Peter Byrom: Disillusioned with Dawkins • Unapologetic 2/3
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ต.ค. 2023
- Peter Byrom continues to share his faith journey, as told in the chapter he contributed to "Coming to Faith Through Dawkins", in the second episode of this three-part series. He discloses how challenging Richard Dawkins on why he wouldn't debate William Lane Craig led to him becoming something of a TH-cam sensation! Peter also shares why he believes apologetics is important and what the final nail in his atheist coffin was.
• For more on some of these arguments, see Unbelievable? Is there a new New Atheism? www.premierunbelievable.com/u...
• For Coming to Faith Through Dawkins: www.amazon.co.uk/Coming-Faith...
• For William Lane Craig's response to The God Delusion, from Oxford 2011: • William Lane Craig: Is...
• "The Case for Christian Theism" documentary about William Lane Craig's 2011 UK Tour:
• The Case for Christian...
• Part Three: • Peter Byrom: Dawkins' ...
• Part One: • Peter Byrom: Discoveri...
• Subscribe to the Unapologetic podcast: pod.link/1622170986
• More podcasts, free ebook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• Watch Unapologetic TH-cam playlist: • Unapologetic
• For conference & live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For our apologetics courses: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 3 // DRX vs GEN | PRX vs TLN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CWM1Q-2-o3M/mqdefault.jpg)
Part Three: th-cam.com/video/iek2KDx8Iro/w-d-xo.htmlsi=MU_3x_NwzSV-K0GN
Part One: th-cam.com/video/ZuqP11-t58s/w-d-xo.htmlsi=J_HqtLIdmFnAljYZ
Dawkins was being a hypocrite and Chicken there.
I am very intrigued by this discussion. Looking forward to watching parts 1 and 3. Thank you for posting this.
Great video. Thanks!
I find it odd that Dawkins would suggest that WLC's credentials do not warrant a philosophical debate given that he has a doctorate in Philosophy and Dawkins' area is biology. If anything. WLC should be making the exact argument why he doesn't have the time to discuss philosophy with someone outside of the field making unscholarly claims about it.
Dawkins didn't say anything about a "philosophical debate". If you have any objections against Dawkins, at least be honest and address what he actually said.
@@betsalprince Well the fact that it would be a philosophical debate is at least implied. Otherwise what sort of debate will they have? A debate on biology? I do not think this is the sort that WLC would be interested in.
And in fact this is primarily the sort of arguments that Dawkins engages. He isn't going about arguing about how RNA utilizes nutrition. Rather he is making statements that are philosophical, and even theological; NOT in his discipline. I am NOT saying one CANNOT argue outside of their discipline. However, I find it strange that he would discredit WLC's credentials IN a discipline HE HIMSELF is making claims about.
Yes. I spent most of my adult life as an atheist and am very familiar with Dawkins' writings. In the end, his philosophical foundation is very naive. It is basically, "If science has an answer for something, then there is no need for God or religion. If science doesn't have an answer yet, then it's not worth discussing yet."
(Of course, science by its own method has nothing to say about the existence of God or the supernatural one way or the other.)
When one listens carefully to Dawkins, his attacks are mostly anti-religious, not at all about the philosophical underpinnings for belief in God, nor about the claimed religious experiences of many millions of people. He focuses very narrowly on the idea of the belief in religion or God as a received social construct, one that must be eradicated.
So do you now believe a deity is real? And if so, which one did you pick?
I spent most of my life as an atheist too. Since the age of 12. I'm now in my sixty's and I've never encountered any evidence for the supernatural.
If you can provide some evidence of the supernatural and that it's your particular god that's performing these supernatural events, I'd would like to convert to Islam, sorry I mean Hinduism, Christianity.
@@RLBays
silly!
Human conceptions of anything are still conceptions. "My dog" is a nice box my mind constructs around something which is a process so impossibly complex, which is constantly taking in new molecules and rearranging them, expelling old ones, each collection of molecules being present from the environment but specified as to its construction, destruction, or utility on the basis of the information equivalent found on five million pages of strings of 500 + CGAT characters typed on each page in unique order.
The information found in each gene is digital. It is in base 4, or, base 64 if you consider a codon.
