The problem with using gods as an explanation is this gods can be defined to be anything , to be everything, to solve anything , to solve everything... This renders them useless as an explanation for anything. My personal opinion is that There are no real gods There are only people, that believe gods are real.
You should give this video another go! Brian does a good job of touching on that. He acknowledges that there must be a source of reason for a reasonable universe, a universe that can be observed, and its phenomenon explained by means of reason. Reason can not come from chaos but is in fact contrary to chaos. Therefore for our world to be reasonable, understandable, Its source has to have come from an entity with reason -- namely, God. This is different from personifying the patterns of weather, the sun, the moon, or any old thing as a god just because they seem to exhibit emotional mood-swings and posses powers, which Brian also addresses. It's all here in his video Mick Q. Hope that helps you understand his point a little better.
@@i3rendonf It does not really help Your just defining a god in an ad hoc fashion to solve a perceived problem. This is the problem, a god can be defined in any way to solve anything , A god can be anything you need it to be , to solve any problem you need solved. A god is a panacea , It has no explanatory power If I asked you “ where did matter and energy come from “ You’d likely say “ a god” Which is an answer , but not an explanation If I asked you to explain how god created matter and energy ... you would say ? Is the universe reasonable , we can make sense of it in a way, we can see patterns that make sense to us .. but I’d say there is more that is not understood than is. The universe is not in chaos , The laws of physics create pockets of order, albeit temporary.
If God is real, he needs no explanation. However, he has chosen to perfectly define and explain himself to us through the biblical accounts. As such, it’s completely up to you to accept or reject this.
@@crbrown743 First Who said god does not need to be explained ? How do you know that the people that wrote the bible are defining a god correctly Are you saying A god is , whatever Bronze Age goat herders from the Sinai peninsula defined a god to be
@@mickqQ How do you know they weren't defining him correctly? And is there something wrong with people from the Bronze Age that somehow invalidates their testimonies?
I believe in God (although being of a different faith), but also I believe in the scientific method. I always tell people that for me learning about how amazing the universe is allows me to realize the perfection and absolute balance of chaos and order that God put in when manifesting himself in and as the universe. I always thought that science is our practical way of understanding God’s creation. Of understanding God’s systems of logical governance through languages like math or chemistry or physics that we can more easily comprehend. I think this was a rather unbiased and very genuine effort to reconcile the science and religion divide that exists in society. Great video as always!
Lets just never forget to build our relationship with the creator Himself first, by the means he has prescribed. We can get sometimes sucked in the marvel of His creation rather than the Creator Himself. Just a friendly sidenote for everyone reading. God bless.
Dear Vidyut, pls find a Traditional Catholic Mass and convert. Time is little. Become a Saint and help us fight the evil that has infiltrated our Lord Jesus Christ's Church and the world
You might be surprised to learn that the Catholic Church invented the scientific method. Roger Bacon codified it and Pope Clement IV approved it. This was within ten years of the end of the Islamic Golden Age, when they turned their backs on their many accomplishments and rejected reasoning. Astrology wasn't rejected by the church initially because it was an occult practice, it was rejected for being a superstition; unscientific. Every saint now canonized requires two miracles. These miracles are scrutinized mercilessly. You might also want to look into the recent Eucharistic miracles and the science involved.
You don't have a clue what you are saying here. You're accepting an unfalsifiable proposition (in this case, the existence of "God") complete with confirmation bias and then running with it. Truth is based on probability; probabilities are based on falsifiability. You can't have that in a God of the gaps explanation. You cant have that simply asserting that "God" exists. Period.
"If the universe is not designed by an intelligence then it follows that it would not be intelligible." Things not created/designed by an intelligent creator are necessarily entirely chaotic? Would you say that this was true of any uncreated thing?
The funny thing is I am a financial auditor. Even the nice books have to be scrutinized, because even though it looks clean there may something goofy going on. That's why samples of checks for cash disbursements, payroll, inventories, capital asset additions and deletions, etc., are taken to get a snapshot of the whole process. If I came across someone that was in the second example, a report would still be done, but the business would probably be reported and a fraud audit would be recomended.
It's an irrelevent analogy the man in the video makes because all arguments for "God" are advanced from an unfalsifiable proposition from which confirmation bias naturally follows. Truth is based on probabilities; probabilities are based in falsifiability. He can never ever enjoy that luxury. The arguments are doomed from the outset.
How does it follow that because we can interpret the universe that it was intelligently designed? It was a necessity to be able to interpret the environment, we adapted to make the universe intelligible to us, that's how that's possible.
I've always found Lennox an enjoyable listen. May the grace and light of our Lord shine the way for him to someday be received into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
@@ironymatt Lennox is prevented from doing so because Mary is not part if the Trinity and it is heresy to treat the blessed lady as such. That is why Lennox and others could never do what you hope for.
@@mattnbin if you're claiming that that's what Lennox believes, you'll have to provide a citation. I've never heard him say anything remotely like that.
@@ironymatt What I have outlined above is simply one of the main reasons that many Christians could never in good conscience before the Lord, become part of the Roman Church.
@@mattnbin Oh, you mean you think Catholics think Mary is part of the Trinity? You'll have to improve your ability to outline an idea clearly. Catholics don't think that, and it's pretty lazy to buy into anti-Catholic propaganda so easily. We're the reason protestants even know of Jesus, since it was He who instituted the Catholic Church, and it was His disciples who were entrusted to safeguard and present the faith throughout the world to all generations. Why would you think that the nonsense perpetuated by fallible men fallen away from the Church 1500+ years after the fact would have any legitimacy?
As a Catholic in the sciences (who believes God created the universe): 0: Many scientists think that even if the universe is ordered, the human mind may as a question that may be meaningless because it may not fully be able to comprehend it fully. Even if we intellectually ask "where did the universe come from?" but this may be meaningless because we have trouble comprehending things like infinity (or our own hunter-gatherer human biases, like the pantheists, tending to perscribe personalities to things). Also makes an assumption and excludes other hypothesis (such as an infinite universe). In addition the deeper we go into this mystery, the more we may find that even if it was a reasonable question to ask once, it is now an irrelevant question; this goes for all scientific phenomenon. 1: For your argument juxtaposing the pantheists and the theists, your conclusion seems to equate the two saying that the Christians think the only explanation for rationality is a law-giver with a Mind and Personality (I agree with this by the way, but I think you could substantiate it a little more)
Awesome video. Never heard this idea before. Going to use it as a first step for the kids in our parish in teaching them a series in Truth early next year.
Ironic how many people who claim to love science will pass off philosophy as mumbo-jumbo. They fail to realize that science stands on many philosophical and metaphysical premises.
It seems that a lot of atheists and secular people are often slamming on the breaks whenever they approach a logical conclusion. I have occasionally seen atheists and secularists concede an incredible amount and then stop and say "but it does not mean X."
@@marklizama5560 Yes, yes, atheists are the unreasonable ones. This entire video can be summarised as “cause precedes effect, therefore god.” Theists should avoid argument and stick to faith. Do you think Brian has stumbled upon an argument that has eluded such people as Bertrand Russell, Sean Caroll, Dawkins, and Lawrence Krause? I think even serious theologians avoid the level of sophistry present in this video. I thought Christians were supposed to be humble?
@@chriswinchell1570 This video is more than "cause precedes effect, therefore God;" but even on that argument alone, I must ask, if not God than what? What caused the universe?
@@marklizama5560 no, really that’s all here was to this video. Science doesn’t answer why, it answers how and how brings a chain of answers and questions that rely solely upon the logic that cause precedes effect, so he may as well argue that god is required to explain causality. In any case, I will answer you : The inflaton field was in a false vacuum. It tunneled to a lower energy state and the energy released produced all the matter that we see. The uncaused first cause was this quantum field.
@@chriswinchell1570 Yes science doesn't answer "why," but if you step back and take a look at the scientific facts as a whole and exercise your human reason, (going back to what was said above about philosophy) then, assuming you have the correct philosophical view, the conclusion becomes pretty much obvious. In regards to your answer; where did this quantum field come from? What justification do you have for this quantum field not having a cause?
Well yea. Humans literally defined and gave reason to everything that exists. We could have called a bed "lamp" but we chose bed. Math doesn't exist in the natural world.
@@cloud8328 That's stupid. Bed is called that way because its an English word from Proto-Indo-European, which is originally behd (to dig). It's that way because of human experience, perhaps a resting place was dug out of the earth, not because some academic decided to one day just call it bed.
@@Andrew-gn9qp As a linguist, I have to say that your comment is more stupid. What part of human experience nudged the Yamnaya culture to associate one combination of phonemes instead of another? Nothing. It’s random. Your comment makes no sense.
@@cloud8328 so then is the natural world a social construct? Also I didn’t say nothing is a social construct. Obviously humans make up words, a bed could’ve been called a different million things and looked a million different ways. Those are man made things and not everything was man made
It does not follow that for something to be intelligible that it must have been caused by some thinking agent. If a leaf falls from a tree in to a pond there is no intelligent agent at work but we can still find this event to be intelligible.
That is under the assumption that there is no intelligent agent outside of humanity or some kind of physical species. It is also under the assumption that the tree’s and leaf’s natures are separate from an intelligible system that was created and set in motion by an intelligent agent. However, this doesn’t address the main argument that intelligibility/reason cannot come from chaos. There would have to be a refutation of a two headed monster: 1. Chaos is unintelligible and cannot lead to an intelligible event like the leaf falling into a stream. This leads to the conclusion that the world is ordered which presupposes an order, 2. Reason is only possible in an ordered world which presupposes an orderer. If these refutations are not met, then the prospect of a Designer is at least the best explanation.
Except for such an event to be intelligible it must happen in the greater context of God making a discoverable Creation. Die and cards appear random, but an intelligence must designed them to be intelligible. Oh, and all thus presupposes that Truth matters. Why does Truth matter in your worldview?
@@matthewlorang5334 "It is also under the assumption that the tree’s and leaf’s natures are separate from an intelligible system that was created and set in motion by an intelligent agent." Correct, I am not assuming the conclusion of his argument which would make the argument circular.
@@matthewlorang5334 "However, this doesn’t address the main argument that intelligibility/reason cannot come from chaos. " False dichotomy. The options aren't "created by a designer" and "chaos." A physical world acting according to its physical characteristics works just fine. And to be clear I'm not making the claim that I know that there is only the physical world however it is the only thing I can observe.
@Brian Holdsworth, have you done a video defending and emphasizing the importance of philosophy in regards to science? If not, you should make a video on it.
As a career Procurement/Contracts person, who has been on both sides of audits, I can definitively state that enormous resources and time would be invested in investigations should the 2-year-old accountant scenario be encountered. It would just be re-directed from the 2-year-old's actual personal accounting skills, to how the child was put into the role in the first place (the owner being "crazy" is itself NOT the end of the investigation, but the beginning of it), who knew about it and when, why nobody else balked or complained about it, etc., etc... You don't just throw up your hands when you come upon chaos, assuming there is no explanation to the chaos or nothing to learn from it. There's always some tangental learning to be had, even when the situation seems self-explanatory. Honestly, at the beginning of the video, I thought the good-accounting-firm-vs-bad-accounting-firm discussion was headed into some weird discussion on whether religion was orderly versus science being chaotic, but ironically, the description of the 2-year-old throwing crap at the wall and hoping it would stick sounds a lot like religion. But more to the point, your analogy falls completely apart in the first few minutes. To quote a poster over on the TMM channel in response to this video: "A two year old is still an intelligence, yet this is a scenario that leads to chaos. His analogy immediately fails, because intelligence leads to chaos." Seriously.
I like to share my thoughts as I'm watching to limit ad hoc rationalizations. 0:40 - A company bookkeeping analogy - I don't yet know where this is going but I know 1st hand how tough it can be to have a correct zero balance. On the other hand it's very easy to have a neat balance if you are doing bookkeeping for an imaginary company... 1:25 - Naturally the bookkeeping must be done. The receipts are there. There is not nothing. 2:00 - No... Maybe it was just a terrible analogy. If numbers have been added instead of multiplied you will correct the errors and check the balance again. The only reason for auditing is that you assume the possibility of errors. Still not sure where this is going... 2:30 - "clumsy analogy..." - agreed, thank you. 3:00 - Sure. If you can discern nothing from an investigation you assume nothing. The bad bookkeeping did not imply deception or breach of conduct. It may in worst case scenario tell you nothing. 3:30 - Another bad analogy. That would be a fallacy of personal incredulity. 4:00 - Yes. We use inferences. It seems to work. 4:13 - NO! Another bad analogy. A machine is natural. Just like everything else we come across. THAT'S why we can figure out what is wrong if it makes errors. By your reasoning, if a machine is designed to cut circles but cuts squares you say "well, that was random!" and throw it away. Meanwhile rational engineers would figure out WHY it cuts squares. I'm tempted to stop here. This was terrible... 4:19 - No... Just flat out NO! A coinflip is random. That does not mean that statistics is not a real thing. I'm stopping after the next disingenuous misrepresentation. 4:45 - Sure. For some, understanding the world is a way to get closer to their god and its mythological work. 5:00 - Nope. I'm done. Divine inspiration was definitely NOT a necessary driving force. Seasons did not perpetually come as a surprise to every society that did not worship some deity. That is absurd! I really thought I would make it through this one at only 10 minutes. Stopping at the halfway point again...
