Atheists Can't Be Rational, According to SomeGuy on the Internet

本站收录: 2026-05-21

[00:00:03]Hi, my name is Scarlet and I'm an atheist and skeptic. And today I thought we would leave the confines of YouTube and Tik Tok and go out exploring among the blogs. Does anyone still read blogs?

[00:00:15]I don't know. But I wanted to see if there were any better arguments out there because I'm sure not finding them on these platforms. And I came across this one. Six rational arguments against atheism. the surprising conflict between atheism and reason and having read it I don't think there's a conflict at all between them but maybe this guy Maxmillian Creus and uh his own thought process you let me know what you think so who is Maximleian so he describes himself as a Catholic writer who is passionate about philosophy theology and biblical theology so all kinds of theology he wants to make sure you know and he published this in Catholicism coffee which says it is dedicated towards spreading knowledge about the Catholic faith to the world. They passionately write articles just like he is passionate about philosophy I guess and they write them on Catholicism and they pin down thoughtprovoking spirituality essays.

[00:01:15]Okay. And summarize church theology and beliefs as straightforward as possible.

[00:01:20]I think that there are some issues with the um punctuation there, but okay, that's fine. Let's see what they have for us. There's your blibby blab. Let's get going.

[00:01:54]So the piece starts out, the great banner of atheism sits loftily upon the throne of science. Well, surely a banner would hang above the throne and not sit on it, but that's just me, I guess. I know I'm making fun a little bit of how ridiculous this language is, but I think we're starting out with a bit of poison the well. trying to make this seem a little ridiculous with this language. We go on, it has become its great child, winning victories against the darkness of superstition and religion. I definitely think science has done that.

[00:02:30]And you know, you can look back in time to see times of superstition. How much of it was fueled by religion, atheism or not, it's the science that has helped us win those battles. How shall religion fare after she was overthrown by the scientific revolution? did not know that religion was a she. All right, learn something new every day. It is all but an illusion. In this article, I have painstakingly researched and uncovered the perhaps most surprising truth that atheism and reason are not in fact in mutual agreement with each other. It's quite the opposite. One must choose either reason or atheism, but not both.

[00:03:06]And I think we're going to find that we won't have to choose one or the other that the arguments are specious. But there we go. Here's how we've set it up.

[00:03:14]He has painstakingly researched y'all and he's uncovered some surprising truths. And let's go see what he did and how he did it. To make terms clear, when I refer to atheism, I refer to a popular version of atheism known as naturalism.

[00:03:31]It is the belief that if the natural universe exists, only material things exist and nothing else. If the natural universe exists, like are you doubting that it exists? Like can we not agree that that exists? Now to be clear, naturalism is the stance that the natural universe is all we can investigate. And some people think then that's all there is. And other people say, "Well, I'm open to exploring evidence for something beyond the natural world." Atheism and naturalism are different. And to conflate the two, you're already going down a bad path.

[00:04:08]All right, but let's see what this guy says. This is perhaps one of the most common forms of atheism. Such clarification is important because most of the arguments I present here work against a closed system of atheism. If you affirm an open system of atheism where you believe there is something more out there, then the arguments I present may have less bite depending on your beliefs. And I guess by closed system, this is this idea that there's only the natural world, whereas an open one would think that there is something else out there. But I think for a lot of atheists, it's I don't accept the supernatural. I mean, I don't know what else there would be besides a supernatural. I don't accept that there's a supernatural because I haven't seen evidence for it. Show me some evidence and then I'll consider it. But a lot of times, if you can investigate it, it's likely going to be something natural, like if it falls under the rules of science. All right, let's keep going and see what he says.

[00:05:04]For instance, you could be a Platonist and an atheist, but not a naturalist.

[00:05:09]With that out of the way, I launched several independent arguments that cleave atheism and reason apart from each other in a dramatic fashion. Oh, we need some music.

