Ask an Atheist Anything Podcast- When does the Atheist Bear the Burden of Proof? (Dale Guest Stars)

4A IMAGE

Enjoy the Podcast:

Anchor Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/skeptics-and-seekers/episodes/Supplemental–Dale-on-Ask-an-Atheist-Anything–When-does-the-Atheist-Bear-the-Burden-of-Proof-e3mbbd

Or for a better audio quality version, go to to the 4A Anchor page and see “Episode 13: The Burden of Proof, Bayes Theorem, and Molinism” here = https://anchor.fm/reasonpress .

Alright, well I have been sitting on this bonus Podcast for a while but I was finally given the go-ahead to post up an episode I guest starred in with Matt and Andrew on their Podcast “Ask an Atheist Anything”. My question for them was, “When does the Atheist Bear the Burden of Proof?”.
Specific discussion on the burden of proof revolves around my use of Bayes Theorem, prior probabilities, the shifting of the burden of proof and my beloved Molinistic Defeater- all this and more is tackled by the Atheists in this episode.

Recommended Sources:

UPDATED SOURCE- Given some of the disagreements, I’ve had with skeptics who claim my notion of treating all options as “equally possible/probable” by default unless and until one has reason to rule one or more options as more probable than not and/or improbable, I wanted to provide this source on the Principle of Indifference which states, “is a rule for assigning epistemic probabilities. The principle of indifference states that in the absence of any relevant evidence, agents should distribute their credence (or `degrees of belief’) equally amongst all the possible outcomes under consideration” (see here = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_indifference or search for the term here = https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/ ).  Once again, Dale is proven to be correct despite the skeptics claiming he doesn’t know what he is talking about!

a) Check out Ask an Atheist Anything from https://www.reasonpress.net/ and/or on Anchor here = https://anchor.fm/reasonpress .

b) Scholarly source on what Middle Knowledge is = https://www.iep.utm.edu/middlekn/ .

c) See my attached file with detailed illustrations of how the my Bayes calculations work in contrast to Andrew. See here = 4A- BAYES EXPLANATION

 

61 thoughts on “Ask an Atheist Anything Podcast- When does the Atheist Bear the Burden of Proof? (Dale Guest Stars)

  1. For those of you more inclined towards the Math of my Bayes approach and what I was trying to say to Andrew when we discussed it, I’ve provided 5 calculation case studies to illustrate how it works and what I was trying to say in terms of my difference with Andrew on the default agnostic state with the prior probability being 50% as opposed to being 0% as Andrew claimed.

    Hope it helps 🙂

    Thanks again to Andrew and Matt- it was a great show and I look forward to coming on again to 4A or SU anytime and having them on S&S in the future as well 🙂

    Like

    1. “…the default agnostic state with the prior probability being 50% as opposed to being 0% as Andrew claimed.”

      Andrew was correct. If you are starting at 50%, then you are making a positive claim that it is possible that god exists and that he exists at a 50% probability.

      Christians haven’t demonstrated that god is possible yet. So until you can prove your positive claim that god is possible, you have no justification to use anything other than 0%.

      And since you aren’t using Bayes, you should stop saying you are using it.

      Like

      1. Out of curiosity, did you look at the attachment?- I do illustrate that I’m correct mathematically on this front about using the 50% vs. the 0%.

        Like

        1. I did look at it. I actually looked at it first while I was waiting for the episode to download. Your math is incorrect. Not because of the actual numbers and how they interact, but because of the assumptions going into them.

          If you have 60% and 70% on two evidences and you have not yet even demonstrated that your prior probability is even possible yet, it is at 0%, then you are just factually wrong about the 60% and 70%. You can’t put a probability on something that you have not yet demonstrated is even possible. Or if you do it is a probability that is completely useless and should not be used in formulas anyway.

          You first have to demonstrate something is possible before you can start assigning probabilities.

          If you have already demonstrated that your evidences are correct at being 60% and 70%, then you have already demonstrated possibility, and you wouldn’t be starting out at 0% you might be starting out at say 10% and those two evidences would increase the 10% appropriately.