I am told I am stupid and unscientific if I say 60 years of molecular biology demonstrates that only this form of encoding is found in living systems, and, by definition, no random process can create information, then ask-"OK. Please tell me about the non-random Something which is capable of ordering individual molecules such that digital base 4 information which specifies which molecules should be manufactured, how they should be modified and destroyed, and how these should direct the flow of energy to create an organism, any organism, from Chlamydia to my dog.
That Something had to have intervened in Earth's history twice, and created both code and nanomachine sets simultaneously, with each having complete different mechanisms for copying the DNA, vastly different genomes. If not, no life.
The genetic encoded information and nanomachines constructed from the information found in my dog can not be denied to be what they actually are: code, and machines.
So. Here we have living organisms- trillions of machines of millions of different types (if you count the unique RNAs and the 4+different kinds,) specified in, and acting on digital data which cannot arise from random chemical processes...
Is the Creator of this dumber or smarter than human?
Or are the muddy dog paw tracks across my driveway insufficient evidence that a dog was there at some point, even if it is nowhere to be found now?
I await your thoughts. 0:08
@@derekallen4568sorry you've never encountered evidence for the supernatural. Sad. The experiences other people have had are part of what makes being human so interesting.
Trust me. The thousands of casses of sudden dread or absolutely certain knowledge that something awful has just happened to someone a person has had a deep connection to, separated by miles or continents, only later to confirm the time both occurred were within minutes on a global time clock. This cannot be explained by science.
In war, wives may know, to the minute, that their husband died.
This is but one example. Keep reading. There are thousands of other types of experiences.
I prayed for a paralyzed quadriplegic stroke victim of 6 years who could not speak. Not near him. Ten minutes later he spoke clearly. Entire hospital witnessed the before and after, most did not know about the prayer.
Asked him what he wanted on his birthday. He said, "a prostitute!"
You have to exclude Islam from the equation because all the evidence shows it's a cult created by a 7th century Arabian caravan robber. Mohammad claimed that Jibril met him in a dark cave without any witness and he was squeezing him to read 3 times in a row. Moreover, The Quran has been found to be a collection from different books, including fables and herecies prior to the 7th century. The writer of the Qur'an couldn't even reconcile meaning with poetry, ie rhymes in Arabic. So you find verses depicting stories from here and there without a clear behining and ending suddenly, with no geographic description and with no historical foundation.
Please let me just mention that Dawkins has been invited to debate with Michael Behe also. You can guess how he responded
He seems to prefer to discuss with bishops about Darwinian evolution too
It would be the kind of response scientists make when they're invited to debate flat-Earthers.
@@betsalprinceexcept this would be like a scientist who wrote a book against flatearthism
@@fukpoeslaw3613 if u write a book against pseudoscience you have to debate a pseudoscientist? I don't see how ur response is relevant.
@@betsalprince Yes, it's obligatory. Everybody knows tha'at🤨
@@fukpoeslaw3613 Jokes aside, Dawkins' book is not about debunking creationism or intelligent design, so your response is still irrelevant.
I saw a couple of Craig videos and i understand why dawkings is dismissive.
Dawkins very nature is dismissive. He practices elitism but dosent want to come down from his high 🐎
@@jasonpowell7622 The man uses his superiority to mask his insecurity.
*The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis.* Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. ***These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.***
*Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer,* translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians ***before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.***
***In revising the Mesopotamian creation story for their own ends, the Hebrew scribes tightened the narrative and the focus but retained the concept of the all-powerful deity who brings order from chaos.*** Marduk, in the Enuma Elish, establishes the recognizable order of the world - *just as God does in the Genesis tale* - and human beings are expected to recognize this great gift and honor the deity through service.
*"Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"Sumerian Is the World's Oldest Written Language | ProLingo"*
*"Sumerian Civilization: Inventing the Future - World History Encyclopedia"*
*"The Myth of Adapa - World History Encyclopedia"*
Also discussed by Professor Christine Hayes at Yale University in her 1st lecture of the series on the Hebrew Bible from 8:45 to 14:30 minutes, lecture 3 from 28:30 to 41:35 minutes, lecture 4 from 0:00 up to 21:30 minutes and 24:00 up to 35:30 minutes and lecture 7 from 24:20 to 25:10 minutes.
