Indeed. I think when your church tells you understanding the word of God means not only reading but spending decades glossing and understanding a 31000 verse book that is such a mess that it could mean anything you want it to, complexity seems godly.
With a sample size if only 1 single observable universe, how exactly were you able to determine anything about what may or may not be a hallmark of design? I droce a Latta in high school. That pos was undeniably designed but there was nothing elegant about it.
@bgiv2010 precisely. It can't be done. We are unable to determine if an alternative to design is even a possibility, let alone be able to say what would be a hallmark of design or not.
As soon as he said "that's a terrible position to have" in the beginning I knew this was going to go downhill. These people who absolutely refuse to admit they don't know everything with absolute certainty always fall into this trap. If someone asks you a complicated math question, do you just blurt out nonsense, or do you admit, "I don't know off the top of my head, let's find out"?
Holy shit hes accusing them of being intellectually dishonest? Hes trying to pidgeonhole them into an impossible argument by way of begging the question.
Ohhhh my gosh! And I was just noticing how Pointless Pederson thinks expert Historians are wrong on subjects those Historians wrote extensively on. LOL. Probably the worst internet “expert” in social media history LOL
@@knockitoffhudson3470 Ah okay, my bad :3 In that case, depends on how near sighted you are. I was almost blind before lasik, and I could only really make out a giant dark blur. I could barely make out the moon 😂 Most near sighted people aren't that bad lol, I was just lucky lasik worked for me 🤣
Imagine theists accusing normal people of being "intellectually dishonest". It's mind blowing. That's like Jeffrey Dahmer accusing people of having odd nutritional habits.
@@joeldobbs7396 agreed. The belief that human life has intrinsic value is a distinctly theistic presupposition that has never been empiricaly demonstrated to be true. .... and so demonstratably isn't. If theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare ,then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that.
@gregsanich5183 Value is intrinsically subjective, but it's easy to find non theistic contexts where human life has value. Scarcity, for example, within the cosmos human life makes up an incredibly tiny fraction of the total matter. Also, uniqueness, we are likely unique among living organisms. Both of these are signs of value within the context of human experience, no faith required. In fact, the theistic view devalues human life in many ways. In most theistic contexts we are created to reflect the glory of another being, we are tools, enslaved to a created role and should we disavow that role, we lose all value and are discarded. God Love is not recognizable as anything resembling the human version, so even though we are "loved", most people would not consign their dog to hell for biting them, or turding on the rug. Our cats ignore us, and we love them for it, but ignore God, and God love becomes God wrath. We value our pets more than we are valued by the Christian God. The Islamic God is testing us, and we can become valued subjects if we do well, or lose all value if we fail. If human life has value in any context, it is in the context of our shared experience that it will be found. We tend to value people in direct proportion to their genetic or cultural similarity to ourselves, but that is not written in stone. People learn empathy from narratives in literature, before the printing press we saw foreign people as lesser or so different as to be beyond compassion. Maybe religion had a solid argument regarding human value in the middle ages, but much less so now, and less so every day.
One thing I think they missed (as far as I’ve watched) is that complexity isn’t a sign of design. People that are good at designing stuff don’t set out to make the most complicated thing they can think of. They are trying to simplify systems
@@rsjcoman9230 as a rational and objective skeptic I simply remain unconvinced in the claim that an alternative to agency and design is even a possibility until it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be. "The time to believe in something is when it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be true and not before. " Matt Dilahunty
@@gregsanich5183 "as a rational and objective skeptic I simply decided what my preffered explanation is despite the fact it violates occam's razor, describe my belief in it as a disbelief of the contrary to sound more open-minded and am waiting for your empirical demonstration of what should be the base assumption" no agency untill it's proven, if the courts operated like you do then every single death would be assumed to be a premeditated murder untill it's proven to be an accident, literally guilty untill proven innocent even when you don't have a suspect.
@bruhmoment5020 your analogy isn't applicable nc I don't have or assert any beliefs. I only reference what the facts are established to be. As a rational and objective skeptic I'm obligated to simply follow the evidence where it leads. The phone in your hand is demonstrable evidence that agency and design is indeed at least possible. And as soon as we ever discover or produce any evidence that can demonstrate an altetnative is in fact a possibility aswell, then whatever that alternative could be, would then also become a candidate explanation as, but not before. As a rational and objective skeptic I'm obligated to withhold belief in that claim until it can be empiricaly demonstrated demonstrated be true, but not before.