          Like

          1. OK fair enough Darren and you have raised the issue of the subjectivity of the % values before but I wasn’t so much interested in that here, my question for you was more about the issue Andrew and I were quibbling over (as represented by Case Illustration #2 and 3 in relation to calculation #1. You guys are having the same misunderstanding but yeah part of the issue is that the prior prob would come first as opposed to how I did it- but I had to do the evidences first to get the total without the prior prob factor in it and then people could compare the 0% prior and 50% prior as the default to represent the agnostic state- no knowledge either way in regards to the probability or improbability of a given hypothesis.

            There is some degree of talking past each other when you think I’m wrong to put 50% possible to represent a 0% proven in the Baysian formula calculation as I use it.

            Like

            1. “You guys are having the same misunderstanding….”

              Actually we aren’t misunderstanding you. We are letting you know that you are using the formula incorrectly. We aren’t saying that because we are misunderstanding you. We are saying that because we understand you just fine and you are using the formula incorrectly.

              “….but yeah part of the issue is that the prior prob would come first as opposed to how I did it- …”

              If you have to use the formula incorrectly to make your point, perhaps you should take that as a sign that it isn’t us that is misunderstanding how the formula is supposed to be used.

              Like

              1. Darren,

                I’m not sure exactly to what you are referring to here and so depending on what you mean when you say I use it incorrectly I may or may not agree with you. But in terms of the 50% agnostic state I’m correct on that front and you guys aren’t.

                If you are referring to something else that you may be correct as I even admit that I’m not using a Bayes proper approach but who cares? The way I do it works for my purposes as even Andrew admits in the Podcast.

                Like

                1. “But in terms of the 50% agnostic state I’m correct on that front and you guys aren’t.”

                  You can believe that if you want. But you will never be able to convince anyone who actually understands Bayes that you are correct. And you will constantly be having to have this conversation over and over again.

                  Like

  2. Is God’s nature good because God says it is good, or does God say it’s good because it is good?

    Like

    1. God says its good because it reflects his essentially morally perfect nature which is necessarily good, that’s the third horn to the dilemma that most Theists have provided to escape the traditional dilemma.

      Like

      1. “essentially morally perfect nature which is necessarily good”

        Does god’s nature morality and essentially perfect because god says it is, or is it morally and essentially perfect because it is good?

        “that’s the third horn to the dilemma that most Theists have provided to escape the traditional dilemma.”

        As you can see it doesn’t actually escape the dilemma, it just pushes it back one level.

        Like

        1. Oh I see what you mean Darren, yeah but it isn’t a problem really because it is logically impossible for there to be infinite regress and thus the explanation terminates with its necessity. Taking God out of it for a moment- its the same thing with asking why is good, good? It just necessarily is and this terminates the epistemic regress and it doesn’t make logical sense to ask but why is good, good and what makes good good, good and so on and so forth to infinity. This issue is actually a non-issue regardless of its association with God or not.

          Like

          1. “Taking God out of it for a moment- its the same thing with asking why is good, good?”

            No it is nothing like that. Good is what we are comparing gods actions to. When he doesn’t meet the definition of good, we know he isn’t good.

            You are the one defining god as good. But you are only defining him that way because you think that is what the bible says, which is supposed to have been dictated by god at some level.

            So you basically come down on the side of god’s nature is good because god says his nature is good.

            And the skeptics on the board don’t believe you or the bible when you say that gods nature is good. Based on the claims the bible makes about his character.

            But I suppose that goes beyond the question of the dilemma.

            Like

            1. Darren,

              Look good is necessarily good. God’s essential nature is necessarily good. God doesn’t have to say anything about it at all. The Euthrypro dilemma is an affirmative claim by the skeptic that there are only two unacceptable options on this front and the third alternative suggested as a mere equally possible option defeats this claim- the skeptic fails to meet his/her burden of proof.

              As to the Christian God- who cares, that doesn’t trouble General Theists or whatever which is what the dilemma tries to disprove- there are additional considerations on the level of the Biblical God in particular which one can use to defeat any claims of the skeptics that He is immoral as well.

              Like

              1. “….the third alternative suggested as a mere equally possible option defeats this claim-…”

                I’ve already demonstrated that the third alternative suggested option isn’t a real option. It just pushes the question back a level.