Here’s a simpler explanation: the scientific method requires that hypotheses are based on order. That is, the examination, observations, and tests to prove or disprove an hypothesis requires structure in order to make any sense.Order requires intelligence. Science cannot exist without assuming the universe is intelligently designed. QED
Yes the status-quo wants to force our children to learn it the other way around and that there is no Supreme Being or Creator, and that it all happened by random chance... Yet, if we try to talk about God in the classroom they claim we are trying to indoctrinate, yet those bigots are already guilty of their own same inquiry. Talk about double standards! I've always been superb with mathematics and the sciences, and the more I dive deeper into Physics and Chemistry weeding out all of the hogwash and half truths, the more I see nothing but Intelligent Design! I tend to think that the Cosmos as a whole or a single entity where each galaxy is like unto an organ where each star system is like unto a cell or DNA and that the Universe or Cosmos as a whole is like unto God's brain... The Universe is Consciousness, and Consciousness comes from Spirit!
I don’t understand a wholly empirical worldview that denies any non material basis for rational thought. The scientific method is treated as the standard of proving the truth of a hypothesis but itself cannot prove the validity of the scientific method as being a method its by definition non material and rationally derived. I find once you can show people this fact that “if something which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence itself a baseless claim” its opens their eyes to a chain of Thomistic logic which leads to God.
This is moronic, and barely English. The scientific method doesn’t generate truth claims. The scientific method refines models that comport with reality, utilizing all available data. The assumptions that science makes have to be used to criticize the assumptions science makes.
@@gradystein5765 Thank you so you agree that it cannot be used to make any truth claims just probability assumptions based on tangible observation and cannot be used to asses any immaterial hypothesis. “Proof is for alcohol and maths not science”
@@padriagpearse1010 No one has ever demonstrated that anything immaterial exists. Why should it matter if science concerns itself with magic and other fairytales? What’s your reasoning for believing anything immaterial is real? “Probability assumptions”? That’s not even a phrase, why are you trying to sound smart?
So you have evidence of something non materialistic? Non materialism isnt denied, it just isnt shown to exist and so is treated as non existing until such time as someone shows it does. You claim it to be a fact that something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence is a baseless claim, care to show how this is a fact? Do you have a single example of something that can be asserted without evidence that cant be dismissed without evidence?
Not how that works.. in fact, the term omniscience has far remained an outlier to protestant proclamations with regard to the character of god in the new age as it is self contradictory. The current rhetoric relays claims of "maximally knowing" deities, instead
@@NathanAMeyers No, it really isn't. "Maximally knowing" is restricted to a small number of theistic personalist theologians, while omniscience is how The Church from its founding, and all the Protestant splinters up until very recently, understood God.
Logic is the strongest driver of my belief in God. When you look at the sky, listen to music, think of love, or contemplate the complexity of mankind, it's clear that these things must have been designed. To say that everything in the universe is some act of randomness defies all logical cohesion. Even that idea is self defeating because the very argument that the universe randomly came from nothing must also be an act of randomness. Worst yet, if you still cling to that self defeating argument, you must acknowledge that no life has meaning including your own. To the nihilist, we're all just conglomerations of goo interacting by chance with other blobs of goo.
@John Coffey The nihilism probably isnt the worst part yet. The worst part will be the departure from nihilism back to purpose and spirituality. This has led to all kind of strange spiritual adultery and witchcraft practices. Fake Christianity is the worst possible outcome.
We don’t know what caused the universe or even if it had a cause. Maybe it has always existed. The big bang is the begging of the universe as we know it, but it is possible that there was something before the big bang. It is possible that God created the Universe, but it is also possible he didn’t, we simplify don’t know, but just because we don’t know something that doesn’t mean we assume other stuff to be true. I know the idea of the universe coming from nothing or it having always existed sounds weird, but the same can apply to God. Either je always existed, or simply came out of nothing, or he was created by another God.
@@juanandrealvarezmeza6179 I agree. To me god hypothesis seems unlikely not completely excluded though. Life from nothing is not logical imo. An universe is a state where nothing exists cannot lead to anything it would be complete nothingness “forever”, well actually time would exist so “forever” is not correctly said. The it would mean it was always in a state where something existed including time. A moment t zero is also acceptable like the BigBang could be but a t’ before t0 doesn’t exist with this assumption. Just like a film roll as a spacetime block it has a beginning and end but before it there’s no tape. It doesn’t mean the tape film came from nothing.
That’s not profound, it’s equivocation. You only think it sounds profound because it triggers you to shut down part of your brain. That’s the part that does the understanding. When you turn that off, literally anything can feel profound.
You can make a good case for deism. The problem is trying to connect this with stories written long ago. Which stories are true? What is the origins etc?
Not even a good case for Deism. He's accepting an unfalsifiable proposition from the outset complete with confirmation bias and running with it. In order to make a plausible case for Deism one must base his evidence on probabilities. Unfortunately for him, he cannot do that within the confines of an unfalsifiable theory (proposition). Sorry. It's a doomed deistic argument as well.
@@coffeetalk924 thanks for the reply. I would say the channel is the definition of confirmation bias. All these channels are. If there is a suprem being it/he/they don't have anything to do with the sinister celibate men in the Vatican. I dont believe there is. Of course one of the problems 🙄 with the supernatural is that when you understand it it's no longer supernatural. Someone once used the argument in terms of ghosts 👻 "....if it was possible to talk to someone from the far future they might helpfully explain that a minority of people who said they saw ghosts had looked through a kind of wormhole into the past. Something rare but no more "supernatural" then thunder....".
@@stephensinclair3771 yes indeed. "Supernatural" is just a placeholder for that which is not yet understood. A "miracle" is just a label for a suspension of the natural order. Since we know so very little about the operations of laws within the universe, we shouldn't make hasty judgements and resort to "God of the gaps" explanations which have a bad history to begin with. The ghost analogy was a nice touch. "Supernatural" explanations are indistinguishable from gaps in our understanding. I'll go with the gaps 7 days a week given sciences history of eventually explaining things.
@@coffeetalk924 I think the guy on this channel is probably clever enough to understand this. I have often wondered what the "real" thinking was/is here. Personally aside from the usual things I think...1. So called faith is being offered to imagined or suspected hidden powers as a kind of votive offering. Accept me and I will try and believe this set of ridiculous things. 2. The fear understanding things reduces the value and satisfaction in knowing them. I remember reading about convergence and adaptive radiation in evolution. Not particularly clever man but I DID understand it. Wings are a good example of convergence, cats a good example of adaptive radiation. I think that's a lot more fulfilling than mystical nonsense about Trinity's and neoplatonist magic.
@@BrianHoldsworth I meant the generic you not You. Get over yourself, was talking about the base theory. Anyway, enjoy your beliefs, they are stronger than facts.
@@BrianHoldsworth Since you have, at least, engaged with a dissenting voice here - albeit one that is somewhat low-hanging - I am going to re-post a comment I have made elsewhere, in the hope that you will think about it: This is one of the worst analogies I have ever come across and I have come across rather a lot. I hope you have seen TMM's response. How many more times are your ludicrous points going to be refuted before you begin to acknowledge that you are barking up the wrong tree? One of the most striking errors here is your assertion that if the universe is not "designed by an intelligence" then it is not intelligible". You are saying, therefore, that because we can understand the universe (up to a point) it must have been designed by an intelligence. This misunderstands the idea of intelligibility. You are putting the cart before the horse. If something is intelligible, it is because we human beings have brought our intelligence to bear on a DESCRIPTION which renders it intelligible TO US. It has become "intelligible" BECAUSE we have a certain kind of intelligence. Our primitive ancestors - such as those who wrote your religious books - did not have as much information as we have. Their efforts to render the universe intelligible resulted in a quite different description, one which involved magic. Sadly, you, and people like you, wish to cling to the intelligence of our ancestors. I have responded to you a few times now and I have to say that I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that you are not entirely honest. Atheists are engaging with you left, right and centre, but I have yet to see you deal with an individual or with the arguments put forward generally (in the form of a video response) and this gives me cause to doubt your sincerity. I have a suggestion for you: Contact TMM and speak with him on video or make a point-by-point response explaining where he is wrong.
You should’ve blown people’s minds by pointing out that Catholics were crucial to the development of the scientific method. If there is a bumper sticker that says “I love Catholic scientists”, I want it.
@@midlander4 Those Muslim scientists didn’t share their contributions to the scientific method nearly as widely as Catholic scientists did. Most of their contributions became broadly known centuries afterward. They could’ve been the ones to establish the scientific method, but they weren’t the ones. Also, “crappiness” is in the eye of the beholder.
@Auf TH-cam nicht an Politik interessiert I’m not talking about whether scientists care to know who developed the scientific method. This channel is a virtual place of interest to Catholics and people of like mind - I’m not trying to teach history to uninterested scientists.
Yes, I also have got a strong conviction in my mind that this universe is a mindful creation. I would like to share with you an idea that is my personal feeling about God, spiritualism, religion & science. I may sound wrong to the rest of the world but I don't mind. And my conviction is so strong that I don't even want to take part in any debate to prove myself right because to me, my truths are right and I believe in my truths. People usually try to describe science and the existence & presence of God as contradictory or conflicting truths or ideas and express their suspicion on the existence of God. I don't know about their idea of God but to me, I think I never had a question on God's existence but His existence in me or with me ... Moreover, I never felt Science and the presence of God as contradictory ideas or conflicting truths rather I've always felt science as a more concrete means than religion or spiritualism to establish the grand Truths of the God, the Great Unknown and Unknowable to a great extent. I believe in the laws of nature & the mathematics of the Universe as an outcome of the.greatest mindful creation. To me, our universe is not at all a mindless & lifeless entity. It's very much alive and awakened in its own state of consciousness. The scientists only try to know about, understand, comprehend, interpret and recalculate things which have already been done earlier. They can't do anything to change or modify the laws of nature or the mathematics of the universe that is responsible for the sustenance of the universe for billions of years. The universe existed before man was born and his science began its journey. The laws were present and also the magic of mathematics was there to maintain its existence. The universe is a great mathematical creation. To me God is the greatest scientist and mathematician and when I watch the sunset, I also feel Him the greatest artist. I may sound very odd, weird and what else I don't know but I really feel that the journey of 'Science' being one of the greatest conquests of human intelligence for revealing the truths, beauty and the hidden magical mysteries of nature or the physical universe/the great cosmos or the grand creation is the most concrete evidence in support of the existence of God, One who possesses that superior intelligence that makes the laws of nature, surpasses the limits of human intelligence that only discovers & interprets them. I bow down to the Creation & the Creator and all the great scientists of the world who have always inspired me to feel the infinite grandeur of this great creation in my limits ...They have also awakened in me the quest for the truth in whatever possible way by continuously improving my level of understanding the reality and that's a great journey for any beautiful human mind/life in this wonderful world. Thank you. By the way, do you have any idea of Hinduism, Vedic Cosmology etc. ?! 🤔😶Bye. 🌈😇🙏🏻🙋🏻♀️
I'm sure some would say that the fact that the universe is governed by predictable, mechanical laws proves that it is a vast unconscious and homeless clockwork. That's sounds kinda' boring to be honest. Whether or not God exists we are bound to believe in him in order not to fall into nihilistic despair. There is no evidence that any irreligious society has survived for a long time here on earth, so modern civilization doesn't exactly have favorable odds. We must acknowledge that there is a meaningful hierarchy and order to the cosmos in which we play a fundamental part. The natural 'laws' then, are not as much blind laws as conditioned habits upheld by the will of God.
Because science only deals with investigating the natural world it makes no pronouncements on the supernatural word and trying to associate science with God claims is a dishonest fallacy.
You just don't seem to understand the argument that science presupposes aspects of reality that would not fit with the philosophical materialism that most scientists or secularist prescribe to. It's really not complicated, I wonder if you even bothered to listen to this before commenting.
@@gy5240 No its not complicated, at the end of the day there is the reality of the world we live in thats is evidential, then there is a proposition that there is another world that is not supported with evidence.
@@jim2003sound Mathematically speaking with concepts such as Infinity, Infinite Series, Infinite Sums, Irrational numbers, which are completely Immeasurable perfectly describe that which is Spirit and Eternal! They go hand in hand, because Mathematics is just One of the many Languages of our Creator! Spirit is beyond Space, Energy, Matter, Motion, and Time! This is because everything that is Physical, quantitative and measurable originally came from Spirit! When God said let there be Light, and Light came into existence that's when the Physical World was created and temporal time began. His voice which is Sound which is Energy is the foundation in which that all Matter exists. Even Einstein got this right: E = mC^2. Energy and matter are basically one and the same, just different perspectives or properties through observation of a given system within a given environment. From Sound comes Light and from both Sound and Light comes space, matter, energy, motion and time. Our creator is not only a great speaker and inventor, but he is also the best mathematician, physitist, chemist, sculpture, biologist, carpenter, and engineer! These are all supported by the Living Word of God: Genesis Chapter 1, Ecclesiastes Chapter 1, and John Chapter 1.
@@skilz8098 It does seem as if using science the very thing that doesn't accept magic is now going to prove magic exists. This is a question of if we cant beat science lets see if we can use it to support our magical claims, sorry that doesn't work because the reality of how nature works is impervious to unsupported and long debunked claims of the supernatural all of which you have stated. There is a very good reason that scientists in general tend to be dismissive of the supernatural mainly because the work they do iis evidence based. Science operates in an evidential environment and in that space there is no room for Gods. The christian God you cite is a ugly immoral character according to the bible and why you should want to worship it beggars belief.