@gregsanich5183 the universe isn't a phone and we know how phones are made, just because one thing has an attribute doensn't mean another thing also has that attribute, it's just as nonsensical as it would be to say since phones need simcards to work the universe also needs a simcard to work, where's the universe simcard? for the universe to be designed you'd have to have evidence of a thing capable of designing the universe, there isn't any evidence of such a being and it violates occam's razor since for the uiniverse to just exist undesigned you need only the universe and for the universe to exist as a design you still need the universe and at least one thing capable of designing it, so you can't say it's the default position.
@@bruhmoment5020 that's not an answer though so no , it's not enuf. The point of contention at the heart of the god debate is if the natural processes we observe in reality are designed or not. Natural processes are the observable phenomenon that the creator hypothesis was formulated to account for, it's not an explanation. Are you claiming that natural processes are the explanation for the existence of natural processes? ....🤨.....bc that's as circular as readoning can get and is the very definition of magical thinking.
Love how he agreed that orders don't come from a mind until it didn't validate his point and he immediately flipped on it. So is every snowflake designed individually? Once again I must ask what would undesigned anything look like? If you have no answer then guess what? You are begging the question.
The clear difference between thing that humans make and are designed is that those things do not create themselves and so need a designer and manufacturer. Crystals and organisms self-assemble and so don't need to be manufactured and design by an outside agent e.a. designer.
@@gregsanich5183 natural processes clearly do noit fit the typical pattern of things that we know are designed. Designed things typically are designed as finished product, but natural processes typically grow and develop into being. Deseigned things typically don't change after being designed, and definiyrly not by themselves, but natural processes are constantly changing. Designed things typically need something else to asemble them, but natural processes are typically self organizing. Designed things are typically design to be as simple as possible, but things that came about by natural processes are often unnesecarily complicated. So it is most likely that natural processes are not designed, because they don't exhibit the important traits of being designed.
Even if somehow people were correct about a " designer" , in practice the concept serves no function. It does nothing more than serve as a place holder for " I don't know". Actually worse than that - it kills inquiry when something seems unexplainable.
I'm nature we only can observe successes, no matter how short lived. In theory there may be countless ' near misses" or failures for every single natural manifestion.
“It’s not that big of a leap to get to the conclusion” Any leap is too big of a leap. It’s literally a non-sequitur (and no, “reverse non sequitur” isn’t a thing)
Precisely. now I'm not even sure I'd call myself a theist nessessarily, bc there is no way to be absolutely certain of it, so it's ultamitely all just speculative bc it can't be verified empiricaly. However, as a rational & objective skeptic, im much more inclined to find the hypothesis of a creator to be the far more compelling possibility. Agency and design are currently the only possibility that we know of and have observed or can demonstrate empiricaly to be possible. There are countless examples of things we know for certain were a result of agency and design as evidence. I'll readily take another possibility into serious consideration if another possibility can ever be empiricaly demonstrated to indeed be possible. Until then, as a skeptic, I remain unconvinced in another possibility without any evidence. "The time to believe in something is when it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be true" Matt Dilahunty
Some dude: "I'm going to scoff at science discovering amino acids in comet trails because I can't replicate it" Also that dude: "You can tell that God did it because of the way it is, after it was made 6000 years ago"
Has this guy ever presented an argument that wasn't from incredulity? It was really starting to get annoying that he just kept asserting the same shit without even attempting to justify it in reality.
@@Disturbed0neGaming its the same thing when theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that.
38:41 so if you're not asserting that God used supernatural methods to create, that would mean God would have used natural methods to create. This means it is impossible for us to distinguish between God creating using natural methods or nature forming things naturally. As they would both look the exact same. So then you lead yourself to a bigger issue of how did you get to God?
37:17 it's so funny that he says it's a large assumption. As if saying God did it wasn't even a larger assumption. At least we have a understanding of how it may have happened. So if we're making any kind of assumptions we have at least some kind of understanding of why the assumption may be true. His assumptions even larger because we have no way of knowing how God would have done it.
If this guy is familiar with the "irreducible complexity" argument that proponents of "intelligent design" make, then he should also be aware that it's already been thoroughly debunked. So why is he repeating it here? And then he accuses others of "intellectual dishonesty"... Oy.
At what point is it too complex for nature? He seemed so sure that a mind had to have a hand in it but that's the first assumption he took as fact and refused to even consider if ANYTHING was simple enough for nature to be the sole cause
This is pointless. I belive all of universe is designed. If you can show me something not design then …. Wtf…. Are those people think …. Even A little bit ?
Nothing in nature is designed, according to evolution. What is truly pointless is, "God real, or not real?" debates because both are unfalsifiable claims. They are fun to watch though!
@@_abc_- if You already assumed that all is designed whatever it is how can you ask someone to show you something not designet ... how can it be more stupid ?