                Liked by 2 people

      2. I haven’t listened to the podcast yet so forgive me if this was gone over, but there are two problems I see to that often given responses about God’s morality.

        1. It renders the word “good” as simply a tautology identical with “the will of God” and carries with it no obligation to conform to what we generally call “good”. If God’s nature is such that he wants all of his creation to suffer that which is naturally unpleasant to us than that is simply what we will start calling good. The fact that it is synonymous with what we currently call evil is irrelevant. There is nothing about the statement that God’s nature is morally perfect that implies any specific content to that morality. If you try to say that it does then you are implying a standard of good separate from God. If it is to are benefit, well that’s just our dumb luck.

        2. If you want to claim that God’s nature must be such that it conforms to what we generally call good that is in fact not possible. God and consequently God’s nature are completely separate from any other existence and can have no referent to the existence of anything else. For example, to say God’s nature is to be loving would have to assume that concurrent with God’s nature is an object separate from God for him to be loving to. Since everything non-God is dependent on an act of creation on behalf of God subsequent to the existence of God’s Nature to say “God is good” makes no sense.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Hey theyttik (and Darren),

          I think this is the first time you’ve commented on here- just wanted to say welcome to S&S and thanks for your helpful feedback on here. I’m a bit too busy right now to be able to get into the details on this at the moment but as both you and Darren have provided some good assessment on this front, I did want to provide both of you guys with a video by WLC who addresses the dilemma = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBvi_auKkaI .

          Also, yes it is explicitly mentioned and discussed in the Podcast itself 🙂

          Like

  3. Hi Dale, Thanks for the welcome. We’ve actually interacted a little before at the Unbelievable board under my secret identity Darkjourney.

    With all due respect to Dr. Craig I think he is badly sidestepping the issue here. One of the things I have noticed about Craig in his moral debates is he absolutely loves discussing moral epistemology(how we know the source of morality), and absolutely hates discussing moral ontology(how we know the content of morality). By trying to frame the issue as one of “God is the good” he is still confining the discussion to epistemology. He is also I think making a small, and ultimately meaningless, linguistic distinction.

    The problem I think with religious answers to Euthyphro is they still ending up having to presuppose one of the horns. Craig starts off doing this right away by rejecting the notion that God can embody a quality like hate and still have it be considered good(which BTW begs the question if hate ever can be a good thing). You are still saying in order for God’s nature to be good it has to confirm to certain characteristics(love, charity,mercy,etc.) and God’s nature simply could not be a certain way(hateful, vengeful, greedy, etc.), and have it be good.

    I think my second point was not addressed but did bring up another point. Could God change the content of morality in any way where it didn’t reflect his nature, but reflected the good? For example the sacrifice of Isaac may be seen as a morality appropriate for a god, or even a ruler, but not for the average person.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Oh OK, well thanks for contributing on here then Dark aka theyttik- its interesting your take on Craig b/c the exact opposite is the case to my mind all he deals with is moral ontology and not moral epistemology at all, in fact he often complains that skeptics don’t understand the moral argument because of this fact.

      As to God hating- he does hate- that’s good in some circumstances, but it just depends on the context. Anyways I do think the answer was there- the answer is no, God can’t change the content of morality- it is what it is necessarily- that’s why its different than the first horn of the traditional dilemma which says that morality is arbitrary.

      The distinction is saying that God’s good nature is necessary and not arbitrary if that makes sense.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Dale, Necessary to be considered good or necessary for what it is to be God?

        Like

        1. It would be both actually.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. We’re back on the bull then. Not only does God have a standard outside of himself that he MUST adhere to, now he has two.

            Like

            1. I don’t think you understand properly- God is the necessary standard of good and God-like behaviour and logic, etc., period.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. I don’t think saying I don’t understand and then trying to answer it with “period” will do as an explanation though Dale. Perhaps I do not understand because as I have said I think the distinction you and Dr. Craig draw between “God is good” and “God is the good” is meaningless and not one either of you have explained.

                I think the problem lies with the fact that you are trying to explain something via a concept you don’t really understand that being God’s nature(not that you personally don’t understand it, but by definition no one but God understands it).

                If you wish to go further let me ask you perhaps a more basic question.

                Why does God’s nature have the properties it does and not some other set of properties?

