Author archive

Some emailer from “UK Isle of Wight” writes: Subject: GOD Dose exist and the proof is everywere Quite simply and so beautiful, GOD is nothing and nothing is the absolute of everything Kazim: “GOD is nothing” I agree with that part. The rest seems to be pretty much gibberish. Emailer: nothing exist hypothetically lets say the universe has a wall made of rubber if we take all the stuff out we get closer to nothing until were left with particles bouncing around at a colossal rate witch would form heat as energy this “energy” is now in theory in nothing so it has no forces to keep it in or to burn its fuel so it expands massively on a colossal scale until it spreads its energy out evenly then it would contract back in and technically repeat again and again. so if nothing is something can we call it God in the sense of something of a creation or beginning rather then a higher being of consciousness? Kazim: The things you are saying at least superficially resemble sentences constructed in the English language. I imagine they make sense to you in some way. Emailer: v = HD and E=mc2 what don’t you understand ? Kazim: Flamingoes may journey smooshily up besides the curly hedges of knickers! Emailer: to write out the complete origins of the universe would lag the internet out for years in one single email. to be derogative of meaning i.e. talking gibberish is not only showing a complete bias approach to life and its existents but also completely missing my point of God cannot exist as nothing is impossible nothing is Zero witch is unachievable and infant but without zero nothing would exist at all. It was a joke u numpty ! best wishes

I said I was going to comment on this in the Episode #692 thread, but the comment got way too long. So here’s a full post. In the most recent episode, a caller named Peter from New Zealand tried to prove that there is no God. Side comment: I have to say, I get really impatient with this topic, almost as much as attempts to prove that God does exist. Both pro- and anti-God arguments usually hinge on the notion that you can “prove” or “disprove” the existence of physical things through pure reason, without respect to the things that you actually observe in the universe. Augustine was really into this concept, and it was a big deal sometime around the Renaissance. But basically the rise of science was based on a recognition of the fact that our model of the universe is always going to be tentative, so we should build up a system that recognizes facts as more or less likely to be true based on their support through observation. There is never, ever, going to be some kind of successful argument purely of the form “A is A, therefore Bigfoot exists / doesn’t exist.” Proving things in the real world requires that you look at things in the real world. Look, guys, 200 generations of philosophers have tried and failed to both conclusively prove and disprove the existence of God. If you think you have solved the problem all by yourself, you are most likely not only wrong but sounding completely ridiculous. Learn to live with uncertainty. Anyhow… Peter in particular was making a fallacy which is extremely common in theistic arguments against scientific cosmology. Namely, he was making an equivocation fallacy on the word “universe.”Early in the call, he says: “My definition of the universe is ‘that which exists.’” That’s fine, and it’s certainly ONE legitimate definition of the word universe. But as his argument unfolds, he wants to apply that same...
Read more

Matt, Don, “Sacred” as a buzzword of ignorance. Have at it. I just finished listening and I have a comment about the New Zealand chap who attempted to disprove God. However, it wasn’t my episode so I’ll save it for the comments section.

Sorry I’m late with this, but I noticed some people wanting to comment on the recent show with me and Jeff, so I thought I ought to put up a thread. If you didn’t see the show, here’s what you missed: (Thanks for the Photoshop job, Eik!) I want to mention a point about one of the callers. This caller told us that he had experienced what some would consider to be “out of body experiences” or OBEs. However, rather than just assuming that he had experienced a supernatural event, he came up with the idea of hiding playing cards so he could look at them while projected. If this worked, he would have been able to predict what was value was on the cards and check them while awake. Much to his complete lack of surprise, it did not work. We also discussed some other alternatives at dinner. I brought up an example I heard from Martin Gardner: you should keep a book of limericks handy in your house but not read it. It’s easy to recognize a limerick on sight, but it’s not easy for your brain, conscious or subconscious, to invent a unique limerick on the fly. So if you’re not sure whether you’re experiencing the real world, just open up to a random page and find a limerick you haven’t read yet. Now, I noticed in my email that someone had written a comment on the blog, but later deleted it. I won’t quote the comment in full, or identify the poster, but I think the content is worth mentioning because it demonstrates a common method of dodging attempts to make supposedly supernatural events become testable. The commenter said that it would be foolish to try this sort of experiment, because all the experts on OBEs know that you cannot read text or see drawn images while you are out of your body. The page will show either random gibberish, or something completely different each time you look at it. And I say, gosh, how amazingly convenient that is for somebody who wants to to believe in OBEs but...
Read more

Okay, let me get this out of the way first: Dude in the commercial totally looks like me. It’s uncanny, but it’s not me. Pause the video at about 20 seconds to see the guy. (You can thank viewer Tommy for bringing the video to my attention, Tris from Facebook for setting the relevant images side by side, and Randy for bringing up the next video.) Even though it’s not me, it’s an added bonus that this commercial totally pissed off Catholics. Read more