I love how he equivocates how blitz is using the same fallacious understanding of the universe as he is when he damn well knows that blitz isn't the one making assertions about the natural world and it's ontological origins. Additionally the guest constantly defaults to the fallacy of composition which essentially states that the properties of the parts do not mimic the properties of the whole. I'll give you an example " student A scored 90% on his test therefore the class average is high" this reasoning is flawed because we are unsure of the other pupils scores they could all be incredibly low but until we have demonstrable evidence we simply are unable to make that claim. The guest is doing the same with mankind creating things like phones etc then personifies/anthropomorphise his ignorance and casts it to the entire cosmos.
This year we have now seen naturally occurring RNA ribozymes grown randomly on Montmorillonite clays that assemble proteins from aminos and which replicate themselves. We have also seen them spontaneously engulfed and protected from oxygen by naturally forming lipid micells!! Nature spontaneously assembles life all by itself!! It's just what chemistry DOES, which is why we're here!!
@@gregsanich5183 None of those need a "creator", they happen automatically and at random. And there is zero evidence for any such "creator" anyway!! The universe works all by itself, and always has! Notions of spooks needed to make matter move are ignorant primitive animism!!
a snowflake isn't 'designed', it forms naturally without influence or a 'mind' each is different and individual. ID falls apart because of a simple problem, complexity. Intelligent design actually denotes simplicity, a designed system would be elegantly simple. This isn't the case though. Our world is chaotic in the extreme.
With a sample size of only 1 single observable universe, how exactlyvwere you able to make any determination st all about what would or wouldn't be a hallmark of design?
@@gregsanich5183 I can make inferences on design because humans are designers and we can contrast that to nature (which isn't designed) We see design in things humans make and design. I think you've mistaken me for a proponent of ID, I am not. I am an atheist.
Another creationist who is utterly confused about terminology like "information" and "entropy" and "complexity". I guess being utterly confused really helps with being a theistic fantasist. You especially need to explain to someone like him what information actually means in this context. It is not at all what he thinks. He has no clue. He thinks ALL information needs to be produced by intelligence. This is obviously nonsense.
Just because someone can make an argument work logically and assert it as best explaination to them doesn't mean it is. Explaining an unknown with a greater unknown explains nothing. If we dont know and right now cant know then the only logically and honest answer is we dont know. Asserting a god just plugs a gap. Its a panacea and could explain anything.
I've heard this dude a few times. It seems his only goal is to prove that it's not unreasonable to say a God could have had a hand in everything. He never brings proof for God. He never disproves anything science says. He just argues that it's not a bad thing to assume God. 🤦
And he's absolutely right. The creator hypothesis is at least as reasonable as any competing hypothesis, snd it's completely compatable with all of our current scientific knowledge and understanding. No need to disprove anything in science for there to be a creator.
@FonzoFonzarelli is he? I don't know anything about any gods, but as a rational and objective skeptic I simply remain unconvinced in the claim that an alternative to agency and design is even a possibility until it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be. The phone in your hand is demonstrable evidence that agency and design is indeed at least a possibility. As soon as we ever discover or produce any evidence of an alternative possibility, then whatever that alternative could be, would then also become a candidate explanation as well, but not before. "The time to believe in something is when it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be true and not before." Matt Dilahunty. As a rational and objective skeptic, im obligated to follow the evidence where it leads. 🤷
@@FonzoFonzarelli as a rational and objective skeptic I'm obligated to follow the evidence where it leads. Idk about god, but as a rational and objective skeptic I simply remain unconvinced in the claim that an alternative to agency and design is even a possibility until it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be. "The time to believe in something is when it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be true and not before. " Matt Dilahunty The phone in your hand is demonstrable evidence that agency and design is indeed at least a possibility. ....and the day anyone ever discovers or produces any demonstrable evidence of an alternative possibility, then whatever that alternative could be, would then also become a candidate explanation as well, but not before.
Isn't matter created from energy in the collisions of particle accelerators? I am pretty sure I just saw a video talking about protons that contain charm quarks that are created in such a way. I could also be misremembering.
Please refer to the work of: Jack Szostak Steven Benner Lee Cronin and start putting these "muh complexity comes from designer" to their work on origin of life.
So God is supernatural, But the act of creating is more Naturl... but when you argued that anything Humans create is Natural, he tried to refute that! the Man is a walking contradiction!
Believers said he feels intellectual dishonesty here, what a joke. C'mon believer tell us where did come from? I mean you say something with information needs a mind to create, so most powerful and all knowing being in the universe came from where?? C'mon believer, from where and don't special plea or be intellectually dishonest, be honest, tell us!