                Liked by 1 person

                1. God’s essential divine nature is necessarily what it is, it could not be other then what it is. However, that is not to say that God can’t change any of His properties- for example one of the divine persons acquired and maintains having a human nature and body.

                  So some properties- those that define the essential divine nature are necessarily what they are and could not be other while other some properties of God are contingent and can be other than what they are. I won’t go beyond that as I don’t want to reveal too much of the game away for when we get to the Incarnation show.

                  Like

                  1. Life must be so much simpler when you can just make things up.

                    Like

                    1. Darren,

                      Do you think the Atheist is justified in “just making stuff up” when they claim the truth of the Euthyprhro Dilemma shows the Christian God doesn’t exist?

                      Also, out of curiosity, did you agree with me on the Molinistic Defeater that Atheists are the ones that bear the burden of proof when claiming God is immoral based on certain killing texts- both Andrew and Matt did agree with me on that much at least, so curious if you did or if you still maintain your same position as before?

                      Like

                    2. “Do you think the Atheist is justified in “just making stuff up” when they claim the truth of the Euthyprhro Dilemma shows the Christian God doesn’t exist?”

                      I think you are stretching here if you have to try to twist things around to the point that you think that there is a truth claim with the euthyphro dilemma. It isn’t a truth claim, it is a logic question.

                      It also isn’t meant to show that the christian god doesn’t exist. It is to show that the christian god is irrelevant to morality. Either god arbitrarily decides what morality is, either through direct declaration or by indirect declaration (declaring that his nature is good), in which case we can look at his nature and see that he is full of it and makes the term good meaningless, or god uses a standard outside of himself to declare he is good, in which case we can look at that external standard and see that he is full of it.

                      Either way god become irrelevant to the moral question.

                      “Also, out of curiosity, did you agree with me on the Molinistic Defeater that Atheists are the ones that bear the burden of proof when claiming God is immoral based on certain killing texts-”

                      No.

                      You are the one making the positive claim, your molinistic “defeater”. If you can make the molinistic claims without support, we can dismiss it without support. You don’t get to try to shift the burden of proof to us to prove you wrong. You have to prove that your molinistic defeater is relevant to the question. Otherwise it is just a pointless what if that you have no support or justification for. More wishful thinking than anything else.

                      If someone wants to try to prove your molinistic “defeater” is wrong, then sure they would have the burden of proof there. But why bother when you haven’t given any reason to think it is relevant? Plus it isn’t like anyone finds it compelling, so there is no reason to try to disprove it.

                      I’m fine using Hitchen’s razor on it. Things that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

                      Like

                    3. Hmm OK that’s interesting Darren, just asking to see how you would answer there and I see that you would disagree with Andrew, Matt and I about who bears the burden of proof on these things.

                      One last question, do you think the Atheist ever bears the burden of proof? For example, the Problem of Evil- does the Atheist bear the burden there or do you think it should be twisted to be on the Christian or Theist to prove something here as well?

                      Like

                    4. “One last question, do you think the Atheist ever bears the burden of proof? For example, the Problem of Evil- does the Atheist bear the burden there or do you think it should be twisted to be on the Christian or Theist to prove something here as well?”

                      I love it. You feel you can make positive claims, like your molinistic defeater without any burden of proof, but when people call you out on it, all of a sudden it is the atheist that is twisting things around.

                      Th burden of proof is already being met by the atheist when talking about the problem of evil. The evil in the world is the proof that is being presented.

                      Perhaps when you say that all positive claims require the person making the claim to have the burden of proof, you should consider that you are not exempt from that rule.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    5. Oh OK you are officially back to your old self again Darren, I’ve been responding well to you in asking you sincere questions and not judging your answers, so please don’t test my patience and respond thoughtfully instead of insultingly/demeaningly (whatever word is less offensive or objectionable to you, you know what I mean based on your last couple replies here) or else its back to Bible school for you.

                      Anyways, interesting so you think the fact the Atheist proves their evil/suffering in the world is enough to prove the Argument from the POE? Are you sure about this, try thinking through your claims instead of emotionally reacting defensively to some slight you think I’ve made toward you (think in terms of premises of a logically deductive argument for example).

