Street Epistemology: Jacob | Evolution v/s Intelligent Design (Christian Apologetics Student)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Location: San Antonio, Texas
Recorded: 10 April 2019
Released: 16 May 2019
Summary: Jacob is a college student and member of Ratio Christi, an on-campus Christian apologetics group that works hard to find ways to defend the faith. After attending part of my talk on Street Epistemology to the Secular Student Alliance (SSA) (where roughly 1/3 of the attendees were Christians), Jacob stopped and asked me to interrogate his claim that Jesus is historically real and is his Lord and Savior. We spent most of our time figuring out how much of an impact the truth of evolution (if it could be explained and demonstrated to his satisfaction) would have on his high degree of confidence and exploring whether or not he is using a consistent standard for accepting intelligent design and dismissing evolution.
Twitter: / magnabosco (follow me)
TH-cam: / magnabosco210 (tons of Playlists)
Facebook: / magnabosco210 (like my page)
Website: anthonymagnabo... (contact me, appearances)
SE Resources: tinyurl.com/ab...
SE Community: tinyurl.com/ab...
SE Discord Server: / discord
Skip ahead to a desired point in the talk (clickable timestamps can be found in the top pinned comment of this video):
--
Rapport-Building: 00:30
Relativism: 02:15, 26:13
Background: 03:57
Claim (What): 05:13
Strange Bird: 04:20
Confidence Scale: 04:35, 05:40
Justification (Why): 08:16, 12:24, 13:55, 22:31, 23:58, 25:06
Defeasibility: 14:25
Repeating: 09:11, 11:54, 15:44, 17:47, 21:01
Method (How): 09:28, 10:43, 19:59
Aporia: 08:23, 10:43, 12:37. 16:56, 20:11
Pausing: 05:50, 10:56, 19:50, 28:18
Standards: 16:32, 19:33, 29:26
Clarifying: 16:53
Resetting: 19:30
Mirroring: 17:59
Closing: 31:36
Outro: 33:03
Bonus*: 33:25
--
Note: Add 35 seconds to these timestamps if listening to the podcast version of this talk.
Audio Only: / s-vtkyi
Audio correction provided by Philipp Grzemba.
Outro Music 'Don’t Look’ provided by Silent Partner, courtesy TH-cam Audio Library.
Links to References in Video:
Watch full talk w/Christian (the other guy who appeared in this video): • Street Epistemology: C...
*The Defend the Faith Conference | Ratio Christi
www.apologetics...
January 4-9, 2015
Narrated by Robert Stanley: therighttoreaso...
** Add foreign language captions w/TH-cam's community contributions tools **
Mistakes: It may have been better if I used the word "require" instead of "demand". For example, "Did you require a demonstration in order to determine that Jesus was real and is your Lord and Savior?"
Recorded w/Go-Pro. Edited w/PowerDirector.
The views addressed here are mine and mine alone, and are not necessarily shared by members of my family and friends.
#StreetEpistemology #Magnabosco #IntelligentDesign #Apologetics #ChristianApologist #ApolegeticsStudent #Evolution #ConsistentStandards #RatioChristi #TacticalFaith #AnthonyMagnabosco
![[LIVE] MCHOICE & MINT AWARDS 2024 at TRUE ICON HALL, ICONSIAM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wMewUeT5nbY/mqdefault.jpg)
I hate it when people say "I had to make a decision". No, you didn't. You can (and SHOULD) just say you don't know, and give it as much time as it needs.
Nothing is forcing you to make a definite decision.
Some people have this intense need to choose a framework through which they can comprehend the world. Maybe Jacob HAD to decide on a framework, or experience a total existential crisis. For me personally, the world is incomprehensible, and my existence is ultimately meaningless. But it doesn't bother me, just doing my best at existing, is enough for me.
Thank you!
While generally I would agree that people should definitely put more thought into those kinds of things, I think that sometimes, for some people, it really matters and really will influence future decisions. I don't think that the question of God bears so little weight in life's path that it can always be put off and given "the time it needs" to be worked out. Not everyone can live so comfortably in existential limbo.
Sometimes family or other social pressures, even at the earliest stages of your life, can cause people to feel the need to make a decision, especially if that decision causes them to agree with the culture in which they were raised.
Time can be a double edged sword. On one side you need time to contemplate your own thoughts, views, and opinions to assess if what you think or believe is right and true which is a good thing and we all need to do that more and sadly not enough do. On the other hand though we are faulty creatures and often times makes things way to complicated on ourselfs then they really are and with the more time given we can over think things to the point where it becomes ultimately pointless and/or meaningless or we miss the meaning of the thoughts, views, and opinions we hold and find faults where their really are none.
I remember after I left Christianity, the biggest initial change was how free my thinking became. I no longer needed to jump through so many mental hoops to maintain the belief. Jacob has reminded me of the chains I had to make sure stayed on, more than any other video I've ever seen. Really took me back a few years. Thanks!
Theists are thought addicts via the *Holy Dopamine Ghost* (Dopamine Reward System). Imagine the euphoria experienced by the average person for believing they won a million dollars (it could be a joke ticket yet as long as they believe). Now imagine someone having the same sensations, but being convinced it's a paranormal contact for believing John 3:16.