Peterson says I have no reason to believe in god creating the universe but I don't have a competing theory... to that he replies "It's a terrible position" that's a value judgment, not a reasoned one, IMO he's a terrible person
So if it comes from a known creator its designed and if it comes from nature its designed. So what would a undesigned system look like? If you don't have an answer you are absolutely begging the question that everything ever in any configuration is design. A rock and a cell phone are the same thing then and have the same level of design. Unless you think gods design is some how lesser to mans.
The Universe has a Mindless Designer!! The Designer is Mindless Random Chance & Circumstance!! Chance Makes the Changes by Error, And Using Nucleic Memory, Circumstance Retains the Accumulated Improvements in the Successful, And Kills the Failures, Which the Successful Get to EAT!! The Mindless Designer *IS* EVOLUTION!!!
Humans ARE natural processes, the FIRST DESIGNERS!! Prior to that nature did NO design, only random changes filtered for survival by massive death, natural selection!! Humans and all life are naturally occurring! There is NO evidence of any "creator"!! Everything came from Evolution!! The Universe has a Designer!! The Designer is Mindless Random Chance & Circumstance!! Chance makes the Changes by Error, and Using Nucleic Memory, Circumstance Retains the Improvements in the Successful, and Kills the Failures, which the Successful get to EAT!! The Mindless Designer *IS* EVOLUTION!!! The Universe has a Mindless Designer!! The Designer is Mindless Random Chance & Circumstance!! Chance Makes the Changes by Error, And Using Nucleic Memory, Circumstance Retains the Accumulated Improvements in the Successful, And Kills the Failures, Which the Successful Get to EAT!! The Mindless Designer *IS* EVOLUTION!!!
Imagine being told it's intellectually dishonest to admit you don't know what created the Universe.
He literally said a motor was more complicated than a car. A car. That contains a motor. Plus other stuff.
A wankel engine is less complicated than the piston engine... Just to make it more complicated :D
When your argument is so bad, Peterson starts to help you build a better 1 against his own beleifs 😂
And then he kills it...
Cars don't reproduce? Oh boy I got a movie for you!!! Ka-Chow
💀
😂👏
😂👏
Cussy
We do not infer design from complexity. It's actually the opposite. We infer design from elegance.
Indeed. I think when your church tells you understanding the word of God means not only reading but spending decades glossing and understanding a 31000 verse book that is such a mess that it could mean anything you want it to, complexity seems godly.
With a sample size if only 1 single observable universe, how exactly were you able to determine anything about what may or may not be a hallmark of design?
I droce a Latta in high school. That pos was undeniably designed but there was nothing elegant about it.
@@gregsanich5183 with a unique object we generally don't determine that kind of thing...
@bgiv2010 precisely.
It can't be done.
We are unable to determine if an alternative to design is even a possibility, let alone be able to say what would be a hallmark of design or not.
If your premise has equally good evidence for and against it, then *you don’t get to use it as a premise*
As soon as he said "that's a terrible position to have" in the beginning I knew this was going to go downhill. These people who absolutely refuse to admit they don't know everything with absolute certainty always fall into this trap. If someone asks you a complicated math question, do you just blurt out nonsense, or do you admit, "I don't know off the top of my head, let's find out"?
I can’t stand this guy!! When people with bad arguments try to act smarter than you. They speak nonsense and blame you for not understanding 😅
How can you say that? He used “reverse non sequitur”. He took word salad to a whole new level.
right? at the end of the day he’s advocating for a book and belief system where donkeys talk.
Holy shit hes accusing them of being intellectually dishonest? Hes trying to pidgeonhole them into an impossible argument by way of begging the question.
he does it all the time
This was infuriating. Dunning Kruger at its finest
A science teacher and a PHD physicist and this guy thinks he’s smarter than both. Wow. Lmao
even worse he thinks he’s smarter than the totality of science that’s been presented in the past decades
Ohhhh my gosh! And I was just noticing how Pointless Pederson thinks expert Historians are wrong on subjects those Historians wrote extensively on. LOL. Probably the worst internet “expert” in social media history LOL
@@RomeoVisionInc you must be a brain rotten incel
@@RomeoVisionInclike what?
@@WyattKittle probably bible mumbo jumbo.
My eyeballs can’t see far away and one of them is shaped like a football, so if there is a designer, he sure isn’t all that intelligent 🙄
Stupid question: Can you see stars?
@@knockitoffhudson3470 Well of course not lol, we just see the light from stars. So that's not seeing far away - the light comes to us :P
@@knockitoffhudson3470 nearsighted people can see stars yes lmao.
@@capercaillieskye yeah but that's how seeing everything works. I was just curious as to if that worked for near sighted people.