                      Like

                    6. “…so please don’t test my patience and respond thoughtfully instead of insultingly or else its back to Bible school for you.”

                      If you want to demonstrate that you have nothing of substance to contribute and become a christian bobble head, then you are free to do that. You don’t like people being bluntly honest with you, that is fine. But I don’t really care about preserving your feelings, you have pretty much sunk that ship and I’m not interested in walking on egg shells around you..

                      If you want to interpret being honest as not thinking things through, that is up to you. You are the one that is not trying to even understand at that point.

                      “Anyways, interesting so you think the fact the Atheist proves their evil/suffering in the world is enough to prove the Argument from the POE?”

                      Yes. Because I understand what it means to love.

                      “Are you sure about this, try thinking through your claims instead of emotionally reacting defensively…”

                      At some point you need to realize that just because people disagree with you, that doesn’t mean they haven’t thought about it. If you are going to demand respect from other people, you should probably do some work in showing some respect first.

                      Like

                    7. Geez Darren, you really are a piece of work aren’t ya- anyways I got your answer, its completely misinformed as usual but what the heck, its good enough.

                      Adios.

                      P.S.- Just a word to the not so wise for your comments- see Proverbs 15:23 = To make an apt answer is a joy to a man, and a word in season, how good it is! I won’t reply to this thread after this and so if you wish to leave your typical vitriolic and childish comment afterward, I will give you the last word without any subsequent words of wisdom from God’s Word- I think this verse is sufficient enough food for thought for you to ponder on for a while.

                      Like

                    8. “I got your answer, its completely misinformed as usual but what the heck, its good enough.”

                      That’s your claim. This thread pretty much showed that you can’t demonstrate this claim is true.

                      Like

  4. Dale…let my try to defeat Molinism.
    Go over and answer my question on Unbelievable please.

    Love and Light
    Tara

    Like

  5. Hi Dale,

    Can I ask what the source of the audio on this is? I did a test listen and there is a serious audio quality issue that I am concerned about as it could reflect badly on both our podcasts.

    Like

    1. Hey Matt,

      I did it in Audacity- it won’t reflect badly on your Podcast at all- people have the link to listen to it in its polished form on your website but for S&S its fine- people can hear what’s being said and that is good enough, it doesn’t have to be perfect.

      So yeah, just enjoy the show and if you want once you get your version up and running, I will make a note in the intro that your version has better quality or something but I don’t have time to redo anything.

      Like

      1. Matthew is right. The sound quality is abysmal and is a serious detriment to being able to consume the information.
        Professional sound quality is essential for success in this era of too many listening choices!

        Like

        1. Holy moly Drew, can you skeptics ever compliment my efforts for a change, so I’m not the best technical person in the world, but I tried my best (having to sit down and edit it for the whole 2 hours plus putting in the intro and outtro statements without music because Andrew requested that I not use the S&S music bumpers for the show and use their logo- which I did out of respect for them and their show)- originally I was waiting for Andrew and Matt to post it up edited properly on their site and then use that more polished version, but its been over a month and they have yet to post anything up so far; so I had to make do with the only recording I had, which was the Audacity recording.

          I’m just not capable of creating professional sound quality stuff like David or others, my upcoming Shroud Wars will suffer in the same way but you people should be thanking me instead of castigating my efforts in that regard. Besides, I already said that whenever Matt and Andrew get around to finally posting the more polished version up on their site, I will post the anchor link to that in the Intro on S&S (along with a note that this link has the better audio quality).

          But I don’t have the time to be reposting this up later on and you should all be very grateful that I actually got it out there for you guys to listen to in a somewhat timely manner (if you consider a month later to be timely).

          EDIT- Also I’m sorry to sound disgruntled on this front but as I said I put a lot of effort into doing my best on the editing and I was trying to be thoughtful to the audience by getting it up asap.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. .

            .“I’m just not capable of creating professional sound quality stuff like David or others”

            Thank Zeus for small favors.
            You were fed this horrible stuff as a child, now with the www. you could pay this ‘hateful’ stuff forward.

            Stick to debates please son.