From a Biblical scholar:
"Many stories in the ancient world have their origins in other stories and were borrowed and modified from other or earlier peoples. *For instance, many of the stories now preserved in the Bible are* ***modified*** *versions of stories that existed in the cultures and traditions of Israel’s* ***older*** *contemporaries.* Stories about the creation of the universe, a cataclysmic universal flood, digging wells as land markers, the naming of important cultic sites, gods giving laws to their people, and even stories about gods decreeing the possession of land to their people were all part of the cultural and literary matrix of the ancient Near East. *Biblical scribes freely* ***adopted and modified*** *these stories as a means to express their own identity, origins, and customs."*
*"Stories from the Bible"* by Dr Steven DiMattei, from his website *"Biblical Contradictions"*
------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, look up the below articles.
*"Yahweh was just an ancient Canaanite god. We have been deceived! - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"Debunking the Devil - Michael A. Sherlock (Author)"*
*"The Greatest Trick Religion Ever Pulled: Convincing Us That Satan Exists | Atheomedy"*
*"Zoroastrianism And Persian Mythology: The Foundation Of Belief"*
(Scroll to the last section: Zoroastrianism is the Foundation of Western Belief)
*"10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions - Listverse"*
*"January | 2014 | Atheomedy"* - Where the Hell Did the Idea of Hell Come From?
*"Retired bishop explains the reason why the Church invented "Hell" - Ideapod"*
Watch *"The Origins of Salvation, Judgement and Hell"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica
(Sensitive theists should only watch from 7:00 to 17:30 minutes as evangelical Christians are lambasted. He's a former theist and has been studying the scholarship and comparative religions for over 15 years)
*"Top Ten Reasons Noah’s Flood is Mythology - The Sensuous Curmudgeon"*
*"Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp"*
*"The Search for Noah’s Flood - Biblical Archaeology Society"*
*"Eridu Genesis - World History Encyclopedia"*
Watch *"How Aron Ra Debunks Noah's Flood"*
(8 part series debunking Noah's flood using multiple branches of science)
*"The Adam and Eve myth - News24"*
*"Before Adam and Eve - Psychology Today"*
*"Gilgamesh vs. Noah - Wordpress"*
*"Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104 - Project Augustine"*
*"Old Testament Tales Were Stolen From Other Cultures - Griffin"*
*"Studying the Bible"* - by Dr Steven DiMattei
(This particular article from a critical Biblical scholar highlights how the authors of the Hebrew Bible used their *fictional* god as a mouthpiece for their own views and ideologies)
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
Maybe Dawkins didn't know who Craig was at that time? (But had heard of him.)
Can anyone please explain why they release these podcast in broken up portions?
I mean, it's YT not a HBO series. It's not like you're trying to retain a audience for your 10pm programing. I honestly don't get it.
This way of releasing a podcast, broken up, over several weeks, only fusturates listeners. There isn't a shred of upside that I can see. Someone make it make sense.
You are dug so deep in there, no one's going to be able to rescue you.
Dumbest of OOL questions: do the CGAT base sequences for a gene qualify as base 4 digitally encoded information?
Who are you talking to?
@@glenliesegang233What are you talking about?and why you ask him?
I became a Muslim after listening to Peter Byrom. Thank you!
Let me get this straight. One human didn’t want to engage with another human in a debate was the tipping point that made you decide that Christianity was true?
I claim I have discovered the greatest knowledge of all time and I am suffering the most severe and devastating censorship in history in a social media era for many years trying to save lives with knowledge. I am a poet that writes prose to be understood better, all my work is poetry. Would you do me a favor and tell your innocent and vulnerable children what i just told you? They would understand an injustice is being committed and you don't care. To overcome a censorship the information that is prohibited has to be shared to be known. I am not joking when I say the greatest knowledge of all time is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Should my claim be attended or ignored because you don't agree with me? Humanity are living a lie for obvious reasons for anyone interested in the truth. I can only speak in a human language to be understood and i can use Spanish, English or Italian. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news.
I love how these apologists lie. I was atheist, then low bar Bill's arguments convinced me. Sorry for being disrespectful. Dr. Low bar Bill.
Of course people do become convinced, normally from a religious experience, financial gain,
or sexual partner, but not from arguments.
Sure, nobody disputes that people arrive at bad beliefs for bad reasons. The problem is nobody arrives at belief in a god for a single _good_ reason: for reasons that actually indicate the truth of the idea. Evidence, basically.
All of Craig's arguments for god are illogical in various ways, like how the Moral Argument is just two baseless assertions (that (A) objective morality exists and (B) if it does it's best explained by a god).