@@imaginaryfriend3827 I understand that. The problem is my fellow scientists don't understand the assumptions that science makes. It is even more frustrating as we are statisticians, stats being the heart of science, we should understand this more so.
@@killianmiller6107 what made it science was observation, measurement, and analysis, also known as statistics. Natural Law is still around and is the basis for science philosophically.
Well, there is verifiable scientific evidence that consciousness (the soul) survives death. Even Dr Sam Parnia (non-religious associate professor of medicine) who is renowned for bringing people back after brain death affirms this fact - check out his interviews on TH-cam. Not to mention Fr Robert Spitzer's wonderful talks on near death experiences!
Maybe the title is a bit confusing. It's not science that proves God exists. It is because God exists that science can work. If there is no God, science can only say something about the natural world which could change at any moment. The fact that atheist believe that change does not occur (in the short term) is because they have FAITH in science. So Atheist are also religious.
We hope that the universe is consistent, and we act as it is consistent because that’s the only thing we can do, but we can’t really say with complete certainty that the universe will always remain consistent.
@@juanandrealvarezmeza6179 would you mind offering some examples of consistency in the universe? Are you speaking in broad terms. Perhaps the four fundamental forces? The constants? I like to know what you mean here. Thanks
Love this topic! I tend to use physics as the diving board Physics: "let's throw math a the universe until we figure out which equations govern it" This presupposes a universe that's governed by math equations The follow-up question Brian asks is: what must we also presuppose to account for a universe governed by these laws? (this is very ambitious!) I tend to ask a different follow-up question which is less ambitious but gets to a similar place... math isn't the only language we "throw at the universe" to make sense of it, so what other language games (aside from math) can we use to come up with principles of how the universe behaves? How about ethical language? Aesthetics & beauty? Love and relationships? So... you go through the whole gambit of human experience and realize there are truths to be discovered using all these different languages, not just math. So it seems to me that reality isn't just physical, but also beautiful and relational and moral... like a person.
His arguments are doomed from the outset because he's advancing an unfalsifiable proposition from which only confirmation bias follows. The concept if "truth" is based on probabilities; probabilities are based on falsifiability. No falsifiability/no truth coherency. Period. All the physics in the universe wont get you to probabilities. Period.
@@coffeetalk924 Are you saying that, Truth is based on probabilities Physics does not get you to probabilities Therefore truth is not based on physics? Or that physics does not get you to truth? I've never heard this line of reasoning before
@@stephenolis5753 Lol Really? Many theories and models from physics are probabalistic. Particularly emphasis is laid upon statistical physics and quantum mechanics. What kind of physics books do you read? Quantum observations of phenomena who's behavior is predicted by probability is common. Perhaps you want to talk to me about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Let's talk. You want to suggest that probabilities have nothing to do with physics? You're simply wrong.
@@stephenolis5753 they absolutely have to do with Relativity, and the macro world is where we utilize human labels like "truth". The God hypothesis is an unfalsifiable theory. And for that reason its impotent and has no purchase on truth. Nor can it ever.
I’m not sure what kind of god I believe in, or if I really believe in the Bible, but I do think something greater created us, a greatness that we can’t wrap our heads around. It created science and evolution and psychology and everything we’ve ever know. It’s created this perfect environment and universe that is so precise it is unbelievable. Whatever it is, it is something we can’t comprehend. That is what I think.
@@theapexfighter8741 I'm finishing my undergraduate studies currently, but I've been drawn to Number Theory and have been working on a lot of math on my own! :D
Every civilization on earth understood the universe was intelligible, the difference was that they most of the time put that natural order over themselves and their will, while the monotheist civilizations believed they were given right and power over that same nature.
I have to respectfully object to this argument. It rests precariously on the assumption that there cannot be natural causes behind observable phenomena. Why should anyone think this is the case? In reality, science tends to presuppose that everything has a natural cause, not the other way around. Naturalism is the key that unlocked so many discoveries. Science began in spite of Christianity (enforced by a tyrannical monarchy), not because of it. Having objects stay the same color from one day to the next does not require divine intervention. I welcome logical arguments for God's existence, but the logic in this one has glaring problems.
No. Our observing them doesn't make them what they are. Reality exists and is intelligible whether we're here to detect it or not. This is a fundamental axiom of science.
@@BrianHoldsworth I get your idea, but my point is other. Our observation doesn't make reality; it is our observation and study that makes the world intelligible. After all it is an subjective adjective: it is *to us* intelligible. You mention how the Romans perceived the world and the elements as chaos: unintelligible. Thus, it is our disposition to the world that defines its intelligibility.
@@johnbirdwatch Intelligibility or rational order is a property that is already inherent in the observable universe. Our observing it doesn't give it that property. It's already intelligible which is to say that our intelligence can appreciate it and be applied to it in a way that it could not to something that was chaotic. I didn't say Romans perceived it as chaotic, but others did. That doesn't mean it isn't intelligible, just that they were wrong.
@@BrianHoldsworth I have mainly two problems with those statements. First is making intelligibility a inherent property of the world, on which I have my doubts. But let's assume it is. Then my second problem would be assuming that a irrational, unintelligible world could, in fact, exist. You make the point of an object being one way, and the next day another, such that it is pure chaos, and therefore pointless to reason about. But to assume it *could* exist brings us to a problem similar to the Paradox of Ommipotence (can nature hold such a random entity that it defies nature?). Then, an unreasonable entity is unreasonable to exist to begin with.
@@BrianHoldsworth Actually that is not entirely true, the observer always put a part of himself in the observed phenomenon, this is studied in psychology (which is a science) and philosophy. Also recent studies in quantum mechanics reveal that the act of observing does alter the matter observed on a subatomic scale.
Small correction Mr. Holdsworth. Islam teaches that Allah did not promise an intelligible universe. There was an Arabic philosopher in the middle ages who went mad trying to comprehend this paradox.
I believe you are speaking of al Ghazali. After this brief foray into reason Islam soon rejected reason and fell to the belief that Allah is pure will and is absolutely arbitrary. I believe the genesis of this position was to better align with the inconsistencies and contradictions found in the Koran and other holy Islamic writing. If Allah is reduced to pure will, then these contradictions are easily explained. This also explains the dearth of science in the Muslim world and the lack of Philosophy being taught at universities in Muslim majority countries.
Brian's argument is just a thinly veiled god of the gaps argument. Sometimes the answer to a difficult question is "We don't know yet." We don't know if the universe was designed by an intelligence. And it's okay to say that. Science is our best tool for separating bad explanations from good ones. The analogy to accounting is not, to my mind, all that useful.
Well it cant be determined whether it has been designed by "God" because the God hypothesis is an unfalsifiable proposition from which only confirmation bias follows. The label of "truth" is based on probabilities; probabilities are based on falsifiability (not unfalsifiability). Thus it will forever be impossible to determin probabilities either for or against a God designer. Even if "I am God. I am here" was written on the moon or a distant object. We couldnt be certain whether it was an advanced alien race. If we could rule that out, there would always be another possibility. Designers of a simulation being another one.
@@gy5240 We describe the process in which A is produced. We don’t assume that this chemical process always produces A unless that’s what we observe and we don't assume that A can't be produced by a different process.
As Alfred North Whitehead (an Atheist) pointed out in 1925, actual science arose in Western Civilization, and really no where else, only because of Christian, especially Catholic theology.
Democracy rose from Tyranny so what's your point? Because science rose up out of Christian Europe doesnt mean that Christianity is good. Much of science has its roots in Aristotle, Euclid, and Archimedes who were all polytheists (believers in multiple gods). Moreover, its difficult to say whether some of the early enlightenment scientists were atheists or not given that to confess such a thing would mean certain death! Stop patting Christianity on the back! Its built on an unfalsifiable proposition which isnt a testament of the propositions strength, but of its weakness. And science today knows it.
When Greek writings became available, first through liberated-from-the-Moors Spain, and then through Byzantium itself when Greek scholars saw the Islamic conquest on the wall in the 1400s Western scholars raced to read, copy, and commentate on these texts via the Church-founded University system. However, very little of the Greek texts had very little substantive technical or natural science subject matter (see below) so the idea rediscovered Greek texts rebirthed "SCIENCE" is another myth. Essentially, the foundation of the Scientific Revolution occurred much earlier and apart from Greek texts; in the 12th Century, in the immediate predecessor to the Universities, the Cathedral Schools, especially Chartes, circa 1230-1270.
Catholic theology directly opposed the Hellenic ideal that honest productive work was somehow "lower" and more "debased" than being a land-owning aristo, who may have lifted a sword in war or a stylus in composition, but never a shovel or hammer. While the warrior-aristocrat ideal existed into the 20th Century, the fact Jesus was a carpenter, Peter a fisherman, and Paul a tent-maker (and none a slave-owner) meant that manual labor and craftsmanship was not demeaning. In fact, such things could be indicators of character, rather than its lack. Even a Duke, at least on his better days, could admit his lowliest land-bound serf might be a better Christian than the Duke could ever hope to be. Largely from the Rule of Benedict, the Church supported monks in hands-on work and innovation.
The University as we know it developed out of those so-called Dark Ages from the monastic and cathedral schools founded in the 600s. The University schools were open to all classes who could pay or receive scholarship, and we're organized into a charter guild form: Bologna (1088), Paris (1150, later associated with the Sorbonne), Oxford (1167), Modena (1175), Palencia (1208), Cambridge (1209), Salamanca (1218), Montpellier (1220), Padua (1222), Naples Federico II (1224), Toulouse (1229). University curriculum was structured on the Trivium: Grammar (how to read and write), Rhetoric ( how to speak persuasively), and Dialectic (or Logic, how to think). Once that was mastered, a student could go on to the Quadrivium: Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy. The Scholastic Method, as developed within the monastic, cathedral, and University schools, was a rigorous methodology (hence the grounding in the Trivium) to examine ANY issue, and not just theological ones as Voltaire and company charged (maybe 10% of University students took Theology; by far the most studied topic was Law). The Scholastics took the the principles of logical analysis and debate inherited from the Greeks and Romans and significantly improved them. The process of analysis, open debate, and sometimes brutal peer-review, not just within one's own school, but eventually across dozens of European University (Latin was the language of international communication-- so even in the 17th Century, Isaac Newton still first published in this "dead" language).
I'm an atheist and am subscribed. These videos don't do anything for I enjoy reading the comments to attempt to understand why this video and this line of reasoning appeals to individuals.
Atheists who try to be open minded to the other point of view are the exception. From what I’ve seen, most of them operate with a sort of anger and condescension
Given an interaction of some X and some Y even as X and Y may be identical, we observe a consistent result. It is in the observed consistency that the idea of intelligibility emerges. Further, given our observation of intelligence being developmental, it does not follow that intelligence is foundational.
You deserve those "miracles". The 35,000 children under the age of 5 who die everyday on this planet from preventable diseases and starvation. Well....they obviously dont deserve the same luxury you enjoy. Lol WOW...the self centered on and ignorance of religious people. ..
@@coffeetalk924 i think of those people and pray for them .. why do you assume I am not concerned for every human being ? You know what happens when you Assume.
@@familylifetoo9541 you're missing the point I was making. Yes you pray for them. I too use to pray for them. So what? They still go through misery and they still die (35,000 a day). But you somehow think that "God" will guide your surgeons hands, or send a guardian angel or a miracle to make sure your surgery goes well. I know your type. I use to believe the same silly things. "Please pray for me as I travel from California to New York." And if I make it there safe and sound....well, God must have had a hand in it. Thank you God. That's nonsense. Its called confirmation bias. Meanwhile, while I was on the trip some 100,000 children died of preventable diseases and starvation. Doesnt that send up red flags to you?
I wish you could do a video on healthcare in Canada vs the U.S., I know it's off topic but we'd love to get the truth about a very important issue. I'm all for national healthcare but all we get is opinion from either side. I've learned a lot from your videos. Thank you
1. The title i misleading. Science conceded nothing. It is only the erroneous opinion of the author that science should conceed that God exists. 2. It would be interesting to know how this "external intelligence" created and continues to influence, the world; using a magic wand, pulling from the hat, using a crystal ball, electromagnetic waves, or pushing with a stick...Or its just an idea that "transubstantiate" in some magic way, and becomes matter.
I can see the logic of the argument but clearly brilliant scientists like Richard dawkins would not agree. And I don’t think Stephen Hawkins was a believe , although not necessarily an atheist? These great minds men aren’t simply turning a blind eye they’ve written books addressing this very issue. I’m not clever enough on scientific matters to address it but there are certainly arguments against the necessity for an intelligent designer except the big question of how can anything just exist , to which the counter argument is how can god just exist.
O dear. Science concedes no such thing. In fact, it’s ontologically thin, and can manage without conceding the existence of even material substances. Also, science finds no evidence of consciousness, which does in fact exist. So maybe it’s not great on existential questions.
You assume too much. Even if intelligent design were a high probability the "God" hypothesis would just be one of many possibilities. Simulation is another. Aliens are yet another. And there are more. In fact, if ID were ever proven, it would favor one of the other options because 1.) The God hypothesis is based on an unfalsifiable theory which is extremely problematic, and 2.) Your Christian God requires "faith" as a sign of loyalty and faith would be destroyed if evidence could prove the existence of "God". Its unfortunate for theists that truth is based on probabilities and probabilities are based on falsifiability. They can never enjoy that luxury because they advance unfalsifiability. Reduced to blind faith. And faith has never been a reliable pathway to truth.
Another cringe theist video, with that glossed-over look in the eyes trying to hold onto some belief. This dude doesn't understand how human imagination and inquiry works. There may be a "why" (cause)of things happen, but there doesn't need to be an intent for everything.