            Love and Light
            Tara

            Like

            1. Tara,

              Romans 1:21 = For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

              Like

          2. What I don’t like is your arrogant dismissal of his concerns and your blithe assurances that the S&S
            listenership would be fine with it. You were a guest on their show and it feels like horrible etiquette
            to release a version before the official podcast was released, permission granted and a month going by notwithstanding.

            Like

            1. I was given permission Drew; it was already delayed and I was given the go ahead that Sat to put it up that weekend by Andrew and Matt personally (once again they didn’t have their version up and so I put up my own Supplemental Audacity version (the only version I had access to at the time) up instead- so next time don’t speak or judge people unless you know all the facts.

              You owe me a huge apology and a big THANK YOU for doing all the hard work I did for you as an audience member Drew- that’s why people are liking my reply to you about your unappreciative arrogance in unfairly criticizing me- they know I did good by them by doing the best I could in getting it up for them in the most timely manner and best quality I could.

              You are the one in the wrong here, not me- APOLOGIZE or keep your opinions to yourself on this matter!

              Like

              1. Dale, I didn’t personally grant you that permission. You asked when it would be up and Andrew answered it would be over the weekend, what you don’t know is that he had other things to deal with which delayed that verbal commitment. At no point in that conversation, was assurance give from me that it was okay to go ahead and upload. If you think you got that from Andrew, that’s a different matter, but please don’t claim I gave personal assurance, I made no comment either way on that matter.

                Like

                1. Matt, I’m shocked that you would say this, I even still have the email where you said it was fine for me to post it up on S&S along with the link to your site on the S&S Boards or “wherever it is posted” as opposed to on Unbelievable? Boards- this was right after our Round Table convo for crying out loud and combined with Andrew’s affirmation that it was cool to post it up this weekend- I feel I had every right to do as I did. There was no agreed upon condition that I wasn’t allowed to use my own recording that I was aware of (if there were I would have followed it) and I did indeed follow Andrew’s conditions as best I could about having the 4A logo (which was hard work trying to put up until I realized it was avail via google search) and no S&S music bumpers. Where is the gratitude for my trying to be respectful to your conditions????

                  Anyways, I’ve never seen such unappreciative people in my life- I’m tired of you skeptics always being against me no matter what I do or say, YOU ASKED ME to be on your show, not the other way around remember, I did you and the audience a favour by agreeing to come on it. But instead of thanking me you skeptics seem to think you are entitled to use my hard work and efforts and then have the nerve to criticize me for it afterward. I mean imagine if I had the gull to come on the 4A site and critique your version of the Round Tables and say I was unsatisfied with the quality of your work in that regard and demand that you fix it (and this after you had spent hours the night before editing it for your audience’s benefit)- no, instead I just let you do as you please with the recordings with no conditions and/or criticism from me about it at all.

                  So, I don’t understand this from you Matt, previously you were thanking me for putting it up on S&S and sending traffic over to Reason Press, but now all of sudden you wish to back up the arrogant and judgmental Drew against me. Alright fine, maybe its just best if I don’t come on 4A again then, we can just do our own thing from now on and avoid my embarrassing you guys. BTW you are welcome for my taking the time to plug your show and the Still Unbelievable book on Smalley’s Podcast, I hope I did that in an acceptable way or did I somehow mess up there too (maybe I misplaced a syllable or something)?- No doubt Drew could manage to find something to criticize me for in the way I supported you guys on that Podcast (out of friendship to you guys btw- I mean its not like I personally benefited in anyway from promoting your show in that forum).

                  This is unbelievable to me!

                  Like

                  1. Dale, my email confirmed that I didn’t mind where you promoted the episode. It did not say anything about you releasing your version before ours went live.

                    Like

                  2. “Anyways, I’ve never seen such unappreciative people in my life- I’m tired of you skeptics always being against me no matter what I do or say”

                    I am not unappreciative Dale. I do appreciate the time you spend on the podcasts and I do appreciate your constant willingness to engage. You keep me thinking, I like that.