@@knockitoffhudson3470 Ah okay, my bad :3 In that case, depends on how near sighted you are. I was almost blind before lasik, and I could only really make out a giant dark blur. I could barely make out the moon 😂 Most near sighted people aren't that bad lol, I was just lucky lasik worked for me 🤣
Imagine theists accusing normal people of being "intellectually dishonest". It's mind blowing. That's like Jeffrey Dahmer accusing people of having odd nutritional habits.
@@David34981 technically, as most ppl on earth are theists, wouldn't theists statisticaly be the 'normal' ppl?
This is the harm caused by apologetics, particularly places like the Discovery Institute.
@@joeldobbs7396 agreed.
The belief that human life has intrinsic value is a distinctly theistic presupposition that has never been empiricaly demonstrated to be true. .... and so demonstratably isn't.
If theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare ,then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that.
@gregsanich5183 Value is intrinsically subjective, but it's easy to find non theistic contexts where human life has value. Scarcity, for example, within the cosmos human life makes up an incredibly tiny fraction of the total matter. Also, uniqueness, we are likely unique among living organisms. Both of these are signs of value within the context of human experience, no faith required.
In fact, the theistic view devalues human life in many ways. In most theistic contexts we are created to reflect the glory of another being, we are tools, enslaved to a created role and should we disavow that role, we lose all value and are discarded. God Love is not recognizable as anything resembling the human version, so even though we are "loved", most people would not consign their dog to hell for biting them, or turding on the rug. Our cats ignore us, and we love them for it, but ignore God, and God love becomes God wrath. We value our pets more than we are valued by the Christian God. The Islamic God is testing us, and we can become valued subjects if we do well, or lose all value if we fail.
If human life has value in any context, it is in the context of our shared experience that it will be found. We tend to value people in direct proportion to their genetic or cultural similarity to ourselves, but that is not written in stone. People learn empathy from narratives in literature, before the printing press we saw foreign people as lesser or so different as to be beyond compassion. Maybe religion had a solid argument regarding human value in the middle ages, but much less so now, and less so every day.
The indoctrination is heavy with this one. I put money on him being a flerf within 6 months.
@@scottbroadfoot3530 flat earthers are just skeptics being skeptical🤷
@gregsanich5183 no , they are morons being moronic.
One thing I think they missed (as far as I’ve watched) is that complexity isn’t a sign of design. People that are good at designing stuff don’t set out to make the most complicated thing they can think of. They are trying to simplify systems
"Humans create things, therefore everything had to be created by someone."
What a joke
@@rsjcoman9230 as a rational and objective skeptic I simply remain unconvinced in the claim that an alternative to agency and design is even a possibility until it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be.
"The time to believe in something is when it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be true and not before. " Matt Dilahunty
@@gregsanich5183 "as a rational and objective skeptic I simply decided what my preffered explanation is despite the fact it violates occam's razor, describe my belief in it as a disbelief of the contrary to sound more open-minded and am waiting for your empirical demonstration of what should be the base assumption"
no agency untill it's proven, if the courts operated like you do then every single death would be assumed to be a premeditated murder untill it's proven to be an accident, literally guilty untill proven innocent even when you don't have a suspect.
@bruhmoment5020 your analogy isn't applicable nc I don't have or assert any beliefs. I only reference what the facts are established to be.
As a rational and objective skeptic I'm obligated to simply follow the evidence where it leads.
The phone in your hand is demonstrable evidence that agency and design is indeed at least possible.
And as soon as we ever discover or produce any evidence that can demonstrate an altetnative is in fact a possibility aswell, then whatever that alternative could be, would then also become a candidate explanation as, but not before.
As a rational and objective skeptic I'm obligated to withhold belief in that claim until it can be empiricaly demonstrated demonstrated be true, but not before.
@gregsanich5183 the universe isn't a phone and we know how phones are made, just because one thing has an attribute doensn't mean another thing also has that attribute, it's just as nonsensical as it would be to say since phones need simcards to work the universe also needs a simcard to work, where's the universe simcard? for the universe to be designed you'd have to have evidence of a thing capable of designing the universe, there isn't any evidence of such a being and it violates occam's razor since for the uiniverse to just exist undesigned you need only the universe and for the universe to exist as a design you still need the universe and at least one thing capable of designing it, so you can't say it's the default position.
@@bruhmoment5020 that's not an answer though so no , it's not enuf.
The point of contention at the heart of the god debate is if the natural processes we observe in reality are designed or not.
Natural processes are the observable phenomenon that the creator hypothesis was formulated to account for, it's not an explanation.
Are you claiming that natural processes are the explanation for the existence of natural processes? ....🤨.....bc that's as circular as readoning can get and is the very definition of magical thinking.