As an ASQ certified auditor, who audits business policy, ISO procedure compliance, ISO compliance and manufacturers adherence to standards I can tell you that you have no idea how an audit works. Your argument may sound intelligent to someone who has no clue how an audit works, but falls on its face when juxtaposed with basic auditing standards.
Title: "Science Concedes: God Exists!" Content: With no support from the scientific community, and no appeals to anything scientific, I'm going to blindly assert that intelligibility requires some transcendent intelligence, and then make the huge leap that the blindly asserted necessary transcendental intelligence is in fact God with no further justification. Reality: Science presupposes an intelligible universe with no assertion of an intelligent creator. Lucky for Brian, false advertising laws don't apply to TH-cam video titles.
or perhaps .....How DOES a person manage to write something but can't seem to get 1 simple word spelled correctly How DOES that happen , i wonder ? and not only once but repeatedly and only that 1 word is that chance, or.... something else
Wow! This is the best clear and succinct explanation of the ancient words that the apostle Paul wrote in his letter to Romans: "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
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. ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIMED TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles" -MEANING THEY WORSHIPPED THE CREATURE (THE UNIVERSE) AND NOT THE CREATOR. Mr. Brian, my respects.
I can assume an uncreated god that makes life possible. I can assume life as uncreated. what’s the difference? None except the first assumes a much complex entity existing without explanation. But I can also assume the simplest possible molecular machine assembled itself by chance in this almost infinitely large universe then the machine that was fit was able to survive then sligthly modified versions did it better and so on, there was an evolution The last option seems much more reasonable to me than to have something extremely complex by “default”
"simplest possible molecular machine" An interesting hypothesis... Of what might such a machine be comprised? If any component were complex, such as protein or polynucleotide, how was such a thing assembled? If all components were simple, such as single amino acids, how would any function of the machine occur and be replicated with variation?
Oh geez. What a horrible argument. You actually just straw-manned the whole universe. The universe still has a natural order. Your claim that some designer is required for that is just an emotion-driven assertion from you. Very dishonest. But that's what apologetics is.
Your post screams you have no original though! Only fear and intimidation of one who would burry you in reasonable thought you would not even begin to be able to rebutt.
Your video title states that science proves gods existence. I find it interesting that you offered no actual proof of that though. You basically spent 10 minutes spouting off your personal opinion while offering nothing to back it up. I’m willing to bet that you think your ability to use certain words that not everyone will understand makes you appear smarter. And that by default other will think that. It does not however. It makes you seem like your trying to fool your followers into believing your are more intelligent than you actually are. Again though if you could offer any real proof of god beyond your assumption that intelligent life requires intelligent design I’d be all for it.
Agreed. One word I didnt hear him use is unfalsifiability. He'll get nowhere until he tackles that one and beats it. He's trying so hard to demonstrate probability and it's quite frankly impotent because probabilities mean nothing without falsifiability.
Brilliant idea, brilliantly explained! Thank you. To reason and intelligence, I want to add 'the beauty of beauty'. When man designs intelligently and efficiently, the result is often sooo ugly and cold: a factory, cities, the inside of a computer, even most architecture. In nature, logic, efficiency and usefulness ... is always combined with so much care, beauty, even playful details. Look at flowers, a sunrise or sunset, a tree, a forest, a cristal, a deer, a galaxy. At every size or scale of analysis. Never kitschy, always useful and beautiful at the same time. To me: without doubt the language of a very, very intelligent and very, very loving personal being.
I liked this video. But science does not concede that God exists. It is merely a method of inquiry. Now, we may not have a rational or philosophical justification for why science works. But that doesn't then mean that science requires this justification. Arguing to God from nature or science doesn't really work. Science without God may be harder to ground in epistemological terms but it certainly doesn't follow that "since science then a personal and triune God must exist."
He didn't actually claim it proved a _personal and Triune_ God. Science relies upon the assumption that the Universe is ordered, which ultimately goes back to there being somewhere that order comes from. Now, since it also assumes the Universe is comprehensible to reason it would also show that whatever is the source of that order is also rational, and thus in some sense analogous to a mind. But by itself the argument only goes that far. To establish what this God is _like_ would require a different argument, which would be given elsewhere.
He isn't saying they are using science to argue for or against God's existence. He is saying they must necessarily and implicitly assume it, just as they assume that math exists, and that nature can be perceived and measured.
Who to say God would want to proved by science? The next question would be. If God is proved by science what does that say about God? To to any true believer the fact that science can prove God shouldn't matter to them. if you need science to to prove there's a God then are you a true believer in the in the first place? If human reason can be applied to God what would that mean? And if you're a applying human reason to God is to try understanding God (that's the only logical reason somebody would be doing this) and the reason I say this is to my understanding the human mind is not capable of understanding God completely. So would not be that applying human reasoning and reasoning to God be a waste of time?
God blessed Brian with this. side note: doesn't a loving father see God at work in his little child, no matter what he's doing? another side note: doesn't "when did purple stop smelling like thunder" have poetic merit? ❤️❤️❤️✝️✝️✝️🌅
The Logos fills up everything, science is only supposed to learn about the different aspects of the Logos embeded in our realm. The Logos makes random and chaotic things cohesive into inteligeble and reasonable things. If we didn't perceive that cohesion we wouldn't be able to study anything at all. The beginning of St. John's gospel you are able to see how is it that the LOGOS (Word-wisdom-inteligence of God who is God) came to bring about order and meaning into a chaotic, meaningless and darkened reallity.
@@juanandrealvarezmeza6179 If you read the Bible and even in modern languages. A day can mean different time frames. Like saying back in the day might mean when we were kids decades ago. People do it all the time. And in fact in the beginning there was no such thing as a Day as we think of it. The Bible used the word day as a metaphor for time
@@juanandrealvarezmeza6179 Science used to preach the Universe had no creation. That it was always here. Then the Big Bang theory changed that didn’t it. Just one example where science is just now catching up to what the Bible was telling thousands of years ago.
@@terrywbreedlove you're talking about the steady state theory (the universe is eternally steady). So you're correct about that bit... but where you've actually embarrassed yourself without knowing it is when you suggested that science believes it was created by sentience. That's horribly incorrect. Science doesnt pretend to know what it cannot know. It certainly can't and shouldn't entertain an unfalsifiable proposition from which only confirmation bias follows. You dont understand basic principles of science.
@@coffeetalk924 Child Scientist across the world absolutely believe the Universe had a date of creation now. In your desperation to deny this simple truth you make a fool of yourself.
Misleading title. You're confusing philosophy with science. Your argument sums up to "I see order that I can't explain otherwise, therefore God". Science is a process of rigorous study and experimentation. For there to be scientific evidence of God, there would have to be some kind of experiment that you can do that demonstrates that he is not a figment of your imagination.
You completely misunderstood the framing of the argument. Science automatically assumes the preexistence of an intelligible rational order that the scientific method is designed to discover bit by bit. They are not trying to find evidence of God's existence. God's existence is a necessary assumption to make scientific inquiry rational in the first place. Similar to fundamental axioms in mathematics. Science also assumes math to provide reliable predictive analysis, does it not? Science also doesn't look for evidence to prove that math exists. It must necessarily exist in order for science to exist.
@@thereaction18 Science doesn't make assumptions. It is a process that starts with an observation, followed by a hypothesis to explain that observation, which is experimentally tested for results to confirm or rule out the hypothesis. If results cannot be attained, then there is no science. If they can, then the hypothesis becomes theory.
@@imaginaryfriend3827 Science assumes the speed of light is constant. Science assumes the fundamental axioms of mathematics. They can't make comparisons or predictions without math, can they? I'm sure there are other things that science assumes. Your head is entirely up your own ass, making such a blind and pointless claim.
@@thereaction18 the assumption that a god is a necessity is dependent on the unstated assumption that atoms will always behave like atoms at all times.
The order we see is not caused and maintained by a god. It is a result of the 100% concurrence of identity and existence. To exist is to be something specific, with a specific nature. Things act in certain ways and only in those ways which are determined by their nature, by the type of thing that they are. A disorderly universe is impossible because contradictions can't exist. The notion that we can't do science without the existence of a god is absurd. If knowledge, then concepts. If concepts, then the objective theory of concepts. If the objective theory of concepts, then the objective understanding of metaphysics. If the objective understanding of metaphysics, then the primacy of existence. If the primacy of existence, then not-god.
False analogy. 1) The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. 2) Nothing is truly random in the universe due to selective processes that demand order, which is caused by, among many things, but mainly, gravity for stars/planets/atmosphere. This entire argument is fallacious.
Yes, the universe is under no obligation to make sense, but studying it proves that it does make sense and, as you have just said, there is nothing truly random in it, it is perfectly orderly and rational; therefore, there must be a Reason or Intellect behind it.
@@marklizama5560 Again. I've already refuted that. Reread what I said. You can't answer my refutation with an argument I refuted in my refutation. Doesn't work like that.
@@verzen You cannot deny the logical outcome of the evidence. The universe is rational and intelligible and thus points to a Reason or Intelligence behind it; to deny otherwise would be bias and/or irrational.
@@marklizama5560 The evidence does not support religion or a God. Sorry. You are falling victim to a classic logical fallacy. You are assuming the conclusion then finding reasons to believe it. Which, fyi, this by definition means you are the one being irrational.
@@verzen No you're the one being bias here, you're making philosophical assumptions that deny the evidence to show what it does to those who do not hold the said philosophy you and other atheists knowingly or unknowingly hold. You're the one who is knowingly or unknowingly assuming the conclusion my friend.
"if the universe is not designed by an intelligence then it follows that it would not be intelligible"
That's a garbage assertion.
The problem with using gods as an explanation is this
gods can be defined to be anything , to be everything, to solve anything , to solve everything...
This renders them useless as an explanation for anything.
My personal opinion is that
There are no real gods
There are only people, that believe gods are real.
You should give this video another go! Brian does a good job of touching on that. He acknowledges that there must be a source of reason for a reasonable universe, a universe that can be observed, and its phenomenon explained by means of reason. Reason can not come from chaos but is in fact contrary to chaos. Therefore for our world to be reasonable, understandable, Its source has to have come from an entity with reason -- namely, God. This is different from personifying the patterns of weather, the sun, the moon, or any old thing as a god just because they seem to exhibit emotional mood-swings and posses powers, which Brian also addresses. It's all here in his video Mick Q. Hope that helps you understand his point a little better.
@@i3rendonf
It does not really help
Your just defining a god in an ad hoc fashion to solve a perceived problem.
This is the problem, a god can be defined in any way to solve anything ,
A god can be anything you need it to be , to solve any problem you need solved.
A god is a panacea ,
It has no explanatory power
If I asked you
“ where did matter and energy come from “
You’d likely say “ a god”
Which is an answer , but not an explanation
If I asked you to explain how god created matter and energy ... you would say ?
Is the universe reasonable , we can make sense of it in a way, we can see patterns that make sense to us .. but I’d say there is more that is not understood than is.
The universe is not in chaos ,
The laws of physics create pockets of order, albeit temporary.
If God is real, he needs no explanation. However, he has chosen to perfectly define and explain himself to us through the biblical accounts. As such, it’s completely up to you to accept or reject this.
@@crbrown743
First
Who said god does not need to be explained ?
How do you know that the people that wrote the bible are defining a god correctly
Are you saying
A god is , whatever Bronze Age goat herders from the Sinai peninsula defined a god to be
@@mickqQ How do you know they weren't defining him correctly? And is there something wrong with people from the Bronze Age that somehow invalidates their testimonies?
I believe in God (although being of a different faith), but also I believe in the scientific method. I always tell people that for me learning about how amazing the universe is allows me to realize the perfection and absolute balance of chaos and order that God put in when manifesting himself in and as the universe. I always thought that science is our practical way of understanding God’s creation. Of understanding God’s systems of logical governance through languages like math or chemistry or physics that we can more easily comprehend. I think this was a rather unbiased and very genuine effort to reconcile the science and religion divide that exists in society. Great video as always!
Lets just never forget to build our relationship with the creator Himself first, by the means he has prescribed. We can get sometimes sucked in the marvel of His creation rather than the Creator Himself.
Just a friendly sidenote for everyone reading. God bless.
Dear Vidyut, pls find a Traditional Catholic Mass and convert. Time is little. Become a Saint and help us fight the evil that has infiltrated our Lord Jesus Christ's Church and the world
You might be surprised to learn that the Catholic Church invented the scientific method. Roger Bacon codified it and Pope Clement IV approved it. This was within ten years of the end of the Islamic Golden Age, when they turned their backs on their many accomplishments and rejected reasoning. Astrology wasn't rejected by the church initially because it was an occult practice, it was rejected for being a superstition; unscientific.
Every saint now canonized requires two miracles. These miracles are scrutinized mercilessly.
You might also want to look into the recent Eucharistic miracles and the science involved.
You don't have a clue what you are saying here. You're accepting an unfalsifiable proposition (in this case, the existence of "God") complete with confirmation bias and then running with it. Truth is based on probability; probabilities are based on falsifiability. You can't have that in a God of the gaps explanation. You cant have that simply asserting that "God" exists. Period.
@@coffeetalk924 I am sure that my statements are neither anti-religious or anti-science. In fact I am just voicing my beliefs...
"If the universe is not designed by an intelligence then it follows that it would not be intelligible."
Things not created/designed by an intelligent creator are necessarily entirely chaotic? Would you say that this was true of any uncreated thing?