[00:05:18]Uh, we're going to see how dramatic it is. And you know, Pltonism, no. Like, come on. You think there are forms out there? Give me a break. So, our first argument, the epistemological skyhook argument. In an interview with Dr. Jim Slaggel, he launches what he calls an epistemological skyhook argument. I'm kind of confused with this sentence. Is Dr. Slaggel the he also who's interviewing? Why are we referring to an interview? I don't know. Okay, whatever.

[00:05:47]Let's let's see the summary argument. If atheism is true, then any belief is sustained and produced by natural processes whose goal is not truth. Why should we think this is true? And I don't understand the argument. So if atheism is true, the natural processes whose goal is not truth. And by the way, truth and is separate from this sentence being true.

[00:06:13]And a lot of times theists like to think that there's like a truth out there that's separate from facts corresponding to reality. Well, let's go on. Maybe there's a little bit more on this because I don't quite understand the argument. Point one, under atheism, there is no intelligent designer of the universe. Therefore, why would we think there is an irrational function at all within our minds? It's just assumed by atheists that our minds are naturally oriented towards the truth. But if our minds are products of a universe devoid of any intelligent designer that would have cared for the truth, then they are unlikely to be oriented towards the truth.

[00:06:50]Oh my, this is some fine word salad. So first of all let's just get this clear that being oriented towards the truth is different from having a any rational function and really our mind is the rational functioning of our brain which takes in sensory information from lots of different places and interprets it for us so that we can draw conclusions. And by the way it's not a perfect rational function. There are lots of issues with our minds and ways of thinking that actually are faulty and that's why we developed science. But our brains don't have to be perfect. They just have to be good enough. I should also point out that not everybody cares about the quote unquote truth. They're just living their life and you know things that work out for them work out and that's fine. So we're going to be obsessed with this truth but not everybody is you know that is alive today. they're just going out and doing stuff. I do have to say that having an intelligent designer doesn't actually solve your problem here because how come you're sure that this intelligent designer does care for the truth or has created us with the correct kind of thought? I mean, you're making an assumption there. The best we can do really is we need to start out with no conclusions at all and go see what we find. And we do find that we have a sort of rational process in our brain and it is processing information and it is able to give us information that help us lead our lives. That's all. You know, you don't need an intelligent designer to do that. Let's keep going.

[00:08:31]The universe is indifferent to humans.

[00:08:34]It does not care about our capacity to rationalize truths. The universe does not have processes aimed at truth. It is random and deterministic. Like this doesn't matter at all. doesn't matter if the universe is indifferent to us. Like we evolved with these brains to do these things. It doesn't matter what the universe has processes for. And I think that this word random is used too often.

[00:08:56]And I think really what it means is not controlled by an agent. But things happen for reasons and sometimes we don't know that reason. It seems random to us. And the deterministic I mean isn't that a little contradictory to the random? Maybe I'm not understanding the argument very well. All right, let's keep going. Platinga's evolutionary argument. Oh, so I guess we're done with the skyhook argument, which I did not think was a very good argument. I mean, we evolved to be a certain way with these brains that we have and whether or not uh the universe is that way. I've already talked about that. I won't ramble on about that. Let's see what good old Platinga had to say. Alvin Platingo sketches out a powerful argument against atheism in a lecture at USC. Given evolution and atheism, our minds evolve not according to searching for the truth, but according to what is useful for survival. Fine, but what if searching for the truth is also often useful for survival? In terms of beliefs, there's a gap between the usefulness of a belief and its truthfulness. A belief can be useful but false. Therefore, our minds were made for survival and usefulness, but not for seeking the truth. You know, that's true. But I do think this is very reductive of evolution and how our minds work and this idea of what is true and what is not true. And it's it is true that there are things like religion that probably helped form cohesive groups of people who were able to cooperate to do stuff and that helped the species survive and keep going. But there are some beliefs that the truth value is really important like are these mushrooms safe to eat? Is this plant safe to eat? If I go here, will the animals that I'm hunting be there? Like those are key things. So sometimes the truth of a proposition was really important and it depends on where we're at. So I don't think this is a zero or 100 kind of thing. Uh let's keep going.