                    ” I mean imagine if I had the gull to come on the 4A site and critique your version of the Round Tables and say I was unsatisfied with the quality of your work in that regard and demand that you fix it”

                    I haven’t demanded anything of you Dale. I did express a concern over audio quality and the effect on both of our podcasts. I am not the only one to express that concern. Tara has apologized to me because she thought it was my fault, that is a bad reflection from the audio quality and exactly the kind of thing I was expressing concern about. When I edit an episode I put hours into removing background artifacts, clips and umms. This is essential effort and is why it is always a couple of weeks before an episode goes up on 4A, Andrew does similar. This why it took him so long to edit your episode and why it’ll be a similar length of time between recording with David and his episode going up. Editing takes time. If someone said one of my episodes had an issue, I would immediately check, confirm it, pull it, fix it and thank the person for letting me know. Andrew had exactly that with a recent episode of SU and he had a flurry of urgent emails from me to get it fixed.

                    The concern over the audio quality isn’t skeptics trying to get at you or being unappreciative, it is concerned fans wanting the best from the conversation. It is important that this distinction is understood.

                    “previously you were thanking me for putting it up on S&S and sending traffic over to Reason Press”

                    And I still feel that way. Thank you for appearing and thank you for the traffic boost.

                    “now all of sudden you wish to back up the arrogant and judgmental Drew against me”

                    I’m sorry that is how you are reading it. That is not how I feel and I do not think that is what Drew was intending to express. The comments on sound quality are about wanting the best from those taking part, it is not about trying to be arrogant or to win a point.

                    I listen to a lot of podcasts and every now and then a regular podcast I listen suffers a sound barf, only this week one announce they had to use the audio from their YouTube feed due to an issue. The quality was noticeably poorer and so I skipped that episode. This is what you risk with poor quality audio, listeners do not put up with it and you risk losing them if you don’t produce audio at the level they expect. This is not me being arrogant, this is me, as a friend, wanting the best from you and your podcast. Average doesn’t cut it, if you want numbers to keep growing. You have to be excellent every single time and you don’t have a choice, people will move on. I am saying this purely put of concern for your own podcast, not out of any selfish or skeptical motive.

                    “BTW you are welcome for my taking the time to plug your show and the Still Unbelievable book on Smalley’s Podcast”

                    I am pretty sure I thanked you for that already, but if I didn’t, thank you. I appreciate that action, you did more than I imagined you would and it won’t be forgotten.

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. Alright Matt, look I’m sorry to respond to you in that way as you have always been a good and understanding friend. Anyways, look I hear you about the sound quality thing, obviously I care about the audience (yes even Darren lol) and I was trying my best to produce the best I could.

                      I don’t know how to remove background artifacts or clips and as to the umms and uhs I was told by David that its better to leave those in as much as possible b/c it makes the convo more natural as opposed to having all the jumps that my solo Podcasts often suffer from during my editing- if I removed the umms then trust me you would probably have been even more dissatisfied with the end result as I have difficulty making seemless. Also, we tried recording on Skype as that has better audio but b/c I don’t have a FFmpeg or whatever its called so I can’t use it and edit recordings from Skype (we tried and failed already); that leaves Audacity as the one recording method I know how to use and have ready access to.

                      On S&S show proper, David has his own fancy recording equipment, he was a musician and so he has expertise in how to produce professional sounding stuff- I don’t and while David has trained me as best he can given my technical and knowledge limitations this is the best I’m capable of at the moment- even if I took it down and re-edited it, it would pretty much come out the same. But, I don’t see the issue, I’ve posted up the link to the better quality version on your site, so people can just go there to listen to it, so there is no issue.

                      I don’t think its fair if people are going to judge me when I do the Shroud episodes for example, its going to be the same thing and I can’t help it. This is a volunteer gig for me, I don’t get paid anything and this isn’t a business where I have lots of money to buy fancy radio equipment like Justin Brierly does and/or the special recording stuff that David has at his disposal as a musician. To me as long as the content can be heard and understood that is all that really matters, who cares about all the fancy bells and whistles- meaningful dialogue and sources, that’s what I’m here to provide. So maybe one day, we get to a point where David and I actually do turn this into a business and at that time, perhaps I will have to look at being more professional on this front, but right now we’re just a small informal show and my main goal is trying to share my ideas and research with people.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    2. That’s fine Dale, I appreciate you felt everyone was getting at you.

                      Sound editing is hard and time consuming. I won’t pretend to be an expert, I’m learning too.