Hehe. :)
The funny thing is I am a financial auditor. Even the nice books have to be scrutinized, because even though it looks clean there may something goofy going on. That's why samples of checks for cash disbursements, payroll, inventories, capital asset additions and deletions, etc., are taken to get a snapshot of the whole process. If I came across someone that was in the second example, a report would still be done, but the business would probably be reported and a fraud audit would be recomended.
@@benstark2982 Us accountants takes things too seriosuly sometimes. Lol
It's an irrelevent analogy the man in the video makes because all arguments for "God" are advanced from an unfalsifiable proposition from which confirmation bias naturally follows. Truth is based on probabilities; probabilities are based in falsifiability. He can never ever enjoy that luxury. The arguments are doomed from the outset.
@@coffeetalk924 You sound like an Athiest.
@@Penfold8 and you sound like an individual with amazing grasp of the obvious lol Tell us, how long did it take you to arrive at that assumption? Lol
@@Penfold8 would you like to impress us even more and illuminate us with your wisdom about "God". You must know something. Oh do tell.....lol
How does it follow that because we can interpret the universe that it was intelligently designed? It was a necessity to be able to interpret the environment, we adapted to make the universe intelligible to us, that's how that's possible.
That is one of the best versions of that argument I have heard. John lennox has a similar one but this one is easier to understand. 👍
I've always found Lennox an enjoyable listen. May the grace and light of our Lord shine the way for him to someday be received into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
@@ironymatt Lennox is prevented from doing so because Mary is not part if the Trinity and it is heresy to treat the blessed lady as such. That is why Lennox and others could never do what you hope for.
@@mattnbin if you're claiming that that's what Lennox believes, you'll have to provide a citation. I've never heard him say anything remotely like that.
@@ironymatt What I have outlined above is simply one of the main reasons that many Christians could never in good conscience before the Lord, become part of the Roman Church.
@@mattnbin Oh, you mean you think Catholics think Mary is part of the Trinity? You'll have to improve your ability to outline an idea clearly. Catholics don't think that, and it's pretty lazy to buy into anti-Catholic propaganda so easily. We're the reason protestants even know of Jesus, since it was He who instituted the Catholic Church, and it was His disciples who were entrusted to safeguard and present the faith throughout the world to all generations. Why would you think that the nonsense perpetuated by fallible men fallen away from the Church 1500+ years after the fact would have any legitimacy?
As a Catholic in the sciences (who believes God created the universe):
0: Many scientists think that even if the universe is ordered, the human mind may as a question that may be meaningless because it may not fully be able to comprehend it fully. Even if we intellectually ask "where did the universe come from?" but this may be meaningless because we have trouble comprehending things like infinity (or our own hunter-gatherer human biases, like the pantheists, tending to perscribe personalities to things). Also makes an assumption and excludes other hypothesis (such as an infinite universe). In addition the deeper we go into this mystery, the more we may find that even if it was a reasonable question to ask once, it is now an irrelevant question; this goes for all scientific phenomenon.
1: For your argument juxtaposing the pantheists and the theists, your conclusion seems to equate the two saying that the Christians think the only explanation for rationality is a law-giver with a Mind and Personality (I agree with this by the way, but I think you could substantiate it a little more)
Yep
Awesome video. Never heard this idea before. Going to use it as a first step for the kids in our parish in teaching them a series in Truth early next year.
Ironic how many people who claim to love science will pass off philosophy as mumbo-jumbo. They fail to realize that science stands on many philosophical and metaphysical premises.
It seems that a lot of atheists and secular people are often slamming on the breaks whenever they approach a logical conclusion. I have occasionally seen atheists and secularists concede an incredible amount and then stop and say "but it does not mean X."
@@marklizama5560 Yes, yes, atheists are the unreasonable ones. This entire video can be summarised as “cause precedes effect, therefore god.” Theists should avoid argument and stick to faith. Do you think Brian has stumbled upon an argument that has eluded such people as Bertrand Russell, Sean Caroll, Dawkins, and Lawrence Krause? I think even serious theologians avoid the level of sophistry present in this video.
I thought Christians were supposed to be humble?
@@chriswinchell1570 This video is more than "cause precedes effect, therefore God;" but even on that argument alone, I must ask, if not God than what? What caused the universe?
@@marklizama5560 no, really that’s all here was to this video. Science doesn’t answer why, it answers how and how brings a chain of answers and questions that rely solely upon the logic that cause precedes effect, so he may as well argue that god is required to explain causality.
In any case, I will answer you : The inflaton field was in a false vacuum. It tunneled to a lower energy state and the energy released produced all the matter that we see. The uncaused first cause was this quantum field.
@@chriswinchell1570 Yes science doesn't answer "why," but if you step back and take a look at the scientific facts as a whole and exercise your human reason, (going back to what was said above about philosophy) then, assuming you have the correct philosophical view, the conclusion becomes pretty much obvious.
In regards to your answer; where did this quantum field come from? What justification do you have for this quantum field not having a cause?
Excellent work, I also had the same idea but had difficulty formulating it down into an argument like you did. Thanks for posting this!
Brian, after all this time, still stumbling a bit over "I'm supporting, or I am sporting right now" part is adorable! :)
So um this is gonna sound weird and sus but You got an ig
I hope you don’t rely on Amazon Web Services
Or Cisco...
Can you elaborate?
And why cisco?
We do not have to concede anything that is not demonstrated. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
apparently everything is a social construct now
For not believing in God, they will believe in anything.
Well yea. Humans literally defined and gave reason to everything that exists. We could have called a bed "lamp" but we chose bed. Math doesn't exist in the natural world.
@@cloud8328 That's stupid. Bed is called that way because its an English word from Proto-Indo-European, which is originally behd (to dig). It's that way because of human experience, perhaps a resting place was dug out of the earth, not because some academic decided to one day just call it bed.
@@Andrew-gn9qp As a linguist, I have to say that your comment is more stupid. What part of human experience nudged the Yamnaya culture to associate one combination of phonemes instead of another? Nothing. It’s random. Your comment makes no sense.
@@cloud8328 so then is the natural world a social construct? Also I didn’t say nothing is a social construct. Obviously humans make up words, a bed could’ve been called a different million things and looked a million different ways. Those are man made things and not everything was man made
It does not follow that for something to be intelligible that it must have been caused by some thinking agent. If a leaf falls from a tree in to a pond there is no intelligent agent at work but we can still find this event to be intelligible.
That is under the assumption that there is no intelligent agent outside of humanity or some kind of physical species. It is also under the assumption that the tree’s and leaf’s natures are separate from an intelligible system that was created and set in motion by an intelligent agent.
However, this doesn’t address the main argument that intelligibility/reason cannot come from chaos. There would have to be a refutation of a two headed monster: 1. Chaos is unintelligible and cannot lead to an intelligible event like the leaf falling into a stream. This leads to the conclusion that the world is ordered which presupposes an order, 2. Reason is only possible in an ordered world which presupposes an orderer.
If these refutations are not met, then the prospect of a Designer is at least the best explanation.
Except for such an event to be intelligible it must happen in the greater context of God making a discoverable Creation. Die and cards appear random, but an intelligence must designed them to be intelligible. Oh, and all thus presupposes that Truth matters. Why does Truth matter in your worldview?
What about the information found within the cells that make up the leaf that has fallen?
@@matthewlorang5334 "It is also under the assumption that the tree’s and leaf’s natures are separate from an intelligible system that was created and set in motion by an intelligent agent." Correct, I am not assuming the conclusion of his argument which would make the argument circular.
@@matthewlorang5334 "However, this doesn’t address the main argument that intelligibility/reason cannot come from chaos. " False dichotomy. The options aren't "created by a designer" and "chaos." A physical world acting according to its physical characteristics works just fine. And to be clear I'm not making the claim that I know that there is only the physical world however it is the only thing I can observe.
@Brian Holdsworth, have you done a video defending and emphasizing the importance of philosophy in regards to science? If not, you should make a video on it.
As a career Procurement/Contracts person, who has been on both sides of audits, I can definitively state that enormous resources and time would be invested in investigations should the 2-year-old accountant scenario be encountered. It would just be re-directed from the 2-year-old's actual personal accounting skills, to how the child was put into the role in the first place (the owner being "crazy" is itself NOT the end of the investigation, but the beginning of it), who knew about it and when, why nobody else balked or complained about it, etc., etc... You don't just throw up your hands when you come upon chaos, assuming there is no explanation to the chaos or nothing to learn from it. There's always some tangental learning to be had, even when the situation seems self-explanatory. Honestly, at the beginning of the video, I thought the good-accounting-firm-vs-bad-accounting-firm discussion was headed into some weird discussion on whether religion was orderly versus science being chaotic, but ironically, the description of the 2-year-old throwing crap at the wall and hoping it would stick sounds a lot like religion. But more to the point, your analogy falls completely apart in the first few minutes. To quote a poster over on the TMM channel in response to this video: "A two year old is still an intelligence, yet this is a scenario that leads to chaos. His analogy immediately fails, because intelligence leads to chaos." Seriously.
I know, right? What nonsense! Purple still smells like thunder just like it always did.
I like to share my thoughts as I'm watching to limit ad hoc rationalizations.
0:40 - A company bookkeeping analogy - I don't yet know where this is going but I know 1st hand how tough it can be to have a correct zero balance. On the other hand it's very easy to have a neat balance if you are doing bookkeeping for an imaginary company...
1:25 - Naturally the bookkeeping must be done. The receipts are there. There is not nothing.
2:00 - No... Maybe it was just a terrible analogy. If numbers have been added instead of multiplied you will correct the errors and check the balance again. The only reason for auditing is that you assume the possibility of errors. Still not sure where this is going...
2:30 - "clumsy analogy..." - agreed, thank you.
3:00 - Sure. If you can discern nothing from an investigation you assume nothing. The bad bookkeeping did not imply deception or breach of conduct. It may in worst case scenario tell you nothing.
3:30 - Another bad analogy. That would be a fallacy of personal incredulity.
4:00 - Yes. We use inferences. It seems to work.
4:13 - NO! Another bad analogy. A machine is natural. Just like everything else we come across. THAT'S why we can figure out what is wrong if it makes errors. By your reasoning, if a machine is designed to cut circles but cuts squares you say "well, that was random!" and throw it away. Meanwhile rational engineers would figure out WHY it cuts squares. I'm tempted to stop here. This was terrible...
4:19 - No... Just flat out NO! A coinflip is random. That does not mean that statistics is not a real thing. I'm stopping after the next disingenuous misrepresentation.
4:45 - Sure. For some, understanding the world is a way to get closer to their god and its mythological work.
5:00 - Nope. I'm done. Divine inspiration was definitely NOT a necessary driving force. Seasons did not perpetually come as a surprise to every society that did not worship some deity. That is absurd!
I really thought I would make it through this one at only 10 minutes. Stopping at the halfway point again...
Here’s a simpler explanation: the scientific method requires that hypotheses are based on order. That is, the examination, observations, and tests to prove or disprove an hypothesis requires structure in order to make any sense.Order requires intelligence. Science cannot exist without assuming the universe is intelligently designed. QED
Yes the status-quo wants to force our children to learn it the other way around and that there is no Supreme Being or Creator, and that it all happened by random chance... Yet, if we try to talk about God in the classroom they claim we are trying to indoctrinate, yet those bigots are already guilty of their own same inquiry. Talk about double standards! I've always been superb with mathematics and the sciences, and the more I dive deeper into Physics and Chemistry weeding out all of the hogwash and half truths, the more I see nothing but Intelligent Design! I tend to think that the Cosmos as a whole or a single entity where each galaxy is like unto an organ where each star system is like unto a cell or DNA and that the Universe or Cosmos as a whole is like unto God's brain... The Universe is Consciousness, and Consciousness comes from Spirit!
"Order requires intelligence"
Does it?
I don’t understand a wholly empirical worldview that denies any non material basis for rational thought. The scientific method is treated as the standard of proving the truth of a hypothesis but itself cannot prove the validity of the scientific method as being a method its by definition non material and rationally derived.
I find once you can show people this fact that “if something which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence itself a baseless claim” its opens their eyes to a chain of Thomistic logic which leads to God.
I have to wonder, IF science could prove its own validity, is it subject to circular reasoning?
This is moronic, and barely English. The scientific method doesn’t generate truth claims. The scientific method refines models that comport with reality, utilizing all available data. The assumptions that science makes have to be used to criticize the assumptions science makes.
@@gradystein5765 Thank you so you agree that it cannot be used to make any truth claims just probability assumptions based on tangible observation and cannot be used to asses any immaterial hypothesis. “Proof is for alcohol and maths not science”
@@padriagpearse1010 No one has ever demonstrated that anything immaterial exists. Why should it matter if science concerns itself with magic and other fairytales? What’s your reasoning for believing anything immaterial is real? “Probability assumptions”? That’s not even a phrase, why are you trying to sound smart?
So you have evidence of something non materialistic? Non materialism isnt denied, it just isnt shown to exist and so is treated as non existing until such time as someone shows it does.
You claim it to be a fact that something asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence is a baseless claim, care to show how this is a fact? Do you have a single example of something that can be asserted without evidence that cant be dismissed without evidence?
God put the science in omniscience.
Not how that works.. in fact, the term omniscience has far remained an outlier to protestant proclamations with regard to the character of god in the new age as it is self contradictory. The current rhetoric relays claims of "maximally knowing" deities, instead
@@NathanAMeyers No, it really isn't. "Maximally knowing" is restricted to a small number of theistic personalist theologians, while omniscience is how The Church from its founding, and all the Protestant splinters up until very recently, understood God.