[00:10:54]Platinga quotes Patricia Churchland, an atheist philosopher who says, "Boil down to essentials. A nervous system enables an organism to succeed at the four Fs.

[00:11:04]Fleeing, fighting, feeding, and reproducing PNS. Not a typing error, mind you." Yeah. Uh, the fourth F is [ __ ] you know, they won't write it and she probably didn't say it, but that's that's what they mean. Natural selection does not care about the truth.

[00:11:20]It cares about how you behave and your bodily structure. Given the propositions that atheism and evolution are true, the probability, in philosophy, it's particularly called conditional probability, that our cognitive faculties are reliable is very low. So, first off, natural selection doesn't care about anything. It's not an agent that cares. Natural selection is about when we do reproduce, what genes are passed on. And some genes are beneficial, some are neutral, and some are bad, etc. So, there's that. By the way, our cognitive faculties are not perfect. There are lots of issues with our cognitive faculties. That's why we have science now. And it's a way to evaluate um evidence and to test hypotheses so that we can bypass the problems in our cognitive faculties. But our cognitive faculties are good enough for survival just like lots of animals cognitive faculties are good for their survival. But it doesn't matter if natural selection cares about truth or anything like that. Sometimes the truth value of propositions is important. Like I said, is this plant poisonous? is this animal, what's this animal going to do?

[00:12:29]How these kinds of evaluations that we have to make. So, it's not like we're indifferent to the truth. Like the truth can help us reach an age to reproduce, but not all truth values are equal and not all of them lead to it. So, sometimes caring about the truth may be secondary. It may not be for survival, but sometimes the truth is important.

[00:12:50]So, again, I just find this very reductive.

[00:12:53]Moving on. Definition of defeaters.

[00:12:55]Defeaters in philosophy are arguments powerful enough to show that a worldview is wrong. Atheism is not a worldview.

[00:13:03]And by the way, naturalism would allow for us to talk about something like the supernatural if we could find a way to investigate it. So it's not like even naturalism would be able to look into something if there was a way to investigate it. But we just can't assume that that thing is out there.

[00:13:22]Professor Meiser sketches out the argument in detail in an essay and demonstrates why the argument constitutes a defeater for atheism.

[00:13:30]Let's say I have a drug called Matrix that makes your rational processes heavily unreliable. It is so powerful that you are unable to be self-aware and know that your beliefs are unreliable.

[00:13:41]So, I love all these whatifs because now we're going to compare this to atheism, right? Atheism is like the drug matrix.

[00:13:49]that I don't I find these kinds of things silly and it's just ways to get the argument a little confused. Let's keep going. Given the proposition that our minds were formed for survival and not truth, the probability that our minds are unreliable is similar to the matrix drug. If that is true, atheism must be false because it's produced by an unreliable mind. What's ironic is that atheism was responsible for this unreliable mind.

[00:14:14]I'm sorry. I guess this guy just really doesn't understand how evolution works.

[00:14:19]Like our minds are reliable enough to survive. They don't have to be perfect, you know? They don't it's not they're completely unreliable or and again evolution and the universe, they don't have to be geared toward truth at all.

[00:14:33]This is a byproduct of minds that sometimes do have to figure out what's true. Platinga turns this argument around and shows that it gives evidence for God. For our minds or cognitive faculties to be reliable, they need to be intelligently designed. They absolutely don't. You don't understand evolution. You don't understand the process. You don't know how the process works. It does not need to be intelligent itself. It doesn't need to care about truth. The universe doesn't need to care about truth. We just need to have enough things be true for truth to matter.

[00:15:06]This is evidence of an intelligent designer of the universe who gave us reliable minds. Well, they aren't perfectly reliable, first of all.

[00:15:13]They're not perfectly unreliable either.