Check out the science (along with some history) on why the proverbial carrot, string, and stick in our neurology can cause us to error in our thinking. Evolution has it's pitfalls for example believing non-evidence as evidence if we do not stop to think (emotional thinking is not quality thinking, but squashes rational thought). Hoarding, compulsive gambling, believing far out conspiracy theories, and drug addiction are related though certain dynamics are at play. We are all capable of confirmation biases, and compartmentalized thinking (holding & protecting a belief in the face of contradicting evidence).
The Holy Dopamine Ghost (Thoughts are addictive):
th-cam.com/play/PLQATeZAnm87BaJjBtM1vMIq_gHRmBq3ie.html
"Genetic and behavioral factors influencing religiously motivated behavior appear related to dopamine metabolism and signaling. Inclination toward religious behavior and motivation has been associated with a polymorphism on the dopamine receptor gene DRD4 (Comings, Gonzales, Saucier, Johnson, & MacMurray, 2000;Sasaki et al., 2013). Acquired disorders of dopamine physiology also show links to religious behaviors."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478470/
"Religious and spiritual experiences activate the brain reward circuits in much the same way as love, sex, gambling, drugs and music, report researchers at theUniversity of Utah School of Medicine. The findings will be published Nov. 29 in the journalSocial Neuroscience."
unews.utah.edu/this-is-your-brain-on-god/
These neurological processes reinforce neural pathways (bridging literal gaps) in the brain in order to repeat thoughts, and behaviours like energy gathering (eating) along with specie perpetuation (sex). Going from drug addiction to Religion is just a placebo switcharoo (not a miracle).
Dopamine in varying levels is also related to creativity, patternicity, making nonsense make sense, and hallucinations (involuntary movements, tactile/feeling embraced, and speaking in tongues are also forms of hallucinations). Also see "Dopamine Hypothesis". Note that Paul was schizophrenic (2 Cor. 12:9), the early church was encouraged to hallucinate (Gal. 3:1-5), and perform glossolalia (1 Cor. 12:10).
"Dopamine, adrenaline, and noradrenaline are neurotransmitters that belong to the catecholamine family. Dopamine is produced in the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental regions of the brain, and dopamine alterations are related to schizophrenia (1, 2). Dopaminergic projections are divided into the nigrostriatal, mesolimbic, and mesocortical systems. Impairments in the dopamine system result from dopamine dysfunctions in the substantia nigra, ventral tegmental region, striatum, prefrontal cortex, and hippocampus (3-5). The “original dopamine hypothesis” states that hyperactive dopamine transmission results in schizophrenic symptoms."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4032934/
"Dopamine In schizophrenia (SCZ), there is evidence that very high levels of dopamine in the limbic system play a major role in emergence of hallucinations and delusions. Antipsychotic medications, which block central dopamine activity, alleviate the hallucinations of psychosis. Drugs with strong dopaminergic effect, such as L-dopa, methylphenidate, bromocriptine, pramipexole and piribedil, may induce hallucinations. D-amphetamine, a direct dopamine agonist, may also induce psychosis and hallucinations."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2996210/
"Tibetan mystics have long practiced a method to create sentient beings from the power of concentrated thought."
www.google.com/amp/s/www.vice.com/amp/en_ca/article/exmqzz/tulpamancy-internet-subculture-892
Mesolimbic System (instinctive ancient part of the brain) overrides the Frontal Cortex (rationalizing modern) building a cognitive wall.
Dopamine Enhances Optimism Bias
"Here, we show that administration of a drug that enhances dopaminergic function (dihydroxy-L-phenylalanine; L-DOPA) increases an optimism bias. This effect is due to L-DOPA impairing the ability to update belief in response to undesirable information about the future."
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3424419/
Mark 3:28-29 says that the one unforgivable sin is rejecting the *Holy Dopamine Ghost* which is funny since it's the conduit through which one accepts nonsense as gospel.
i.imgflip.com/1ydvtk.jpg
skepticsannotatedbible.com
I remember after I let atheism, the biggest initial change was how free my thinking became. I no longer needed to jump through so many mental hoops to maintain the disbelief.
@@litcoin8193 Please explain.
Mister Privacy
What has Jesus done for you?
@@litcoin8193 some of the mental gymnastics I went through during the 50 years I was a believer was trying to reconcile all the death, bloodshed, murder, genocide, slavery, etc in order to believe the bible was a moral book. Now that I look back I sure had to set aside what I knew was right
“Are you using two different standards?” That was a thing of beauty Anthony.
Was just about to comment this!!
Same
Absolutely brilliant. You could really see some discomfort there when Jacob was considering that question.
The difference is one claims to be science and the other claims to be faith. The definition of science is something observable, testable and repeatable. abiogensis and macroevolution are none of those.
@patrick ledford Nobody has any idea how common descent or abigoensis could occur. There is not a single paper that explains any mechanism that could allow body plan changes or abigoensis.
I don't know how many times you asked, "If evolution were proven true to your satisfaction...?", but it had to be at least 10 times. In each case, it was clear that his brain would not even let him entertain the possibility. It was like he really couldn't understand what you were talking about. I got the impression that he was thinking honestly - but there were just some places his mind really wouldn't let him go.
