1
00:00:15,960 --> 00:00:21,520
Speaker 1: Life audio evidence for a creator from the beginning of

2
00:00:21,560 --> 00:00:25,000
Speaker 1: the universe in studio today is my colleague, my friend.

3
00:00:25,079 --> 00:00:28,040
Speaker 1: Dare I say, boss? Are you kind of my boss?

4
00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:28,240
Speaker 2: Now?

5
00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:30,440
Speaker 3: Tim, I'm your boss's boss. Let's be honest.

6
00:00:30,720 --> 00:00:35,120
Speaker 1: Okay, whatever, Tim and I went to school together back

7
00:00:35,159 --> 00:00:36,760
Speaker 1: in the day twenty five years ago in the m

8
00:00:36,800 --> 00:00:41,040
Speaker 1: A philosophy program. Your colleague of mine done some excellent work,

9
00:00:41,560 --> 00:00:44,640
Speaker 1: and so many of the questions that people have asked

10
00:00:44,720 --> 00:00:48,159
Speaker 1: are philosophical in nature, so I thought it would be

11
00:00:48,200 --> 00:00:50,800
Speaker 1: perfect to have you join us. We already have a

12
00:00:50,880 --> 00:00:53,680
Speaker 1: dozen plus questions that are coming through Twitter. We have

13
00:00:53,760 --> 00:00:56,400
Speaker 1: something to come in through YouTube. I also see some

14
00:00:56,640 --> 00:00:59,400
Speaker 1: live questions here. So if you have some questions, write

15
00:00:59,440 --> 00:01:03,920
Speaker 1: the word question in caps, state it as succinctly as

16
00:01:03,960 --> 00:01:07,480
Speaker 1: you can, and we will rock through as many questions

17
00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:13,120
Speaker 1: as possible. All right, before we jump in, Tim, maybe

18
00:01:13,160 --> 00:01:16,120
Speaker 1: you could just briefly introduce yourself. I can introduce you,

19
00:01:16,160 --> 00:01:17,920
Speaker 1: but just tell people listening to what you do kind

20
00:01:17,920 --> 00:01:19,400
Speaker 1: of here at Talbot and your specialty.

21
00:01:19,680 --> 00:01:21,760
Speaker 3: Yeah. Thanks Sean. First of all, I just want to

22
00:01:21,800 --> 00:01:23,720
Speaker 3: say thanks for having me. I'm happy to be here.

23
00:01:23,800 --> 00:01:25,840
Speaker 3: This is going to be a lot of fun. These

24
00:01:25,840 --> 00:01:29,120
Speaker 3: are questions I think that are really interesting for Christians

25
00:01:29,120 --> 00:01:31,160
Speaker 3: to think about. So I'm really pleased to be here.

26
00:01:32,240 --> 00:01:35,360
Speaker 3: So I have two roles here at Biola. The first

27
00:01:35,480 --> 00:01:38,960
Speaker 3: is that I'm Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School Theology.

28
00:01:39,640 --> 00:01:43,560
Speaker 3: In this role, I do research and writing mostly about

29
00:01:43,560 --> 00:01:50,040
Speaker 3: metaphysics and epistemology and the Western intellectual historical tradition as

30
00:01:50,040 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 3: it relates especially to the idea of human persons and

31
00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:55,720
Speaker 3: how we think about ourselves in the world. I've been

32
00:01:55,720 --> 00:01:59,160
Speaker 3: doing that for eighteen years. We've known each other now

33
00:01:59,200 --> 00:02:02,840
Speaker 3: for a quarter of a century, back when we were

34
00:02:02,840 --> 00:02:06,400
Speaker 3: students here. So the second role, which is newer, is

35
00:02:07,440 --> 00:02:10,120
Speaker 3: this role that we've called the academic Dean of Talbot.

36
00:02:10,280 --> 00:02:14,440
Speaker 3: So in that I'm responsible to ensure that Talbot has

37
00:02:14,520 --> 00:02:17,760
Speaker 3: thriving students and faculty and programs, obviously with the help

38
00:02:17,800 --> 00:02:20,360
Speaker 3: of a huge team of folks, including all of our

39
00:02:20,360 --> 00:02:23,160
Speaker 3: faculty and our great staff and so on. So i

40
00:02:23,200 --> 00:02:26,400
Speaker 3: have an administrative role and also a faculty role, and

41
00:02:27,040 --> 00:02:30,560
Speaker 3: I'm enjoying both of those. I'm also a Presbyterian ruling

42
00:02:30,600 --> 00:02:33,200
Speaker 3: Elder in the PCA of the Presbyterian Church in America,

43
00:02:33,360 --> 00:02:37,960
Speaker 3: so I serve at my little home church, Redeemer Presbyterian

44
00:02:37,960 --> 00:02:40,399
Speaker 3: in Newport, and I'm also a scholar in residence there,

45
00:02:40,440 --> 00:02:44,920
Speaker 3: which essentially just gives me some visibility for the congregation

46
00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:48,080
Speaker 3: and the denomination. For people who have questions about their faith,

47
00:02:48,200 --> 00:02:52,160
Speaker 3: questions about theology, whatever it is, they kind of know

48
00:02:52,240 --> 00:02:53,720
Speaker 3: that they can come to me to talk about those

49
00:02:53,800 --> 00:02:55,040
Speaker 3: kinds of things. I love it.

50
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:55,920
Speaker 2: I love it you to do that.

51
00:02:55,960 --> 00:02:59,360
Speaker 1: Well, we got a lot of questions here, basically about

52
00:02:59,400 --> 00:03:01,800
Speaker 1: the cause of the universe. Why is it personal? Have

53
00:03:01,919 --> 00:03:03,600
Speaker 1: we maken a god of the gaps?

54
00:03:03,800 --> 00:03:04,200
Speaker 2: Argument?

55
00:03:04,800 --> 00:03:06,720
Speaker 1: Is it possible that the universe is going to come

56
00:03:06,720 --> 00:03:09,160
Speaker 1: from the laws of physics or math? So we're going

57
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:11,360
Speaker 1: to get into a lot of those, But I just

58
00:03:11,360 --> 00:03:14,880
Speaker 1: want to remind folks that this is in response. We've

59
00:03:14,880 --> 00:03:19,720
Speaker 1: been doing these on Tuesdays, calling them Talbot Tuesdays, bringing

60
00:03:19,720 --> 00:03:22,799
Speaker 1: in faculty highlighting them. And today, since a lot of

61
00:03:22,800 --> 00:03:26,519
Speaker 1: the questions are in response to doctor Stephen Meyer's interview

62
00:03:26,560 --> 00:03:29,320
Speaker 1: from last week, feared we'd bring you on. So let's

63
00:03:29,400 --> 00:03:32,120
Speaker 1: jump right in and then we'll jump back and forth

64
00:03:32,160 --> 00:03:35,200
Speaker 1: between your live questions and some of the questions that

65
00:03:35,240 --> 00:03:39,280
Speaker 1: we have here. So somebody asked why can't a universe

66
00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:44,000
Speaker 1: come from nothing? Why is that not a possible or

67
00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:46,120
Speaker 1: maybe even reasonable explanation.

68
00:03:47,240 --> 00:03:50,600
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think that's a good question. The short answer,

69
00:03:50,640 --> 00:03:55,000
Speaker 3: in my view is contingency, okay. And what I mean

70
00:03:55,040 --> 00:03:57,760
Speaker 3: by that is that when things are contingent, we look

71
00:03:57,800 --> 00:04:01,400
Speaker 3: for explanations of them. We want to know why it

72
00:04:01,480 --> 00:04:03,320
Speaker 3: is there, why it has the nature that it does,

73
00:04:03,400 --> 00:04:05,680
Speaker 3: why it came around at that time, you know, all

74
00:04:05,760 --> 00:04:07,600
Speaker 3: those kinds of things. That's just kind of part of

75
00:04:07,600 --> 00:04:10,080
Speaker 3: who we are. When things happened that didn't have to

76
00:04:10,080 --> 00:04:13,960
Speaker 3: be a certain way, we ask a why question. Why

77
00:04:14,080 --> 00:04:15,920
Speaker 3: is it that way rather than some other way? Why

78
00:04:15,920 --> 00:04:18,800
Speaker 3: did this thing come into being rather than not? And

79
00:04:18,880 --> 00:04:21,719
Speaker 3: so this base it's a kind of basic principle of

80
00:04:21,760 --> 00:04:24,320
Speaker 3: our inquiry about really anything in the world. We want

81
00:04:24,320 --> 00:04:27,599
Speaker 3: to know why things occurred, and we really only want

82
00:04:27,600 --> 00:04:31,800
Speaker 3: those when things we recognize that they could have gone differently. So,

83
00:04:31,920 --> 00:04:33,680
Speaker 3: for example, just like to give you a sense, we

84
00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:36,040
Speaker 3: don't ask for the whys of mathematics. We look for

85
00:04:36,120 --> 00:04:39,960
Speaker 3: the structure of mathematics. Our theorizing about mathematics is about

86
00:04:39,960 --> 00:04:42,200
Speaker 3: its structure, the way things relate to one another. But

87
00:04:42,240 --> 00:04:47,120
Speaker 3: we're not asking really why questions, whereas in say psychology,

88
00:04:47,200 --> 00:04:50,000
Speaker 3: we look for explanations. We want to understand the why

89
00:04:50,120 --> 00:04:53,000
Speaker 3: behind that. So we have this kind of structural form

90
00:04:53,040 --> 00:04:57,279
Speaker 3: of inquiry about necessary things and an explanatory form of

91
00:04:57,320 --> 00:05:01,440
Speaker 3: inquiry about contingent things. The universe is a contingent thing,

92
00:05:01,640 --> 00:05:03,919
Speaker 3: and so we want to know why. So the idea

93
00:05:03,960 --> 00:05:07,320
Speaker 3: that there is no explanation doesn't really make any sense

94
00:05:07,640 --> 00:05:11,000
Speaker 3: to us. It doesn't satisfy the longing that we have

95
00:05:11,160 --> 00:05:14,520
Speaker 3: to have an explanation, and that longing is rooted in

96
00:05:14,560 --> 00:05:16,800
Speaker 3: the fact that contingent things need to be explained. They

97
00:05:16,800 --> 00:05:20,279
Speaker 3: don't just happen randomly. And so that's the short answer.

98
00:05:20,320 --> 00:05:22,080
Speaker 3: I think why the universe can't come from nothing, it's

99
00:05:22,120 --> 00:05:26,120
Speaker 3: because that's not the kind of thing nothing does. When

100
00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:28,680
Speaker 3: we have a contingent thing, we want to know where

101
00:05:28,680 --> 00:05:30,040
Speaker 3: it came from. What do you think about this?

102
00:05:30,200 --> 00:05:31,400
Speaker 2: I think that's a great explanation.

103
00:05:31,480 --> 00:05:35,279
Speaker 1: I often think of the worship song that says nothing

104
00:05:35,480 --> 00:05:38,800
Speaker 1: is greater than God. And when I think of that,

105
00:05:38,920 --> 00:05:43,159
Speaker 1: it's not that nothing is something that's greater than God.

106
00:05:43,640 --> 00:05:47,600
Speaker 1: It's saying no thing is greater than God. There's not

107
00:05:47,800 --> 00:05:52,120
Speaker 1: anything that exists that is greater than God. So when

108
00:05:52,160 --> 00:05:54,400
Speaker 1: we say can universe come from nothing, it's not like

109
00:05:54,520 --> 00:05:58,960
Speaker 1: nothing is something that the universe came out of. It's

110
00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:03,760
Speaker 1: no thing, not anything at all, which means there's not

111
00:06:03,839 --> 00:06:08,640
Speaker 1: even potentiality for something to exist. So I think the

112
00:06:08,680 --> 00:06:11,800
Speaker 1: way you're approaching it makes sense. When things are contingent,

113
00:06:12,360 --> 00:06:16,479
Speaker 1: we naturally ask for an explanation things that are necessary,

114
00:06:17,240 --> 00:06:20,159
Speaker 1: we don't. But we also know that you can't get

115
00:06:20,440 --> 00:06:26,000
Speaker 1: some thing from no thing. It seems like as basic

116
00:06:26,160 --> 00:06:31,880
Speaker 1: and obvious of a metaphysical intuition that's true as anything

117
00:06:32,560 --> 00:06:35,680
Speaker 1: would be. So I think I would maybe add that

118
00:06:35,800 --> 00:06:38,920
Speaker 1: piece to it. But I think what you're getting at

119
00:06:39,040 --> 00:06:41,320
Speaker 1: makes a lot of sense that even if people don't

120
00:06:41,400 --> 00:06:45,719
Speaker 1: use the terms necessary and contingent, it's kind of human nature.

121
00:06:45,760 --> 00:06:48,799
Speaker 1: And at some point we know we can stop asking

122
00:06:48,880 --> 00:06:52,120
Speaker 1: the why question. But when it comes to the universe,

123
00:06:52,320 --> 00:06:55,560
Speaker 1: which is contingent and could have been different, didn't have

124
00:06:55,720 --> 00:07:01,760
Speaker 1: to exist, unlike laws of logic or math that are necessary,

125
00:07:01,839 --> 00:07:04,680
Speaker 1: if we say that something can come from nothing and

126
00:07:04,720 --> 00:07:09,080
Speaker 1: it doesn't need an explanation, then we're making one exception

127
00:07:09,279 --> 00:07:13,080
Speaker 1: to this rule. We don't for anything else, and that

128
00:07:13,080 --> 00:07:16,800
Speaker 1: would be the question, why make the exception there, that's

129
00:07:16,840 --> 00:07:17,800
Speaker 1: what comes to my mind.

130
00:07:18,040 --> 00:07:20,320
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean, I think I would endorse all of that.

131
00:07:20,400 --> 00:07:24,120
Speaker 3: In fact, the idea that contingent things need to be

132
00:07:24,200 --> 00:07:28,600
Speaker 3: explained is rooted in that idea because if you think

133
00:07:28,760 --> 00:07:32,400
Speaker 3: suppose it's not suppose there was already something and then

134
00:07:32,520 --> 00:07:37,560
Speaker 3: something contingent happened. We wouldn't just say, well, nothing explains that, right.

135
00:07:37,960 --> 00:07:41,360
Speaker 3: We would either say, well, oh, we need to find

136
00:07:41,360 --> 00:07:44,320
Speaker 3: the explanation of it, or we would find some We

137
00:07:44,560 --> 00:07:47,080
Speaker 3: would say there's this cause of it that's already rooted

138
00:07:47,120 --> 00:07:50,360
Speaker 3: in the things that already exist. And so that idea

139
00:07:50,400 --> 00:07:54,520
Speaker 3: that nothing can't explain something is in a way related.