[00:15:16]And how would you know that this intelligent designer did give us reliable minds? How does that intelligent designer have a reliable mind? You're opening yourself up for all kinds of questions. And it isn't proof.

[00:15:28]Like, evolution gave us minds that are just reliable enough to be able to process some things rationally. Again, sometimes truth does matter. It doesn't have to matter all the time. And the fact that sometimes believing wrong things is neutral or sometimes can be beneficial. That's separate. So, let's keep going. The argument from determinism. Okay. So, that one was over and I think it's just based on people who don't understand evolution, how it works, what our minds are like, etc., etc. So, let's see this one. Dr. Jim Slaggel discusses a second argument that leads to problems for atheismbbased reasoning. Again, like the fact that there's not a god to hand all this stuff down, right? This is all just god of the gaps argument. Atheism leads to determinism because we have no free will. If determinism is true, our beliefs are not determined by freely rationalized beliefs formed from deduction and reasoning. They were determined by external events that are indifferent to truth. Again, the fact that events are indifferent to truth has no bearing on whether or not we care about truth or how our minds evolved to care about truth. Now, the whole discussion about whether or not we have free will is a separate issue. And this is a problem whether you believe in a god or not. Like, do are we actually making decisions freely? Is everything determined? Maybe free will is an illusion. I don't have any insight on that. I don't I kind of land on free will is an illusion. We think we have free will, but we actually don't. It seems like we are making these determinations, but actually we're just piecing together what we can from a universe that was determined. But let's keep going.

[00:17:06]There are two steps to this argument.

[00:17:08]First, does atheism leads to determinism? Yeah, does it leads? Also known as lack of free will. Second, does determinism mean that we can have rational beliefs? The first is that atheism leads to determinism. This is confirmed by scientific evidence.

[00:17:23]Theoretical physicist Sabine Hosenfelder, oh boy, demonstrates that free will is incompatible with the laws of nature. Well, if Sabine said it, I guess it's true, right? There's nobody else speaking on this. The property of the laws of nature means that if you have the details of initial conditions, then you can calculate what will happen at all of the times given those conditions. All right, fine. As Sabine Hosenfelder puts it, in a nutshell, the whole story of the universe and every single detail was determined already at the big bang. We're just watching it play out. This means that we have no free will. All our decisions were predetermined at the big bang. I mean, you could say this about God, too. Like God supposedly, especially this is a Catholic, so this has to be the tri omniod that knows everything and is all powerful, knows how all this plays out, and we are just watching it. So again this free will thing is completely separate from whether or not there is a god. But moving on the second step is that determinism means the lack of rational beliefs. This is quite simple.

[00:18:24]Our beliefs can be rational only if they are a result of freely chosen rational processes. If I am a puppet of the laws of nature, my rational processes are not guided by my free usage to know the truth. They were determined rather by the initial conditions at the big bang.

[00:18:39]Hence they're not determined by truth.

[00:18:41]They are determined by the laws of nature. And maybe you're the puppet of a god. I mean, these this has no bearing on whether or not there is or is not a god. These are philosophical questions about what our range of action actually is. What are we determining for ourselves? What are we actually choosing? How much are we compelled?

[00:19:03]These are interesting philosophical discussions, but this doesn't say anything about whether or not there's a god. Moving on, the argument from intuitions. In an essay and a video, Dr. Rob Coons develops a three-fold argument from intuitions. Two of these arguments are against atheism in specific. Okay, let's hear it. Definition of intuitions.

[00:19:26]Intuitions are truths that you instinctively know to be true. You never got them logically or from argumentation. You never got them from your experience of the real world.

[00:19:37]They're just sort of there in your mind.

[00:19:40]There are many examples of our intuitions working. For instance, even if you've never been introduced to formal logic, you understand how an argument works. I don't know that that's true. Um, I would need to see a little bit more evidence of that. Like, unless you mean an argument like you get in a fight with somebody, but if you're talking about a formal argument, I don't think everybody knows that just intuitively.