I don’t think his brain would not let him go there. I thought he was buying time to come up with a response that sounded halfway cogent because he understood how he would come across if he just answered the question honestly. That’s the cognitive dissonance working. He understood the question but he obfuscated causing Anthony to have to repeat the question ad nauseam until he came up with a way around the question.
This inability to answer a direct question directly should be investigated more by SE'ists. I personally remember my own inability to grapple with certain questions -- and being forced to was definitely a part of my awakening. When discussing topics like this with others, I watch for this inability in my IL because it means we've reached some understanding of where's they're coming from.
And after his many tap dances, and acknowledgements of understanding (contradicting himself), the answer was no.
Ryan Brooks yes, he was only thinking “that’s impossible”
God he wasted so much time by just refusing to answer him. It’s like he thought Anthony was trying to convince him of it. It doesn’t matter what it is, we’re only asking you to make sure that it’s actually your reason for believing.
"Are you using two different standards?" I watched you put a pebble in his shoe. Good stuff, Anthony.
That is SUCH a great question. I mean, wow. I'm stealing that. Thanks Anthony!
That part, at around the 17:00 mark, when it was clear that the guy just realized that he was using two standards, and was repeating back Anthony's point, kinda gave me chills. It is a beautiful thing to see someone gaining clarity that likely will end up being life-changing for him. Well done!
@@svanhoosen I just skipped to that part because I cant watch the whole thing right now. My favorite part about that is right about 18:00 (right after what you said) he says "now Im really glad I talked to you, this is the kinda thing I was hoping for."
@@svanhoosen "I've got two different goalposts " 17:52
Classic
Except one openly claims to be based on faith, and the other wears the cloak of objectivity, rationality and proof. So are they both faiths?
You've gotten so good at this. Just seeing how fluidly and gently you redirect distractions and stick to the heart of the issue is impressive even compared to just a couple years ago
I was thinking the same thing!
Stay on target!
He needs to read up on evolution and get a better grasp of what it is. Anyone debating an apologist should be able to debate evolution.
Ross Treloar
Anthony wasn’t trying to win a debate. He was being Socrates. Putting a pebble in the kids shoe without putting him on the defensive.
@@renaissanceofreason385 he should at least be able to back up evolution. Seems kind of silly to not do so just because he doesn't want Jacob's feelings hurt.
The best way I've heard (basic) evolution broken down was from my cousin. He basically said look at your baby photo, and a photo of you today. If you set them next to each other, it's hard to imagine that they're the same person, but if you had taken a photo every single day in between, and lined them up in order, you'd be able to see the gradual changes that got you from point A to point B, without being able to point at specific moments where you went from baby, to toddler, to teenager, to adult and so on.
It doesn't get into the deeper aspects of how evolution works, but it helps to illustrate how small changes over time can completely change appearance, without necessarily having a specific missing link.
A baby human grows and develops to become an older and larger human, not mutate into a different creature alltogether. It is still a human. That is not a very good argument from your cousin.
@@ryfidelity7854 That is because you aren't reading his example properly. The point is that most people view evolution on the surface, that it makes no sense that X species could evolve into Y because they don't see the intermediate steps without looking more deeply into it. To elaborate on the photo example.. if you took a photo of a baby and a photo of an adult and asked "are these the same people" your honest answer would probably have to be "I know that a baby grows into an adult, but I cannot tell if these are the same people at different ages". You would need more evidence, so you are provided one or two or 5 intermediate pictures to help tie the two together. This is the same thing we do with genetic code and species, yet people want more and more and more intermediate pictures even after it becomes obvious.
I get that this is an analogy. I think that one thing this has in common with evolution is that it doesn't explain how life starts or how the world was formed.
You may say that falls outside of evolution but until answered we don't have a complete alternative to G-d
@@Bradley9967 Ok... so... is God more amazing than the start of life, or is an omnipotent Creator more explanation... ok so lets go with the super powerful omg unexplainable god instead of looking at how things might naturally progress or evolve. I apologize if I sound incredulous, but I still don't understand how an explanation for something more complicated that life, is something more powerful and complicated to explain.
@@Bradley9967 and in case you are wondering.... science doesn't have to explain everything right now... it is a process. I can snap my fingers and say something all powerful caused it to snow, or I could explain orbits and planetary tilt and seasons in relation to the planetary shared relation to h20 phase change and survival.
I really liked the part when he realized he is using two different standards for determining what's true, you could really feel the progress with this person
That was a beautiful moment, and I appreciate this man's willingness to explore it!
Progress is an interesting choice of word. I think Jesus is the demonstration. Jesus' work on the cross is the demonstration. Think about how people will accept a journal that tells them about scientific demonstrations.
For example if a science journal tells me the world is round and describes a demonstration of this. I can accept this and believe that the world is a ball shape. The journal could tell me the moon is a sphere. I do not have to hold the moon in my hand in order to believe.
In this same way I can believe what the Bible tells me. The biblical authors writing in their journal to tell me the demonstration they observed that proves Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the Messiah and there is more evidence and more eyewitness testimony to know this than there is to know that the moon is spherical and not just a two dimensional disk up there made of cheese.
@@br.mWhat about other religions and holy books which talk about other figures that have risen from the dead or performed miracles, and claim there were witnesses? Is there a reason that you don't believe those but you believe the bible?