140
00:07:54,520 --> 00:07:56,680
Speaker 3: So that's a kind of metaphysical principle. It's a principle

141
00:07:56,680 --> 00:07:58,560
Speaker 3: of how things relate to one another. But then in

142
00:07:58,600 --> 00:08:01,160
Speaker 3: our inquiry, like the rule that govern how we should

143
00:08:01,480 --> 00:08:04,760
Speaker 3: sort of learn and grow and come to understanding, that

144
00:08:04,920 --> 00:08:08,320
Speaker 3: shows up as this idea that well, really contingent things

145
00:08:08,320 --> 00:08:10,600
Speaker 3: need to be explained, and we explain them by appealing

146
00:08:10,600 --> 00:08:13,840
Speaker 3: to things that we're already around to do that explanatory work.

147
00:08:14,600 --> 00:08:16,960
Speaker 2: Otter worry and don't need an explanation.

148
00:08:17,040 --> 00:08:18,720
Speaker 3: Ultimately, that's right, that's right.

149
00:08:19,040 --> 00:08:19,720
Speaker 2: Good, good stuff.

150
00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:22,520
Speaker 1: Okay, So I see some questions here. Some I'm not

151
00:08:22,520 --> 00:08:25,960
Speaker 1: sure how serious they are. Some are relating to fine tuning,

152
00:08:26,040 --> 00:08:28,440
Speaker 1: which is not the topic of today, just so some

153
00:08:28,480 --> 00:08:30,800
Speaker 1: people know. On Friday, I'm posting video on the origin

154
00:08:30,840 --> 00:08:32,960
Speaker 1: of life with Doug Ax, one of the world experts.

155
00:08:33,480 --> 00:08:37,079
Speaker 1: Next Tuesday, we'll take live questions on that. The following Tuesday,

156
00:08:37,120 --> 00:08:39,520
Speaker 1: we have an interview with Jay Richards on fine tuning,

157
00:08:39,559 --> 00:08:42,240
Speaker 1: who's also one of the world's experts. On that we'll

158
00:08:42,280 --> 00:08:45,600
Speaker 1: take live questions. Then here we're tiring about questions related

159
00:08:45,640 --> 00:08:49,240
Speaker 1: to cosmology and the origin of the universe, more so

160
00:08:49,440 --> 00:08:54,480
Speaker 1: specifically philosophical questions, because that's our lane.

161
00:08:54,559 --> 00:08:55,560
Speaker 2: We want to stay in our lane.

162
00:08:55,600 --> 00:08:57,400
Speaker 1: Okay, here's some more that have come in tim This

163
00:08:57,440 --> 00:09:00,920
Speaker 1: one says, this relates. The last one says, can laws

164
00:09:00,960 --> 00:09:05,480
Speaker 1: of physics or mathematics explain the origin of the universe?

165
00:09:05,960 --> 00:09:07,920
Speaker 1: So this is kind of saying not the universe comes

166
00:09:07,920 --> 00:09:12,160
Speaker 1: from nothing, because laws of physics or math would be something,

167
00:09:12,320 --> 00:09:16,520
Speaker 1: although not physical, Could that explain the origin of the universe.

168
00:09:16,840 --> 00:09:20,280
Speaker 3: I think there's a lot to say here, but the

169
00:09:20,320 --> 00:09:23,839
Speaker 3: short answers know that the laws of physics, nor the

170
00:09:23,920 --> 00:09:26,080
Speaker 3: laws of mathematics can't explain the origin of the universe.

171
00:09:26,080 --> 00:09:29,720
Speaker 3: And here's the basic reason why the laws of nature

172
00:09:30,120 --> 00:09:35,160
Speaker 3: don't explain anything. The laws of nature are descriptions of

173
00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:38,680
Speaker 3: the ways that the features and natures of things relate

174
00:09:38,720 --> 00:09:42,360
Speaker 3: to one another. So it's not that the law of

175
00:09:42,440 --> 00:09:46,439
Speaker 3: gravity causes things to move toward the Earth. It's that

176
00:09:46,520 --> 00:09:51,160
Speaker 3: the Earth is massive and mass attracts mass. The law

177
00:09:51,200 --> 00:09:56,400
Speaker 3: of gravity is a description of that process, basically, that

178
00:09:57,040 --> 00:10:01,640
Speaker 3: relationship between mass massive body and other massive bodies. So

179
00:10:01,679 --> 00:10:07,120
Speaker 3: the laws don't actually do explanatory work. They describe the

180
00:10:07,280 --> 00:10:11,160
Speaker 3: generalities about explanations. So if we were to say the

181
00:10:11,240 --> 00:10:15,400
Speaker 3: laws of physics explain the origin of the universe, that

182
00:10:15,400 --> 00:10:18,360
Speaker 3: wouldn't actually make any sense. The laws of physics are

183
00:10:18,480 --> 00:10:22,160
Speaker 3: just a description. The person who I think says this

184
00:10:22,400 --> 00:10:24,840
Speaker 3: kind of thing very clearly is John Lenox. So John

185
00:10:24,920 --> 00:10:28,400
Speaker 3: Lenox has a little book called Can Science Explain Everything?

186
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:30,640
Speaker 3: It's a great little book, and he talks about this

187
00:10:31,160 --> 00:10:34,880
Speaker 3: and this Actually, so in my work in metaphysics, a

188
00:10:34,920 --> 00:10:37,560
Speaker 3: big part of that is thinking about things like the

189
00:10:37,600 --> 00:10:40,160
Speaker 3: laws of nature and what those things are. And it

190
00:10:40,200 --> 00:10:42,880
Speaker 3: turns out that in the world of philosophy, there's a

191
00:10:43,240 --> 00:10:46,320
Speaker 3: prominent view of laws on which they really do just

192
00:10:46,480 --> 00:10:49,040
Speaker 3: describe the relationships between attributes, and I think that's the

193
00:10:49,080 --> 00:10:51,839
Speaker 3: right way to think about things. And it's the same

194
00:10:51,920 --> 00:10:55,200
Speaker 3: with mathematics. It's actually even worse with mathematics because mathematics

195
00:10:55,440 --> 00:10:59,160
Speaker 3: mathematical laws don't govern the physical world. They don't describe

196
00:10:59,200 --> 00:11:02,240
Speaker 3: the physical world. They describe these necessary things that don't

197
00:11:02,240 --> 00:11:08,640
Speaker 3: have any causal powers. Those so you're describing the relationships

198
00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:12,120
Speaker 3: between things that themselves don't have any causal powers. That's

199
00:11:12,120 --> 00:11:16,479
Speaker 3: even less able to explain anything than describing the relationships

200
00:11:16,480 --> 00:11:19,040
Speaker 3: between things that do have causal powers. So at least

201
00:11:19,040 --> 00:11:22,480
Speaker 3: the laws of physics are describing the relationships between things

202
00:11:22,559 --> 00:11:26,360
Speaker 3: that have causal power to do something, But the laws

203
00:11:26,440 --> 00:11:30,000
Speaker 3: themselves can't explain it. So they don't even explain once

204
00:11:30,040 --> 00:11:31,920
Speaker 3: we have a world what goes on. Much less can

205
00:11:31,920 --> 00:11:34,360
Speaker 3: they explain the existence of the world overall.

206
00:11:34,800 --> 00:11:37,520
Speaker 1: Okay, So one of the strengths when the beginning he said,

207
00:11:37,559 --> 00:11:40,240
Speaker 1: there's much that could be said for this kind of

208
00:11:40,280 --> 00:11:42,800
Speaker 1: claim the laws of physics or math can explain the

209
00:11:42,840 --> 00:11:46,360
Speaker 1: words in the universe is that we know space, time,

210
00:11:46,440 --> 00:11:51,360
Speaker 1: matter had a beginning. So whatever caused. It could be

211
00:11:51,520 --> 00:11:58,640
Speaker 1: self existent, eternal, uncaused. Mathematical laws, not laws of physics,

212
00:11:59,040 --> 00:12:04,200
Speaker 1: would check some of those boxes as an adequate cause

213
00:12:04,240 --> 00:12:06,920
Speaker 1: for the origin of the universe. Now, I'll come back

214
00:12:06,920 --> 00:12:10,040
Speaker 1: to why it doesn't ultimately, but laws of physics. You

215
00:12:10,080 --> 00:12:13,200
Speaker 1: can have laws of mathematics apart from a physical world,

216
00:12:13,480 --> 00:12:16,160
Speaker 1: but the law of gravity or laws of physics don't

217
00:12:16,200 --> 00:12:20,439
Speaker 1: continue to exist apart from a physical world and depend

218
00:12:20,679 --> 00:12:23,880
Speaker 1: upon their existence. So they clearly can't explain the origin

219
00:12:24,040 --> 00:12:27,920
Speaker 1: of the very world that they depend upon. Now, math,

220
00:12:28,000 --> 00:12:31,520
Speaker 1: and there's huge debates about how math exists. Is it

221
00:12:31,600 --> 00:12:35,319
Speaker 1: platonic in God's mind? We don't have to remotely go into.

222
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:36,640
Speaker 2: That debate here.

223
00:12:37,960 --> 00:12:42,480
Speaker 1: We would lose everybody who's tracking with us permanently. So

224
00:12:42,800 --> 00:12:45,200
Speaker 1: that would be fun. We'll do that one at midnight

225
00:12:45,440 --> 00:12:48,240
Speaker 1: some night hanging out. Now I lost my train of thought, Pig,

226
00:12:48,640 --> 00:12:53,120
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Okay, okay. So the reason that mathematical laws

227
00:12:53,160 --> 00:12:56,560
Speaker 1: can't explain is because you might say it like they're passive.

228
00:12:56,600 --> 00:13:01,320
Speaker 1: They're not active. There's no mind to choose to cause anything.

229
00:13:01,760 --> 00:13:06,319
Speaker 1: They're causally a feat and that's where a mind has

230
00:13:06,360 --> 00:13:10,240
Speaker 1: the ability to choose to move this cup to choose

231
00:13:10,320 --> 00:13:15,440
Speaker 1: to speak certain things and creation, there's a beginning point

232
00:13:15,480 --> 00:13:18,959
Speaker 1: to creation which smacks of a mind and a choice

233
00:13:19,000 --> 00:13:21,680
Speaker 1: to do this, which makes more sense from a person

234
00:13:22,200 --> 00:13:25,120
Speaker 1: than from something impersonal like laws of math.

235
00:13:25,160 --> 00:13:27,160
Speaker 2: Agreed, disagree, Expand.

236
00:13:27,320 --> 00:13:29,200
Speaker 3: I think that's right. I mean what I would want

237
00:13:29,240 --> 00:13:31,559
Speaker 3: to emphasize, though, is that even if so two things,

238
00:13:31,880 --> 00:13:34,440
Speaker 3: even if you already have a physical world, the laws

239
00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:37,240
Speaker 3: of nature don't explain anything. Okay, I just think that's

240
00:13:37,280 --> 00:13:39,000
Speaker 3: the right way to think about the laws. The laws

241
00:13:39,040 --> 00:13:40,800
Speaker 3: are descriptions, they're not explanations.

242
00:13:42,400 --> 00:13:42,720
Speaker 2: Got it.

243
00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:45,679
Speaker 3: The second thing to say is that the unique thing

244
00:13:45,679 --> 00:13:49,120
Speaker 3: about a person is that persons can act for reasons,

245
00:13:50,440 --> 00:13:54,240
Speaker 3: and so you can ex so those aren't lawlike governed.

246
00:13:54,440 --> 00:13:57,040
Speaker 3: They're not governed by laws. And so this is why

247
00:13:57,080 --> 00:13:59,719
Speaker 3: it's so appealing actually to say that there was a

248
00:13:59,760 --> 00:14:03,880
Speaker 3: mom that explains the origin of the universe with respect

249
00:14:03,920 --> 00:14:07,000
Speaker 3: to things like it's the fact that it exists rather

250
00:14:07,040 --> 00:14:09,080
Speaker 3: than doesn't, or the fact that it has the nature

251
00:14:09,120 --> 00:14:10,719
Speaker 3: that it does rather than some other nature. All that

252
00:14:10,800 --> 00:14:14,520
Speaker 3: kind of contingent stuff. Is because a mind can act

253
00:14:14,640 --> 00:14:19,600
Speaker 3: for reasons independent of a governing law. It's not just

254
00:14:19,720 --> 00:14:21,920
Speaker 3: by the nature of the mind that it chooses this

255
00:14:22,000 --> 00:14:24,760
Speaker 3: thing rather than that thing. A mind has the capacity

256
00:14:24,800 --> 00:14:28,640
Speaker 3: to choose given its nature. This is unlike how the

257
00:14:28,720 --> 00:14:32,960
Speaker 3: laws of physics and so on govern. They describe the

258
00:14:33,000 --> 00:14:36,600
Speaker 3: ways that things naturally relate to other things. And it's

259
00:14:36,600 --> 00:14:41,960
Speaker 3: not by choice that the Earth attracts the moon. It

260
00:14:42,000 --> 00:14:44,800
Speaker 3: doesn't choose that. It has to be given its nature.

261
00:14:45,280 --> 00:14:46,160
Speaker 2: It's external.

262
00:14:47,280 --> 00:14:51,600
Speaker 3: And so that basic contingency in the world, just the

263
00:14:51,640 --> 00:14:54,600
Speaker 3: first one being that it exists rather than doesn't, needs

264
00:14:54,640 --> 00:14:59,200
Speaker 3: something non lawlike to explain it. Correct, And that's a mind.

265
00:14:59,280 --> 00:15:02,160
Speaker 2: Got it? Okay, good job, excellent, all right.

266
00:15:02,240 --> 00:15:05,040
Speaker 1: So let's let's go to I like this one here,

267
00:15:05,080 --> 00:15:08,120
Speaker 1: and I'm you're gonna have to break this one down

268
00:15:08,320 --> 00:15:12,640
Speaker 1: for us. Tims as simple as possible. We had again,

269
00:15:12,680 --> 00:15:16,200
Speaker 1: we had Meyron and Meyer. In his books, Steven Meyers

270
00:15:16,200 --> 00:15:18,600
Speaker 1: talked about things pointing towards the beginning of the universe,

271
00:15:18,760 --> 00:15:23,640
Speaker 1: like the cosmic microwave background radiation, talks about the Doppler effect,

272
00:15:23,760 --> 00:15:27,600
Speaker 1: kind of the red shift that's expanded, second law therm dynamics.

273
00:15:27,680 --> 00:15:30,520
Speaker 1: These are the kind of scientific arguments the universe had

274
00:15:30,560 --> 00:15:35,120
Speaker 1: a beginning. But there's also philosophical arguments, and people like

275
00:15:35,120 --> 00:15:38,200
Speaker 1: William Lan Craig have argued that even independent of any

276
00:15:38,200 --> 00:15:42,440
Speaker 1: of the science, this is sufficient to demonstrate that the

277
00:15:42,480 --> 00:15:45,880
Speaker 1: most reasonable explanation is the universe had a beginning. Now,

278
00:15:46,000 --> 00:15:47,880
Speaker 1: let's start with one. What do you think is the

279
00:15:47,920 --> 00:15:53,240
Speaker 1: best philosophical argument that people could grasp most intuitively?