Love how he agreed that orders don't come from a mind until it didn't validate his point and he immediately flipped on it. So is every snowflake designed individually? Once again I must ask what would undesigned anything look like? If you have no answer then guess what? You are begging the question.
Bro when he kept stating his conclusion as a premise that is somehow just a given was so goddamn frustrating
The clear difference between thing that humans make and are designed is that those things do not create themselves and so need a designer and manufacturer. Crystals and organisms self-assemble and so don't need to be manufactured and design by an outside agent e.a. designer.
@@leerass 🤦
But the point of contention here is if natural processes are designed or not.
@@gregsanich5183 natural processes clearly do noit fit the typical pattern of things that we know are designed. Designed things typically are designed as finished product, but natural processes typically grow and develop into being. Deseigned things typically don't change after being designed, and definiyrly not by themselves, but natural processes are constantly changing. Designed things typically need something else to asemble them, but natural processes are typically self organizing. Designed things are typically design to be as simple as possible, but things that came about by natural processes are often unnesecarily complicated.
So it is most likely that natural processes are not designed, because they don't exhibit the important traits of being designed.
God, another 'manmade things aren't natural' guy, I heard this derp from most of the flerfs...
Even if somehow people were correct about a " designer" , in practice the concept serves no function. It does nothing more than serve as a place holder for " I don't know". Actually worse than that - it kills inquiry when something seems unexplainable.
I'm nature we only can observe successes, no matter how short lived. In theory there may be countless ' near misses" or failures for every single natural manifestion.
His IGNORANCE is astounding
Ah, that old chestnut, the argument from personal incredulity!
“It’s not that big of a leap to get to the conclusion”
Any leap is too big of a leap. It’s literally a non-sequitur (and no, “reverse non sequitur” isn’t a thing)
Precisely.
now I'm not even sure I'd call myself a theist nessessarily, bc there is no way to be absolutely certain of it, so it's ultamitely all just speculative bc it can't be verified empiricaly.
However, as a rational & objective skeptic, im much more inclined to find the hypothesis of a creator to be the far more compelling possibility.
Agency and design are currently the only possibility that we know of and have observed or can demonstrate empiricaly to be possible. There are countless examples of things we know for certain were a result of agency and design as evidence.
I'll readily take another possibility into serious consideration if another possibility can ever be empiricaly demonstrated to indeed be possible.
Until then, as a skeptic, I remain unconvinced in another possibility without any evidence.
"The time to believe in something is when it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be true"
Matt Dilahunty
very civil discussion with a very confused mind
Love ur vids man kee it up with winning debates ❤❤❤
"Woah woah woah, it's extremely intellectually dishonest to disagree with me, cease immediatly"
Some dude: "I'm going to scoff at science discovering amino acids in comet trails because I can't replicate it"
Also that dude: "You can tell that God did it because of the way it is, after it was made 6000 years ago"
Has this guy ever presented an argument that wasn't from incredulity?
It was really starting to get annoying that he just kept asserting the same shit without even attempting to justify it in reality.
@@Disturbed0neGaming its the same thing when theists want to claim that everybody has some inherent responsibility or obligation to everyone else's welfare. The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that.
38:41 so if you're not asserting that God used supernatural methods to create, that would mean God would have used natural methods to create. This means it is impossible for us to distinguish between God creating using natural methods or nature forming things naturally. As they would both look the exact same. So then you lead yourself to a bigger issue of how did you get to God?
We recognize design by simplicity, not complexity.
How does this guy not understand that?
These people are so tiring. Their just smart enough to pivot, but they are also just smart enough to know that's thier only move.
He doesn't get that we deduce design by contrasting it to nature, something thats not designed
Having more stuff made by people has no bearing on the stuff not made by people
@@AlexPBenton it doesn't matter who/what made it so much ad the fact that it was made to begin with.
37:17 it's so funny that he says it's a large assumption. As if saying God did it wasn't even a larger assumption. At least we have a understanding of how it may have happened. So if we're making any kind of assumptions we have at least some kind of understanding of why the assumption may be true. His assumptions even larger because we have no way of knowing how God would have done it.
Why can’t they just define “information”?
Gotta love all the accusations of dishonesty with no evidence whatsoever.
If this guy is familiar with the "irreducible complexity" argument that proponents of "intelligent design" make, then he should also be aware that it's already been thoroughly debunked. So why is he repeating it here? And then he accuses others of "intellectual dishonesty"... Oy.
Humans coded DNA for labeling purposes.
@@muveemanone2067 right.
So that we could transfer thst data from this remarkable data storage and transfer system we discovered in biology.
So wait. God is an amount of Energy/mass? Is it then lesser after the universe was created? Can it run out? Can God expire as entropy overcomes it?
