Caller Claims Conspiracy Among Scientists to HIDE Evidence for God | Matt Dillahunty and Jimmy Snow

Anthony in Virginia you're on the line with jimmmy and Matt uh hey how are youall doing just fine how are you mixed back uh yeah when I called in uh I said I wanted to talk about um areas where atheism breaks down but uh I've been talking with some atheists online about the problem of moral evil I didn't know if y'all wanted to go in that direction or just stick to the original topic you more interesting I I saw your original topic and and I'm curious because atheism is the state of not being convinced that

a God exists how does that break down yeah that's a good point well I feel like that there are certain there are implications logically of uh a God not existing and that's not the POS that's not the a that's not that's not the atheist position I just described it atheism is the position of not being convinced that a God exists how does that break down it is not the assertion that no God exists right so if if you're not convinced that a God exists then that means to me logically that you think everything You observe

can be explained without reference to God or any God correct no okay so wouldn't that all right I'm just asking questions wouldn't that mean that you see something that uh seems to be more explicable with reference to God how how am I where's my logic failing there there are things that we don't have an explanation for the time to think that they require a God is when it's been demonstrated that a God exists and is a suitable explanation for it and not a moment before but merely being unconvinced that a God exists does not mean

that you think God is necessary for something yeah the the your the assertions you were making implied that we have eliminated the possibility when I have neither eliminated the possibility or uh I wouldn't say entertained the possibility I've not been shown possibility in either direction for a God uh so there's no elimination or assertion of a possibility of God in any answer for me but let's assume let's let's assume let's assume that my position is there are no gods and you say that breaks down y okay so there's three all I wanted to do hang

on hang on all I wanted to do is clarify at the outset that when you say atheism breaks down atheism at its minimum is merely not being convinced that doesn't break down it doesn't have any implications it doesn't have any baggage it carries strong atheism the hard atheist position of there are no Gods if you want to argue that that breaks down at some point go for it that'd be good I don't know I feel like if if you're if you have a worldview that says I I don't I'm not convinced there's a a God

or gods and um there are are there are things that uh you think well okay let me yeah let's all let's just skia all right so I think that there are areas where God becomes logically necessary how about that sure give me one and how you know okay so so so the origin of the universe correct me if I'm wrong I'm just trying to it seems to me like atheism gets to a point where you have to uh logically assume that the Universe came from nothing like absolutely nothing no no no okay atheism atheism Atheism

in that in that particular description is the rejection of God it's not the rejection of everything but the universe our local presentation of the universe we have no way to explore it at any point earlier than the plank time and so for now we are barred from exploring that or determining what sort of origin it might have or if it had an origin if it's not the case that that it always existed in some form or another and changed we just don't know yeah it is noticeable though uh that amongst the proposed the the hypotheses

that are out there and when they talk about all kinds of stuff string theory uh Multiverse or as you're learning about things that we do understand in physics you read a book like something from nothing from Lawrence Krauss that uh notably these scientific hypotheses which never uh say God would be a part of it pretty well across the board all have some sort of element of uh some sort of Eternal element some sort of thing that always was uh there there that isn't really lacking so if anything while we don't know what the answer is

there is an interesting tendency among science without an invocation of God to suggest something was probably Eternal in some form okay so when I was growing up and we were learning about the big Bang Theory and again this may just be the popular presentation of it but I remember them saying that the matter uh exploded from nothing no exploded from no one ever said that or whoever did was wrong the singularity has not been presented as nothing and in fact in The Big Bang Theory The Singularity is po possibly one of those Eternal elements okay

so are we going to uh acknowledge that the matter that exists in this universe had to be eternally it has to be eternally existent it has to have always existed in some no because I don't know I don't know that that's the case we don't know we just don't know that it hasn't so all right well let's let's let's play with that so if we don't know that means we're there's a a possibility we're entertaining where the matter in the universe didn't exist and then somehow it started to exist if by entertain we go that's

something we'd like to test for and for sure we don't actually know whether it is even possible that all of the matter didn't exist or that it always exist it we haven't established possibility either okay so if if the matter in the universe didn't always exist what mechanism would generate matter from nothing why would that be a question we would answer when we don't know whether or not you're basically sitting and going okay what if of the Myriad of answers that could be but we don't know what if we pick this one what then would