280
00:15:55,400 --> 00:16:00,360
Speaker 3: I'm saying you, I actually think there's so Bill Craig

281
00:16:00,480 --> 00:16:03,280
Speaker 3: says that they're two he does, yeah, one of them.

282
00:16:03,720 --> 00:16:07,240
Speaker 3: I actually disagree with him about. Oh, but that's maybe

283
00:16:07,240 --> 00:16:08,320
Speaker 3: for another day. Is that the.

284
00:16:08,440 --> 00:16:11,320
Speaker 1: Existence of an actual Yes, that's okay, So I think

285
00:16:11,440 --> 00:16:12,240
Speaker 1: super intrigued.

286
00:16:12,280 --> 00:16:13,760
Speaker 2: But you said we weren't.

287
00:16:13,520 --> 00:16:15,920
Speaker 3: Talking about paganism, and so you know, we have to

288
00:16:15,920 --> 00:16:17,760
Speaker 3: avoid those kinds of things. But I actually do think

289
00:16:17,800 --> 00:16:22,000
Speaker 3: that actual infinites aren't themselves problematic. That's controversial. I realized

290
00:16:22,040 --> 00:16:22,920
Speaker 3: that just.

291
00:16:22,880 --> 00:16:26,320
Speaker 1: So you know, doctor Craig watches all of my live streams,

292
00:16:26,360 --> 00:16:28,000
Speaker 1: and he now knows that, you know, he does, and

293
00:16:28,080 --> 00:16:28,800
Speaker 1: I'm kidding.

294
00:16:29,200 --> 00:16:32,600
Speaker 3: Well, he knows already. But but the other reason that

295
00:16:32,640 --> 00:16:37,200
Speaker 3: he gives is I think apt and at exactly right. Okay, So,

296
00:16:37,200 --> 00:16:40,280
Speaker 3: so I think the best reason, the best philosophical reason

297
00:16:40,360 --> 00:16:43,120
Speaker 3: to think that the universe needed a beginning, is that

298
00:16:43,200 --> 00:16:48,240
Speaker 3: you can't traverse an actual infinite amount of time. Okay,

299
00:16:48,560 --> 00:16:52,400
Speaker 3: So that is to say, if you if you think

300
00:16:52,480 --> 00:16:56,720
Speaker 3: that the universe has an infinite temporal duration in the past,

301
00:16:58,040 --> 00:17:03,600
Speaker 3: that is say, there's an infinite number of seconds going

302
00:17:03,640 --> 00:17:04,639
Speaker 3: backward in the past.

303
00:17:04,960 --> 00:17:08,080
Speaker 2: So it had no beginning, no beginning, infinitely.

304
00:17:07,960 --> 00:17:11,160
Speaker 3: Infinitely and yeah, and and those chunks of time aren't

305
00:17:11,200 --> 00:17:13,919
Speaker 3: just moments, they're they're measurable chunks of time like a

306
00:17:13,960 --> 00:17:16,639
Speaker 3: second or a minute or whatever it is, right, And

307
00:17:16,680 --> 00:17:19,040
Speaker 3: in fact, if it was infinite in the past, it

308
00:17:19,080 --> 00:17:21,160
Speaker 3: would be an infinite number of seconds, in a number

309
00:17:21,160 --> 00:17:23,600
Speaker 3: of minutes, infinite number of years, no matter which chunk

310
00:17:23,680 --> 00:17:26,840
Speaker 3: you chose. But that's the idea that it didn't it

311
00:17:26,880 --> 00:17:30,919
Speaker 3: didn't begin. It has an infinite sequence of these chunks

312
00:17:30,920 --> 00:17:33,640
Speaker 3: of time going backward in the past. We could never

313
00:17:33,640 --> 00:17:38,880
Speaker 3: get to now. You couldn't get to the location we

314
00:17:39,040 --> 00:17:44,560
Speaker 3: actually inhabit. And that means that it wasn't like that

315
00:17:44,640 --> 00:17:48,840
Speaker 3: because here we are, we are here, you know, I

316
00:17:48,880 --> 00:17:51,199
Speaker 3: want to be on that Yeah, yeah, we're at this

317
00:17:51,359 --> 00:17:55,720
Speaker 3: time that exists now, and so you know, you can't

318
00:17:55,720 --> 00:17:58,280
Speaker 3: have gotten to that point if the past.

319
00:17:58,800 --> 00:18:01,879
Speaker 1: Okay, connect stocks. Why couldn't we have gotten to the.

320
00:18:01,880 --> 00:18:04,680
Speaker 3: Past because you could never complete the cycle? Okay, it'd

321
00:18:04,680 --> 00:18:08,320
Speaker 3: be like it'd be like you started at zero. That's

322
00:18:08,320 --> 00:18:09,919
Speaker 3: actually worse than this. It'd be like you started at

323
00:18:10,040 --> 00:18:15,160
Speaker 3: zero and finished counting by one successively one, two, three, four,

324
00:18:15,200 --> 00:18:18,960
Speaker 3: and then eventually you just hit infinity. Because if it's

325
00:18:19,040 --> 00:18:21,959
Speaker 3: infinitely in the past, then you would have to go

326
00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:24,640
Speaker 3: through an infinite number of seconds to get to now.

327
00:18:24,680 --> 00:18:27,760
Speaker 3: But you can't ever finish an infinite sequence by successively

328
00:18:27,840 --> 00:18:30,360
Speaker 3: moving through it in that way. So that's the big

329
00:18:30,480 --> 00:18:30,920
Speaker 3: That's okay.

330
00:18:31,119 --> 00:18:31,600
Speaker 2: So here's the way.

331
00:18:31,600 --> 00:18:33,520
Speaker 1: I would try to explain it to my high school students,

332
00:18:33,520 --> 00:18:35,880
Speaker 1: and you can tell me if this is sound. Is

333
00:18:36,080 --> 00:18:38,600
Speaker 1: I Sometimes my students would graduate we do senior year.

334
00:18:38,640 --> 00:18:40,359
Speaker 1: I'd say, okay, imagine to leave a decade and I

335
00:18:40,400 --> 00:18:42,239
Speaker 1: hope you come back and see me and catch up

336
00:18:42,240 --> 00:18:44,040
Speaker 1: with your life. And you walk in and I'm sitting

337
00:18:44,040 --> 00:18:46,120
Speaker 1: in the corner, you know, mister mcdt, how's it going,

338
00:18:46,119 --> 00:18:48,080
Speaker 1: I said, hang on, I've been here for a decade

339
00:18:48,160 --> 00:18:48,760
Speaker 1: a long time.

340
00:18:49,760 --> 00:18:52,080
Speaker 2: Five four, three two one. I did it. I just

341
00:18:52,160 --> 00:18:57,119
Speaker 2: counted from infinity down to zero. Now you'd have two thoughts.

342
00:18:57,200 --> 00:19:01,680
Speaker 1: Number one, you completely lost your mind, and number two,

343
00:19:02,400 --> 00:19:06,639
Speaker 1: that's impossible. You can't can't down from infinity. If I said, well,

344
00:19:06,640 --> 00:19:09,359
Speaker 1: I started at fifty quadrillion zillion zillion, you'd say, what

345
00:19:09,359 --> 00:19:14,120
Speaker 1: about fifty quadrillion zillion zillion and one? So you can

346
00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:18,719
Speaker 1: never arrive at the present moment if you had to

347
00:19:18,920 --> 00:19:23,119
Speaker 1: traverse an infinite number of moments to get here, which

348
00:19:23,119 --> 00:19:26,480
Speaker 1: is why I'll never be able to count up to infinity.

349
00:19:27,160 --> 00:19:30,240
Speaker 1: Even in heaven it will be potential infinite.

350
00:19:30,600 --> 00:19:31,440
Speaker 2: But at any.

351
00:19:31,280 --> 00:19:34,199
Speaker 1: Point in the future you look back, it's always a

352
00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:38,439
Speaker 1: finite past. It's growing, but it's finite. Therefore, if we

353
00:19:38,480 --> 00:19:42,199
Speaker 1: can't traverse an infinite to get to the present, and

354
00:19:42,240 --> 00:19:46,879
Speaker 1: we're at the present, the past must be finite. Now,

355
00:19:47,080 --> 00:19:50,200
Speaker 1: how finite it is ten thousand years, twelve thousand years,

356
00:19:50,280 --> 00:19:54,040
Speaker 1: fifty quadrillion, that's a secondary question that doesn't matter for

357
00:19:54,160 --> 00:19:58,720
Speaker 1: this point. The past therefore must be finite because we're

358
00:19:58,720 --> 00:20:01,399
Speaker 1: in the present. Yeah, that's the argument.

359
00:20:01,880 --> 00:20:03,199
Speaker 2: Does that make it? Is that a sound way of

360
00:20:03,200 --> 00:20:03,639
Speaker 2: explaining it?

361
00:20:03,720 --> 00:20:03,880
Speaker 1: Yeah?

362
00:20:03,880 --> 00:20:05,720
Speaker 3: I think so. I mean, you can kind of imagine

363
00:20:05,960 --> 00:20:10,480
Speaker 3: running the tape backwards if you could never finish running

364
00:20:10,480 --> 00:20:12,520
Speaker 3: the tape backwards? How could you have finished running it

365
00:20:12,600 --> 00:20:15,440
Speaker 3: up to here? That's the basic thought.

366
00:20:15,800 --> 00:20:17,120
Speaker 2: What's the tape? I don't understand?

367
00:20:17,280 --> 00:20:20,440
Speaker 3: Just kidding, you know exactly what a tape is.

368
00:20:21,320 --> 00:20:22,800
Speaker 2: You lost everybody with your tape.

369
00:20:23,119 --> 00:20:26,560
Speaker 3: Oh no, I think we Gen xers know how to

370
00:20:26,640 --> 00:20:27,159
Speaker 3: use YouTube.

371
00:20:27,160 --> 00:20:31,280
Speaker 1: Also, you know, I'm tempted on air to let you

372
00:20:31,320 --> 00:20:33,480
Speaker 1: share the embarrassing story of what happened to me in

373
00:20:33,520 --> 00:20:37,120
Speaker 1: metaphysics one, just for fun that you remember.

374
00:20:37,200 --> 00:20:39,680
Speaker 3: Well, wait, are you talking about the time that JP

375
00:20:39,840 --> 00:20:41,760
Speaker 3: finally thought you made a contribution to class?

376
00:20:41,960 --> 00:20:44,680
Speaker 1: Yeah, Tim was in my very first metaphysics class. It's true,

377
00:20:44,680 --> 00:20:46,400
Speaker 1: probably the year two thousand and I.

378
00:20:46,359 --> 00:20:46,880
Speaker 2: Raised my hand.

379
00:20:46,880 --> 00:20:50,000
Speaker 1: I was so intimidated by JP Moore on all these

380
00:20:50,000 --> 00:20:52,359
Speaker 1: smart colleagues. I raised my hand and he made a

381
00:20:52,400 --> 00:20:54,600
Speaker 1: point about a self refeeding statement, and I was like,

382
00:20:54,680 --> 00:20:55,680
Speaker 1: isn't that self refuting?

383
00:20:56,200 --> 00:20:58,160
Speaker 2: And he said, as far as you remember.

384
00:20:58,400 --> 00:21:00,399
Speaker 3: Well, oh wait, no, this is a different thing. This

385
00:21:00,480 --> 00:21:02,199
Speaker 3: is not what I was thinking about at all. I

386
00:21:02,280 --> 00:21:04,320
Speaker 3: was thinking about the time when you pointed out that

387
00:21:04,359 --> 00:21:06,400
Speaker 3: we had an hour more in class than the thought.

388
00:21:07,320 --> 00:21:10,480
Speaker 3: And he said to you, if you keep making contributions

389
00:21:10,520 --> 00:21:13,200
Speaker 3: like that, you might just be going somewhere. Yeah, yeah,

390
00:21:13,280 --> 00:21:15,000
Speaker 3: I don't remember this. What do you say to you?

391
00:21:15,480 --> 00:21:17,320
Speaker 1: He just he just ripped me. He's like, it's about

392
00:21:17,359 --> 00:21:19,840
Speaker 1: time you contribute. You were wondering when you're I mean.

393
00:21:19,720 --> 00:21:21,359
Speaker 3: He just it was the same idea.

394
00:21:21,640 --> 00:21:23,200
Speaker 2: So he did it's me multiple times.

395
00:21:23,240 --> 00:21:26,760
Speaker 1: All right, Okay, so let's go to here's here's we

396
00:21:26,800 --> 00:21:28,959
Speaker 1: have a ton more here. All right, we'll dial in,

397
00:21:29,000 --> 00:21:29,720
Speaker 1: We'll dial in.

398
00:21:30,440 --> 00:21:31,520
Speaker 2: Uh okay.

399
00:21:31,560 --> 00:21:35,800
Speaker 1: So this one came up, huge question comment, Who made God?

400
00:21:35,960 --> 00:21:40,040
Speaker 1: What caused God? If the universe needs a cause, what

401
00:21:40,160 --> 00:21:42,119
Speaker 1: caused God? How do you answer that one?

402
00:21:42,240 --> 00:21:44,439
Speaker 3: So unlike some people, I actually think this is a

403
00:21:44,440 --> 00:21:45,000
Speaker 3: good question.

404
00:21:45,440 --> 00:21:47,280
Speaker 2: Oh okay, but.

405
00:21:47,280 --> 00:21:49,359
Speaker 3: I do think it has an answer. Sometimes I feel

406
00:21:49,359 --> 00:21:51,280
Speaker 3: like online you get the impression that that either this

407
00:21:51,400 --> 00:21:54,960
Speaker 3: question is stupid or it doesn't have an answer. I

408
00:21:55,040 --> 00:21:57,280
Speaker 3: think it's a good question, but it has an answer.

409
00:21:57,000 --> 00:21:58,439
Speaker 2: All right, and then really curious.

410
00:21:58,440 --> 00:22:00,840
Speaker 3: Well, the answer is actually fairly simple. It's that God

411
00:22:00,880 --> 00:22:05,679
Speaker 3: is a necessary being. He's eternally existing. He doesn't need

412
00:22:05,720 --> 00:22:10,600
Speaker 3: an explanation because he self exists. He's not the kind

413
00:22:10,640 --> 00:22:13,600
Speaker 3: of thing that requires us to have an explanation for

414
00:22:13,680 --> 00:22:17,800
Speaker 3: his existence. Ok So that's actually the kind of standard explanation.