Try this: protein encoding is specified by base 64 digital information.
The DNA base sequences in a gene do not specify what the protein it forms actually does. It only specifies which of 20 amino acids is added next, and the length of the gene only specifies when to stop adding more.
Here, the magic (and a sufficiently advanced rechnology is indistinguishable from magic) happens: (at least for synthetic/catalytic proteins): if the proper length of different areas of scaffolding folds in a highly specific way, and a few key amino acids with highly unique properties cluster in exactly the correct spatial geometry within the "active site," often binding a specific cation like Mg, Zn, Fe, and, often in a binding site nearby specific for ATP, NADH, GTP, PRESTO! a sudden chemical reaction occurs a million times faster than, if anything but that unique 3d shape and highly specific atomic arrangements in key locations, barely happens, or does not happen at all.
Let's say a 40 aa peptide forms without any intervention based on data., but can carry out the same catalytic function... Wow! Cool! See, -you don't need genes to make this happen! And, this probably happened for every single metabolic enzyme, just happened to form by linking up in a little clay pool with boron. Guess what- not even one of those naturally occurring enzymes will be passed on to the next generation. Because none can copy themselves. And none can be disassembled and turned into a gene.
So, if you believe random processes can create digitally encoded information, and you believe in the genetic code, you believe in magic.
What other options are there?
At some point in Earth's history, a Superintelligence visited, twice. It understood molecules, quantum physics, mineral abundance ratios, compounds made in comets, hydrology, weather patterns, and how to shelter nascent life forms from UV rays. It wrote code which enabled, just like computer scientists now write genetic algorithms which can evolve, and a spell-check error correcting system like no other, to create stable gene pools for natural selection to occur.
Show me these beings! you insist.
Nope, they've moved on. Except for coming back to make creatures which metamorph. Think frogs,, butterflies,, etc.That takes a whe bunch of new genes.
And, I did not discuss the 80% of the genome which is the operating system for the whole cell, or cells..
Yup. By Magic-or a Being/Beings. I choose the latter.
I'm curious why are you wasting your time here?
@@ggghgf885 I'm here because this guy is trying to discredit Dawkins. Why should Dawkins debate Craig. Sean Carol debated Craig and it didn't go well for Craig.
@@ggghgf885 Is education a "waste of time"? I think it's _very_ valuable to spend one's time trying to help others realize bad ideas are bad. Well nobody has evidence of any gods, so gods are bad ideas.
I didn't hear what convinced you that there is a God and he's the Christian God???
This is what I want to know...how he went from maybe kalam all the way down to Christianity.
@megzillas the holy spirit I guess 😂. Sorry bad joke.
Probably because other religions' arguments don't objectively hold up well against what Christianity across the board brings to the table.
Religions like Buddism, Hinduism, Shinto, Zen and Neo-Paganism don't go out and partake in apologia to provide a defense for their views and advocate that others adopt them for their own well-being and thushave been dying, even in countries openly hostile to Christianity.
It is also ironic that the underground nu.bers and open numbers of Christians in nations like China are outnumbering the ruling cast and making situations uncomfortable for societies of such nature.
But what drove him, probably a myriad of aspects. 🤔
@arno_groenewald I hear you. I was a Christian for 35 yrs but don't believe any of it anymore.
I can't think of an argument that would convince me again because I NEVER experienced real-life miracles or answered prayers.
Arguments are just words to me with no real-life power.
@@yesitsme8702 , depend on the prayer and the scale of events surrounding the topic of discussion between God and yourself at the time.
But further investigation is your personal matter and each person navigates to and from Christ in deferent ways almost, though there are many methods and factors, there is usually a small collection of things that bring people to God and that might have them selves removed from Him. For me it was the study of the breadth of history and how things lined up from and objective standpoint.
But only you have an idea and God who knows what made you distance yourself.
Hope you give it some more careful thought, but that is up to you, watching this video could not have been a mar coincidence, however, that is my opinion on the matter at large.
So, WLC is a wishy washy evolutionist. Thus, no Adam & Eve, no original sin, no salvation
Imagine calling someone "wishy washy" for basing their position on reality. Even more ironic if _other_ beliefs that person holds _aren't_ based on evidence, but they believe in a god anyway. (A small portion of the overwhelming evidence for evolution can be found in the references section of "evolution" on Wikipedia, which contains hundreds of scientific papers.)