be the mechanism that until we prove that one we haven't even studied and there wouldn't currently be scientific theory for Anthony what very I I got too annoyed last week and I've I've taken my blood pressure medication at the right time this week and I'm not going to let it happen like it did last week but you are here trying to essentially defend us sort of deistic proposition with uh uh this assertion of Simply this is a this is a a sexier god of the gaps argument and that is the entirety of what you are

doing I wonder are you a deist or are you a Christian or something else uh I believe in a god that is is purposely interacts in this uh conscious aware of creation and isn't just like a um the kind of De of God that just starts thing and just let it go and do you associate that God with any other religious tradition or is it a sort of I actually do think that I think I Think Jesus uh what is like a prophet of that God yeah I do so for Christianity what evidence you believe

the best proof of your God has nothing to do with the god presented in the Bible who does Miracles who do these incredible things who is capable apparently of doing Miracles when cameras aren't around you don't believe that it is the evidence for Jesus the historical evidence you believe that the best evidence for God is that there are places there are questions about the universe that either are answered and you don't even know they're answered because you're not a physicist or whatever or are unanswered and that the qu the answer to that question seems so

big and so conceivably unanswerable therefore insert God and and that gets you all the way to the Jerusalem mythology well yeah I just well I I don't think that um you know the Bible proves God I think that it's that God stands on its own irrespective of any religious uh system or institution so I think the best Arguments for God are are based in logic and rational thought empiricism and things like that so yeah I don't so give give an argument for God give it give an argument for God because you give an argument for

God because you came in and suggested that atheism falls apart but everything about your thing atheism falls apart misunderstood atheism and cosmology so what's the argument for God specifically an interactive God because you not only did you did you get to Jesus but right before that you said you believe that there's a God that interacts with and has thoughts about its its creation so what's the argument for that I think when you when you think about how the the universe and matter and all of it uh it's how it could have logically come into existence

or whether it always existed I think it reaches a point where first of all every all the matter and energy has to be eternally existent it can't have you don't know so clearly you don't know what an argument is because at no at no point in the history of the world has anyone said give me an argument for and it and and the argument began with I think when you think about it it could logically that's not an argument right especially this you're advocating for common sense physics which is absurd well the thing is the

laws of physics have to be go ahead there's so many counterintuitive things in the world that we discover that a common sense misunderstanding of physics is not going to be good as an argument for the existence of God well I think it does because it seems to me that the laws course you could the laws of physics could be other than what they are like we have uh constants we have physical constants like the gravitational constant have you have no to think that anything could be here let me ask this do you think a second

grader's understanding of physics is superior to Neil degrass Tyson's no then why are you arguing that a common misunderstood understanding of physics is sufficient to demonstrate that a God exists because if you have wouldn't a better understanding wouldn't a better wouldn't a better understanding of physics than a second grader if there was a if there was a second grade physics argument for God then wouldn't that also convince Neil degrass Tyson perhaps well I guess perhaps and yet and yet he's not convinced is he well whether people are convinced or not doesn't really establish truth to

me uh I I agree with you did I did I say did I say anything at all about establishing truth once in this entire show no no you didn't no I didn't so why would you respond about addressing truth why can't you respond to what I'm saying if you think that a that a second graders misunderstanding of physics is sufficient to demonstrate that a God exists and that the are are you saying that there are arguments that can demonstrate God but there's still no good reason to think they're true well I was just what I

was going for with the uh with what I was trying to say with the matter is that uh the universe could be a different way soing argument so what I'm saying is do how do you know the universe could be a different way because when we uh when we measure certain uh physical laws as we call them like uh Gravity the electromagnetic forces the nuclear forces a lot what we find is that these things are governed by what seem to be constant okay wait Anthony real quick before you proceed because I think I have to

test you like I did last week what question question did I just ask you uh I I'm sorry I don't remember yeah how do you know the universe could be no could be any other way you said that the con you're talking about the constants and I think what you just asked you think I asked was what makes you think the universe was fine-tuned and I didn't ask that I asked how do you know the universe could be any other way than it is that those constants could change I don't I don't exactly there goes

the fine-tuning argument but we can kind of theoretically speculate about what the universe might look like if the concepts were different sure but we don't know whether that is possible to actually we could spend the rest of the show we could spend the rest of the show arguing if Thor could beat up Hulk but that would be a waste of time unless it just seems to me that if you if you modify the constants you get a different universe so why but why exactly you're completely correct if the constants were different the universe would be