415
00:22:17,880 --> 00:22:20,879
Speaker 3: But I still think it's a good question. But theorizing

416
00:22:20,880 --> 00:22:22,800
Speaker 3: about God in this way is sort of like theorizing

417
00:22:22,840 --> 00:22:27,399
Speaker 3: about mathematics. We're looking for structure, not explanation. So because

418
00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:30,680
Speaker 3: he's a necessary being, he's not the kind of thing

419
00:22:31,000 --> 00:22:35,520
Speaker 3: that requires one to explain him. And in fact, I

420
00:22:35,560 --> 00:22:39,040
Speaker 3: mean theologically, so that's kind of a philosophical thing. But

421
00:22:39,080 --> 00:22:42,560
Speaker 3: theologically we believe that God is the one who is,

422
00:22:43,920 --> 00:22:48,840
Speaker 3: and he is above and behind all of the created order,

423
00:22:49,480 --> 00:22:54,280
Speaker 3: not requiring explanations like created things do. And so I

424
00:22:54,320 --> 00:22:57,840
Speaker 3: think this fits both theologically as it's revealed in the scriptures,

425
00:22:57,920 --> 00:23:00,800
Speaker 3: but also philosophically because of the kind of being that

426
00:23:00,880 --> 00:23:03,200
Speaker 3: God is, he doesn't require.

427
00:23:03,240 --> 00:23:06,240
Speaker 1: So if I said, this is really self serving, so

428
00:23:06,280 --> 00:23:08,760
Speaker 1: the universe needs an explanation all of a sudden, God

429
00:23:08,840 --> 00:23:13,520
Speaker 1: is just a necessary being that doesn't how would you

430
00:23:13,560 --> 00:23:15,720
Speaker 1: respond to that? So we can ask who made the universe?

431
00:23:15,760 --> 00:23:17,760
Speaker 1: But as soon as who made God, now we have

432
00:23:17,840 --> 00:23:20,119
Speaker 1: something that doesn't require an explanation.

433
00:23:19,880 --> 00:23:22,760
Speaker 3: That's right. But I just think that's by the natures

434
00:23:22,800 --> 00:23:26,200
Speaker 3: of the things themselves. So just as I don't look

435
00:23:26,280 --> 00:23:29,560
Speaker 3: for an explanation of the existence of mathematics. I look

436
00:23:29,600 --> 00:23:32,560
Speaker 3: for an explanation of the relationship between mathematics and God.

437
00:23:33,240 --> 00:23:36,240
Speaker 3: I don't look for an explanation of the existence of God.

438
00:23:36,880 --> 00:23:39,119
Speaker 3: I look for reasons to believe that God exists. But

439
00:23:39,119 --> 00:23:42,600
Speaker 3: those aren't explanations. In fact, interestingly, the reasons we have

440
00:23:42,680 --> 00:23:45,840
Speaker 3: for believing in God, that God exists are things that

441
00:23:45,880 --> 00:23:46,760
Speaker 3: God explains.

442
00:23:47,800 --> 00:23:47,960
Speaker 2: Hm.

443
00:23:49,000 --> 00:23:51,199
Speaker 3: So that's and this is true of a lot of

444
00:23:51,200 --> 00:23:56,080
Speaker 3: our theorizing. Actually, we are often looking epistemologically, like our

445
00:23:56,160 --> 00:23:59,080
Speaker 3: order of reasoning is running opposite from the order of

446
00:23:59,119 --> 00:24:03,600
Speaker 3: explanation metaphysically or in the world. So we believe that

447
00:24:03,640 --> 00:24:06,040
Speaker 3: God exists because of certain facts about the universe, say,

448
00:24:06,119 --> 00:24:09,040
Speaker 3: or because of the resurrection. These are things that God explains.

449
00:24:09,840 --> 00:24:12,840
Speaker 3: We don't believe in God because you know, we have

450
00:24:12,880 --> 00:24:16,160
Speaker 3: an explanation for his existence. We believe in God because

451
00:24:16,200 --> 00:24:20,640
Speaker 3: he explains everything else. Sounds like, can see this quote, well, yeah,

452
00:24:20,680 --> 00:24:22,560
Speaker 3: the sun thing, the son yeah.

453
00:24:22,760 --> 00:24:25,520
Speaker 1: Okay. So really quickly, we're here with doctor Tim Pickavance,

454
00:24:25,560 --> 00:24:29,080
Speaker 1: who is a, amongst other things, professor of philosophy, published in

455
00:24:29,119 --> 00:24:33,119
Speaker 1: some high journals books on this and we're reviewing the

456
00:24:33,160 --> 00:24:36,280
Speaker 1: conversation with Stephen Meyern his argument from the beginning of

457
00:24:36,320 --> 00:24:39,919
Speaker 1: the universe to a creator, focusing more on some of

458
00:24:39,960 --> 00:24:43,560
Speaker 1: the philosophical objections, because that's more of both of our lanes.

459
00:24:43,600 --> 00:24:46,880
Speaker 1: We did the ma Field program together a quarter century ago.

460
00:24:47,240 --> 00:24:49,280
Speaker 1: By the way, some of you have asked me about

461
00:24:49,320 --> 00:24:52,639
Speaker 1: my uh it wasn't really debate, but my conversation with

462
00:24:52,680 --> 00:24:56,520
Speaker 1: bart Erman. We lost online in the middle of it.

463
00:24:56,680 --> 00:24:58,720
Speaker 1: We lost them of content, but we're able to recover

464
00:24:58,840 --> 00:25:02,880
Speaker 1: for the Sean doll podcast audio and put it up there,

465
00:25:02,880 --> 00:25:05,000
Speaker 1: so you have to go off YouTube. Some of you

466
00:25:05,040 --> 00:25:07,480
Speaker 1: have asked where to find kind of my review of

467
00:25:07,480 --> 00:25:10,040
Speaker 1: that with Dave Horner. You can find it on the

468
00:25:10,080 --> 00:25:14,280
Speaker 1: Sean McDowell podcast. We spent an hour breaking it down. Okay,

469
00:25:15,000 --> 00:25:16,760
Speaker 1: all right, let's go to one. That's I think we

470
00:25:16,840 --> 00:25:18,840
Speaker 1: got a live question. If you have live questions right

471
00:25:18,880 --> 00:25:24,080
Speaker 1: in question in caps. Some of these questions have nothing

472
00:25:24,119 --> 00:25:27,840
Speaker 1: to do with the conversation, and as interesting as they are,

473
00:25:29,119 --> 00:25:32,119
Speaker 1: let me see here. Okay, so I'll just clarify this

474
00:25:32,160 --> 00:25:34,800
Speaker 1: says so the argument here is that everything seems to

475
00:25:34,840 --> 00:25:39,240
Speaker 1: need a beginning, so you postulate something that doesn't need

476
00:25:39,760 --> 00:25:45,840
Speaker 1: a beginning. I would say partly I would say. In

477
00:25:45,880 --> 00:25:50,840
Speaker 1: the cosmological argument, Clomb says whatever begins to exist as

478
00:25:50,920 --> 00:25:56,479
Speaker 1: a cause. The key is whatever begins to exist. There

479
00:25:56,480 --> 00:25:59,919
Speaker 1: are some things you point out, like math, that we

480
00:26:00,000 --> 00:26:03,960
Speaker 1: we know by the nature of them that they don't

481
00:26:04,119 --> 00:26:07,159
Speaker 1: need a cause, and we shouldn't look for a deeper cause.

482
00:26:07,920 --> 00:26:12,120
Speaker 1: God is the same kind of thing. This isn't special pleading.

483
00:26:12,680 --> 00:26:15,919
Speaker 1: This is what it means to be God. And so

484
00:26:16,080 --> 00:26:20,120
Speaker 1: when things are not necessary in their contingent, we look

485
00:26:20,200 --> 00:26:22,879
Speaker 1: for a cause for them. We look for who made them,

486
00:26:22,880 --> 00:26:25,280
Speaker 1: We look for where they came from. Now it comes

487
00:26:25,320 --> 00:26:26,960
Speaker 1: a question of who made God. I don't think I've

488
00:26:26,960 --> 00:26:29,000
Speaker 1: ever said it's a dumb question, although I taught high

489
00:26:29,040 --> 00:26:31,640
Speaker 1: school freshmen for years and I love them. But there

490
00:26:31,720 --> 00:26:33,920
Speaker 1: is such a thing as a dumb question, like anyone

491
00:26:34,160 --> 00:26:37,280
Speaker 1: who says has not taught high school. But I think

492
00:26:37,359 --> 00:26:39,480
Speaker 1: this is a good question. But I think it's a

493
00:26:39,480 --> 00:26:43,080
Speaker 1: category fallacy. I think it's akin to saying, what is

494
00:26:43,080 --> 00:26:46,120
Speaker 1: the color blue, smell like? Or the musical notes see

495
00:26:46,800 --> 00:26:53,600
Speaker 1: way like or way. So smells and weights are different categories.

496
00:26:53,640 --> 00:26:56,800
Speaker 1: We don't expect a certain color to have a smell

497
00:26:56,920 --> 00:26:58,880
Speaker 1: or a weight, because it's not that kind of thing

498
00:27:00,080 --> 00:27:03,680
Speaker 1: makes sense to say who made your blazer or who

499
00:27:03,720 --> 00:27:07,040
Speaker 1: made these lights, or who made my shoes, because these

500
00:27:07,040 --> 00:27:10,840
Speaker 1: are the kinds of things that can be made. God,

501
00:27:10,920 --> 00:27:15,560
Speaker 1: by definition, can't be made. If God were made, he

502
00:27:15,640 --> 00:27:19,919
Speaker 1: wouldn't be God. And we all know that, and so

503
00:27:20,000 --> 00:27:24,120
Speaker 1: it's a category fallacy. So if you actually flesh out

504
00:27:24,119 --> 00:27:27,399
Speaker 1: when somebody says who made God, they're saying who made

505
00:27:27,800 --> 00:27:32,159
Speaker 1: the unmakeable creator of the universe, or what caused God?

506
00:27:32,760 --> 00:27:36,320
Speaker 1: You're asking for a cause of something that, by definition

507
00:27:36,640 --> 00:27:40,720
Speaker 1: is uncaused. So what caused the uncaused creator of the

508
00:27:40,800 --> 00:27:44,080
Speaker 1: universe doesn't make it a bad question, but it shows

509
00:27:44,119 --> 00:27:48,760
Speaker 1: that it's a confused question. That's a category fallacy. That's

510
00:27:48,760 --> 00:27:53,119
Speaker 1: how I would phrase it. Uh, okay, let's go back

511
00:27:53,200 --> 00:27:55,480
Speaker 1: to I saw one at the top here. This one's fair,

512
00:27:55,800 --> 00:28:00,120
Speaker 1: says high professor. Professors, My question is that do you

513
00:28:00,119 --> 00:28:03,040
Speaker 1: see a problem. This doesn't necessarily lead people to Jesus.

514
00:28:03,119 --> 00:28:06,160
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't someone see a fine tuned universe? I guess

515
00:28:06,200 --> 00:28:08,199
Speaker 1: you could say, or the origin of the universe and

516
00:28:08,280 --> 00:28:12,720
Speaker 1: maybe decide to follow a Llah or even Lucifer. I

517
00:28:12,760 --> 00:28:14,240
Speaker 1: could weigh in, and but I'd be curious how would

518
00:28:14,240 --> 00:28:17,560
Speaker 1: you win. Is it a deficiency of this argument that

519
00:28:17,640 --> 00:28:19,679
Speaker 1: somebody could look at it and say, I'm falling an

520
00:28:19,680 --> 00:28:23,240
Speaker 1: evil God, I'm falling a law I'm not going to Jesus,

521
00:28:23,280 --> 00:28:25,080
Speaker 1: I'm going to some other God.

522
00:28:25,640 --> 00:28:29,040
Speaker 3: No, so it's not a deficiency. But I think the

523
00:28:29,720 --> 00:28:34,680
Speaker 3: question underneath that, underneath this question is the recognition or

524
00:28:34,760 --> 00:28:39,040
Speaker 3: right recognition that things like contingency arguments for God's existence,

525
00:28:39,080 --> 00:28:41,200
Speaker 3: fine tuning arguments, they don't get you all the way

526
00:28:41,200 --> 00:28:44,480
Speaker 3: to Christianity. So the question is does that make this

527
00:28:44,520 --> 00:28:48,000
Speaker 3: fruitless or pointless or irrelevant? And I think the answer

528
00:28:48,040 --> 00:28:50,400
Speaker 3: to that question is no. And the reason is that

529
00:28:50,800 --> 00:28:55,360
Speaker 3: Christianity requires believing a lot of different things, and the

530
00:28:55,400 --> 00:28:59,360
Speaker 3: reasons you should believe different of those things are different

531
00:28:59,720 --> 00:29:03,280
Speaker 3: as things tend to be. So, for example, I do

532
00:29:03,320 --> 00:29:06,760
Speaker 3: think that Christianity fundamentally turns on the question of the resurrection.

533
00:29:08,120 --> 00:29:10,920
Speaker 3: But one of the ways this can actually practically help

534
00:29:10,960 --> 00:29:13,680
Speaker 3: people move toward a belief in the resurrection of Jesus

535
00:29:14,080 --> 00:29:17,200
Speaker 3: is by opening their hearts to the possibility even of

536
00:29:17,240 --> 00:29:20,840
Speaker 3: the supernatural in the world being active and relevant to

537
00:29:20,920 --> 00:29:22,800
Speaker 3: the way the world unfolds in the way it is.

538
00:29:23,400 --> 00:29:26,280
Speaker 3: And so I think to the degree that we understand

539
00:29:26,680 --> 00:29:30,680
Speaker 3: that the universe is bearing marks of its creator. And

540
00:29:30,720 --> 00:29:33,040
Speaker 3: this is something, of course, the scriptures testify to all

541
00:29:33,080 --> 00:29:35,080
Speaker 3: over the place. I mean, people think about the Psalmist

542
00:29:35,640 --> 00:29:38,720
Speaker 3: and the heavens declaring the glory of God. Essentially, these

543
00:29:38,800 --> 00:29:42,960
Speaker 3: are just all natural theology is fundamentally is an attempt

544
00:29:43,000 --> 00:29:45,440
Speaker 3: to figure out what the heavens are declaring about the

545
00:29:45,480 --> 00:29:48,320
Speaker 3: glory of God. I mean, that's what natural theology is about.

546
00:29:48,720 --> 00:29:54,000
Speaker 3: And further, this is the creation bears the mark of Christ.