[00:20:05]Even if you never knew what constitutes good or evil, you know that torturing people for fun is not a good thing. You know, they always have to add this for fun. Like, yeah, nobody, I think, thinks that it's good to torture people for fun. I don't know that this is an intuition. This is our empathy knowing what it would feel like to be tortured and especially if somebody was just taking pleasure. But I have a workaround for you. You give a reason why you're torturing the people. You're not doing it for fun. Even if you are enjoying it, this is somebody that deserves to be tortured or this is torture is a good way to get information. There are workarounds to this. You just don't have the fun part added in.

[00:20:44]And let's move on. Even if you never knew mathematics at all, you know, at combining one stone and another stone would sum up to two stones.

[00:20:53]Um, that's not your intuition. That's language. Like we have invented the words for numbers and concepts of math are important to us and we can see that if we have two stones like but that's not an intuition like we can see two stones that really is our experience of the real world and then we've put language to that. That's not an intuition. We are so obsessed in this religious world with 1 plus 1 equals 2 or 2 plus 2= 4 simple math. You know math is useful to us so we've invented language around it. They aren't intuitions.

[00:21:28]You know all of this intuitively. You don't. You actually don't. Most of the development of our philosophy, logic, mathematics, and morality is based upon these intuitive truths. Um, no. And they're not just intuitions. And by the way, my own take on intuitions is that a lot of times we've taken in a lot of information, sensory data, things people say. It can get processed in a subconscious way and then we can come to a conclusion that can pop out in an unexpected time and that's an intuition but it's not coming from nowhere. It is coming from our experience in the real world. Let's keep going. Argument one, lack of explanation. Atheism fails to explain how we get these intuitions.

[00:22:11]Yeah, atheism isn't an explanatory situation. It just says we don't believe in a god. What an atheist would do to learn about intuitions is go into a science that's investigating that. The the atheist would do that. But atheism is not responsible for that. For our intuitions to be true and hence our development of mathematics, logic, morality, etc. to be truthful, they need to have a truthful connection to the real world. And you know, we we do test it out. But again, I contest this notion of intuitions as being completely separate from the real world. We don't have intuitions like that. Like you don't see newborn babies having intuitions and children have to be taught lots of things. I mean we we even have to teach children not to steal from one another, not to hit one another. We kind of develop our sense of empathy.

[00:23:00]Although not everybody has that empathy.

[00:23:02]There are people who are sociopaths. And by the way, development of math, logic, morality, these are longstanding fields of study that have been worked over, thought about. They they weren't just intuitions. And to the extent that people had intuitions, they had been working in these areas. So I guess they want to think that this was knowledge implanted in us, that's not how intuition works. Anyway, atheists have two ways of plausibly explaining these intuitions. Typical response. It was useful for our ancestors to have such intuitions for survival. So today we inherit these intuitions. Again, I just think these come from inputs in the environment. We're out in the environment and you know, people have been existing for hundreds of thousands of years, right? So we have passed down our learning and we raised children and we don't remember when we were small children what it was like. So this isn't something like it's in our DNA or it's just planted in our brains. That is we do get these from our environment and we teach them to children.

[00:24:07]Problem Previously we already explored that there is a gap between usefulness and truth. For instance, let's take moral truths. Intuitively we find sacrifices for abstract causes to be generally heroic. So if a person dies as a soldier in war, we honor their sacrifice. However, if evolution is true, then this intuition should not exist at all because it is contrary to survival. Why should we find it moral to be sacrificial when what's more useful for survival is selfishness? We only need to look moral in front of others.

[00:24:35]But we don't need to go all the way through. You know, this isn't an intuition.

