วีดีโอ

🙏🫡 Thank you!

@@ArtisticRizzler AMEN!

In the video's settings, you can change the playback speed of the video.

@@WyggleWyrm Aw man! I added 5 more seconds to every meme!

@@Nidhogg13 Thank you very much, I appreciate that!

@ConversationChrist Thanks man!!! Of course!

@@yeshuasavedus Absolutely man, you as well! Just busy is all

@@Sammy61... Thank you! Godbless!

Thank you for your opinion! Any insight is always good

@foolishlyludicrous Thank you for your opinions!

@ThorsDecree I disagree with the points, firing of theories that are not back by data hold or any reputable source that is pushing the same ideas. The minds listed that hold to these belief, the ones who are actually scientists and hold all the necessary criteria to weigh in on these topics, have and are well Acquainted with any lay person or chatGPT conclusion could produce, And their views hold just fine. The scientists in these fields know if the things you are saying, a quick copy and past of your argument into an A.I. software could give any number of objections, as these things listed are not novel, or unexpected by the ones who actually work in said field, and many are theists. Subjective opinions based on personal experiences and ones level of understanding does not turn over established realities or over any real weight against the logical argument. You can disagree with a logical argument, but that is your Prerogative, but to act like it's *OBVIOUSLY* false is just illogical and without proper credentials, sounds obviously pretentious. So to make sweeping statements like "glaring flaws" sounds silly. Finally again, with the advent of ChatGPT it is insanely easy to, ask for a bias and completely uncredited essay on any topic from any stance, so rather than engage in a debate of constant Googleable rhetoric, I just as soon let the obvious and proven numbers stand, rather than spending time on a rabbit hole. It's one thing to sit down with some one who is seeking, another to do the youtube comments bit, where the only thing heard is confirmation bias. I go pretty mild on apologetics, because while it is helpful for Christians to not be tricked by slight of hand, and the occasional non-believers mind is changed, For the most part it is a constant revolving door of objections, even when one is answered, it is thrown out and moved to another one, Because at the end of the day, if someone decides they don't want to believe, they won't. It only happens when someone is genuine, and on the internet, that is seldom. Therefore the video achieves it's goal, not In changing the minds of Cosmic skeptic fans, but in provided logical and genuine information, for a genuine seeker or believer to learn from. (As for the specifics of your argument, I'm not convinced, and I've heard the arguments, so I lack no new data, but will study anyway)

​@@CalebTheSojourner Thanks for the reply, mate. I know you're always down to at least consider what I write even if you just assume I'm pulling ideas out of my rear, and I appreciate that. It would be cool if you'd stop assuming that, though, because you _can_ actually just get on Google and fact-check me. If I'm wrong about anything, you can _show_ it. I didn't make an argument except to demonstrate how the variability necessary for the teleological argument has not been demonstrated to be possible, to say nothing of probable. I asked how it _could_ be possible. If you can't provide a mechanism but still insist on using that assumption for the argument, then at least acknowledge that it is an assumption that's _not indicated by data_ and is _contraindicated by data._ What *_specific_* thing that I said did you disagree with? Can you give me one such example and the reason you don't accept it? You've told me _that_ you disagree, but not _what_ you disagree with or why. If I said something that's not verifiably true or that is verifiably not true, I'd like to know so I can not make the same claim in the future. I didn't make any physical claims that can't be fact-checked in the primary academic literature (ArXiv is free) or with about 5 minutes at most of Googling. It is a FACT that there is no data indicating that the physical constants could be any different than what they are. It is a FACT that there is data indicating that the constants _must_ be what they are. That someone would have to learn quantum statistics, topology, quantum field theory, and differential calculus to clearly understand _precisely_ why doesn't make it not a fact. The fact that the only people advocating teleology are people who do _not_ understand the physics should in and of itself be quite telling, as it is a _physical_ argument, right? Ask _any_ physicist. None of my criticism is mere conjecture, it's entirely evidence-based. Don't take my word for it. Independently corroborate or falsify my statements. Like you said earlier, ideas stand or fall on their own merits. A "fact" is definitionally a _datum._ All the things I claimed about physics are supported by empirical _data_ -- i.e., by _facts._ Anybody can corroborate _everything_ I said about physics, so IDK what confirmation bias you seem to be implying that I'm employing. I follow evidence, it's why I became a Christian when presented with a limited selection of data and why I stopped being a Christian upon correlating much more data. My brain is a-neurotypical. I'm not saying I'm immune to Type 1 and Type 2 biases, but I am _aware of_ my biases. If you would like, I can formalize my original criticism so you can directly engage with syllogisms, but I really don't _want_ to do that if you're capable of comprehending my points without formalizing them as symbolic logic. I'd have to install a virtual keyboard and I don't wanna do all that lol. So please don't accuse me of a bias without being able to demonstrate that I'm engaging in that bias. That's unhelpful at best and a rude well-poisoning lie at worst, and either way you haven't actually attempted to justify that accusation OR respond to the actual content of my criticism. Since you did not respond to any specific point I made, I can only conclude that you either can't or aren't willing to. You have never struck me as the type who isn't willing to engage, so my tentative conclusion is that you don't actually have an answer for my points. Is that accurate? I don't want to misrepresent you but you haven't actually directly said anything at all about my argument, you've just given meta-commentary. Is it not a _fact_ that there is no empirically evident possibility that the physical constants _could_ be any different than what they are? Is the idea that fine-tuning is even possible not an _assumption_ that contradicts known physics? If I'm wrong about that, then please correct me so I can stop being wrong. But "nuh-uh" isn't an argument. If you want to argue against that point, you probably should bring _math_ since it's the _math_ that says there's no reason to think it _could_ be another way and that there are reasons to think it _must_ be this way. If you're going to reject the conclusions of the Standard Model in favor of unwarranted assumptions to the contrary, then you should discard your belief in electricity, atoms, and radioactivity too in order to be consistent because those are characterized by the same exact math. Your own words: "The precise fine-tuning of the universe, for instance, is a fact acknowledged even by many who aren't Christians. This argument isn't about personal opinions-it's about observable evidence and logical conclusions." What _observable evidence_ indicates that the constants could possibly be other than what they are? You're right, this _isn't_ about opinions. It's about data. And the data just doesn't indicate fine-tuning. I went to school to learn this stuff. Are you just "nuh-uh"-ing the findings of every physicist over the last 200 years, or do you want to talk about observable evidence? IDK if you remember me or not, I'm the autistic physics guy who often gets misread as sounding angry when I'm really just emphatically neutral-declarative. Just throwing that out there to avoid any unnecessary communication trauma since IIRC such a thing happened once before between us.