547
00:29:54,040 --> 00:29:56,400
Speaker 3: I mean we see this in Calautions one and in

548
00:29:56,440 --> 00:29:59,600
Speaker 3: other places John one, the law goss of God, the

549
00:30:00,120 --> 00:30:03,920
Speaker 3: during principle of creation is the God we worship, and

550
00:30:03,960 --> 00:30:07,040
Speaker 3: he is the God who became flesh and dwelt among

551
00:30:07,120 --> 00:30:10,040
Speaker 3: us and was crucified for our sins and raised from

552
00:30:10,080 --> 00:30:14,000
Speaker 3: the dead. And of course the fundamental question of Christianity

553
00:30:14,040 --> 00:30:16,280
Speaker 3: turns on the resurrection. But notice that the resurrection doesn't

554
00:30:16,280 --> 00:30:19,520
Speaker 3: happen if there's no God. That's right. And so if

555
00:30:19,560 --> 00:30:23,360
Speaker 3: you can open people's eyes to the existence of God

556
00:30:23,400 --> 00:30:26,920
Speaker 3: and his nature as a being who is intelligent and

557
00:30:27,080 --> 00:30:31,800
Speaker 3: powerful and creative and extravagance in all the ways that

558
00:30:31,840 --> 00:30:35,880
Speaker 3: the creation shows, then I think people's hearts can be

559
00:30:36,040 --> 00:30:39,680
Speaker 3: softened to the idea of the resurrection, and we can

560
00:30:39,840 --> 00:30:42,400
Speaker 3: clear away some of the concerns that people have that

561
00:30:42,520 --> 00:30:45,600
Speaker 3: keep them from confronting the reality of the risen Jesus.

562
00:30:46,040 --> 00:30:47,960
Speaker 3: So that's really what this is about. So it's not

563
00:30:48,080 --> 00:30:50,840
Speaker 3: all the way there, but it's some of the way there,

564
00:30:51,760 --> 00:30:53,880
Speaker 3: and we can't think that it's all the way there,

565
00:30:54,160 --> 00:30:57,080
Speaker 3: or we're making a mistake about what Christianity fundamentally is.

566
00:30:57,880 --> 00:30:59,280
Speaker 3: How would you talk about.

567
00:30:59,040 --> 00:31:00,640
Speaker 2: This great answer?

568
00:31:00,880 --> 00:31:03,000
Speaker 1: And I'd tell you if I didn't think it was

569
00:31:03,080 --> 00:31:04,880
Speaker 1: just for the record, you and I go back long enough,

570
00:31:04,920 --> 00:31:07,080
Speaker 1: that was a good answer. And what I think of

571
00:31:07,320 --> 00:31:12,960
Speaker 1: is Gary Habermass probably studied the resurrection more than anybody alive,

572
00:31:13,000 --> 00:31:16,040
Speaker 1: maybe in history, I don't know, certainly. Up there, he's

573
00:31:16,160 --> 00:31:19,280
Speaker 1: talked about how the objections people had to the resurrection

574
00:31:20,040 --> 00:31:21,960
Speaker 1: used to be they went to the wrong tomb, Jesus

575
00:31:21,960 --> 00:31:26,440
Speaker 1: didn't die on the cross, hallucinations, They were naturalistic hypotheses.

576
00:31:27,040 --> 00:31:31,600
Speaker 1: Now the primary objection is more methodological, and it's a

577
00:31:31,600 --> 00:31:35,600
Speaker 1: commitment to naturalism that just says there must be some

578
00:31:35,840 --> 00:31:41,320
Speaker 1: other explanation apart from a resurrection. And I think he's

579
00:31:41,400 --> 00:31:45,240
Speaker 1: right about that as a whole. And so if God

580
00:31:45,280 --> 00:31:49,760
Speaker 1: does exist, it doesn't prove a resurrection, but it removes

581
00:31:49,880 --> 00:31:54,040
Speaker 1: some of the naturalistic bias and makes it possible, if

582
00:31:54,120 --> 00:31:58,360
Speaker 1: not probable, that such a God would speak so in

583
00:31:58,480 --> 00:32:01,800
Speaker 1: terms of somebody's journey all the way to the faith.

584
00:32:02,640 --> 00:32:06,480
Speaker 1: In many cases, I think arguments like this are powerful

585
00:32:06,600 --> 00:32:12,120
Speaker 1: in that regard. I also think, and then I'd love

586
00:32:12,160 --> 00:32:14,000
Speaker 1: to have you weigh on this. We got to cut

587
00:32:14,080 --> 00:32:17,240
Speaker 1: questions similar to this earlier, like if the universe. If

588
00:32:17,360 --> 00:32:21,320
Speaker 1: Meyer's right that the universe had a beginning and points

589
00:32:21,360 --> 00:32:26,120
Speaker 1: towards a cause outside of the universe itself, how does

590
00:32:26,160 --> 00:32:29,840
Speaker 1: this narrow down worldview options? Well, it sure seems to

591
00:32:29,920 --> 00:32:33,920
Speaker 1: rule out naturalism because we know the universe is not eternal.

592
00:32:34,480 --> 00:32:40,400
Speaker 1: Can't get something from nothing. And Meyer argues that every

593
00:32:40,600 --> 00:32:46,440
Speaker 1: other naturalist, every other causological model that aims to keep

594
00:32:46,440 --> 00:32:51,720
Speaker 1: the universe eternal, either has physical problems that it doesn't

595
00:32:51,720 --> 00:32:56,600
Speaker 1: actually translate to reality or actually muzzles in information in

596
00:32:56,680 --> 00:33:00,000
Speaker 1: some fashion. So I think we can rule out naturally

597
00:33:00,880 --> 00:33:05,400
Speaker 1: I think we can roll out pantheism because pantheism and

598
00:33:05,520 --> 00:33:08,680
Speaker 1: there's different ways of caching this out. So to speak,

599
00:33:09,120 --> 00:33:15,120
Speaker 1: but there's no distinction between creation. Creation and creator. All

600
00:33:15,200 --> 00:33:18,760
Speaker 1: is one. The universe had a beginning. It points towards

601
00:33:18,760 --> 00:33:23,840
Speaker 1: a cause outside of the universe to bring it into existence. That,

602
00:33:23,960 --> 00:33:30,080
Speaker 1: by the way, is personal, so it narrows down worldview options.

603
00:33:30,160 --> 00:33:34,000
Speaker 1: You've got the pantheistic strain. The naturalistic strain doesn't explain it,

604
00:33:34,320 --> 00:33:36,520
Speaker 1: so it probably narrows it down to monotheism. I'm not

605
00:33:36,600 --> 00:33:39,760
Speaker 1: sure the couslogical argument alone rules out Deism. I think

606
00:33:39,760 --> 00:33:42,400
Speaker 1: we need other arguments to get there, but it seems

607
00:33:42,440 --> 00:33:46,680
Speaker 1: to me it says Judaism and Islam and Christianity. I

608
00:33:46,680 --> 00:33:51,280
Speaker 1: think it does rule out and seriously challenge Mormonism because

609
00:33:51,320 --> 00:33:53,840
Speaker 1: the idea of God was once a man who had

610
00:33:53,840 --> 00:33:55,600
Speaker 1: a God who's once a man, and it goes back

611
00:33:55,640 --> 00:33:58,360
Speaker 1: and there's not a cosmic beginning point. I think it

612
00:33:58,440 --> 00:34:02,880
Speaker 1: raises serious challenges there, but it doesn't rule out, which

613
00:34:02,880 --> 00:34:06,360
Speaker 1: is why many of the defenders of the claw argument

614
00:34:06,520 --> 00:34:10,960
Speaker 1: are Muslims. I think al Ghazali contributed significantly to this,

615
00:34:11,680 --> 00:34:14,200
Speaker 1: So in many ways that raises a question. If a

616
00:34:14,239 --> 00:34:18,160
Speaker 1: God speaks us into existence, the next question is has

617
00:34:18,200 --> 00:34:21,279
Speaker 1: this God spoken and made himself known? We don't have

618
00:34:21,360 --> 00:34:24,000
Speaker 1: to have that conversation now, but that's where it goes to.

619
00:34:24,080 --> 00:34:25,839
Speaker 1: So I don't see it as a fault that this

620
00:34:25,880 --> 00:34:27,880
Speaker 1: doesn't get us all the way to the cross. I

621
00:34:27,920 --> 00:34:30,319
Speaker 1: think it just is an argument that stays within its

622
00:34:30,400 --> 00:34:33,960
Speaker 1: lane and has value. But it's a cumulative case.

623
00:34:35,160 --> 00:34:37,080
Speaker 3: I agree with that. I mean, I think one of

624
00:34:37,120 --> 00:34:43,399
Speaker 3: the benefits of natural theology and of apologetics, you know,

625
00:34:43,520 --> 00:34:47,880
Speaker 3: as a kind of ministry to the church, is that

626
00:34:48,920 --> 00:34:53,279
Speaker 3: it can help us remember that our faith isn't just

627
00:34:53,320 --> 00:34:58,160
Speaker 3: a blind amen leap. I mean, faith is fundamentally trust.

628
00:35:00,040 --> 00:35:05,520
Speaker 3: We do trust the God who made us. But it's

629
00:35:05,600 --> 00:35:08,440
Speaker 3: not that we in the same way that you know,

630
00:35:08,480 --> 00:35:12,200
Speaker 3: when we trust our computers to keep stuff on them.

631
00:35:12,560 --> 00:35:14,919
Speaker 3: This is not irrational. It's not something that we do

632
00:35:15,120 --> 00:35:18,960
Speaker 3: independently of our minds and independently of confirmation that it's

633
00:35:19,040 --> 00:35:24,400
Speaker 3: reliable at doing this. But nevertheless, there's something that we're

634
00:35:24,520 --> 00:35:28,240
Speaker 3: actually driving at that isn't mere intellectual assent. We're driving

635
00:35:28,320 --> 00:35:32,520
Speaker 3: at a kind of interpersonal trust in this being. But

636
00:35:33,280 --> 00:35:37,160
Speaker 3: in just the way that like my confidence, my trust

637
00:35:37,160 --> 00:35:40,959
Speaker 3: in my wife is built up when I become more

638
00:35:41,080 --> 00:35:45,400
Speaker 3: rooted intellectually in understanding who she is and why she

639
00:35:45,520 --> 00:35:47,279
Speaker 3: does the things that she does. In the same way,

640
00:35:48,160 --> 00:35:51,239
Speaker 3: our trusting God can be rooted in coming to an

641
00:35:51,360 --> 00:35:53,360
Speaker 3: understanding of who he is and why he does what

642
00:35:53,440 --> 00:35:56,520
Speaker 3: he does. And this is what these kinds of arguments

643
00:35:56,520 --> 00:35:59,160
Speaker 3: help us understand. They help us understand aspects of this

644
00:35:59,200 --> 00:36:03,480
Speaker 3: God that we trust. So I think we should expect,

645
00:36:03,600 --> 00:36:06,120
Speaker 3: given that it's God, that there would be a lot

646
00:36:06,160 --> 00:36:09,879
Speaker 3: of different aspects of that whole process, among which are

647
00:36:10,320 --> 00:36:13,399
Speaker 3: thinking about the creation, which is kind of his the

648
00:36:13,440 --> 00:36:14,400
Speaker 3: first miracle.

649
00:36:15,160 --> 00:36:17,719
Speaker 2: Good word love that excellent role of apologize.

650
00:36:17,760 --> 00:36:21,640
Speaker 1: Here's one looks like it comes from a skeptic who's

651
00:36:21,760 --> 00:36:25,640
Speaker 1: joined the conversation before, says, why do Theis talk about

652
00:36:25,640 --> 00:36:28,160
Speaker 1: the universe when the Bible only talks about the sky

653
00:36:28,360 --> 00:36:34,000
Speaker 1: and flat earth? Is it dishonesty or something else? I

654
00:36:34,040 --> 00:36:36,960
Speaker 1: would say a couple things. Now, I'm not a Hebrew scholar,

655
00:36:37,239 --> 00:36:39,480
Speaker 1: so somebody could correct me if I got this wrong.

656
00:36:39,880 --> 00:36:42,920
Speaker 1: But from what I understand, heavens and the earth is

657
00:36:42,960 --> 00:36:46,440
Speaker 1: not the word universe, but it's meant to be all inclusive.

658
00:36:46,640 --> 00:36:49,799
Speaker 1: It's meant to be Although people at that time and

659
00:36:49,840 --> 00:36:53,239
Speaker 1: in biblical times didn't obviously understand there's other galaxies and

660
00:36:53,280 --> 00:36:56,200
Speaker 1: the depth of the universe because they didn't have the

661
00:36:56,320 --> 00:36:59,799
Speaker 1: technology to see it. That was the understanding of the

662
00:37:00,040 --> 00:37:03,120
Speaker 1: Evans what's above and the Earth what's below. So that

663
00:37:03,239 --> 00:37:05,960
Speaker 1: was a term that would have included the universe, even

664
00:37:06,000 --> 00:37:08,920
Speaker 1: though they clearly didn't understand because they didn't have the

665
00:37:09,000 --> 00:37:11,520
Speaker 1: technology to see what we meant by the universe.

666
00:37:11,880 --> 00:37:14,239
Speaker 2: So it has nothing to do with dishonesty.

667
00:37:14,719 --> 00:37:17,360
Speaker 1: I think Christians should just be clear about what the

668
00:37:17,440 --> 00:37:22,760
Speaker 1: universe is, and I don't I there's that's my response.

669
00:37:22,840 --> 00:37:24,279
Speaker 2: I don't think it's a matter of dishonesty.

670
00:37:24,360 --> 00:37:27,200
Speaker 1: I think it's just we've discovered more since that time,

671
00:37:27,440 --> 00:37:28,960
Speaker 1: and so we use the term universe.

672
00:37:29,440 --> 00:37:30,799
Speaker 2: Would you do anything to that or what?

673
00:37:30,960 --> 00:37:33,840
Speaker 3: No? I think that's right. I mean I think you know,

674
00:37:33,920 --> 00:37:37,600
Speaker 3: in the New Testament, I forget where it is, unfortunately,

675
00:37:37,640 --> 00:37:42,600
Speaker 3: but you know, Christ is described as having made everything

676
00:37:42,680 --> 00:37:48,640
Speaker 3: that has been made, so it's it's clear that. Of course,

677
00:37:50,120 --> 00:37:55,080
Speaker 3: back in the ancient Near East, if people were thinking about, like,

678
00:37:55,160 --> 00:37:59,439
Speaker 3: what is it that God has made, they would think

679
00:37:59,480 --> 00:38:05,400
Speaker 3: that the answer, sure, everything means something particular. But I

680
00:38:05,400 --> 00:38:09,120
Speaker 3: think the fundamental biblical answer to the question what has

681
00:38:09,200 --> 00:38:13,759
Speaker 3: God made? Is everything that isn't himself. And I think

682
00:38:13,800 --> 00:38:16,280
Speaker 3: that's not only consistent with the Bible, but it's actually

683
00:38:16,360 --> 00:38:20,360
Speaker 3: the overarching impetus of the scriptures is to say that.

