'll
• 1:23:37
  just cause a lot of problems. So just if you
• 1:23:39
  have questions, look for the answer. Don't be content with
• 1:23:46
  just accepting things because it's the way that like, because
• 1:23:50
  you were told that's just the way it is. Give
• 1:23:53
  yourself the freedom to go and look for the truth.
• 1:23:57
  And it's if you're Christian, I think you're probably gonna
• 1:24:00
  find it in the place you're expecting it. But you
• 1:24:02
  might understand it in a way that you didn't understand
• 1:24:04
  it before. So just give yourself the freedom to ask questions.
• 1:24:09
  Is kind of the big thing that I would say,
• 1:24:10
  because it's hard to realize sum up everything else we
• 1:24:12
  talked about.
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah, that's actually that's a really important question. Thing to say.
• 1:24:16
  It is, do not be afraid of asking questions. It
• 1:24:18
  is not heretical to ask questions. Okay, you can go
• 1:24:22
  up to priest and ask, like, why why do we
• 1:24:26
  believe that Jesus is fully present in the Eucharist. That's
• 1:24:30
  not a heresy to ask a questions, Like if you
• 1:24:32
  don't if you want to understand more, you can do that,
• 1:24:35
  and there's ways of understanding more. But you can't be
• 1:24:38
  like you should be like, oh, I don't really understand
• 1:24:41
  this at all. I feel like I want to understand
• 1:24:43
  more because it seems like it doesn't make sense that.
• 1:24:47
  It's not a heresy to ask questions. It's a heresy
• 1:24:51
  to outright oppose the dogmas of the Catholic Church. That's
• 1:24:57
  the definition of heresy. But you could be like, I
• 1:24:59
  don't understand this dogma. I have a weird question that
• 1:25:02
  I can't explain. I have faith that there is an
• 1:25:05
  explanation for it, and you can search it out and
• 1:25:07
  you can find and seek for it. But it's not
• 1:25:10
  a heresy to ask questions. I'm gonna finish with a
• 1:25:13
  couple of anecdotes. One I heard. I don't have citations
• 1:25:20
  or what not for this, but it'd be cool to
• 1:25:22
  believe that sixty six roughly sixty six percent of scientists
• 1:25:29
  under forty are theists. Everyone's like sciences proves God.
• 1:25:33
  Speaker 2: Science, it's not what the scientists like.
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 1: Literally, a huge portion of the young scientists population believe
• 1:25:41
  in God in some way or another. It's the oldest scientist.
• 1:25:46
  This is a lower population because it's kind of cool
• 1:25:48
  not to believe in God, or at least back in
• 1:25:50
  the nineteenth century that was a big philosophical things like,
• 1:25:52
  oh my goodness, what if God doesn't exist? And all
• 1:25:54
  the sciences like whoa? And now the young science are like,
• 1:25:58
  what are you guys talking about? This makes nose And
• 1:26:04
  there's something that Chesterton Gilbert Eston, a great philosopher of
• 1:26:09
  the nineteenth century, great writer, a super smart person. He
• 1:26:12
  said that if everyone went to live for a thousand years,
• 1:26:15
  everyone would either everyone would die. Either a member of
• 1:26:18
  the Catholic Church or a complete neholist about everything in life.
• 1:26:23
  So a really smart dude ten years before he converted
• 1:26:27
  to Catholicism. Note that he said this before he was
• 1:26:31
  a Catholic. He wasn't a Catholic at this time. And
• 1:26:34
  he said, if everyone were to live long enough, the
• 1:26:37
  only two places they would end up in terms of
• 1:26:40
  an intellectual understanding is complete nihilism. Nothing matters, there is
• 1:26:44
  no point, there's nothing, or they would be a part
• 1:26:47
  of the Catholic Church. Ten years before converted to Catholicism. Yikes,
• 1:26:53
  that dude is cool.
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 2: GK.
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 1: Chesterton, Yeah, that's that's that's I said.
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 2: Gilbert, said Gilbert, and I was like, wait a minute, Yeah.
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 1: G GK. Says said but that was like a really
• 1:27:05
  cool thing to hear. So that that's a latic notte
• 1:27:07
  for you. Whether or not you want to believe that
• 1:27:10
  up to you, but I believe it because it kind
• 1:27:12
  of makes sense. Yeah, those are the only two fully
• 1:27:16
  internally consistent world views. Absolutely nothing matters and God. Yep,
• 1:27:25
  those are the like God is an internally consistent and
• 1:27:28
  the other thing that's internally consistent is nothing ever matters.
• 1:27:31
  You could choose which one you believe.
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 2: Hopefully you can tell which one we believe.
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 1: Hope. So I might have said some sarcastic remarks earlier
• 1:27:40
  that might have been misinterpreted.
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 2: Uh, but yeah, like I said, leave a comment if
• 1:27:45
  you heard something you liked, or if you heard something
• 1:27:47
  you didn't like, if you heard something you understood that
• 1:27:49
  you didn't understand before, or if you heard something that
• 1:27:51
  you didn't understand even after we tried to explain it.
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 1: Such a convoluted way of saying things. But that's how
• 1:27:59
  our mind art is going, right, We're so confused.
• 1:28:01
  Speaker 2: Uh, you know, leave comment. D m us follow us
• 1:28:04
  on Instagram and sub to the YouTube and then on
• 1:28:06
  Spotify too, just so that you can.
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 1: At umsol. So he's like, wait, there's a random person
• 1:28:12
  at UMSL that watches then crazy.
• 1:28:15
  Speaker 2: If you go to umsol on I'm I'm not going
• 1:28:19
  to tell you where I am because.
• 1:28:20
  Speaker 1: You can recognize his hair. He's very unique.
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 2: Anyway, thank you for listening.
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 1: We will see you next time with with a little
• 1:28:30
  more cohesive Fulton.
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 2: I realized once once we start talking. I've always realized
• 1:28:36
  that like Fullen is someone who kind of like mixed
• 1:28:40
  grounds us because we can get kind.
• 1:28:42
  Speaker 1: Of flighty and like what man but had nothing. Yeah,
• 1:28:46
  I could go much more.
• 1:28:48
  Speaker 2: I could go literally anyway. Thank you for listening.
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 2: Have a good time, have a good life.