[00:24:41]People have been making war for as long as there have been people. And you know, there are primates that make war. There are other animals that have war. And so we have developed ethos around war. And we now in the 21st century have inherited centuries of culture around what it means to be heroic and war. This wasn't just an intuition, you know. So this is just species right here. Typical response. Nature gave us these intuitions. No. No. Nature did not. It was developed over years of culture like this. I mean we could go into a lot of detail about why these kinds of um ethical thoughts came about but nature did not give us these intuitions. There are things that came out of nature but you know the fact that humans have had culture and have talked to each other and have developed stories and things like this isn't something that's coming from nowhere. Problem again as I've mentioned earlier nature is indifferent to our capacity for truth. It doesn't matter what nature thinks. Nature actually doesn't think really. Nature is just there. If nature gave us these intuitions, then these intuitions are unreliable because nature is dependent upon random deterministic processes.

[00:25:52]Nature didn't give them to us. Like we have a proclivity for certain things like again war, being violent towards one another and we have developed stories around this. It didn't come from nature. This means that our intuitions come from these random natural processes and not from some intelligent source that makes our intuitions reliable guides for truth. You know, we got these in quoteunquote intuitions from each other. We got them from stories. We got them from uh centuries and millennia of fighting in this case. Conclusion, under atheism, our intuitions are unreliable, undermining many fields rellying on such as potentially mathematics, logic, and morality. I will say that if we're talking about people sacrificing themselves in war, you know, there are a lot of times where I think we overemphasize that kind of thing for nationalistic and patriotic uh means and ends. Um but mathematics, logic, morality, these are things again that people work on tests, you know, acting like these are just like they came from nowhere. They were implanted in by some intelligent being. Uh you got to demonstrate that. As far as I know, these come from centuries of developing these thoughts and practicing it and testing it and having people come up and talk to you and test what you have.

[00:27:08]Argument two, the lack of ironclad reliability. Oh gosh, ironclad. We're going to add this like it has to be perfect or else. Definition of a possible world. In modern analytic philosophy, a possible world is a complete and consistent way reality could have been. This is guided by what is metaphysically possible. For example, it is metaphysically possible that I never wrote this article. Hence, there is a possible world in which I never wrote this article. Yeah, cool. I'd kind of like to be in that particular world.

[00:27:39]Given atheism, let's suppose that our intuitions are just accurate given any reason at atheism provides. Here's a problem. There are thousands of possible worlds where our intuitions went wrong.

[00:27:48]How do we not know that we are in one of those possible worlds? Well, I guess we don't. All we can do is keep testing them, seeing if they play out, if we can act on them, if they uh if they prove false or true or whatever. Like it I don't know what world this guy is in, but in my world, if I have an idea, I can actually test it and see if it comes true. Like I can have a thought like, "Oh, it might rain today. Go out. It never rains. Oh, that idea was wrong."

[00:28:14]You know, the lack of ironclad reliability demonstrates that atheism can provide little reason to suppose that we're in one of the possible worlds where our intuitions are correct. Our intuitions aren't always correct, dude.

[00:28:25]I hate to tell this to you. Sometimes, let's just say a real intuition, like the kind of thing he's talking about. I have a random thought I'm going to get in a car accident today. And then I go out and I don't, oh, that was a wrong intuition. I go out and I do get it. I might say, oh, I did get one. And then I'll mark that up and say like, oh, my intuitions are always correct. Our intuitions aren't always correct. We have to test them. By the way, I still don't see what this has to do with believing in a god or not. Because how do you know that the god has implanted in you good intuitions? Like assuming that's what you think that your senses are reliable, that your brain is processing correctly. What if you have some kind of chaos god that puts all kinds of random things in? Because again, we don't think perfectly. We have lots of problems in our thinking.

[00:29:15]Moving on, the conflict between atheism and science. In a video, Dr. Rob Coons develops another argument against atheism. First, scientists are guided by elegance and simplicity when looking for theories to explain the data. To illustrate this, imagine a two-dimensional graph with two points on it. Imagine those two points being different data points. There are infinitely many ways you can connect those points, but there is one simple and elegant way, a straight line. Um, that's not what's meant by elegance and simplicity when we're talking about science, which by the way, these are judgments. It doesn't mean that the universe works in an elegant and simplistic way. It means that when we're trying to capture the ideas, we're trying to get them in the simplest way that tells us what the mechanism is.