684
00:38:20,400 --> 00:38:22,400
Speaker 3: And that's what your point is about, this language of

685
00:38:22,400 --> 00:38:27,520
Speaker 3: heavens and earth. That's meant to say, all things that

686
00:38:27,560 --> 00:38:31,160
Speaker 3: aren't God, everything that's created was created by God.

687
00:38:31,840 --> 00:38:33,960
Speaker 1: That's a great answer, John one to one. In the

688
00:38:33,960 --> 00:38:36,400
Speaker 1: beginning was the word. The Word was with God, and

689
00:38:36,440 --> 00:38:38,960
Speaker 1: the word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

690
00:38:39,960 --> 00:38:44,680
Speaker 1: All things were created through Him, and nothing that was created,

691
00:38:44,760 --> 00:38:48,880
Speaker 1: nothing was created apart from being created by him. Right,

692
00:38:49,280 --> 00:38:52,400
Speaker 1: is what it clearly says. There's nothing that exists it

693
00:38:52,520 --> 00:38:56,160
Speaker 1: was not created by Him. Is all inclusive by its

694
00:38:56,239 --> 00:38:56,760
Speaker 1: very nature.

695
00:38:56,760 --> 00:38:58,839
Speaker 3: I think we get echoes of that in Paul also

696
00:38:58,880 --> 00:39:00,960
Speaker 3: all over the place. That's why I can remember exactly

697
00:39:00,960 --> 00:39:03,719
Speaker 3: where that you might be right that I was even

698
00:39:03,760 --> 00:39:04,520
Speaker 3: thinking of John one.

699
00:39:04,600 --> 00:39:08,959
Speaker 1: I'm trying to collutions one as well. Yeah, is very inclusive. Okay,

700
00:39:09,320 --> 00:39:12,000
Speaker 1: So somebody said, are we taking questions? Yes, if you

701
00:39:12,080 --> 00:39:15,640
Speaker 1: write question in caps, state it distinctly. And I see

702
00:39:15,680 --> 00:39:19,520
Speaker 1: a ton of questions completely irrelevant to what we're talking about,

703
00:39:19,560 --> 00:39:22,839
Speaker 1: although they're interesting, and I'm tempted to take some of them.

704
00:39:23,280 --> 00:39:25,000
Speaker 1: Let's go back to some of the questions that were

705
00:39:25,000 --> 00:39:29,320
Speaker 1: sent in earlier through Twitter or through YouTube, et cetera.

706
00:39:31,719 --> 00:39:34,319
Speaker 1: Let's ask Okay, I'll just throw oh by the way,

707
00:39:34,440 --> 00:39:38,120
Speaker 1: somebody asked, could we please comment on Penrose's conformal cyclic

708
00:39:38,239 --> 00:39:43,080
Speaker 1: cosmology model. The answer is no, because I'm not a scientist,

709
00:39:43,160 --> 00:39:46,960
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert. But same Steven Meyer is coming

710
00:39:47,000 --> 00:39:50,880
Speaker 1: back and we are doing a two part in depth

711
00:39:51,000 --> 00:39:55,600
Speaker 1: series and a response specifically to that question. So we're

712
00:39:55,600 --> 00:39:57,920
Speaker 1: going to release that in a few weeks, and we

713
00:39:57,960 --> 00:39:59,760
Speaker 1: want to get it right. We want to be careful.

714
00:40:00,200 --> 00:40:06,200
Speaker 1: Somebody as incredibly brilliant and just influential as Roger Penrose

715
00:40:06,760 --> 00:40:11,759
Speaker 1: did a response to a comment that Steve made on

716
00:40:11,840 --> 00:40:14,719
Speaker 1: my channel, which I thought was amazing that he engaged

717
00:40:15,080 --> 00:40:17,200
Speaker 1: the content here. We're going to come back and we're

718
00:40:17,200 --> 00:40:17,920
Speaker 1: going to address that.

719
00:40:18,040 --> 00:40:19,239
Speaker 2: So hang tight.

720
00:40:19,320 --> 00:40:22,319
Speaker 1: We're gonna let the scientist who is an expert in

721
00:40:22,360 --> 00:40:28,080
Speaker 1: this way into it. Okay, let's go to this one.

722
00:40:28,120 --> 00:40:28,360
Speaker 2: All right.

723
00:40:28,440 --> 00:40:30,200
Speaker 1: Let me ask you this, This one came through this

724
00:40:30,239 --> 00:40:33,080
Speaker 1: is I would very much like more about the theory

725
00:40:33,200 --> 00:40:38,280
Speaker 1: of multiple universes. Somebody wrote that on the YouTube video

726
00:40:38,360 --> 00:40:41,920
Speaker 1: the original one. So give me your thoughts on approaching

727
00:40:42,000 --> 00:40:43,400
Speaker 1: multiple universes.

728
00:40:43,719 --> 00:40:47,719
Speaker 3: Well, I think this shades into the stuff about Penrose,

729
00:40:47,880 --> 00:40:51,680
Speaker 3: because if I understand the Penrose view, it's a form

730
00:40:51,760 --> 00:40:55,560
Speaker 3: of multiverse theory. I could be wrong about that. Okay,

731
00:40:55,719 --> 00:40:57,319
Speaker 3: I'm not an expert, but I just want to be

732
00:40:57,360 --> 00:41:02,080
Speaker 3: clear that the multiverse stuff does have signific aspects as well. Absolutely,

733
00:41:02,120 --> 00:41:04,960
Speaker 3: so I want to be careful to just represent that

734
00:41:05,440 --> 00:41:08,520
Speaker 3: I am not a scientist. I have a little bit

735
00:41:08,560 --> 00:41:10,919
Speaker 3: of understanding of this, and I think that the really

736
00:41:10,920 --> 00:41:13,879
Speaker 3: interesting things from my point of view are the more

737
00:41:14,000 --> 00:41:17,319
Speaker 3: methodological questions about how we could come to believe these

738
00:41:17,360 --> 00:41:19,960
Speaker 3: things and what they would mean if we could. So,

739
00:41:20,200 --> 00:41:25,320
Speaker 3: my current understanding of this is that often multiverse theory

740
00:41:25,560 --> 00:41:28,640
Speaker 3: is meant to be a strategy for explaining things like

741
00:41:28,760 --> 00:41:32,040
Speaker 3: fine tuning, the origin of life and so on, without

742
00:41:32,120 --> 00:41:35,120
Speaker 3: appeal to a personal cause. So it's an attempt to

743
00:41:35,360 --> 00:41:41,040
Speaker 3: explain in a more empirical way things that Christians would

744
00:41:41,040 --> 00:41:45,479
Speaker 3: explain in a supernatural way, and so in that way

745
00:41:45,560 --> 00:41:47,799
Speaker 3: it's a kind of philosophical conclusion. In fact, there's a

746
00:41:47,800 --> 00:41:52,239
Speaker 3: big question about whether we can have empirical confirmation for

747
00:41:52,600 --> 00:41:56,120
Speaker 3: multiverse like theories, which is that actually is true about

748
00:41:56,120 --> 00:41:59,200
Speaker 3: the Penrose theory. So one of the big questions is

749
00:41:59,239 --> 00:42:03,440
Speaker 3: whether penrose version of this kind of view, from my understanding,

750
00:42:03,440 --> 00:42:06,200
Speaker 3: again limited, is whether he might have a theory where

751
00:42:06,239 --> 00:42:10,680
Speaker 3: you could potentially get empirical confirmation unlike many of the

752
00:42:10,719 --> 00:42:16,160
Speaker 3: other multiverse style theories. So if that's right, that's really interesting.

753
00:42:16,800 --> 00:42:21,680
Speaker 3: But in general, these multiverse kinds of hypotheses, you can

754
00:42:21,719 --> 00:42:24,760
Speaker 3: almost think of it this way. It's sort of imprinciple

755
00:42:24,960 --> 00:42:28,200
Speaker 3: that you can't get empirical confirmation. And the reason is

756
00:42:28,480 --> 00:42:31,800
Speaker 3: that empirical confirmation comes by way of causation. It comes

757
00:42:31,800 --> 00:42:34,799
Speaker 3: by way of something causing something else. We observe what

758
00:42:34,920 --> 00:42:38,759
Speaker 3: is caused and reason to the cause of it. If

759
00:42:38,840 --> 00:42:43,640
Speaker 3: these universes are causally isolated, we can't get empirical confirmation

760
00:42:43,760 --> 00:42:47,279
Speaker 3: because they don't causally interact. And in that way, it's

761
00:42:47,280 --> 00:42:50,720
Speaker 3: actually more of a philosophical theory than a scientific theory,

762
00:42:51,239 --> 00:42:54,279
Speaker 3: at least in some of its manifestations. And this goes

763
00:42:54,320 --> 00:42:56,400
Speaker 3: back to something you mentioned earlier. With a kind of

764
00:42:56,480 --> 00:43:01,160
Speaker 3: commitment to naturalism as a methodological principle, we only want

765
00:43:01,200 --> 00:43:04,240
Speaker 3: to say that there are natural causes of the things

766
00:43:04,280 --> 00:43:09,040
Speaker 3: that we observe. But that's not an assumption that every

767
00:43:09,040 --> 00:43:13,239
Speaker 3: scientist agrees about. It's actually highly controversial among philosophers of

768
00:43:13,280 --> 00:43:16,120
Speaker 3: science that we should be a methodological naturalists. And I

769
00:43:16,160 --> 00:43:18,080
Speaker 3: don't think Christians should think that we should be a

770
00:43:18,080 --> 00:43:22,120
Speaker 3: methodological naturalists, because after all, we think ultimately God is

771
00:43:22,160 --> 00:43:26,480
Speaker 3: the explainer of things in the world. So I think

772
00:43:26,480 --> 00:43:29,120
Speaker 3: we have other reasons to not be a methodological naturalist.

773
00:43:29,120 --> 00:43:33,239
Speaker 3: But anyway, if it's right, if it's right that you

774
00:43:33,320 --> 00:43:36,680
Speaker 3: can't that you don't have empirical confirmation for the multiverses,

775
00:43:36,800 --> 00:43:40,160
Speaker 3: that is, if you can't get that, or if we

776
00:43:40,239 --> 00:43:43,880
Speaker 3: don't have it, then it's a question of which of

777
00:43:43,920 --> 00:43:47,640
Speaker 3: these theories, the God theory and the multiverse theory better

778
00:43:47,680 --> 00:43:51,800
Speaker 3: explains what we observe. And as well said, with respect

779
00:43:51,880 --> 00:43:56,160
Speaker 3: to things like, you know, one isolated thing like the

780
00:43:56,200 --> 00:43:58,759
Speaker 3: contingency of the universe, I don't think multiverse theory helps

781
00:43:58,800 --> 00:44:02,200
Speaker 3: at all. With respect to fine tuning, maybe it helps

782
00:44:02,400 --> 00:44:04,680
Speaker 3: a little bit, but I think there's still questions there.

783
00:44:05,080 --> 00:44:07,440
Speaker 3: But there are other things that need explaining too, like

784
00:44:07,440 --> 00:44:09,600
Speaker 3: the evidence of the resurrection and all sorts of other

785
00:44:09,760 --> 00:44:12,400
Speaker 3: reasons that we have for believing that aspects of Christianity

786
00:44:12,480 --> 00:44:16,440
Speaker 3: are true and God as a hypothesis, that's the kind

787
00:44:16,440 --> 00:44:18,440
Speaker 3: of language that we get a lot in these conversations

788
00:44:19,080 --> 00:44:24,640
Speaker 3: explains those things naturally and well, whereas the multiverse theory

789
00:44:24,719 --> 00:44:27,279
Speaker 3: might explain just a touch of them. So suppose you're

790
00:44:27,280 --> 00:44:30,640
Speaker 3: a multiverse person because you know fine tuning or something, Well,

791
00:44:30,680 --> 00:44:33,480
Speaker 3: you still haven't explained the contingency of the multiverse. You

792
00:44:33,560 --> 00:44:36,480
Speaker 3: still haven't explained the data of the resurrection. You still

793
00:44:36,520 --> 00:44:40,640
Speaker 3: haven't explained all sorts of things, the existence of souls,

794
00:44:40,840 --> 00:44:43,120
Speaker 3: you know, all of this kind of stuff. You have

795
00:44:43,280 --> 00:44:46,359
Speaker 3: all sorts of problems still left to be explained. Your

796
00:44:46,400 --> 00:44:49,080
Speaker 3: multiverse theory didn't get you very far, but the God

797
00:44:49,160 --> 00:44:52,759
Speaker 3: hypothesis actually gets you all of those things. So as

798
00:44:52,840 --> 00:44:56,880
Speaker 3: a theory, it's worse off in those ways. Does that

799
00:44:56,920 --> 00:44:59,799
Speaker 3: mean it's crazy or stupid or something, of course not,

800
00:45:00,239 --> 00:45:02,799
Speaker 3: But it just means that I think Christians have an

801
00:45:02,840 --> 00:45:06,640
Speaker 3: explanation for these things that's more comprehensive and more powerful

802
00:45:06,920 --> 00:45:10,520
Speaker 3: than you get from a multiverse theory. And so because

803
00:45:10,520 --> 00:45:14,480
Speaker 3: we don't have the empirical confirmation, as far as I understand,

804
00:45:15,239 --> 00:45:18,399
Speaker 3: it's not really something that christian should worry about all

805
00:45:18,400 --> 00:45:21,520
Speaker 3: that much. It's not something that is to be believed

806
00:45:22,080 --> 00:45:25,480
Speaker 3: or anyway, it doesn't serve as like an alternative that

807
00:45:25,520 --> 00:45:27,240
Speaker 3: should overcome all the other reasons.

808
00:45:27,320 --> 00:45:30,400
Speaker 1: I think the multiverse threatens Christianity if it were to you,

809
00:45:30,600 --> 00:45:31,480
Speaker 1: because I don't.

810
00:45:31,680 --> 00:45:33,840
Speaker 2: No. I think it's interesting. Even C. S.

811
00:45:33,920 --> 00:45:37,319
Speaker 1: Lewis, in his first book in the Narnia series, has

812
00:45:37,400 --> 00:45:40,920
Speaker 1: this suggestion of like these different worlds, not an infinite number,

813
00:45:41,040 --> 00:45:43,600
Speaker 1: but of different worlds that God could have created kind

814
00:45:43,640 --> 00:45:46,759
Speaker 1: of baked in before, as I'm aware of, the multiverse

815
00:45:46,840 --> 00:45:50,359
Speaker 1: became at least a popular theory. Now there's obviously a

816
00:45:50,360 --> 00:45:53,200
Speaker 1: ton of different kinds of multiverses.

817
00:45:53,200 --> 00:45:54,200
Speaker 2: There's not just one.