@ThorsDecree Oh no, I just specified that I simply agreed with the conclusion I listed in the video, in spite of the specifics of your comment, And that I had no intention on debating at all, that's why I pinned a comment about it. Being that I, (and most people in youtube comments, unless credentials are given publicly) Do not hold any necessary P.h.D or degree, it would be dishonest of me to act like I did. I think it's is simply humble, when you are not credible, to not assert as though one does, so that would be why, I am not willing to address the VERY long comments and essays here, Also I wasn't accusing you specifically, I was stating how easy it is to waste time going in circles. I have heard the arguments, debates, it's not new to me and I'm just not convinced by them. So rather than act like I'm a scientist, I will simply defer to the stance I agree with, with no intention on being a debater or anything. There are many TH-cam channels and resources for people to watch people who agree with atheism, I even list debates often, so you can hear both sides. But being that this is a Christian channel, it shouldn't be surprising that there is Christian content, the point of the video is clear and straightforward. I even asserted all arguments have critics of them and there is more to a worldview. So all of my comments are saying "I disagree, I'm not interested in debating" Lol

@@CalebTheSojourner Oh sure, I can respect that. Lots of people are prone to talking about things they don't actually know (in the sense of being able to demonstrate), so you can definitely go in circles all day with such people. I'm on the 8th day of a conversation with a non-physicist who claims that I don't know anything about physics and keeps trying to gaslight me and pretend that I previously said the opposite of what I actually said on the written record, I feel that! Dunning-Kruger is a thing, and many folks don't actually form conclusions for purely rational reasons. I get that that can be a huge waste of time, I waste more time than I should arguing with such people. From a time management perspective, I agree that it's generally wise to not engage in such arguments. I never "professed myself to be wise" tho ;) If you don't want to argue, I don't want to be pushy, but am I allowed to ask Socratic questions? There are a few questions I have regarding your stance and epistemology if you wouldn't mind please clarifying. And it's not, no worries, just know that this is what's on my mind based on your prior response: 1. Why do you accept (you _do_ accept it, right? I don't mean to presume so please correct me if I misinterpreted your stance) the premise that the constants are variable? 2. Didn't you just acknowledge that you personally have no way of investigating that? 3. Is the intellectually honest position to reject the proposition that [X is possible] until such a time as the possibility has actually been demonstrated? 4. You don't necessarily have to accept the proposition that [X is not possible], but if you can't actually show that [X is possible] then why hold that position or trust any conclusions contingent on it? 5. Does that not sound like the confirmation bias you were talking about? 6. If not, what justification do you have for accepting the proposition [X is possible] when you simultaneously acknowledge that you currently have no way to have knowledge of X? Do video replies boost algo engagement? I love you guys, y'all have always been cordial and kind to me, FAR more so than most creationists I've engaged with. I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I know I tend to be wordy. I don't have any plans for the evening, I might hop on my second channel and make a video response. Would you mind if I do so and @ you? Obviously you're under no obligations to answer my questions, but either way thanks for your time. If you do choose to answer those questions, it would go a long way in helping me understand more about both your position and your epistemology. I'm a seeker just like you. If you seem to have a good tool for finding out true things then I'd like to try it out, and if either of us is using a bad tool then it would be in everyone's best interests to identify and discard it. I'm a human, but I recognize that my biological tools are less trustworthy than some intellectual tools, and I want the best possible tools in my epistemological toolbox so that I can make the best decisions using the best information. If God exists and made me this way, then I am forced to conclude that there must be some way that I can utilize logic to conclude from my observations and reasoning (because that is the only way I am physiologically able to become convinced of something) that he exists if that is his intent and he is capable of actualizing his will. Wouldn't you agree? If he's out there, I genuinely want to know.