different but what I asked was how do you know there is any option for the constants to be different that the Universe could have been any other way we don't there's no way to know that so many examples of universes where we exist for example do you know of just one how many examples have you confirmed of universes that exist that we don't exist in that humans don't exist in no how could we possibly observe or test for a universe that humans don't exist in outside of our own Universe we can't exactly so all we

know is that we are here so clearly we are in a universe that supports human life whether or not other universes could Exist by the way I'm not saying we may never answer that question I don't know for all I know Multiverse travel is possible for all I know that's a stupid thing to say because multiverses are impossible I don't know but when I go I don't know I don't then go so which which person here who says they do know because of deep conviction because of Faith am I going to associate the my belief

in or my answer with that's what the difference between us is Anthony because you have gone from I don't see a way that there couldn't be a God because you think laws of physics contradict it when I I don't know which law of physics you would physics you would invoke to say that before the Big Bang anything any law of physic would physics would apply uh I I so I don't know which one you would invoke but then you get from I feel there must be because of this deep incredulity to the Jerusalem one yeah

I hav't tried to establish uh a link between you know my argument for God and my particular religion but I know I'm not cont I'm not trying to criticize you for that my argument is basically this that uh not only uh does the the matter have to exist but it has to be uh designed in such a such a way that interacts with other particles and and you know Universal relations in a way that um in a specific way Anthony Anthony let's say I agree with that when does that law start yeah exactly no no

no I'm asking I I would think it have to be Eternal it can't have just started at some point The Singularity violates the laws of physics because it isn't held by our universe's laws of physics as far as we can tell the moment of the Big Bang is when all of these things you're saying are limiters begin so right now we're in a universe where matter doesn't isn't destroyed or isn't uh uh uh it's it can only change it's never destroyed or created but prior to that if the concept of prior to that makes any

sense when there wouldn't even have been time we have no answers for yeah that's that's kind of why I don't believe in the Big Bang because of this problem where you have to get to a point where the the current laws of physics don't apply to material objects that seem to be go governed immutably by wow not believing it big a big that's a big one okay so I have two huge things one you're saying you don't accept Big Bang cosmology but you do accept magic because your understanding of physics is that it's just too

convenient well I wouldn't call it I wouldn't call you you are gonna reject all of the best findings of Science and the best evidence from the best mind about the origin of the universe you're going to reject all of that because you think there's an implication that can only be solved by appealing to a god well yeah but okay there so there's two separate things going on there all I needed was a yeah because I said all I needed was a yeah because I have to get to this other thing you literally said and I

typed it down word for word not only does the matter have to exist but it has to be designed in such a way that it can interact with other particles why use the word designed there wouldn't it be more accurate to say the matter needed to exist and have the properties that result in the uniformity of physics that we perceive that could be one way of looking at it yeah yeah but when but when you use the word designed don't don't things that are designed require a designer I I think yes that's that's correct so

wouldn't that be uh you smuggling the very Concept in we have I don't I think that it it it needs to be uh it it more or less follows because um the when when you have matter um no here's my problem Anthony when here's my problem Anthony when somebody says it more or less follows it either follows or it don't you either have a logical argument where one thing follows directly from the premises or it doesn't you don't we're not engaging in fuzziness here okay I think it has to follow because a lot of people

focus on how I think that I think that the the god designer needs to be there because a lot of people focus when they're talking about uh Origins and the Big Bang they just focus on how matter got there or if it always was there or how it existed in in the in the singularity but they don't talk about how the laws that govern matter are a certain way no no no no no no no no no Anthony Anthony there are no laws that govern matter there are no laws that govern matter physics is not

prescriptive it's not like there's a speed limit written for life for for light in a vacuum and it must follow that physics is descriptive of matter and so when you say people focus on the matter and they ignore the laws that govern it no they focus on the matter and then they describe the laws as how that matter interacts with other matter there is no prescriptive physics law it is 100% descriptive matter is what matters and energy well how do you how do you think that like okay you mentioned the speed of light like it

is seems to be fixed in a vacuum fixed speed in a vacuum so wece of it being different different than what it is so have scientists explain why we Anthony we don't we don't Anthony we don't have to conceive of it being different than it is we can measure it we we know the maximum speed that light can travel and we know that light travels at different speeds in different medium and we can measure it right so I guess my question is um do scientists have an explanation for why the speed of light is the