818
00:45:55,520 --> 00:45:58,560
Speaker 1: But I think the argument that Meyer makes, and he's

819
00:45:58,560 --> 00:46:00,200
Speaker 1: going to come back and talk about this, is even

820
00:46:00,239 --> 00:46:02,400
Speaker 1: if there is a multiverse, it doesn't get rid of

821
00:46:02,440 --> 00:46:08,520
Speaker 1: the need for information. Still within a multiverse, it's taken

822
00:46:08,560 --> 00:46:12,400
Speaker 1: for granted and it needs to be accounted for. But really,

823
00:46:12,440 --> 00:46:14,319
Speaker 1: like you said, this is a challenge more to fine

824
00:46:14,360 --> 00:46:17,320
Speaker 1: tuning than it is the origin of the universe, because

825
00:46:17,360 --> 00:46:21,160
Speaker 1: it still raised the question why is there a multiverse?

826
00:46:21,800 --> 00:46:25,680
Speaker 1: Where did it come from? Why does something exist? Rather

827
00:46:25,760 --> 00:46:29,680
Speaker 1: than nothing, and whether it's one universe or multiverse, it's

828
00:46:29,719 --> 00:46:34,680
Speaker 1: still the same fundamental question when it comes to cosmology,

829
00:46:35,280 --> 00:46:36,960
Speaker 1: not so much fine tuning.

830
00:46:37,239 --> 00:46:40,640
Speaker 3: I think that's exactly right. So that's why I kind

831
00:46:40,680 --> 00:46:42,800
Speaker 3: of mean to say, this is maybe a more simple

832
00:46:42,840 --> 00:46:44,719
Speaker 3: way to put it. The best you can get from

833
00:46:44,760 --> 00:46:46,920
Speaker 3: a multiverse, as far as I can tell, is an

834
00:46:46,920 --> 00:46:49,440
Speaker 3: explanation of fine tuning. But there's a lot more than

835
00:46:49,440 --> 00:46:55,360
Speaker 3: it needs to be explained. And I have a general

836
00:46:55,440 --> 00:46:58,200
Speaker 3: principle as a Christian that I don't say what God

837
00:46:58,280 --> 00:47:02,719
Speaker 3: can and can't do, So I'm not going to tell

838
00:47:02,760 --> 00:47:05,920
Speaker 3: God he's not allowed to create multiple universes. I mean,

839
00:47:05,920 --> 00:47:07,680
Speaker 3: it just feels like so from the point of view,

840
00:47:07,719 --> 00:47:10,439
Speaker 3: does it threaten Christianity? I think the answer is pretty

841
00:47:10,480 --> 00:47:13,320
Speaker 3: clearly no, it doesn't.

842
00:47:13,800 --> 00:47:15,520
Speaker 2: I don't. Yeah, I don't. I don't think so either.

843
00:47:15,560 --> 00:47:18,200
Speaker 1: I think we can follow the research where it leads

844
00:47:18,320 --> 00:47:20,799
Speaker 1: exactly not threatened by it at all. Ye okay, all right.

845
00:47:20,840 --> 00:47:23,120
Speaker 1: I do see a lot of questions here. If you're

846
00:47:23,120 --> 00:47:27,399
Speaker 1: write question and cap and it's understandable and relates to it,

847
00:47:28,800 --> 00:47:29,799
Speaker 1: we will address it.

848
00:47:29,960 --> 00:47:30,600
Speaker 2: A few of these.

849
00:47:30,719 --> 00:47:34,960
Speaker 1: I don't know that I understand the nature of these questions.

850
00:47:35,719 --> 00:47:37,680
Speaker 1: I mean, some of these are we got some troll

851
00:47:37,760 --> 00:47:41,759
Speaker 1: questions gone in here, which is fine. I don't know

852
00:47:41,760 --> 00:47:42,839
Speaker 1: that I understand this one.

853
00:47:43,120 --> 00:47:43,640
Speaker 2: Maybe you do.

854
00:47:43,840 --> 00:47:46,080
Speaker 1: It says when God created the universe, did he intend

855
00:47:46,320 --> 00:47:52,560
Speaker 1: Tora to be followed eternally? When God Torah t r

856
00:47:52,680 --> 00:47:56,120
Speaker 1: Ah to be followed eternally? This feels more like a

857
00:47:56,200 --> 00:48:01,359
Speaker 1: theological question. I'm not really sure where to go that one.

858
00:48:01,440 --> 00:48:04,319
Speaker 1: So I'm trying. I'm reading some of these comments, but

859
00:48:04,320 --> 00:48:05,600
Speaker 1: I don't even do you have any thought. I don't

860
00:48:05,600 --> 00:48:06,839
Speaker 1: even know how to answer that one. I would say

861
00:48:06,880 --> 00:48:11,319
Speaker 1: God gave the Torah to Israel before the Torah, not

862
00:48:11,440 --> 00:48:13,920
Speaker 1: all the particulars, but a lot of the commandments, like

863
00:48:14,040 --> 00:48:18,040
Speaker 1: not to murder was given in Genesis nine, for example,

864
00:48:18,480 --> 00:48:22,160
Speaker 1: it's clarified in the Torah. And obviously when Je's came,

865
00:48:22,200 --> 00:48:26,719
Speaker 1: he fulfills the law and fulfills the Torah. And so

866
00:48:26,840 --> 00:48:30,200
Speaker 1: as Christians, we clearly believe when it comes to Acts fifteen,

867
00:48:30,280 --> 00:48:33,000
Speaker 1: we have freedom to follow some of the law, but

868
00:48:33,080 --> 00:48:36,400
Speaker 1: we're given a very precise number there to continue to

869
00:48:36,440 --> 00:48:41,520
Speaker 1: follow us. So my quick answer is no, I don't

870
00:48:41,560 --> 00:48:43,600
Speaker 1: know you have any added at Yeah, And I think.

871
00:48:43,440 --> 00:48:45,760
Speaker 3: It actually relates to creation. I mean, if you think

872
00:48:45,800 --> 00:48:51,200
Speaker 3: that what Torah is doing is revealing the moral fabric

873
00:48:51,239 --> 00:48:56,160
Speaker 3: of reality as and particularly in the Old Testament, as

874
00:48:56,200 --> 00:48:58,799
Speaker 3: that moral fabric of reality is meant to play out

875
00:48:59,080 --> 00:49:03,520
Speaker 3: in the culture of the Israelites because of you know,

876
00:49:03,560 --> 00:49:06,440
Speaker 3: all the relationships they have to other cultures around them,

877
00:49:06,480 --> 00:49:08,640
Speaker 3: and the distinctiveness that God wants for them and so on,

878
00:49:09,320 --> 00:49:11,640
Speaker 3: then I think in a sense we can say that

879
00:49:12,600 --> 00:49:18,480
Speaker 3: these laws for life are revealing to us the natural

880
00:49:18,719 --> 00:49:25,000
Speaker 3: order of moral reality. And in that way, so for example,

881
00:49:25,080 --> 00:49:27,880
Speaker 3: you know, the reason why the food laws go away

882
00:49:27,880 --> 00:49:30,600
Speaker 3: is because the food laws were separators. This is why

883
00:49:30,680 --> 00:49:33,839
Speaker 3: it's kind of funny, right Peter has this dream which

884
00:49:33,880 --> 00:49:36,040
Speaker 3: he takes to be two things at once. You can

885
00:49:36,080 --> 00:49:40,919
Speaker 3: eat anything, and you should proselytize the gentiles. I think

886
00:49:40,920 --> 00:49:43,960
Speaker 3: that tells you something about what the food laws were doing.

887
00:49:44,040 --> 00:49:48,480
Speaker 3: They were a kind of separation, right. And then as

888
00:49:48,719 --> 00:49:52,399
Speaker 3: the church now has expanded to include all people's right,

889
00:49:53,840 --> 00:49:58,120
Speaker 3: you have this ability to you don't have to worry

890
00:49:58,160 --> 00:50:01,960
Speaker 3: about this that kind of separation anymore. Right. So that

891
00:50:02,080 --> 00:50:04,080
Speaker 3: was about the worship of God and how to set

892
00:50:04,080 --> 00:50:06,560
Speaker 3: yourself off as a holy people. Now the ways we

893
00:50:06,600 --> 00:50:09,560
Speaker 3: set ourselves off as the Holy people are slightly different,

894
00:50:09,920 --> 00:50:12,160
Speaker 3: but they're more sure anyway. So the idea is that

895
00:50:12,160 --> 00:50:15,839
Speaker 3: they're revelatory of the moral law that God instituted by

896
00:50:15,840 --> 00:50:19,279
Speaker 3: creating the world, that he did love it. In that sense,

897
00:50:19,280 --> 00:50:21,200
Speaker 3: they're kind of eternal good stuff.

898
00:50:21,360 --> 00:50:24,360
Speaker 1: Okay, interesting, did not expect you together. All right, we

899
00:50:24,800 --> 00:50:26,799
Speaker 1: got a couple more questions here. Again, if you put

900
00:50:26,920 --> 00:50:30,680
Speaker 1: caps in and state your question clearly and distinctly, we

901
00:50:30,719 --> 00:50:33,120
Speaker 1: will try to get to it if it's related to

902
00:50:33,400 --> 00:50:37,160
Speaker 1: the topic of conversation. Friday dropping an interview with doctor

903
00:50:37,200 --> 00:50:41,440
Speaker 1: Doug Ax, Cambridge trained, Berkeley trained, on the question of

904
00:50:41,440 --> 00:50:45,440
Speaker 1: the origin of life and his book Undeniable, he argues,

905
00:50:45,520 --> 00:50:48,920
Speaker 1: has not been refuted in his arguments still stand. We're

906
00:50:48,960 --> 00:50:51,239
Speaker 1: going to post that Friday, give us an update there,

907
00:50:51,760 --> 00:50:54,640
Speaker 1: and then take your questions. Next Tuesday, Doug Axe will

908
00:50:54,640 --> 00:50:59,439
Speaker 1: be in studio, so mark your calendars. Let's take this

909
00:50:59,600 --> 00:51:05,120
Speaker 1: question right here. I'm scrolling down here. Uh okay, all right,

910
00:51:05,160 --> 00:51:09,240
Speaker 1: this is uh okay. It's more of a philosophic one.

911
00:51:09,520 --> 00:51:12,200
Speaker 1: This person wrote on the original YouTube video. Isn't it

912
00:51:12,239 --> 00:51:16,120
Speaker 1: strange how very intelligent people can perceive reality differently? And

913
00:51:16,200 --> 00:51:21,520
Speaker 1: come to entirely different conclusions, which must mean that intelligence

914
00:51:21,560 --> 00:51:24,759
Speaker 1: has little to do with discovering what's truly important to know,

915
00:51:24,880 --> 00:51:27,440
Speaker 1: and it has more to do the integrity of the

916
00:51:27,560 --> 00:51:29,960
Speaker 1: mind and the heart. Now that's not really a question,

917
00:51:30,040 --> 00:51:33,600
Speaker 1: that was an observation. What are your thoughts on that

918
00:51:33,719 --> 00:51:39,120
Speaker 1: is why very intelligent people would perceive things differently? Does

919
00:51:39,120 --> 00:51:41,839
Speaker 1: it tell us that intelligence is not really the key

920
00:51:42,320 --> 00:51:44,440
Speaker 1: to perceiving reality correctly?

921
00:51:46,800 --> 00:51:48,799
Speaker 3: I have a lot to say about this, Actually, I'll

922
00:51:48,800 --> 00:51:50,239
Speaker 3: try to keep it short. Okay, I think this is

923
00:51:50,600 --> 00:51:53,799
Speaker 3: a really interesting question because I think the commenter is

924
00:51:54,040 --> 00:51:58,640
Speaker 3: right that intelligence and if you're thinking of intelligence as

925
00:51:58,640 --> 00:52:01,840
Speaker 3: the capacity to deal with evidence and think clearly and

926
00:52:01,920 --> 00:52:05,720
Speaker 3: reason well and those kinds of things, so things like evidence, rationality, logic,

927
00:52:05,800 --> 00:52:11,319
Speaker 3: all the other more cognitive feeling things. If what's being

928
00:52:11,360 --> 00:52:15,759
Speaker 3: suggested is that all this intellectual business isn't doing all

929
00:52:15,800 --> 00:52:20,000
Speaker 3: the work in determining what we believe, I think that's exactly.

930
00:52:20,080 --> 00:52:25,360
Speaker 3: I think that's right. However, I do think it's a

931
00:52:25,400 --> 00:52:29,000
Speaker 3: little too pessimistic for me anyway, to think that these

932
00:52:29,040 --> 00:52:33,120
Speaker 3: things have little or nothing to do with our judgments

933
00:52:33,160 --> 00:52:36,720
Speaker 3: and our theorizing. Okay, there are other factors in play,

934
00:52:36,760 --> 00:52:40,080
Speaker 3: But nevertheless, I think these the intelligence side of things

935
00:52:40,080 --> 00:52:43,560
Speaker 3: actually does make a difference. One thing to add here

936
00:52:43,640 --> 00:52:48,319
Speaker 3: is that that's a descriptive claim, so we're just describing

937
00:52:48,360 --> 00:52:49,000
Speaker 3: the facts.

938
00:52:49,280 --> 00:52:49,480
Speaker 2: Right.

939
00:52:49,640 --> 00:52:52,040
Speaker 3: Of course, parents believe that their kids are good at

940
00:52:52,080 --> 00:52:55,560
Speaker 3: sports just because they want to think well of their children,

941
00:52:55,600 --> 00:52:58,760
Speaker 3: not necessarily because of the evidence of their eyes or whatever.

942
00:52:59,440 --> 00:53:01,959
Speaker 3: So there is a descriptive thing. And as a descriptive claim,

943
00:53:01,960 --> 00:53:05,600
Speaker 3: I think that's right. There's also a more a question

944
00:53:05,640 --> 00:53:09,759
Speaker 3: of ideals, or a normative question, as philosophers would say,

945
00:53:09,760 --> 00:53:13,799
Speaker 3: a question about how things should be. And here I

946
00:53:13,800 --> 00:53:16,560
Speaker 3: think we can't forget the importance of intelligence. We we

947
00:53:16,680 --> 00:53:19,279
Speaker 3: have to be careful, we have to judge rationally, we

948
00:53:19,360 --> 00:53:22,120
Speaker 3: have to think carefully. And you can get better at

949
00:53:22,160 --> 00:53:22,720
Speaker 3: these things.

950
00:53:22,880 --> 00:53:23,520
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are.

951
00:53:23,440 --> 00:53:25,520
Speaker 3: Ways, And some people are naturally better and some of

952
00:53:25,560 --> 00:53:29,680
Speaker 3: them aren't. And and I think crucially, and this is key.