@@NathanAMeyers And how is omniscience self-contradictory?
He put the "omni-" in it, too.😉
@@NathanAMeyers I second the motion to petition you for an explanation of your claim that "omniscience" is self-contradictory.
How so?
Logic is the strongest driver of my belief in God. When you look at the sky, listen to music, think of love, or contemplate the complexity of mankind, it's clear that these things must have been designed. To say that everything in the universe is some act of randomness defies all logical cohesion. Even that idea is self defeating because the very argument that the universe randomly came from nothing must also be an act of randomness. Worst yet, if you still cling to that self defeating argument, you must acknowledge that no life has meaning including your own. To the nihilist, we're all just conglomerations of goo interacting by chance with other blobs of goo.
@John Coffey The nihilism probably isnt the worst part yet. The worst part will be the departure from nihilism back to purpose and spirituality. This has led to all kind of strange spiritual adultery and witchcraft practices. Fake Christianity is the worst possible outcome.
We don’t know what caused the universe or even if it had a cause. Maybe it has always existed. The big bang is the begging of the universe as we know it, but it is possible that there was something before the big bang. It is possible that God created the Universe, but it is also possible he didn’t, we simplify don’t know, but just because we don’t know something that doesn’t mean we assume other stuff to be true.
I know the idea of the universe coming from nothing or it having always existed sounds weird, but the same can apply to God. Either je always existed, or simply came out of nothing, or he was created by another God.
@@juanandrealvarezmeza6179 I agree. To me god hypothesis seems unlikely not completely excluded though.
Life from nothing is not logical imo. An universe is a state where nothing exists cannot lead to anything it would be complete nothingness “forever”, well actually time would exist so “forever” is not correctly said. The it would mean it was always in a state where something existed including time. A moment t zero is also acceptable like the BigBang could be but a t’ before t0 doesn’t exist with this assumption. Just like a film roll as a spacetime block it has a beginning and end but before it there’s no tape. It doesn’t mean the tape film came from nothing.
7:10
... If I had a nickle for every time I said that - am I right?
Afterall, do you have any idea who I think I am? Lol
Hey Brian would you consider to translate this video into spanish ?
This was a profound video, particularly at 7:14. I already knew this explanation but you articulated it so well, like all your other videos!
That’s not profound, it’s equivocation. You only think it sounds profound because it triggers you to shut down part of your brain. That’s the part that does the understanding. When you turn that off, literally anything can feel profound.
You can make a good case for deism. The problem is trying to connect this with stories written long ago. Which stories are true? What is the origins etc?
Not even a good case for Deism. He's accepting an unfalsifiable proposition from the outset complete with confirmation bias and running with it. In order to make a plausible case for Deism one must base his evidence on probabilities. Unfortunately for him, he cannot do that within the confines of an unfalsifiable theory (proposition). Sorry. It's a doomed deistic argument as well.
@@coffeetalk924 thanks for the reply. I would say the channel is the definition of confirmation bias. All these channels are. If there is a suprem being it/he/they don't have anything to do with the sinister celibate men in the Vatican. I dont believe there is. Of course one of the problems 🙄 with the supernatural is that when you understand it it's no longer supernatural. Someone once used the argument in terms of ghosts 👻
"....if it was possible to talk to someone from the far future they might helpfully explain that a minority of people who said they saw ghosts had looked through a kind of wormhole into the past. Something rare but no more "supernatural" then thunder....".
@@stephensinclair3771 yes indeed. "Supernatural" is just a placeholder for that which is not yet understood. A "miracle" is just a label for a suspension of the natural order. Since we know so very little about the operations of laws within the universe, we shouldn't make hasty judgements and resort to "God of the gaps" explanations which have a bad history to begin with. The ghost analogy was a nice touch. "Supernatural" explanations are indistinguishable from gaps in our understanding. I'll go with the gaps 7 days a week given sciences history of eventually explaining things.
@@coffeetalk924 I think the guy on this channel is probably clever enough to understand this. I have often wondered what the "real" thinking was/is here. Personally aside from the usual things I think...1. So called faith is being offered to imagined or suspected hidden powers as a kind of votive offering. Accept me and I will try and believe this set of ridiculous things. 2. The fear understanding things reduces the value and satisfaction in knowing them. I remember reading about convergence and adaptive radiation in evolution. Not particularly clever man but I DID understand it. Wings are a good example of convergence, cats a good example of adaptive radiation. I think that's a lot more fulfilling than mystical nonsense about Trinity's and neoplatonist magic.
Ah right, if you can prove it's unprovable it must be god. Pretzel logic.
Strawman. Nobody argued that.
@@BrianHoldsworth That's sort of the foundation of the theory.
@@stratosgeek8679 No it's not. Nothing I said remotely amounts to that.
@@BrianHoldsworth I meant the generic you not You. Get over yourself, was talking about the base theory. Anyway, enjoy your beliefs, they are stronger than facts.
@@BrianHoldsworth Since you have, at least, engaged with a dissenting voice here - albeit one that is somewhat low-hanging - I am going to re-post a comment I have made elsewhere, in the hope that you will think about it:
This is one of the worst analogies I have ever come across and I have come across rather a lot. I hope you have seen TMM's response.
How many more times are your ludicrous points going to be refuted before you begin to acknowledge that you are barking up the wrong tree?
One of the most striking errors here is your assertion that if the universe is not "designed by an intelligence" then it is not intelligible". You are saying, therefore, that because we can understand the universe (up to a point) it must have been designed by an intelligence. This misunderstands the idea of intelligibility. You are putting the cart before the horse. If something is intelligible, it is because we human beings have brought our intelligence to bear on a DESCRIPTION which renders it intelligible TO US. It has become "intelligible" BECAUSE we have a certain kind of intelligence. Our primitive ancestors - such as those who wrote your religious books - did not have as much information as we have. Their efforts to render the universe intelligible resulted in a quite different description, one which involved magic. Sadly, you, and people like you, wish to cling to the intelligence of our ancestors.
I have responded to you a few times now and I have to say that I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that you are not entirely honest. Atheists are engaging with you left, right and centre, but I have yet to see you deal with an individual or with the arguments put forward generally (in the form of a video response) and this gives me cause to doubt your sincerity. I have a suggestion for you: Contact TMM and speak with him on video or make a point-by-point response explaining where he is wrong.
You should’ve blown people’s minds by pointing out that Catholics were crucial to the development of the scientific method.
If there is a bumper sticker that says “I love Catholic scientists”, I want it.
@@midlander4 Those Muslim scientists didn’t share their contributions to the scientific method nearly as widely as Catholic scientists did. Most of their contributions became broadly known centuries afterward. They could’ve been the ones to establish the scientific method, but they weren’t the ones.
Also, “crappiness” is in the eye of the beholder.
@Auf TH-cam nicht an Politik interessiert I’m not talking about whether scientists care to know who developed the scientific method. This channel is a virtual place of interest to Catholics and people of like mind - I’m not trying to teach history to uninterested scientists.
"God is a necessary being" -Leibniz
"If eternal damnation is possible, it is possible to belive than not" -Von Nuemann
"God is dead lmao" - Freedwich Niist-tze
@@angrymurloc7626 "Nietzsche is dead." -God.
@@voxpopuli8132 Good one.
@Prasanth Thomas Who and what?
@Prasanth Thomas TH-cam comment sections aren’t the most original place. Obviously someone had the same comeback doesn’t make it any less funny.
Yes, I also have got a strong conviction in my mind that this universe is a mindful creation. I would like to share with you an idea that is my personal feeling about God, spiritualism, religion & science. I may sound wrong to the rest of the world but I don't mind. And my conviction is so strong that I don't even want to take part in any debate to prove myself right because to me, my truths are right and I believe in my truths.
People usually try to describe science and the existence & presence of God as contradictory or conflicting truths or ideas and express their suspicion on the existence of God. I don't know about their idea of God but to me, I think I never had a question on God's existence but His existence in me or with me ... Moreover, I never felt Science and the presence of God as contradictory ideas or conflicting truths rather I've always felt science as a more concrete means than religion or spiritualism to establish the grand Truths of the God, the Great Unknown and Unknowable to a great extent. I believe in the laws of nature & the mathematics of the Universe as an outcome of the.greatest mindful creation. To me, our universe is not at all a mindless & lifeless entity. It's very much alive and awakened in its own state of consciousness. The scientists only try to know about, understand, comprehend, interpret and recalculate things which have already been done earlier. They can't do anything to change or modify the laws of nature or the mathematics of the universe that is responsible for the sustenance of the universe for billions of years. The universe existed before man was born and his science began its journey. The laws were present and also the magic of mathematics was there to maintain its existence. The universe is a great mathematical creation. To me God is the greatest scientist and mathematician and when I watch the sunset, I also feel Him the greatest artist. I may sound very odd, weird and what else I don't know but I really feel that the journey of 'Science' being one of the greatest conquests of human intelligence for revealing the truths, beauty and the hidden magical mysteries of nature or the physical universe/the great cosmos or the grand creation is the most concrete evidence in support of the existence of God, One who possesses that superior intelligence that makes the laws of nature, surpasses the limits of human intelligence that only discovers & interprets them. I bow down to the Creation & the Creator and all the great scientists of the world who have always inspired me to feel the infinite grandeur of this great creation in my limits ...They have also awakened in me the quest for the truth in whatever possible way by continuously improving my level of understanding the reality and that's a great journey for any beautiful human mind/life in this wonderful world. Thank you. By the way, do you have any idea of Hinduism, Vedic Cosmology etc. ?! 🤔😶Bye. 🌈😇🙏🏻🙋🏻♀️
Great, well that's all clear then.
I'm sure some would say that the fact that the universe is governed by predictable, mechanical laws proves that it is a vast unconscious and homeless clockwork. That's sounds kinda' boring to be honest. Whether or not God exists we are bound to believe in him in order not to fall into nihilistic despair. There is no evidence that any irreligious society has survived for a long time here on earth, so modern civilization doesn't exactly have favorable odds. We must acknowledge that there is a meaningful hierarchy and order to the cosmos in which we play a fundamental part. The natural 'laws' then, are not as much blind laws as conditioned habits upheld by the will of God.
Because science only deals with investigating the natural world it makes no pronouncements on the supernatural word and trying to associate science with God claims is a dishonest fallacy.
Right; it would be better if it was an honest fallacy!
You just don't seem to understand the argument that science presupposes aspects of reality that would not fit with the philosophical materialism that most scientists or secularist prescribe to. It's really not complicated, I wonder if you even bothered to listen to this before commenting.
@@gy5240 No its not complicated, at the end of the day there is the reality of the world we live in thats is evidential, then there is a proposition that there is another world that is not supported with evidence.
@@jim2003sound Mathematically speaking with concepts such as Infinity, Infinite Series, Infinite Sums, Irrational numbers, which are completely Immeasurable perfectly describe that which is Spirit and Eternal! They go hand in hand, because Mathematics is just One of the many Languages of our Creator! Spirit is beyond Space, Energy, Matter, Motion, and Time! This is because everything that is Physical, quantitative and measurable originally came from Spirit! When God said let there be Light, and Light came into existence that's when the Physical World was created and temporal time began. His voice which is Sound which is Energy is the foundation in which that all Matter exists. Even Einstein got this right: E = mC^2. Energy and matter are basically one and the same, just different perspectives or properties through observation of a given system within a given environment. From Sound comes Light and from both Sound and Light comes space, matter, energy, motion and time. Our creator is not only a great speaker and inventor, but he is also the best mathematician, physitist, chemist, sculpture, biologist, carpenter, and engineer! These are all supported by the Living Word of God: Genesis Chapter 1, Ecclesiastes Chapter 1, and John Chapter 1.
@@skilz8098 It does seem as if using science the very thing that doesn't accept magic is now going to prove magic exists. This is a question of if we cant beat science lets see if we can use it to support our magical claims, sorry that doesn't work because the reality of how nature works is impervious to unsupported and long debunked claims of the supernatural all of which you have stated. There is a very good reason that scientists in general tend to be dismissive of the supernatural mainly because the work they do iis evidence based. Science operates in an evidential environment and in that space there is no room for Gods. The christian God you cite is a ugly immoral character according to the bible and why you should want to worship it beggars belief.
"Clumsy" analogy? How about "false"?
I argue with my fellow scientists on this point. I will be using your audit example. Thank you.
It's not science that he's describing. It's philosophy.
@@imaginaryfriend3827 I understand that. The problem is my fellow scientists don't understand the assumptions that science makes. It is even more frustrating as we are statisticians, stats being the heart of science, we should understand this more so.
Fun fact, science used to be called natural philosophy.
@@ModernPapist Are you able to critique the assumptions science makes without using assumptions science makes?
@@killianmiller6107 what made it science was observation, measurement, and analysis, also known as statistics. Natural Law is still around and is the basis for science philosophically.
You are exaggerating with the clickbait dude
That was fantastic 👏
"When did purple stop smelling like thunder?" 🤔
Great work Brian!! God shows us who he is, his Character, through Creation. God Bless you all!!
Looking for great analogies? You are in the right place.
Thank you, brother. I almost lost my faith these months. I will hold on that there is meaning and intelligble order as designed by God. God bless you.
Excellent arguments!!!
So, in a nutshell, Brian is presenting the 'Watchmaker' argument.
Basically yeah. Nothing new under the sun.