is exactly what it is in a in a vacuum let's imagine for a second let's imagine for a second that scientists don't currently have an explanation for it your question is wrong and malformed because that's what it is it is descriptive there you don't get to presume that it could be some other way it is descriptive but even if we thought that there was a reason and we didn't know it how would that be relevant to an argument for God because our knowledge or lack of knowledge about something does not mean that you get to

stick God in well let's because let's let's think about conceivable if if you could change the speed of light then that means oh my God no Anthony I'm done I'm so absolutely done and bored with you ignoring the facts of physics the the basics of physics and going yeah but if we could do this I don't give a about your hypotheticals when you don't even understand the physics Anthony is something possible if we can just conceive of it no correct so why is any of this relevant we have no idea whether or not it is

possible that the that the constant of the speed of light could be different by the way as we're talking about constant it's weird that you said you don't believe in the Big Bang but you defended this position of constants when I I wanted to know what the number was because I thought it was only five or six there's actually dozens of constants that relate directly to and are part of the proofs of the big bang that the Big Bang happened isn't a hypothesis it's a theory you can look at the big bang and you can

also just play the Universe In Reverse do you expect the constant which is uh uh the formula what would it have been the plank collaboration constant of the formula of the expansion of the universe no you don't accept a thing that there is measured proof of that we can look out and measure the rate of expansion and have done multiple times starting in the 9s where scientists were shocked to find out because originally the idea was the Big Bang will eventually lead to a big crunch they thought the rate of expansion would be slowing down

and have since then found out it's actually speeding up and then discovered the source for that speed then they've gone back and shot telescopes into space and have actually looked back through time which is what you do when you look and found that the cosmic radiation is where you would expect it consistent with that like a thing that has been proved to be a literal fact you're sitting there and saying I don't accept the constant which is the formula for the expansion of the universe but the constants of the universe is my defense of why

God exists reconcile that for me please Anthony well I do remember um about a year ago they they put that new telescope out there I remember it's man called Web telescope y yeah and um when it started taking pictures of what they considered to be you know the ftram edges of the not the edges of the universe but as far as that as it could look didn't U match the predictions about what they had originally thought with how the big bang works and things like there was a big argument wow what a shitty summary of

what you just said because what they did was they looked out and much like many things were looking for specific answers so like when they were measuring the higs bosen they they had multiple things multiple hypotheses where it was if it is this Mass that's more consistent with this theory if it's this Mass it's this consistent with this Theory and that one was fun because two of the main propositions for the universe it fell like cleanly in the middle of literally the same thing happening with James web where they were going we're going to look

out and measure and we're we think we're going to find this here however there could be this here this here and and the specific thing you are talking about is the way Christians will take a news article where it goes scientists very surprised to find this thing and rewrite that as scientists realize they were wrong about the big bang when in fact the subsequent information we have found from the James web telescope is some of the most beautiful and clear images of like background radiation and of the very things which prove you don't know about

physics because the support for The Big Bang Theory has only expanded since the James web telescope not retreated what an absurd thing you would say and call in and say with confidence good Lord I would I'd like to try something all right Anthony Let's ignore everything we've said let's let's ignore everything that we've said and everything that you've said just as an experiment I I I'm I'm trying to figure out the best way to phrase this so that it is most conducive to actually getting somewhere if we were if we went back in time to

where we didn't have today's understanding of physics and you were saying making and and you were using some of these classical Arguments for a God as a first cause Etc do you think that should be more compelling at that time in the past than it is today or do you think it's more compelling today than it would have been then or do you think it's equally compelling irrespective of our knowledge of science I think that uh some I think that uh I think that the argument for God is more compelling based on things we've discovered

since you know the enlightenment period of Science and exploration and things like that some some ideas about have been disen yeah so so you think these these arguments are more compelling in the light of science if that's the case then why is it that the people who understand this the best tend to be less relig by far than the general public I think it's because uh they haven't thought to the philosophic they they they believe that because our knowledge of the universe has expanded so greatly and uh we haven't you know found you know a