At what point is it too complex for nature? He seemed so sure that a mind had to have a hand in it but that's the first assumption he took as fact and refused to even consider if ANYTHING was simple enough for nature to be the sole cause
Exactly my question.
What is the threshold of complexity which qualifies something as being designed by a mind?
"A reverse non-sequitor" this guy 2023.
12:57 arguements can manipulate evidence....but it gets harder the more evidence you need to account for...
I wish I loved anything in my life as much as this dude loves calling everything he doesn't understand a "category error"
This is pointless. I belive all of universe is designed. If you can show me something not design then …. Wtf…. Are those people think …. Even A little bit ?
Nothing in nature is designed, according to evolution. What is truly pointless is, "God real, or not real?" debates because both are unfalsifiable claims. They are fun to watch though!
If someone can show you something not designed then what? What are you trying to say?
@@_abc_- if You already assumed that all is designed whatever it is how can you ask someone to show you something not designet ... how can it be more stupid ?
@@kaweckipiotr Ok I was just making sure. I thought you were asking for proof that it's not designed.
"who designed god" that's the only approach that should be taken for this topic
I love how he equivocates how blitz is using the same fallacious understanding of the universe as he is when he damn well knows that blitz isn't the one making assertions about the natural world and it's ontological origins. Additionally the guest constantly defaults to the fallacy of composition which essentially states that the properties of the parts do not mimic the properties of the whole. I'll give you an example " student A scored 90% on his test therefore the class average is high" this reasoning is flawed because we are unsure of the other pupils scores they could all be incredibly low but until we have demonstrable evidence we simply are unable to make that claim. The guest is doing the same with mankind creating things like phones etc then personifies/anthropomorphise his ignorance and casts it to the entire cosmos.
This year we have now seen naturally occurring RNA ribozymes grown randomly on Montmorillonite clays that assemble proteins from aminos and which replicate themselves. We have also seen them spontaneously engulfed and protected from oxygen by naturally forming lipid micells!! Nature spontaneously assembles life all by itself!! It's just what chemistry DOES, which is why we're here!!
Right, and those are precisely the observable phenomenon thst the creator hypothesis was formulated to account for and explain.
@@gregsanich5183
None of those need a "creator", they happen automatically and at random. And there is zero evidence for any such "creator" anyway!! The universe works all by itself, and always has! Notions of spooks needed to make matter move are ignorant primitive animism!!
a snowflake isn't 'designed', it forms naturally without influence or a 'mind' each is different and individual.
ID falls apart because of a simple problem, complexity. Intelligent design actually denotes simplicity, a designed system would be elegantly simple. This isn't the case though. Our world is chaotic in the extreme.
With a sample size of only 1 single observable universe, how exactlyvwere you able to make any determination st all about what would or wouldn't be a hallmark of design?
@@gregsanich5183 I can make inferences on design because humans are designers and we can contrast that to nature (which isn't designed) We see design in things humans make and design.
I think you've mistaken me for a proponent of ID, I am not. I am an atheist.
Snowflakes are even more complex than crystals. Happens naturally billions at a time.
Another creationist who is utterly confused about terminology like "information" and "entropy" and "complexity".
I guess being utterly confused really helps with being a theistic fantasist.
You especially need to explain to someone like him what information actually means in this context. It is not at all what he thinks. He has no clue.
He thinks ALL information needs to be produced by intelligence. This is obviously nonsense.
That which is not natural cannot, by definition, exist.
What's the difference between a known complexity and complexity?
Just because someone can make an argument work logically and assert it as best explaination to them doesn't mean it is. Explaining an unknown with a greater unknown explains nothing. If we dont know and right now cant know then the only logically and honest answer is we dont know. Asserting a god just plugs a gap. Its a panacea and could explain anything.
2:21 personal incredulity fallacy
I've heard this dude a few times. It seems his only goal is to prove that it's not unreasonable to say a God could have had a hand in everything. He never brings proof for God. He never disproves anything science says. He just argues that it's not a bad thing to assume God. 🤦
And he's absolutely right. The creator hypothesis is at least as reasonable as any competing hypothesis, snd it's completely compatable with all of our current scientific knowledge and understanding. No need to disprove anything in science for there to be a creator.
@@gregsanich5183And he’s absolutely wrong.
@FonzoFonzarelli is he?
I don't know anything about any gods, but as a rational and objective skeptic I simply remain unconvinced in the claim that an alternative to agency and design is even a possibility until it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be.
The phone in your hand is demonstrable evidence that agency and design is indeed at least a possibility. As soon as we ever discover or produce any evidence of an alternative possibility, then whatever that alternative could be, would then also become a candidate explanation as well, but not before.
"The time to believe in something is when it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be true and not before." Matt Dilahunty.