And it's been effectively refuted countless times.
Well, there is verifiable scientific evidence that consciousness (the soul) survives death. Even Dr Sam Parnia (non-religious associate professor of medicine) who is renowned for bringing people back after brain death affirms this fact - check out his interviews on TH-cam. Not to mention Fr Robert Spitzer's wonderful talks on near death experiences!
Maybe the title is a bit confusing. It's not science that proves God exists. It is because God exists that science can work. If there is no God, science can only say something about the natural world which could change at any moment. The fact that atheist believe that change does not occur (in the short term) is because they have FAITH in science. So Atheist are also religious.
We hope that the universe is consistent, and we act as it is consistent because that’s the only thing we can do, but we can’t really say with complete certainty that the universe will always remain consistent.
The Universe needs to be consistent, because if it wasn’t then it wouldn’t be possible for live to exist or flourish because of all the changes.
@@juanandrealvarezmeza6179 would you mind offering some examples of consistency in the universe? Are you speaking in broad terms. Perhaps the four fundamental forces? The constants? I like to know what you mean here. Thanks
Great video. Taking the universe as reasonable and rational - which it is - presupposes an intention behind it (God).
You are sounding like a young Dr. John Lennox...intelligent and reasonable...faith and reason.
Love this topic!
I tend to use physics as the diving board
Physics: "let's throw math a the universe until we figure out which equations govern it"
This presupposes a universe that's governed by math equations
The follow-up question Brian asks is: what must we also presuppose to account for a universe governed by these laws? (this is very ambitious!)
I tend to ask a different follow-up question which is less ambitious but gets to a similar place... math isn't the only language we "throw at the universe" to make sense of it, so what other language games (aside from math) can we use to come up with principles of how the universe behaves? How about ethical language? Aesthetics & beauty? Love and relationships? So... you go through the whole gambit of human experience and realize there are truths to be discovered using all these different languages, not just math. So it seems to me that reality isn't just physical, but also beautiful and relational and moral... like a person.
His arguments are doomed from the outset because he's advancing an unfalsifiable proposition from which only confirmation bias follows. The concept if "truth" is based on probabilities; probabilities are based on falsifiability. No falsifiability/no truth coherency. Period. All the physics in the universe wont get you to probabilities. Period.
@@coffeetalk924 Are you saying that,
Truth is based on probabilities
Physics does not get you to probabilities
Therefore truth is not based on physics? Or that physics does not get you to truth?
I've never heard this line of reasoning before
@@stephenolis5753 Lol Really? Many theories and models from physics are probabalistic. Particularly emphasis is laid upon statistical physics and quantum mechanics. What kind of physics books do you read? Quantum observations of phenomena who's behavior is predicted by probability is common.
Perhaps you want to talk to me about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle? Let's talk. You want to suggest that probabilities have nothing to do with physics? You're simply wrong.
@@stephenolis5753 they absolutely have to do with Relativity, and the macro world is where we utilize human labels like "truth". The God hypothesis is an unfalsifiable theory. And for that reason its impotent and has no purchase on truth. Nor can it ever.
@@stephenolis5753 btw, quick question: Are you a Deist, or a Theist? It's important I ask that so I know who I'm dealing with.
3 Hail Marys for you 🌹🌹🌹🙏🏻📿
I’m not sure what kind of god I believe in, or if I really believe in the Bible, but I do think something greater created us, a greatness that we can’t wrap our heads around. It created science and evolution and psychology and everything we’ve ever know. It’s created this perfect environment and universe that is so precise it is unbelievable. Whatever it is, it is something we can’t comprehend. That is what I think.
It's not even just for natural science. My belief in God guides me when I do mathematics!
Are you a mathematician?
@@theapexfighter8741 I'm finishing my undergraduate studies currently, but I've been drawn to Number Theory and have been working on a lot of math on my own! :D
🤪🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦
Every civilization on earth understood the universe was intelligible, the difference was that they most of the time put that natural order over themselves and their will, while the monotheist civilizations believed they were given right and power over that same nature.
Citation please! That is a huge claim.
@@johnlowkey359 Hmm I just realized.
I have to respectfully object to this argument. It rests precariously on the assumption that there cannot be natural causes behind observable phenomena. Why should anyone think this is the case? In reality, science tends to presuppose that everything has a natural cause, not the other way around. Naturalism is the key that unlocked so many discoveries. Science began in spite of Christianity (enforced by a tyrannical monarchy), not because of it. Having objects stay the same color from one day to the next does not require divine intervention. I welcome logical arguments for God's existence, but the logic in this one has glaring problems.
3:00
Isn't that the main point against the argument? Things are intelligible because we observe them, not the other way around.
No. Our observing them doesn't make them what they are. Reality exists and is intelligible whether we're here to detect it or not. This is a fundamental axiom of science.
@@BrianHoldsworth I get your idea, but my point is other. Our observation doesn't make reality; it is our observation and study that makes the world intelligible. After all it is an subjective adjective: it is *to us* intelligible.
You mention how the Romans perceived the world and the elements as chaos: unintelligible. Thus, it is our disposition to the world that defines its intelligibility.
@@johnbirdwatch Intelligibility or rational order is a property that is already inherent in the observable universe. Our observing it doesn't give it that property. It's already intelligible which is to say that our intelligence can appreciate it and be applied to it in a way that it could not to something that was chaotic. I didn't say Romans perceived it as chaotic, but others did. That doesn't mean it isn't intelligible, just that they were wrong.
@@BrianHoldsworth I have mainly two problems with those statements. First is making intelligibility a inherent property of the world, on which I have my doubts. But let's assume it is. Then my second problem would be assuming that a irrational, unintelligible world could, in fact, exist. You make the point of an object being one way, and the next day another, such that it is pure chaos, and therefore pointless to reason about. But to assume it *could* exist brings us to a problem similar to the Paradox of Ommipotence (can nature hold such a random entity that it defies nature?). Then, an unreasonable entity is unreasonable to exist to begin with.
@@BrianHoldsworth Actually that is not entirely true, the observer always put a part of himself in the observed phenomenon, this is studied in psychology (which is a science) and philosophy. Also recent studies in quantum mechanics reveal that the act of observing does alter the matter observed on a subatomic scale.
Small correction Mr. Holdsworth. Islam teaches that Allah did not promise an intelligible universe. There was an Arabic philosopher in the middle ages who went mad trying to comprehend this paradox.
Do you know the philosopher? This sounds fascinating
I believe you are speaking of al Ghazali. After this brief foray into reason Islam soon rejected reason and fell to the belief that Allah is pure will and is absolutely arbitrary. I believe the genesis of this position was to better align with the inconsistencies and contradictions found in the Koran and other holy Islamic writing. If Allah is reduced to pure will, then these contradictions are easily explained. This also explains the dearth of science in the Muslim world and the lack of Philosophy being taught at universities in Muslim majority countries.
@@kenmay3820 Thank you!
YAWN!!!
The sky is blue because the firmament separates the waters above from the waters below. It's right there in Genesis.
That's not why the sky is blue…
Brian's argument is just a thinly veiled god of the gaps argument. Sometimes the answer to a difficult question is "We don't know yet." We don't know if the universe was designed by an intelligence. And it's okay to say that. Science is our best tool for separating bad explanations from good ones. The analogy to accounting is not, to my mind, all that useful.
Well it cant be determined whether it has been designed by "God" because the God hypothesis is an unfalsifiable proposition from which only confirmation bias follows. The label of "truth" is based on probabilities; probabilities are based on falsifiability (not unfalsifiability). Thus it will forever be impossible to determin probabilities either for or against a God designer. Even if "I am God. I am here" was written on the moon or a distant object. We couldnt be certain whether it was an advanced alien race. If we could rule that out, there would always be another possibility. Designers of a simulation being another one.
how did you make the poetry of the universe so utterly mundane (opposite of mundo);
I have to disagree - Science is much more interested in the "how" than the "why".
Yea, "why" assumes purpose.
Semantics. How a chemical reaction produces A, is also part of Why A exists.
HOW something works, still assumes intelligablity.
@@gy5240 Semantics are necessary to understand nuances that broaden understanding. Do you also think science proves things?
@@ModernPapist since you love semantics so much, define proof.
@@gy5240 We describe the process in which A is produced. We don’t assume that this chemical process always produces A unless that’s what we observe and we don't assume that A can't be produced by a different process.
As Alfred North Whitehead (an Atheist) pointed out in 1925, actual science arose in Western Civilization, and really no where else, only because of Christian, especially Catholic theology.
Democracy rose from Tyranny so what's your point? Because science rose up out of Christian Europe doesnt mean that Christianity is good. Much of science has its roots in Aristotle, Euclid, and Archimedes who were all polytheists (believers in multiple gods). Moreover, its difficult to say whether some of the early enlightenment scientists were atheists or not given that to confess such a thing would mean certain death! Stop patting Christianity on the back! Its built on an unfalsifiable proposition which isnt a testament of the propositions strength, but of its weakness. And science today knows it.
@@coffeetalk924 my that was a twisty and self serving way to avoid giving credit where credit is due.
When Greek writings became available, first through liberated-from-the-Moors Spain, and then through Byzantium itself when Greek scholars saw the Islamic conquest on the wall in the 1400s Western scholars raced to read, copy, and commentate on these texts via the Church-founded University system. However, very little of the Greek texts had very little substantive technical or natural science subject matter (see below) so the idea rediscovered Greek texts rebirthed "SCIENCE" is another myth.
Essentially, the foundation of the Scientific Revolution occurred much earlier and apart from Greek texts; in the 12th Century, in the immediate predecessor to the Universities, the Cathedral Schools, especially Chartes, circa 1230-1270.
Catholic theology directly opposed the Hellenic ideal that honest productive work was somehow "lower" and more "debased" than being a land-owning aristo, who may have lifted a sword in war or a stylus in composition, but never a shovel or hammer. While the warrior-aristocrat ideal existed into the 20th Century, the fact Jesus was a carpenter, Peter a fisherman, and Paul a tent-maker (and none a slave-owner) meant that manual labor and craftsmanship was not demeaning. In fact, such things could be indicators of character, rather than its lack. Even a Duke, at least on his better days, could admit his lowliest land-bound serf might be a better Christian than the Duke could ever hope to be. Largely from the Rule of Benedict, the Church supported monks in hands-on work and innovation.
The University as we know it developed out of those so-called Dark Ages from the monastic and cathedral schools founded in the 600s. The University schools were open to all classes who could pay or receive scholarship, and we're organized into a charter guild form:
Bologna (1088), Paris (1150, later associated with the Sorbonne), Oxford (1167), Modena (1175), Palencia (1208), Cambridge (1209), Salamanca (1218), Montpellier (1220), Padua (1222), Naples Federico II (1224), Toulouse (1229).
University curriculum was structured on the Trivium: Grammar (how to read and write), Rhetoric ( how to speak persuasively), and Dialectic (or Logic, how to think). Once that was mastered, a student could go on to the Quadrivium: Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and Astronomy.
The Scholastic Method, as developed within the monastic, cathedral, and University schools, was a rigorous methodology (hence the grounding in the Trivium) to examine ANY issue, and not just theological ones as Voltaire and company charged (maybe 10% of University students took Theology; by far the most studied topic was Law). The Scholastics took the the principles of logical analysis and debate inherited from the Greeks and Romans and significantly improved them. The process of analysis, open debate, and sometimes brutal peer-review, not just within one's own school, but eventually across dozens of European University (Latin was the language of international communication-- so even in the 17th Century, Isaac Newton still first published in this "dead" language).
I predict this video is going to attract a fair number of atheists; this sort of stuff seems to draw them like honey does ants.
Because they hate needing God
I'm an atheist and am subscribed. These videos don't do anything for I enjoy reading the comments to attempt to understand why this video and this line of reasoning appeals to individuals.
Sometimes atheists will also watch stuff they disagree with si that they don’t end up in an echo chamber
Atheists who try to be open minded to the other point of view are the exception. From what I’ve seen, most of them operate with a sort of anger and condescension
@@emiliomilian369 The same can be said for religious individuals. You've not made a worth while point.
Given an interaction of some X and some Y even as X and Y may be identical, we observe a consistent result. It is in the observed consistency that the idea of intelligibility emerges. Further, given our observation of intelligence being developmental, it does not follow that intelligence is foundational.
Many times my faith starts to faulter but i begin to think of all the Miracles of my life and in Life, and My faith gets restarted again.
You deserve those "miracles". The 35,000 children under the age of 5 who die everyday on this planet from preventable diseases and starvation. Well....they obviously dont deserve the same luxury you enjoy. Lol WOW...the self centered on and ignorance of religious people.
..
@@coffeetalk924 i think of those people and pray for them .. why do you assume I am not concerned for every human being ? You know what happens when you Assume.
@@familylifetoo9541 you're missing the point I was making. Yes you pray for them. I too use to pray for them. So what? They still go through misery and they still die (35,000 a day). But you somehow think that "God" will guide your surgeons hands, or send a guardian angel or a miracle to make sure your surgery goes well. I know your type. I use to believe the same silly things. "Please pray for me as I travel from California to New York." And if I make it there safe and sound....well, God must have had a hand in it. Thank you God. That's nonsense. Its called confirmation bias. Meanwhile, while I was on the trip some 100,000 children died of preventable diseases and starvation. Doesnt that send up red flags to you?
I wish you could do a video on healthcare in Canada vs the U.S., I know it's off topic but we'd love to get the truth about a very important issue. I'm all for national healthcare but all we get is opinion from either side.