guy you know sitting in behind a booth to to programming it all that they've eliminated the possibility of God but I think it's flawed philosophy because it's like saying you've explored every inch of a car and you haven't found a designer in the car and so there's no desire I thank you Anthony thank you Anthony for the absolute most telling cartoon dismissal of rationality ever you think that the greatest thinkers who built cosmology the greatest thinkers who built physics didn't bother to spend any time thinking about or talking about God uh and that they just

decided that because we know so much and haven't actually found a dude that they've just dismissed God you have constructed the most flammable Straw Men in the history of flammable Straw Men in order to dismiss the fact the undeniable fact that both belief in God diminishes among the people who understand science the best and that belief in God is on decline in the general public not because people have decided Well if we haven't you think it's if we haven't found God by now it must not be there um what a kindergarten cartoonish straw man of

reality uh in that allows you to dismiss the findings of science do you think there's a conspiracy amongst scientists to hide good evidence for God yeah I do actually yeah cool thank you for demonstrating that you're a conspiracy theorist that's exactly what I thought what evidence do you have that there's a conspiracy amongst the elite scientists to hide evidence for God I well I want to make a quick programming note since you said it Anthony uh I don't know how this call is going to end I imagine it'll be soon since we've been here for

32 minutes tomorrow on skep talk Dr Aaron Adair who is a physicist who moonlights as a a scholar o uh uh for Christianity I was to say Christian scholar but that sort of implies he is himself a Christian which he is not yeah call him and tell him your ideas about the hidden evidence call him tell him your ideas about the constants call him and tell him about how you think it is merely that because he doesn't see a man in the clouds that that's why he eliminated the possibility of God somebody who actually has

advanced knowledge and has written books on the topic that you are invoking for proof but then also saying you don't believe in when is convenient call and put up these arguments with somebody who actually has that advanced level knowledge I look forward to not only you calling because surely your confidence and bravery won't only be with the two of us who are not scientists I look forward to the the endlessly entertaining clip that it's going to result in that I will personally watch uh dozens of times all right well I I would love to have

conversation I know he was on last week too with uh Forest no was not on last week with Forest okay I was I'm wrong okay sorry about that I don't know why I thought that but Austin Archer was on with Forest okay my bad my bad I'm sorry uh but let me just give a closing statement I just want wait real quick do you believe in evolution actually I think that's where the conspiracy the great is great because also he will be joined with by evolutionary biologist Erica from gutsi Gibbon so seriously uh call them

no need for a closing statement today save it for your introductory statement tomorrow I'll give you like a lineer Matt do you have any questions for him before he departs no I'm good all right go ahead you I'm gonna give you 15 seconds for your wrap up and save the rest for tomorrow all right I want people to think about not just where the matter came from but why why does it behave the way it does where did the physical laws come from even if you get matter you have to have the you have to

have they have to behave certain according to certain fixed principles and what we would call laws so yeah how did that happen scientists can't answer that thank you bye thank you thank you Anthony for demon you're a liar you're a liar Anthony when you in your thing with Scientists can't answer that can't and haven't are quite different uh the fact that you don't understand the physics and that maybe some scientists have not yet explained something is not the same as scientists can't explain something and it's very important for the audience to re to realize and

recognize that what's just happened here ignores what I already said that these laws are not prescriptive but descriptive so Anthony doesn't listen doesn't argue honestly and is desperate to try to paint science as if science fails to understand something while he actively repeatedly dismisses the science and the scientific evidence that would confirm that he's full of yeah yeah I that that was that that was what I was going to say at the end was thank you for proving you didn't actually listen to the other side of the conversation and we were extremely generous with letting

you how long was that oh 35 minutes or something yeah I should have asked that question how what question did I just ask you I should have asked it like six more times during that during that call at least um it's bizarre to me I mean granted I I didn't get my birthday wish yet if Let's uh let's have somebody who's actually willing to actually answer the question that's asked Anthony can't even remember the question that's asked because he's only waiting for his turn to speak and he demonstrated it by even though we we answered

his things and addressed him and gave him a number to call he's got to get a last word in where he lied about science yeah hello I'm Jimmy Snow executive producer of the line and I only became a woodworker for the puns that's not important if you would like to support this channel you can do so on our patreon or as a channel member and you can actually support specific shows and specific hosts in special tiers on those check those options out also you can leave a super thanks and get a little highlighted deal but

if all else fails you can always like you can subscribe and leave a comment now here are some suggestions because I don't care about the algorithm I am the algorithm bye