As a rational and objective skeptic, im obligated to follow the evidence where it leads. 🤷
@@FonzoFonzarelli as a rational and objective skeptic I'm obligated to follow the evidence where it leads.
Idk about god, but as a rational and objective skeptic I simply remain unconvinced in the claim that an alternative to agency and design is even a possibility until it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be.
"The time to believe in something is when it can be empiricaly demonstrated to be true and not before. " Matt Dilahunty
The phone in your hand is demonstrable evidence that agency and design is indeed at least a possibility.
....and the day anyone ever discovers or produces any demonstrable evidence of an alternative possibility, then whatever that alternative could be, would then also become a candidate explanation as well, but not before.
@ cool story, the guy in the video is still wrong. No one was talking about you. Carry on.
He believes it's more rational to believe in magic rather than provable science & math...I don't get it🤦🏼♂️
Isn't matter created from energy in the collisions of particle accelerators? I am pretty sure I just saw a video talking about protons that contain charm quarks that are created in such a way. I could also be misremembering.
17:33 “…the reasoning is simple…”. EXACTLY… 🤦♂️ you’re taking a simplistic approach to complex topics.
caller is rEelLY sMOrt
Please refer to the work of:
Jack Szostak
Steven Benner
Lee Cronin
and start putting these "muh complexity comes from designer" to their work on origin of life.
Remember: These goofballs that make these arbitrary claims have atleast 1000 followers 😅😂😅😂
Why exactly "Creator" as in singular; why not "CreatorS"? Why do these creator people never ever address the multiple creators question?
@@russellmyers934 the christian concept of the trinity addresses it.
God is made if light? Then why can't we see him?? He must contain more light than the universe if the universe was made from his essence.....😅😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I think these people think natural and automatic are the same…and they aren’t…
So God is supernatural, But the act of creating is more Naturl... but when you argued that anything Humans create is Natural, he tried to refute that! the Man is a walking contradiction!
Gud is obviosly non existing…
8:34 patterns....so God?
Believers said he feels intellectual dishonesty here, what a joke.
C'mon believer tell us where did come from? I mean you say something with information needs a mind to create, so most powerful and all knowing being in the universe came from where??
C'mon believer, from where and don't special plea or be intellectually dishonest, be honest, tell us!
Peterson says I have no reason to believe in god creating the universe but I don't have a competing theory... to that he replies "It's a terrible position" that's a value judgment, not a reasoned one, IMO he's a terrible person
"He" is the guest.. right..?
Why do creationist in these videos always expect the hosts to be able to explain all aspects of evolution? That is probably the most stupid thing
So if it comes from a known creator its designed and if it comes from nature its designed. So what would a undesigned system look like? If you don't have an answer you are absolutely begging the question that everything ever in any configuration is design. A rock and a cell phone are the same thing then and have the same level of design. Unless you think gods design is some how lesser to mans.
There is no logic.
In the guests mind, yes.
EVERY1 IS BORN ATHEIST!
You guys allowed the guest to ramble and bloviate excessively. Not sure why you guys allow this nonsense
What the hell is "known complexity"??? - talk about BS buzz words.
Blitz has such a sexy voice.
The Universe has a Mindless Designer!!
The Designer is Mindless Random Chance & Circumstance!!
Chance Makes the Changes by Error,
And Using Nucleic Memory,
Circumstance Retains the Accumulated Improvements in the Successful,
And Kills the Failures,
Which the Successful Get to EAT!!
The Mindless Designer
*IS* EVOLUTION!!!
Humans ARE natural processes, the FIRST DESIGNERS!! Prior to that nature did NO design, only random changes filtered for survival by massive death, natural selection!! Humans and all life are naturally occurring! There is NO evidence of any "creator"!! Everything came from Evolution!!
The Universe has a Designer!! The Designer is Mindless Random Chance & Circumstance!! Chance makes the Changes by Error, and Using Nucleic Memory, Circumstance Retains the Improvements in the Successful, and Kills the Failures, which the Successful get to EAT!! The Mindless Designer *IS* EVOLUTION!!!
The Universe has a Mindless Designer!!
The Designer is Mindless Random Chance & Circumstance!!
Chance Makes the Changes by Error,
And Using Nucleic Memory,
Circumstance Retains the Accumulated Improvements in the Successful,
And Kills the Failures,
Which the Successful Get to EAT!!
The Mindless Designer
*IS* EVOLUTION!!!
Right, and those natural processes are precisely the observable phenomenon that the creator hypoyhesis was formulated to account for and explain.
I’m pretty sure I saw Tony Hawk once do a reverse 720 nonsequitur in a late 90’s X-Games 🛹 😎