@@dumbledorelives93 Yes because those religions follow after fake gods. Temporary authorities that the God of gods placed over the sinful people groups.
Plus the Bible is in a league of its own. Nothing else comes close to what the Bible is.
One thing I appreciate about Jacob was his commitment to honesty. You can see that he holds honesty and ethics to be a major part of his identity. There were a lot of things he could have chose to not share with you to keep his argument stronger. I really liked how he put air quotes over his “evidence”. Also he admitted he was introducing faith as a means to dodge a question. Another very interesting thing I noticed was just how knowledgeable he was around the topic of evolution. When asked what evidence would be sufficient to prove that evolution could be true, his mind had to work extra hard and his answers were much more reductionist to his actual knowledge of the subject. My speculation is, he already has the adequate knowledge and has made some conclusions in his mind to believe evolution to be a valid truth. The connections were made, now it takes extra effort to deny them.
This guys is sweet, the cognitive dissonance is strong. You can see how hard he is working to keep himself from realizing his own cognitive dissonance. :/ Thanks for talking with him!
just like bernie bros who ignore him or defend him screwing minorities for decades with bidens crime bills or liberals who call republicans racist tho every sht hole ghetto only has democrats in charge
So much this. I wish more people out there would press for educating basically everyone on biases and dissonances in relation to psychology and belief systems.
I completely agree. I hope he's able to reflect, and spring his mind free from those beliefs that he's been indoctrinated into.
Can't answer a question
He’s in denial of a lot more than his cognitive dissonance if you ask me!
Well I guess I'll say it. Having two sets of standards for determining what is more than likely true is being intellectually dishonest.
What do you mean by this comment Eddie. I talked myself into thinking of it two different way and am having difficulty seeing your point. Thanks
Hector Alligator Yes I know. I've been studying philosophy for over 30 years. And at some point it is intellectually dishonest if you are made aware of it.
@@Kelim112 thanks for the video recommendation from Hygiene Mentale
Eddie King Our standards do not have to be the same for different claims unless all other factors are also equal. To make the claim of evolution the same as claims of God is a fallacy known as the category error.
Everyone on the planet is intellectually dishonest then. Institutional biases do affect our ability to be rational objective beings. Practicing skepticism actively helps but even someone like Einstein thought quantum physics was a bunch of balloney.
Skip ahead to a desired point in the talk:
--
Rapport-Building: 00:30
Relativism: 02:15, 26:13
Background: 03:57
Claim (What): 05:13
Strange Bird: 04:20
Confidence Scale: 04:35, 05:40
Justification (Why): 08:16, 12:24, 13:55, 22:31, 23:58, 25:06
Defeasibility: 14:25
Repeating: 09:11, 11:54, 15:44, 17:47, 21:01
Method (How): 09:28, 10:43, 19:59
Aporia: 08:23, 10:43, 12:37. 16:56, 20:11
Pausing: 05:50, 10:56, 19:50, 28:18
Standards: 16:32, 19:33, 29:26
Clarifying: 16:53
Resetting: 19:30
Mirroring: 17:59
Closing: 31:36
Outro: 33:03
Bonus: 33:25
--
Note: Add 35 seconds to these timestamps if listening to the podcast version of this talk.
Anthony Magnabosco - question: in this video you highlighted Jacob putting his right foot forward at 17:59, followed by you mirroring him (and highlighting it with a red arrow as well); was that purposeful or subconscious on your part?
Paul Capestany I was not aware of it at the time, but I noticed it during the editing process. Must’ve been some subtle dancing going on. There’s also some simultaneous swaying going on close before or after this point, but I can’t recall when.
lol, "Strange bird is at 4:20". 420? Maybe Jah does exist!
33:54 mark a person has skipped too far.
I'm still laughing caw caw caw🐥
I am officially in love with Jacobs hand pistols. I don't care who knows it.
Totes. I wanna have a beer with him.
Can I have a time stamp?
D Man-G 0:26
Same!
all of the times. He's double finger guns guy.
“Crisis of faith” seems like a catchphrase people like this will use to seem more relatable, but probably never genuinely doubted anything.
Justin aren’t you guys generally against assumptions? That sounds like a pretty major assumption
Don't argue against beliefs, argue against arguments. Let people tear down their own beliefs one irrational argument at a time. Keep up the good work my friend.
Yes, that's how to do it!
Yeah I would tear this Anthony down his arguments are weak.
@br.m
You could have done that in your comment. You could have wrecked his 'weak' arguments, and this would have demonstrated that his arguments are possibly weak, and your ability to take 'em down is possibly strong.
Either way, we'd have been agog at the display, and you'd have earned internet points; which can be used to top-up your validation meter.
TL:DR The above comment very much smacks of keyboard warrior nonsense.
I dont want it to sound mean, but so many apologists have the same vocal inflections and gestures of car salesmen and i always found it a little unsettling. I think its the fact that their conversations are never just conversations, but they are always trying to sell you on their religion. When Anthony talks it genuinely sounds like someone who just wants to have a conversation and understand things. He is not pushing anything. Christian apologists could take a cue from him because people definitely can pick up on "tone" in a conversation (and i think this is one of the reasons Anthony does so well, his tone is one of a genuine desire to understand). So when apologists try to just have a conversation, but have a tone that they are pushing something, it comes across a bit dishonest even when im sure they never meant it to be that way.
it would be good to see a wide scale data collection to show that is the case :D
True.