I've learned a lot from your videos. Thank you
healthcare pros and cons by country:
Canada - Pros: Basic healthcare free
- Cons: Higher federal taxes
USA - Pros: Lower federal taxes
- Cons: Expensive healthcare costs
1. The title i misleading. Science conceded nothing. It is only the erroneous opinion of the author that science should conceed that God exists.
2. It would be interesting to know how this "external intelligence" created and continues to influence, the world; using a magic wand, pulling from the hat, using a crystal ball, electromagnetic waves,
or pushing with a stick...Or its just an idea that "transubstantiate" in some magic way, and becomes matter.
I can see the logic of the argument but clearly brilliant scientists like Richard dawkins would not agree. And I don’t think Stephen Hawkins was a believe , although not necessarily an atheist? These great minds men aren’t simply turning a blind eye they’ve written books addressing this very issue. I’m not clever enough on scientific matters to address it but there are certainly arguments against the necessity for an intelligent designer except the big question of how can anything just exist , to which the counter argument is how can god just exist.
no the hell we didn't - physics BSc
O dear.
Science concedes no such thing.
In fact, it’s ontologically thin, and can manage without conceding the existence of even material substances.
Also, science finds no evidence of consciousness, which does in fact exist.
So maybe it’s not great on existential questions.
Cogent and digestible. Excellent Brian!🙏🕊👍
Well said and structured arguments. Good one, Brian
Damn this makes no sense at all.
It makes sense if you assume that the entire universe is comprable to a company, which it isn’t, but I can see why it could sound sensical
Thankful for you and your work
Powerful argument. You articulate it well.
Intelligent design requires a designer but. The world doesn't require one
You assume too much. Even if intelligent design were a high probability the "God" hypothesis would just be one of many possibilities. Simulation is another. Aliens are yet another. And there are more. In fact, if ID were ever proven, it would favor one of the other options because 1.) The God hypothesis is based on an unfalsifiable theory which is extremely problematic, and 2.) Your Christian God requires "faith" as a sign of loyalty and faith would be destroyed if evidence could prove the existence of "God". Its unfortunate for theists that truth is based on probabilities and probabilities are based on falsifiability. They can never enjoy that luxury because they advance unfalsifiability. Reduced to blind faith. And faith has never been a reliable pathway to truth.
Another cringe theist video, with that glossed-over look in the eyes trying to hold onto some belief. This dude doesn't understand how human imagination and inquiry works. There may be a "why" (cause)of things happen, but there doesn't need to be an intent for everything.
As an ASQ certified auditor, who audits business policy, ISO procedure compliance, ISO compliance and manufacturers adherence to standards I can tell you that you have no idea how an audit works. Your argument may sound intelligent to someone who has no clue how an audit works, but falls on its face when juxtaposed with basic auditing standards.
It was a philosophical analogy. Obvious that he was being obvious about this by using a 2 year old.
Title: "Science Concedes: God Exists!"
Content: With no support from the scientific community, and no appeals to anything scientific, I'm going to blindly assert that intelligibility requires some transcendent intelligence, and then make the huge leap that the blindly asserted necessary transcendental intelligence is in fact God with no further justification.
Reality: Science presupposes an intelligible universe with no assertion of an intelligent creator.
Lucky for Brian, false advertising laws don't apply to TH-cam video titles.
I think maybe the why questions evolved into the how questions, how dose a light come on when you flip a switch, but why dose that happen.
or perhaps .....How DOES a person manage to write something but can't seem to get 1 simple word spelled correctly
How DOES that happen , i wonder ?
and not only once but repeatedly and only that 1 word
is that chance, or.... something else
Fides et Ratio
There is reason:
behind Cycles,
and Life is a Big Cycle of Events,
Cyclical.
Wow! This is the best clear and succinct explanation of the ancient words that the apostle Paul wrote in his letter to Romans:
"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
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. ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIMED TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles" -MEANING THEY WORSHIPPED THE CREATURE (THE UNIVERSE) AND NOT THE CREATOR.
Mr. Brian, my respects.
I can assume an uncreated god that makes life possible. I can assume life as uncreated.
what’s the difference? None except the first assumes a much complex entity existing without explanation.
But I can also assume the simplest possible molecular machine assembled itself by chance in this almost infinitely large universe then the machine that was fit was able to survive then sligthly modified versions did it better and so on, there was an evolution
The last option seems much more reasonable to me than to have something extremely complex by “default”
"simplest possible molecular machine"
An interesting hypothesis...
Of what might such a machine be comprised? If any component were complex, such as protein or polynucleotide, how was such a thing assembled? If all components were simple, such as single amino acids, how would any function of the machine occur and be replicated with variation?
Oh geez. What a horrible argument. You actually just straw-manned the whole universe. The universe still has a natural order. Your claim that some designer is required for that is just an emotion-driven assertion from you. Very dishonest. But that's what apologetics is.
Your post screams you have no original though! Only fear and intimidation of one who would burry you in reasonable thought you would not even begin to be able to rebutt.
@@travisandterribrown3229 What a nonsensical and baseless opinion. You sound butthurt.
I need to know what your reinforcements are about.
Your video title states that science proves gods existence. I find it interesting that you offered no actual proof of that though. You basically spent 10 minutes spouting off your personal opinion while offering nothing to back it up. I’m willing to bet that you think your ability to use certain words that not everyone will understand makes you appear smarter. And that by default other will think that. It does not however. It makes you seem like your trying to fool your followers into believing your are more intelligent than you actually are. Again though if you could offer any real proof of god beyond your assumption that intelligent life requires intelligent design I’d be all for it.
Agreed. One word I didnt hear him use is unfalsifiability. He'll get nowhere until he tackles that one and beats it. He's trying so hard to demonstrate probability and it's quite frankly impotent because probabilities mean nothing without falsifiability.
I am a Roman Catholic.I am also an Engineer and
Scientist.The Universe was created through the
Big Bang by God.❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️.
Prove it.
@@troig43
Because I am Our Lord Jesus,the Son of God made Man..You must have Faith,Hope ,Love and Trust in me.
@@colinmccarthy7921 You're jesus? I thought your name was Colin?
@@troig43
God is Almighty and Powerful in Jesus the Son of God..There is your ANSWER..This is my last comment
With Best Wishes, Colin.
Brilliant idea, brilliantly explained! Thank you. To reason and intelligence, I want to add 'the beauty of beauty'. When man designs intelligently and efficiently, the result is often sooo ugly and cold: a factory, cities, the inside of a computer, even most architecture. In nature, logic, efficiency and usefulness ... is always combined with so much care, beauty, even playful details. Look at flowers, a sunrise or sunset, a tree, a forest, a cristal, a deer, a galaxy. At every size or scale of analysis. Never kitschy, always useful and beautiful at the same time. To me: without doubt the language of a very, very intelligent and very, very loving personal being.
Brilliant!!
I liked this video. But science does not concede that God exists. It is merely a method of inquiry. Now, we may not have a rational or philosophical justification for why science works. But that doesn't then mean that science requires this justification. Arguing to God from nature or science doesn't really work. Science without God may be harder to ground in epistemological terms but it certainly doesn't follow that "since science then a personal and triune God must exist."
He didn't actually claim it proved a _personal and Triune_ God. Science relies upon the assumption that the Universe is ordered, which ultimately goes back to there being somewhere that order comes from. Now, since it also assumes the Universe is comprehensible to reason it would also show that whatever is the source of that order is also rational, and thus in some sense analogous to a mind. But by itself the argument only goes that far. To establish what this God is _like_ would require a different argument, which would be given elsewhere.
He isn't saying they are using science to argue for or against God's existence. He is saying they must necessarily and implicitly assume it, just as they assume that math exists, and that nature can be perceived and measured.
@Danny Timms Defining order is a tricky one, isn't it?
Who to say God would want to proved by science? The next question would be. If God is proved by science what does that say about God?
To to any true believer the fact that science can prove God shouldn't matter to them.
if you need science to to prove there's a God then are you a true believer in the in the first place?
If human reason can be applied to God what would that mean?
And if you're a applying human reason to God is to try understanding God (that's the only logical reason somebody would be doing this) and the reason I say this is to my understanding the human mind is not capable of understanding God completely.
So would not be that applying human reasoning and reasoning to God be a waste of time?
God blessed Brian with this.
side note: doesn't a loving father see God at work in his little child, no matter what he's doing?
another side note: doesn't "when did purple stop smelling like thunder" have poetic merit?
❤️❤️❤️✝️✝️✝️🌅
Sure sounds poetic. I would argue "when did thunder stop smeling like purple" sounds even prettyer.
Surely one day your god will bless someone with a batter argument than this one lol
The Logos fills up everything, science is only supposed to learn about the different aspects of the Logos embeded in our realm. The Logos makes random and chaotic things cohesive into inteligeble and reasonable things. If we didn't perceive that cohesion we wouldn't be able to study anything at all.
The beginning of St. John's gospel you are able to see how is it that the LOGOS (Word-wisdom-inteligence of God who is God) came to bring about order and meaning into a chaotic, meaningless and darkened reallity.
At every level every step. Science has always backed the Bible up. If you think about it Science has no choice. The Bible is the Word.
What about the time science showed the world wasn’t created in 7 days?
@@juanandrealvarezmeza6179 If you read the Bible and even in modern languages. A day can mean different time frames. Like saying back in the day might mean when we were kids decades ago. People do it all the time. And in fact in the beginning there was no such thing as a Day as we think of it. The Bible used the word day as a metaphor for time
@@juanandrealvarezmeza6179 Science used to preach the Universe had no creation. That it was always here. Then the Big Bang theory changed that didn’t it. Just one example where science is just now catching up to what the Bible was telling thousands of years ago.
@@terrywbreedlove you're talking about the steady state theory (the universe is eternally steady). So you're correct about that bit... but where you've actually embarrassed yourself without knowing it is when you suggested that science believes it was created by sentience. That's horribly incorrect. Science doesnt pretend to know what it cannot know. It certainly can't and shouldn't entertain an unfalsifiable proposition from which only confirmation bias follows. You dont understand basic principles of science.
@@coffeetalk924 Child Scientist across the world absolutely believe the Universe had a date of creation now. In your desperation to deny this simple truth you make a fool of yourself.
Excellent reasoning!
Misleading title.
You're confusing philosophy with science. Your argument sums up to "I see order that I can't explain otherwise, therefore God".
Science is a process of rigorous study and experimentation. For there to be scientific evidence of God, there would have to be some kind of experiment that you can do that demonstrates that he is not a figment of your imagination.
You completely misunderstood the framing of the argument. Science automatically assumes the preexistence of an intelligible rational order that the scientific method is designed to discover bit by bit. They are not trying to find evidence of God's existence. God's existence is a necessary assumption to make scientific inquiry rational in the first place. Similar to fundamental axioms in mathematics. Science also assumes math to provide reliable predictive analysis, does it not? Science also doesn't look for evidence to prove that math exists. It must necessarily exist in order for science to exist.
@@thereaction18
Science doesn't make assumptions. It is a process that starts with an observation, followed by a hypothesis to explain that observation, which is experimentally tested for results to confirm or rule out the hypothesis. If results cannot be attained, then there is no science. If they can, then the hypothesis becomes theory.
@@imaginaryfriend3827 Science assumes the speed of light is constant. Science assumes the fundamental axioms of mathematics. They can't make comparisons or predictions without math, can they? I'm sure there are other things that science assumes. Your head is entirely up your own ass, making such a blind and pointless claim.
@@thereaction18 the assumption that a god is a necessity is dependent on the unstated assumption that atoms will always behave like atoms at all times.
@@thereaction18
What you describe as the constants of the the speed of light and mathematics are not assumptions. They are observations.
The order we see is not caused and maintained by a god. It is a result of the 100% concurrence of identity and existence. To exist is to be something specific, with a specific nature. Things act in certain ways and only in those ways which are determined by their nature, by the type of thing that they are. A disorderly universe is impossible because contradictions can't exist.
The notion that we can't do science without the existence of a god is absurd. If knowledge, then concepts. If concepts, then the objective theory of concepts. If the objective theory of concepts, then the objective understanding of metaphysics. If the objective understanding of metaphysics, then the primacy of existence. If the primacy of existence, then not-god.
False analogy. 1) The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. 2) Nothing is truly random in the universe due to selective processes that demand order, which is caused by, among many things, but mainly, gravity for stars/planets/atmosphere.
This entire argument is fallacious.
Yes, the universe is under no obligation to make sense, but studying it proves that it does make sense and, as you have just said, there is nothing truly random in it, it is perfectly orderly and rational; therefore, there must be a Reason or Intellect behind it.
@@marklizama5560 Again. I've already refuted that. Reread what I said. You can't answer my refutation with an argument I refuted in my refutation. Doesn't work like that.
@@verzen You cannot deny the logical outcome of the evidence. The universe is rational and intelligible and thus points to a Reason or Intelligence behind it; to deny otherwise would be bias and/or irrational.
@@marklizama5560 The evidence does not support religion or a God. Sorry.
You are falling victim to a classic logical fallacy. You are assuming the conclusion then finding reasons to believe it.
Which, fyi, this by definition means you are the one being irrational.
@@verzen No you're the one being bias here, you're making philosophical assumptions that deny the evidence to show what it does to those who do not hold the said philosophy you and other atheists knowingly or unknowingly hold.
You're the one who is knowingly or unknowingly assuming the conclusion my friend.
Jason lisle poses this same argument. Good stuff.