                      There should be some free software you can install to rip the audio from a Skype recording.

                      Liked by 1 person

  6. Look at how easy it is for 2 confirmed real people, in real time to be crossed up on a message.

    And Christians wonder how skeptics can be skeptical of the bible and it’s apologists.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I was about to be angry but then I realized this is a fair point actually Bryan, it shows we need to be very careful in doing biblical exegesis and not eisegesis as interpretation issues can abound on both sides for sure. That said, I think most, if not all, of the confusion is the result of human beings being at fault as opposed to God in the case of the Bible.

      But yeah, this is a fair point to raise via this illustration.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. ” the confusion is the result of human beings being at fault as opposed to God in the case of the Bible”

        Frig this drives me crazy Dale. If there is a problem with humans capacity to understand something, then it is the fault of our manufacturer.

        So follow the turtles Dale…..for a Christian….. it’s GOD’S FAULT.

        How do you tie your shoelaces son? (All said with motherly love….xoxo )

        Love and Light
        Tara

        Like

        1. Not really Tara, its only God’s fault if there is any “undue confusion” but simple allowing for confusion via the fault of human beings freewill choices (directly or indirectly) to be confused is a good thing.

          Psalm 139:14 = I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

          Like

          1. .

            Frig …I almost almost ALMOST, want to talk to you directly on SS. You are so messed up kiddo.
            Free will is what makes this reality PERFECT. You can choose to kill me, or not to kill me, that is your choice to make because you have free will.
            You have freely chosen a God that might ask you to kill me he’s don’t such horrendous things before …or so those books say.
            Again, that is a choice you have made.
            Now if we are ALL ETERNAL ….and only an inept incompetent illogical and immoral God would create anything that wasn’t eternal……then eventually you Dale can choose not to worship Books and the monster within them.

            Free will is a beautiful gift that you are using very badly.

            Love and Light
            Tara

            Like

  7. Well… I enjoyed this episode despite all the grumpiness going on here. The original version Dale posted was like listening to him making a phone call (don’t try that again please!) – but once I found the proper version everything was grand.
    There are some other good episodes of AAA too – particularly one of the better explorations of the Kalam argument that I’ve heard.
    I’m impressed that so many of the regular contributors to the Unbelievable discussion now have their own shows – though, with the exception of Dale, many of the keenest Christian contributors have failed to step up so far.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Glad you enjoyed the shows Boston and yes I will heartily recommend that people from S&S check out some of the other 4A shows up there as they tend to do things differently than on S&S- they provide for more detailed or technical discussion and as a result they don’t have as frequent show posts as we do on S&S, but the ones they do post up usually provide a lot of depth on the topics being discussed- its a great show and they put a lot of work into it.

      As far as the audio quality- geez you guys just aren’t going to let this go are you- I do have a couple Shroud Debate shows coming up where David is not going to be involved in the process (he isn’t a fan of the Shroud) and as such I’m going to be editing it- so it will probably be similar quality. The only thing I can think of is if there is someway to recording Skype and send it to David for editing but he may not be inclined or have the time to do that, in which case you will just have to be content with the Audacity recording.

      Look, I get its not ideal, but my recording was at least understandable yeah? You could understand what each person was saying?- That is all that is required at this point imo? Also, I’m curious with my other supplemental shows, I always recorded in Audacity before and no one brought up the quality as an issue for those shows, so I wonder why its such an issue with this show for you guys?

      Like

      1. Sorry Dale – I didn’t realize EVERYBODY had been going on about the sound…

        Audio quality is often an issue on all kinds of podcasts where people are recording in different spaces. I think maybe in this case there was a volume imbalance that wasn’t helping.
        I’m not a podcaster myself, so I don’t have any smart audio hints.

        I’m sure you’re giving it your best shot with the technology available and I will be looking forward to your next show..!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No worries, I just got off Skype with one of the guests I have for Shroud Wars Round 3 next Sat and did a test recording- by putting my volume up to 80% it seems to be a little better but just got used to hearing me be VERY loud- but yeah Bob was very understandable and hearable when did that with him today.

          Liked by 1 person

      2. Hey Dale,

        Thanks for the recommend. It is appreciated

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Thank you for the complement, I appreciate it.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close