I had so many encounters with amateurish salesmen showing that same body language where you can read lack of self confidence and bad acting.
From someone like him I wouldn't even buy a vacuum cleaner.
In some ways apologetics are salesmen they are trying to get you to buy into a product, in this case, their belief system but unlike a used car salesman they cannot even demonstrate what they are selling you is actually real, so whereas with a second-hand car salesman can actually show you the car you are potentially buying the apologetic has to convince you what they are selling is real without being able to demonstrate it which should make the sale much more difficult but they have had a lot longer to work on the sales techniques than what any car salesman has and are quite good at appealing to peoples emotions with techniques such as "Wouldn't you like to be reunited with your lost loved ones forever?" or try and intimidate people into believing what they do "If you do not believe my loving and merciful God will have no choice but to torture you for eternity". To me, it is all a conman's game although I do not believe that all those who are apologetics realise they are conmen and genuinely do believe in the product they are trying to sell.
By the second pair of finger pistols I knew where this was going. By the 15th I was ready to shoot myself.
@@HarryS77 😂😂
It seemed to me Jacob wasn't interested in having a genuine conversation, and instead put up some apologetics façade. Maybe he wanted try out his apologetics "chess game skillz" on Anthony? Kudos to Anthony for showing us the level of focus and patience some interlocutors require.
He was probably scouting :)
yeah, that's NO facade , some of those people just ARE that way ,
always apologizing for that prick of a god of theirs
I don’t think he’d even last long with Matt (Dillahunty).
I disagree, he was definably strategic in his answers but I think he was being as honest as he could to both his beliefs and his rational mind. It's hard for some people and I think he was doing his best with the mental shackles religion can put on you.
@@matthewzeller5026 He also expressed his expectations on the talk. "That's the kind of questions I was hoping for" or something along thoses lines. And it was none of the standard counter-apologetics things he might encounter but one that had him reflect on himself.
He seemed used to having these conversations in a different way, but genuinely open for the approach.
"I know I'm not answering your question..."
A self-aware apologist. Whadda ya know.
"Every part of the human body is so purposefully designed for a reason."
Tailbone: I appreciate this sentiment.
Nipples: He's got a point...
laryngeal nerve: the reason is - that i like to take the long way
Appendix: Standing by.
Nothing he said was innaccurate. My right arm has function and a purpose, but if I were to lose it I can still live without it.
This is what it looks like when you stick to the method rather than jump on every small thing that pops up. Awesome job Anthony!
I think this conversation was actually quite effective. Anthony's interlocutor was able to recognize a disparity in his requirements for his belief in "Christianity" versus evolutionary processes. Hopefully this will stick with him and help him reevaluate his position and come closer to truth.
There is no evidence for the false belief or religion of evolution. Nothing said here disproves the reality or truth of God or Christianity in any way.
@@taowaycamino4891
Thank you for the reply. I would agree that nothing here necessarily disproves the idea of a Christian God. As far as Evolution being called a religion, sure, I guess capitalism is a religion, all imagine orders on some level could be considered religions.
12:30 was an epic moment. Followed by a long pause....
I think this person knows very little about evolution so he finds it easily dismissed. He actually had a few take away moments and will think about this.
Good job.
@ippos_khloros Indeed, you usually get some ignorant response like "If evolution is true then why are there still monkeys around today?" Or "If evolution is true where are the half fish half birds?" or some other ridiculous response that just makes you think "do I even bother trying to explain to this person who clearly paid no attention to anything in science class at school?".
Yeah but, if you listen to the brief explanation he gave...it was actually much better than the usual. He said the words: " common ancestor ". Better than " we all came from monkeys "! AM may have hit a single with this guy.
It’s such a shame. I was internally screaming, “that’s not what the evolutionary biologists even claim!!”, but I understand the approach. It’s up to him to look into it on his own now, but people comfortable in their ways will sometimes just…not do anything different, even if they think they probably know better
If you were walking in a forest and found a god, would you assume that god is designed, rather than just occurring naturally?
Awesome question. :-)
define a god distinctly and show a demonstration why the god exists or likely exists first - then I may be able to make a determination
@@davidwright834 there is that Ricky Gervais clip where he talks about how excited scientists would be if we discovered God. We would have a bottle of God to test it for its Godliness. Lol
Great question!
What is a god....? . I need more information to answer your question
It's so frustrating when theists try to differentiate between macro and micro evolution. When they don't even understand either.
Adaptive change, even to the point of speciation, is devolutionary. Evolution has no mechanisms capable of causing new body plans to emerge.
@@jon__doe "Evolution has no mechanisms capable of causing new body plans to emerge." What gives you the authority to make such a claim?
@@aarongrooves The fact that evolutionary biologists have never established that they can. It's all based on the assumption that such things are possible.
What gives evolutionary biologists the authority to claim otherwise? there is no empirical evidence to validate the claim.
@@jon__doe So if I understand correctly, you reject the notion that evolution can lead to speciation based upon the grounds that you personally have not observed strong enough evidence?