[00:30:02]That's the elegance and simplicity. And it doesn't have to be a straight line.

[00:30:06]Moving on. This is why we discount a lot of conspiracy theories. They may have explanatory power with the ability to connect the dots, but they often do so without elegance and for make for highly complicated theories that seem unlikely.

[00:30:18]You know, that's that's not really why we discount a lot of conspiracy theories. In fact, if it's a conspiracy theory, it probably has not been proven any way anyway nearly true, right?

[00:30:29]Otherwise, we would just say it was a conspiracy. We we have evidence that it was a conspiracy. The reason that we discount conspiracy theories is because they don't have good evidence for them or they have contradictory evidence for them or they cherrypick evidence that suits the conspiracy theory and reject other evidence that would falsify their theory. They're not looking at the whole of the evidence. It has nothing to do with how simple the theory is or how elegant it is. That's just silly. Most conspiracy theories are based on suspicion and they're based on a suspicion of the scientific uh con consensus. So for our scientific theories to be true, then the laws of nature would have to be built in with simplicity and elegance. No, they don't.

[00:31:15]They they don't. They don't. The science is trying to portray these laws with simplicity and elegance. And this doesn't this doesn't mean like elegance like you know uh some fancy castle or something like that. It it is that that you're capturing in a way that is parsimmonious and is takes in the whole I mean this is just silliness. However, under atheism there is no reason to suppose that the laws of nature are simple or elegant or under anything really like why are you supposing that the universe is entirely indifferent to our ability to learn about it. Yes. So what? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. The the universe doesn't do anything. It just is. I mean, as far as I know. Like, show me that the universe cares about anything. Uh, I'll change my mind. And now we're at the conclusion.

[00:32:06]Multiple arguments have been given to show that atheism leads to unreliable minds due to evolution. No, you didn't show that at all. Unreliable thought processes due determinism. You didn't show that. A lack of an account for intuitions. You don't understand what an intuition is. a lack of an ironclad explanation for intuitions. Again, I don't think you know what intuition is.

[00:32:25]And a lack of simplicity built in the laws of nature necessary for scientific explanations. And I don't think you understand either the laws of science or the scientific explanations. You know, this really is just one giant argument from incredul and really again misunderstanding of everything. Like you're imagining a narrative and uh saying God needs to be there for this narrative to be true, but you the the narrative isn't correct. So, I don't even know what we're doing here.

[00:32:57]I don't know. This was all silly. I think this was silly. Do you think it was silly? Put in the comments below if you thought this was silly. Um, I it was a lot of words, you know, to say atheists suck. Uh, and theist rock. I think that's what this whole thing was about. Anyway, if you do put a comment, you know the drill. You can like and subscribe to all the YouTube stuffing.

[00:33:15]Pour out your libations to Algorithmo and his consort algorithma that they give you lots of good YouTube recommendations and ads. Maybe get one of those ad blockers. Some of you tell me you have ad blockers. Good for you. I approve. Totally approve of ad blocking.

[00:33:29]Don't need any more ads in our life. We don't need to be buying stuff.

[00:33:32]Everything is a sale. But if you like what I do, you can buy me a coffee.

[00:33:36]Thank you to everybody who has bought me a coffee. Here are my cute kitties with a QR code thinking you're buying me some kibble. I buy coffee. They got kibble. I don't need your your donations to buy kibble for my cats. But thank you to everybody who's bought me a coffee. Here are some people that did. So, I really appreciate it. I don't know what's coming up next. Maybe we'll go back to the rapture. Maybe we'll find some ways that atheism is silly. Again, don't know what's coming, but you know, it's going to be stupid. Bye for now.