The critique of this scholar (Dr. Craig) is germane to this video in particular, as the stated goal was (at least in part) to show a Christian audience that they could be confident in reconciling science and religion *because* leaned Christians could do so. Dr. Craig is a bad example, as he has made it clear he accepts a very low standard for confidence, in addition to not being a scientist in the first place. On its own merits, he teleological argument is not accepted in the scientific consensus (to which you are attempting to appeal) to evidence the existence of a designer. Philosophically, it does not evidence a god, and it especially fails to evidence a particular god (like that of Christianity). There are particular scientists who think the argument is good, convincing, or evident, as you have shown. The examples they gave are frankly bad, and at least in part, entail a misunderstanding of 'fine tuning' or the need for an explanation. I can detail them for you if you would like.

@@Chopstewie Thank you for your opinion!

Yeah, nobody except for fundamentalists takes Craig very seriously. Most philosophers and scientists consider him to be a "lolcow." IDK if he believes his own nonsense or if he's a very successful grifter, but either way his arguments themselves are almost universally either invalid or unsound. And he's not very creative, he's been running the same script for about a decade now with the only recent addition being the TAG argument. I get that he's kind of the go-to head honcho popular Christian apologist, but when you dig into conversation with him it becomes pretty quickly apparent that Craig is basically just preaching to the choir. He has no response to legitimate criticisms of his arguments and he's on record saying such absurd things as "morality is objective, this is moral when God does it, but it's _not_ moral when _we_ do it." For anyone reading this who thinks Craig is compelling, you should watch his 1.5 hour interview with Alex O'Connor. About halfway through Craig starts spiraling. There are better arguments they could use for sure. The Kalam invokes an unsound premise and doesn't include "god" anywhere in the premises or conclusion; teleology is refuted by the anthropic principle plus the fact that the physical constants of nature are NOT variable, in fact we have good reasons to think they CAN'T vary; the design argument is so bad that a _federal court with a Bush-appointed Christian judge_ rejected it as pseudoscience (remember "cDesign proponentreationists" in the Kitzmiller v Dover case?). It's noteworthy that even if biological evolution were to be falsified, that does not in any way advance a creationist model. What they need to do is show _positive_ support for their claim as opposed to trying to knock down competing claims. If their god is mutually exclusive with evolution, then it evidently can't exist. They might as well try to falsify the general theory of relativity or quantum mechanics for all the good it would do in actually providing an epistemic justification for believing in creationism.

@ThorsDecree that's why everything b mentioned is covered and it's not just one person, thank you for the opinion!

While it's fair to critique any scholar, it's important to focus on the strength of the arguments rather than the individual presenting them. The Teleological Argument, regardless of who defends it, stands on its own merits. The precise fine-tuning of the universe, for instance, is a fact acknowledged even by many who aren't Christians. This argument isn't about personal opinions-it's about observable evidence and logical conclusions. Christianity, historically, hasn't hurt science; in fact, many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians who saw their work as a way to understand God's creation. The idea that faith and science are at odds is a modern misconception. The real impact and logic behind the Teleological Argument aren't diminished by subjective opinions. The numbers and probabilities speak for themselves and point to a universe that seems intentionally designed. These facts remain, no matter one's personal views. TH-cam comments are hardly on the cutting edge of the debate field, as such, I don't spend much time engaging in them (Though they do help my video) so it is more beneficial to examine the arguments and debates, by people who hold the necessary credentials, as the ones listed in the video hold, such debates can be found all over youtube and links have been posted in the description. So letting the numbers and professionals articulate and argue from their fields seems to be the obvious choice. But thank you for any insight you may have added!

@@CalebTheSojourner See my OP regarding the merits of teleology. OP's point about Craig is valid, outsiders _do_ perceive him to be an imbecile. He's not a scholar, he's a salesman.

Thank you very much sir! Godbless bro

@@Beachpeach949 There are now!

🤨

@Nidhogg13 This is in Eschatology, is similar to the the view of Amillennialism. Where much of Revelations has happened, much of it in the first century. And much happening over the past 2000 years, almost in cycles, rather than chronological list we can predict and track. If you look into the various views of Eschatology (Study of end times), What you heard, sounds like it is from that view. The Amillennialist view, is the most historic and widely held view. It still leaves the idea of future things open to happening and still has the same end as all other views, they all just various in how to interpret the events leading up to it. Definitely a side topic but super interesting either!

Yes! This is when I was casually creating content, I wanted to Christian gaming streams while I figured it out

Checking the Scriptures, like a wise Disciple, Respect.