@@aarongrooves close but not exactly. Speciation is a loosely defined term and adaptive changes have led to new isolated species. but new species of finches are not the same as claiming hippo-like creatures evolved into whales. Completely different body plans. larger beaks, or changes in color are not the same thing.
I reject the notion that unguided, random processes are capable of producing extraordinarily complex biological systems de novo.
Because there is no evidence that says it's possible, and no logical argument to support the assumption that it is possible.
Wow. That was a meaningful and civil conversation. Hats off to both parties.
And yes. The questions were direct, thoughtful and cut the heart of the believe structure.
Oof this is exhausting. It seems like instead of trying to having an open conversation about his beliefs, he's treating it like a game where he tries to figure out which direction you're going and come up with arguments rather than going with the flow of what is actually being asked.
Still, I think he went out of the conversation with a insight of how he himself thinks and their standards for truth. That's a win to me.
A lot of strategic answering for sure. Its exactly what I would do if I felt like someone was trying to trap me or steer me a certain way. Not sure how to avoid that!
Lol
We cannot make replicas now but in the future we can.
2080
Some humans are becoming more non-biological than biological
Today, the average citizen has access to a wide array of biotechnology implants and personal medical devices. These include fully artificial organs that never fail, bionic eyes and ears providing Superman-like senses, nanoscale brain interfaces to augment the wearer's intelligence, synthetic blood and bodily fluids that can filter deadly toxins and provide hours' worth of oxygen in a single breath.
Some of the more adventurous citizens are undergoing voluntary amputations to gain prosthetic arms and legs, boosting strength and endurance by orders of magnitude. There is even artificial skin based on nanotechnology, which can be used to give the appearance of natural skin when applied to metallic limbs.
These various upgrades have become available in a series of gradual, incremental steps over preceding decades, such that today, they are pretty much taken for granted. They are now utilised by a wide sector of society - with even those in developing countries now having access to some of the available upgrades due to exponential trends in price performance.
Were a fully upgraded person of the 2080s to travel back in time a century and be integrated into the population, they would be superior in almost every way imaginable. They could run faster and for longer distances than the greatest athletes of the time; they could survive multiple gunshot wounds; they could cope with some of the most hostile environments on Earth without too much trouble. Intellectually, they would be considered geniuses - thanks to various devices merged directly with their brain.
And every time I think I have this SE thing down pat, Anthony comes along to demonstrate how far I have to go. That was brilliant - comparing his standards of evidence was a stroke from the master. I wouldn't be surprised if Objectively Dan has a new friend soon.....
Anthony is brilliant at not responding to the classic trigger moments. Those things to which most of us go "what? NO". Conversation becomes an argument which is all most of us know.
@30:28 He sums the theistic position so well!
“I’m setting this bar for the foundation of my belief so high, no one can knock it down”
MyTBrain That was my favorite part of this talk.
I am impressed with the honestly and straightforwardness of the host. I have watched a lot of Christian street evangelism videos and I was repulsed by the manipulation and deception. I loved this video.
This will definitely go in my top 5 for your chats. Intellectually honest, open, and receptive partner. You did very well to step him through his own thoughts, and when he found cognitive dissonance, you didn't pressure him (too much XD). He deflected once, then twice, then you knew when to let the conversation simmer in his mind and let him sort things out. I hope he comes back and follows up with you in the near future.
There is no evidence for the false belief or religion of evolution. Nothing said here disproves the reality of God or Christianity in any way. It's also funny and without explanation how this atheist or agnostic(owner of this channel) is so religiously committed to his moral or religious beliefs that he orders you to be respectful when leaving comments here. How does he know this morality of his is true or exists?
@@taowaycamino4891 no one is trying to disprove Christianity here. I'd think you were in the wrong place if you didn't specifically note that this channel has a rule about being kind and respectful.
This was a great talk. It was cool to see Jacob feeling so comfortable that he could talk honestly. And the question (which was great) and interaction at 16:36 was amazing to watch as you two worked together to understand one another and ponder the question.
So he wants a demonstration of evolution before accepting it, but accepts "God did it" without a demonstration but takes it on faith.
Why doesn't he accept evolution on faith?
Would have been my question.
I think it's a waste of time arguing about whether evolution is true or not because even if it was shown to be false the explanation "God did it" doesn't win by default so I don't waste time on it.
I just cut to the chase and ask.
1. Is God supernatural?
2. Do we have a way to confirm that anything supernatural exists?
Then I sit back and watch them try to avoid answering and then attempt to derail the conversation then get annoyed at me when I continually keep bringing it back to that question.
I finish by saying, if we have no way to confirm the supernatural, we have no justification for believing anything supernatural exists, would you agree?
Thats not what his channel is about, you might be confusing SE with counterapologetics?
@@yannik9730
Its exactly what it's about.
Epistemology is about finding out what methods people use to arrive at a belief and asking if those methods are reliable.
I'm asking, what methods do you use to arrive at the belief that something supernatural exists?
And is that method reliable?
Well, SE approach is less confrontrational. Its objective is to let the person trace the mental steps that the person took to get into the chosen belief, not outright dismiss their claims from the get-go.