953
00:53:29,800 --> 00:53:31,560
Speaker 3: This is something I'm on about all the time. I

954
00:53:31,719 --> 00:53:36,640
Speaker 3: basically wrote a whole book about it. But Biblically, the

955
00:53:36,680 --> 00:53:41,560
Speaker 3: heart includes the mind. So and this is true both

956
00:53:41,600 --> 00:53:44,360
Speaker 3: in the Old Testament and in the New. So in

957
00:53:44,440 --> 00:53:46,759
Speaker 3: the Shema and Deuteronomy six. You should love the Lord,

958
00:53:46,800 --> 00:53:50,239
Speaker 3: call your heart soul and strength. Heart. The Hebrew word

959
00:53:50,239 --> 00:53:55,120
Speaker 3: there is lave. That word includes the mind in it.

960
00:53:55,120 --> 00:53:57,719
Speaker 3: It's not opposed to the mind. It's not separate from

961
00:53:57,719 --> 00:54:00,759
Speaker 3: the mind. It's encompassing of the mind, of all the

962
00:54:00,760 --> 00:54:03,200
Speaker 3: core faculties of what it means to be human, including

963
00:54:03,280 --> 00:54:06,919
Speaker 3: the mind. And this is why when Jesus is responding

964
00:54:06,960 --> 00:54:09,680
Speaker 3: to the question what's the greatest commandment and he recites

965
00:54:09,719 --> 00:54:15,600
Speaker 3: the Shemah, he adds the Greek word dianoia to the

966
00:54:15,640 --> 00:54:19,560
Speaker 3: Greek word cardia, which is of course heart. So deanoya

967
00:54:19,640 --> 00:54:22,160
Speaker 3: is the word that translates into our Bibles as mind.

968
00:54:22,480 --> 00:54:25,560
Speaker 3: But in the New Testament as well. When Paul, for example, says,

969
00:54:26,040 --> 00:54:28,000
Speaker 3: be transformed by the renewing of your mind, he's talking

970
00:54:28,000 --> 00:54:30,360
Speaker 3: about your whole heart. He's talking about the way you

971
00:54:30,400 --> 00:54:33,200
Speaker 3: feel what you want. It's the mind. They did not

972
00:54:33,360 --> 00:54:36,799
Speaker 3: think of us as these kind of separate faculties. This

973
00:54:36,880 --> 00:54:39,480
Speaker 3: is actually a question of great interest to me historically,

974
00:54:39,560 --> 00:54:41,239
Speaker 3: like why we came to think this way. I have

975
00:54:41,280 --> 00:54:44,640
Speaker 3: a lot to say about it, But here's one little

976
00:54:44,680 --> 00:54:48,600
Speaker 3: fact that shows that this is actually true. In Joshua

977
00:54:48,680 --> 00:54:52,439
Speaker 3: twenty two, Okay, as the Eastern tribes have finished their

978
00:54:52,480 --> 00:54:58,239
Speaker 3: work helping Israel cleanse the land. Joshua is giving them

979
00:54:58,320 --> 00:55:01,200
Speaker 3: a charge as he's sending them back across the Jordan

980
00:55:01,239 --> 00:55:04,160
Speaker 3: to inhabit the places that they had wanted to stay right.

981
00:55:05,200 --> 00:55:10,880
Speaker 3: And in that speech he clearly is referencing the Shemah,

982
00:55:11,440 --> 00:55:13,960
Speaker 3: and he tells them to love God, to continue to

983
00:55:13,960 --> 00:55:19,160
Speaker 3: love God with their heart. In the Septuagint, the Greek

984
00:55:19,200 --> 00:55:24,719
Speaker 3: translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the word lave their heart,

985
00:55:25,160 --> 00:55:27,640
Speaker 3: which is how it appear in your modern English Bibles,

986
00:55:27,719 --> 00:55:30,719
Speaker 3: is translated in the Septuagint as deanoia.

987
00:55:31,160 --> 00:55:33,600
Speaker 2: That's interesting, mind, So.

988
00:55:33,600 --> 00:55:35,839
Speaker 3: This just points out that these people who spoke both

989
00:55:35,840 --> 00:55:39,440
Speaker 3: of these language fluently embedded in cultures that spoke these languages,

990
00:55:39,440 --> 00:55:43,239
Speaker 3: thought it an apt translation of the Hebrew word lave deanoia.

991
00:55:43,400 --> 00:55:43,680
Speaker 2: Mind.

992
00:55:44,800 --> 00:55:46,720
Speaker 3: So the point is that the Bible does not defied

993
00:55:46,760 --> 00:55:49,600
Speaker 3: these things. So when we talk about intelligence, we're talking

994
00:55:49,600 --> 00:55:51,600
Speaker 3: about the heart. We're talking about what it means to

995
00:55:51,640 --> 00:55:54,160
Speaker 3: love God with our whole hearts. And so I think

996
00:55:54,200 --> 00:55:56,520
Speaker 3: we need to not forget that even as we recognize

997
00:55:56,560 --> 00:55:58,520
Speaker 3: their problems, and even as we recognized there might be

998
00:55:58,520 --> 00:56:00,719
Speaker 3: other things that are rightly involved. So anyway, that was

999
00:56:00,760 --> 00:56:02,160
Speaker 3: a little bit long winded, but I know and that

1000
00:56:02,239 --> 00:56:02,600
Speaker 3: was great.

1001
00:56:02,960 --> 00:56:04,359
Speaker 2: Tell us the name of the book that you.

1002
00:56:05,239 --> 00:56:07,200
Speaker 3: Talk about this in a book that I wrote called

1003
00:56:07,719 --> 00:56:09,680
Speaker 3: Knowledge for the Love of God, Why Your Heart Needs

1004
00:56:09,680 --> 00:56:10,080
Speaker 3: Your Mind.

1005
00:56:10,520 --> 00:56:13,000
Speaker 1: It's a great book, Knowledge for the Love of God.

1006
00:56:13,040 --> 00:56:15,120
Speaker 1: We did a show on that maybe three years ago

1007
00:56:15,239 --> 00:56:18,279
Speaker 1: or so. Yeah, Knowledge for the Love of God. I

1008
00:56:18,360 --> 00:56:24,400
Speaker 1: think the key takeaway here is that our emotions and

1009
00:56:24,440 --> 00:56:27,840
Speaker 1: our will affects our mind. Our mind affects our emotions.

1010
00:56:27,840 --> 00:56:31,680
Speaker 1: We are whole beings exactly. And there's a lot of

1011
00:56:31,719 --> 00:56:34,600
Speaker 1: reasons people can believe in God and a lot of

1012
00:56:34,640 --> 00:56:38,640
Speaker 1: reasons people can choose not to believe in God. And

1013
00:56:38,680 --> 00:56:41,960
Speaker 1: it's not the correlation between smarter people believe in God

1014
00:56:42,080 --> 00:56:47,080
Speaker 1: or smarter people don't believe in God. There's far more

1015
00:56:47,160 --> 00:56:51,120
Speaker 1: other factors that are at play than that. And clearly,

1016
00:56:51,160 --> 00:56:54,960
Speaker 1: if we could think of as brilliant people like Stephen

1017
00:56:55,000 --> 00:56:58,960
Speaker 1: Hawking who doesn't believe in God, as smart as they

1018
00:56:59,000 --> 00:57:01,719
Speaker 1: will come, and then the equivalent whoever you would want

1019
00:57:01,760 --> 00:57:05,399
Speaker 1: to cite on the theistic side, believes in God. It's

1020
00:57:05,400 --> 00:57:08,319
Speaker 1: not going to settle it by pointing to people like that.

1021
00:57:08,440 --> 00:57:11,640
Speaker 3: Even scientists. This doesn't settle it to point at scientists either,

1022
00:57:11,760 --> 00:57:17,600
Speaker 3: because the scientific tradition in the West is chock full

1023
00:57:17,680 --> 00:57:20,040
Speaker 3: of people who were deeply devoted to God in one

1024
00:57:20,080 --> 00:57:24,880
Speaker 3: way or another. And I think the idea that these

1025
00:57:25,240 --> 00:57:33,320
Speaker 3: scientific inquiries are incompatible or anyway opposed in some way

1026
00:57:33,400 --> 00:57:36,080
Speaker 3: to the pursuit of God with the mind actually doesn't.

1027
00:57:36,520 --> 00:57:39,960
Speaker 3: You couldn't make sense of the development of science. I mean,

1028
00:57:39,960 --> 00:57:43,040
Speaker 3: this is one of the points that we heard Steve

1029
00:57:43,080 --> 00:57:47,840
Speaker 3: Meyer make is that the history of science is a

1030
00:57:48,000 --> 00:57:51,640
Speaker 3: history of Christianity. And it's not just Christians that have

1031
00:57:51,640 --> 00:57:55,360
Speaker 3: been involved, especially of ny, but early on you needed

1032
00:57:55,360 --> 00:57:59,040
Speaker 3: to think the universe was comprehensible and able to be understood.

1033
00:57:59,320 --> 00:58:03,080
Speaker 3: And why is that? Because God's the creator, and he

1034
00:58:03,200 --> 00:58:09,200
Speaker 3: creates the world according to his himself. He creates us

1035
00:58:09,200 --> 00:58:11,920
Speaker 3: in order to understand what he has done. He's a

1036
00:58:11,960 --> 00:58:15,280
Speaker 3: god of order and structure and reason, and he wants

1037
00:58:15,400 --> 00:58:18,600
Speaker 3: us to deploy those powers in the context of the

1038
00:58:18,640 --> 00:58:22,160
Speaker 3: diversity of human beings to understand all the different dimensions

1039
00:58:22,200 --> 00:58:23,640
Speaker 3: of the world that he has made. I think that's

1040
00:58:23,640 --> 00:58:24,640
Speaker 3: a really beautiful thing.

1041
00:58:24,880 --> 00:58:25,560
Speaker 2: I think so too.

1042
00:58:25,560 --> 00:58:27,240
Speaker 1: You know, it's amazing about some of people, like a

1043
00:58:27,320 --> 00:58:31,480
Speaker 1: Quinness Newton believe the universe had a beginning, but they

1044
00:58:31,480 --> 00:58:33,560
Speaker 1: were pre twentieth century.

1045
00:58:33,640 --> 00:58:35,280
Speaker 2: We're not aware of the science.

1046
00:58:35,920 --> 00:58:38,240
Speaker 1: What they would have thought if they could have seen

1047
00:58:38,280 --> 00:58:41,360
Speaker 1: the evidence come out for a thermodynamics evidence for the

1048
00:58:41,400 --> 00:58:47,320
Speaker 1: cosmic background microwave radiation, seeing the other evidence that is

1049
00:58:47,480 --> 00:58:50,640
Speaker 1: pretty convincing and compelling the universe had a beginning. What

1050
00:58:50,760 --> 00:58:53,600
Speaker 1: their response would have been would have been pretty cool

1051
00:58:53,600 --> 00:58:56,360
Speaker 1: to see. All right, friends, we're here with doctor Timothy

1052
00:58:56,400 --> 00:59:01,520
Speaker 1: Pickavant's friend and a co colleague of at Tabvisco Theology

1053
00:59:01,600 --> 00:59:04,200
Speaker 1: teaching Philosophy. We'd love to have you think about joining

1054
00:59:04,280 --> 00:59:07,400
Speaker 1: us in the Apologized program or in the Philosophy program.

1055
00:59:07,480 --> 00:59:09,960
Speaker 1: We go through a lot of this stuff in a

1056
00:59:10,040 --> 00:59:12,760
Speaker 1: ton of depth. A couple things coming up you want

1057
00:59:12,760 --> 00:59:16,320
Speaker 1: to know about. Is April twenty second at Biola. That's

1058
00:59:16,360 --> 00:59:19,600
Speaker 1: a Wednesday, at seven o'clock. There will be a screening

1059
00:59:19,640 --> 00:59:22,280
Speaker 1: of the movie The Story of Everything. This is what

1060
00:59:22,400 --> 00:59:24,680
Speaker 1: Meyer was talking about. Doug Ax is coming to talk

1061
00:59:24,720 --> 00:59:28,320
Speaker 1: about that and Jay Richards soon as well, but that'll.

1062
00:59:28,000 --> 00:59:30,640
Speaker 2: Be live at Biola. You won't want to miss that.

1063
00:59:30,960 --> 00:59:32,600
Speaker 1: Let me know if you want us to keep doing

1064
00:59:32,680 --> 00:59:36,360
Speaker 1: these live streams, These Talbot tuesdays bringing in different faculty

1065
00:59:36,440 --> 00:59:39,640
Speaker 1: to take your questions and engage live. Let us know

1066
00:59:39,680 --> 00:59:42,120
Speaker 1: if that's helpful. And a reminder that we're doing a

1067
00:59:42,160 --> 00:59:45,240
Speaker 1: full show on Penrose's model coming up in the next

1068
00:59:45,240 --> 00:59:48,320
Speaker 1: few weeks. Steven Meyer will be back in studio to

1069
00:59:48,520 --> 00:59:52,600
Speaker 1: break that down in some depth, two part series you

1070
00:59:52,640 --> 00:59:54,560
Speaker 1: will not want to miss. And if you miss my

1071
00:59:54,640 --> 00:59:57,480
Speaker 1: review from last week on my discussion with bart Erman,

1072
00:59:58,520 --> 01:00:00,640
Speaker 1: we just had a breakdown in some of the technology,

1073
01:00:00,720 --> 01:00:03,240
Speaker 1: but we have most of the audio. You have to

1074
01:00:03,280 --> 01:00:07,080
Speaker 1: final what's called the Sean McDowell Show. It's an audio podcast.

1075
01:00:07,160 --> 01:00:09,880
Speaker 1: We get you there. Hey, friends, if you enjoyed this show,

1076
01:00:10,080 --> 01:00:13,280
Speaker 1: please hit that fall button on your podcast app. Most

1077
01:00:13,320 --> 01:00:15,520
Speaker 1: of you tuning in haven't done this yet and it

1078
01:00:15,600 --> 01:00:18,800
Speaker 1: makes a huge difference in helping us reach and equip.

1079
01:00:18,480 --> 01:00:19,920
Speaker 2: More people and build community.

1080
01:00:20,000 --> 01:00:24,720
Speaker 1: And please consider leaving a podcast review. Every review helps.

1081
01:00:24,920 --> 01:00:27,360
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The Sean McDowell Show, brought to

1082
01:00:27,400 --> 01:00:31,040
Speaker 1: you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, where

1083
01:00:31,080 --> 01:00:35,040
Speaker 1: we have on campus and online programs and apologetic spiritual Formation,

1084
01:00:35,240 --> 01:00:37,880
Speaker 1: marriage and Family, Bible and so much more. We would

1085
01:00:37,920 --> 01:00:40,760
Speaker 1: love to train you to more effectively live, teach, and

1086
01:00:40,880 --> 01:00:43,640
Speaker 1: defend the Christian faith today and we will see you

1087
01:00:43,720 --> 01:00:46,360
Speaker 1: when the next episode drops