But I think you're right about the "take evolution by faith" thing, I think that's why Anthony wanted him to think about faith for the next time.
@@Yoseqlo1
I'm not outrightly dismissing their claims I'm asking them what steps/method they used to confirm their claim was true.
Then asking them if that is a reliable way to truth.
But I'm keeping the conversation on track, because they'll always try to step around the problem of not having a way to confirm the supernatural, so it's my job to keep coming back to how they do.
It's not my fault that this frustrates them, and hopefully they acknowledge why they're feeling frustrated by it and realise that it's because they can't justify their belief.
Crazy prayingmantis Yep, great question. If Jacob returns and brings up faith as a required component for concluding Jesus is his Lord and Savior (for the explanation or the demonstration), we will see what his definition of the word “faith” is and yes, see if someone could apply faith as he’s dfined it to conclude evolution is real. You’re getting ahead of me :)
He seems like an honest and polite guy stating his beliefs and such but the thing is is that he's already been deeply indoctrinated to never question the existence of God. I really hope he'll give it more thought and get rid of his biases so he can look at these issues objectively.
Not honest in this aspect, you can clearly see him contradicting his points and realizing that he himself is changing his standards that he set himself
He could very well be unaware with his contradictions, my man. But whether or not he did that on purpose, it was a polite conversation, and i applaud him for that. You know this kid called dan? He took about 3 years or so to look back at what he was defending. Let's just hope he'll look back at this and come to a better understanding where he is factually incorrect. 🤘
-What's the main reason you believe in this?
-X is the main reason.
-If X would change, would it change your belief in this?
-No.
(?)
Kevin Kalbermatten yea what most Christians really mean is I just believe in god because I believe in god. Even when it is revealed to them that they have no good reason to believe they just say it’s faith.
It's basically the science is wrong on evolution and I know better, btw I know nothing about evolution.
I do and you are correct.
@@jon__doe You need to clarify your comment. It's not making sense.
@@logik100.0Sure, the declared science that evolutionary theory can explain biodiversity is wrong. It can't.
And I have made a study of evolution.
@@jon__doe How many peer reviewed papers can you site that backs you up?
@@logik100.0 One comes to mind. A published paper espousing panspermia as an explanation for OOL and the Cambrian Explosion. The case is made quite well that there is *no* candidate for a theory of OOL with any supporting evidence and evolutionary mechanisms simply can't account for the Cambrian Explosion. As in not possible.
Argument from ignorance and argument from incredulity.
"everything works together " ...except for everything that doesn't. He doesn't count the stuff that perishes and doesn't get to reproduce. Classic ignorance.
Also false dichotomy
Also special pleading.
Great conversation. It’s interesting how he can barely imagine evolution hypothetically being true
he mentions micro evolution being a thing, but doesn't get that micro and macro are essentially the same thing over longer periods.
@@Mach1Greeble It's like "of course you can put some red color into a bucket of blue color, but it'll never become purple!"
Man, I never would have thought of the bit about having different standards of evidence for the two prepositions. Fucking brilliant, man.
What strikes me at around 15 min, he probably spend a lot of time listening to Christian people talking about the two side : design or evolution, and he doesn't seems to realize that he actually only got the two explanation from ONE side of the coin. The question was (I think), what if you spend as much time with an evolutionary biologist as you did with Christians ... talking as much with the biologist about evolution as you did with the Christians in your life about design ...
Because only then you would see the two choice from the TWO side of the coin, only then it would be reasonable to make your mind up.
It's rather simple. The biologist is a factual. If you took all the Christian's books and burned them, they wouldn't be able to get them back. If you took all of the biologist's books and notes and burned them. You could easily get them back because everything in them are simply facts that can be tested again.
With that introspection, it's such a shame he's studying apologetics of all things. A solid week of back-and-forth discussions with a biologist who understand evolution and teaching well enough, and I reckon he'd be taking his first steps on the long journey to atheism.
Yeah, but there is still hope. I did Theology, the cracks appeared actually in orientation when my Oxford train lecturer, instructed us that his goal was to teach us critical thinking. This ultimately saved me. Anthony is forcing this guy to think, why he thinks why he thinks, brilliant.
You did an awesome job pointing out inconsistency in his standards of evidence Anthony. I saw it like you did but would not have been able to address it as well. Great example of how to expose errors in reasoning without it being a personal attack. These are the subtleties that really help move the conversation and understanding forward. This is why SE negates the backfire effect.
Anthony, you are performing a great service. The age of your interviewees is also great for questioning their learned beliefs. Oh, and your delivery is excellent... so open and disarming. Thank you, sir.
Nate B Thanks, Nate. This really is a good location and the students for the most part are really friendly and gracious with their time. Thanks for watching.
There is no evidence for the false belief or religion of evolution. Nothing said here disproves the reality of God or Christianity in any way. It's also funny and without explanation how this atheist or agnostic(owner of this channel) is so religiously committed to his moral or religious beliefs that he orders you to be respectful when leaving comments here. How does he know this morality of his is true or exists?
This is amazing to watch. Your patience as he spouts fallacy after fallacy is admirable. In my head I can hear myself responding by saying Things like, complexity is not a hallmark of design.or The appearance of design is not the same thing as actually being designed, Or the only difference between micro and macro evolution is time.. I instinctually want to point out the fallacy. But you just patiently let him go on and ask the perfect questions that allow him to see his own double standards.
Came to your channel after seeing your Kyle interview. The way you engage people is truly an inspiration.
"If you're walking through a forest and see a chair, the first thing you think is it was designed"
Riiight.. but the trees weren't
The Argument-From-Design is clearly flawed when you spell it out as "I know a watch is designed because I contrast it's appearance against nature. I know nature/humans are designed because I contrast them against.... uh..."
It's also flawed when you point out that we live in a universe that is almost entirely lethal to us, and even within the sliver of the singular planet that we do inhabit, we are still subject to numerous personal diseases, whether genetic, inherited, or acquired through our environment, many of which are lethal and incurable. It's objectively terrible design that more accurately lends itself to the conclusion that whatever life *could* survive on this tiny sliver of the universe is the kind of life that got to reproduce and spread to the edges of the habitable boundary.
I mean, I'm no engineer, but I'm pretty sure that if an expert engineer looked at a machine working exactly as the human body, he'll probably have more than a few recommendations to improve the design. Getting rid of the appendix will be a good one, or the action of goose bumps, since they serve no purpose other than aesthetic.
@Nick Woodruff Oh, I hope you get better.
Yes I ask for an example of something that isn’t designed. Also ask what an undesigned universe would be like.
I'm currently studying product design and I love hearing religious people claiming how we are designed by God. I'd say God needs to learn couple things😁
@@Yoseqlo1 I've heard that a benefit of an appendix is that after extreme diarrhea (with most all beneficial bacteria flushed out), the appendix might still contain some beneficial bacteria to later restart good digestion. There are better examples of how messed up our bodies are, I'd have to search for the list. For example, the nerve that goes from the brain, around a heart artery, and back up to the voice box, rather than going direct. It's fine for fish, but we have a neck. My first wish would be for a bigger brain. Humans have terrible memories, we are violent, jealous, gullible, ignorant, slow learners, etc.
Oh, and as a man gets older, the prostrate gland blocks urination. How stupid is that?! In 5 years, I'll be due for cataract surgery. I'm currently near-sighted, overweight, and now hard of hearing. I was born with terrible allergies. I don't have enough vitamin D (common problem). I take a cholesterol statin drug (most common drug prescribed). I have to go to the Dentist next week. Wow, I could complain about so much more.
Intelligent Design? Bullpoop!
I’m so in awe of your patience!!!
"Oh i get it" doesnt get it.
"Oh i get it" doesnt get it.
"Oh i get it" doesnt get it.
"Oh i get it" doesnt get it.
If he did get it he was scared of where the conversation was going and didnt want to challenge himself and his belief.
You may be right. In that case, perhaps it added some counterbalance to his certainty level, even if it takes some time for the weight of it to be fully recognized.
@@5avan10 Yeah i think he was avoiding the conversation going somewhere he cant handle, or has been told to avoid. He did say he studied this stuff with a group of people, so im guessing hes probably taught to focus on evolution and always bring it back around to that point. Ignore if evolution being taken off the table and any other point that might be discussed
How do you know he doesnt get it?
It's painful to watch how damaged a mind can be by the virus of faith.
I love seeing how SE works on someone instructed on SE!
There is no evidence for the false belief or religion of evolution. Nothing said here disproves the reality of God or Christianity in any way. It's also funny and without explanation how this atheist or agnostic(owner of this channel) is so religiously committed to his moral or religious beliefs that he orders you to be respectful when leaving comments here. How does he know this morality of his is true or exists?
As a longtime atheist, if there were any arguments for design that could be made, they would be made upon its mistakes.
DEEK!
There is no evidence for the false belief or religion of evolution. Nothing said here disproves the reality of God or Christianity in any way. It's also funny and without explanation how this atheist or agnostic(owner of this channel) is so religiously committed to his moral or religious beliefs that he orders you to be respectful when leaving comments here. How does he know this morality of his is true or exists?
wow, the blind watchmaker.... same old debunked crap. Open a science book.
Yes beyond any doubt Jacob we are an evolved species.
One does not need faith in evolution once properly educated, and free of cognitive biases on the subject.
byrysh They don’t care. The point for them is to keep believing something they’ve already decided is true.
when they say that to me i point to Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants and fruit trees, each bearing fruit with seed according to its kind.” And it was so. 12The earth produced vegetation: seed-bearing plants according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
and then ask how nature shows god when your book says your god did not do it
@@cloudsstar Yep. It's more like "so the watch-salesguy pulled the watch out of the drawer", with no evidence of a watchmaker. And Genesis often enough describes god just as the salesguy :D
2:00 Anthony writing "can't even curl 30 lbs"
Metaphysical question of the week: how many more ‘thumbs up” could Jacob
throw if Anthony called him.back for a third time ?
I was just going to ask, is there an emoji for his gun fire finger gesturing? lol
Yeah, heavy use of hand-pistols there, but I liked Jacob. Seemed like a nice guy.
@@AsixA6 👉🏼👉🏼
“I can comprehend an all powerful being but can’t comprehend evolution”.
Orphan BlackOps even though that being is supposedly incomprehensible ... Ok then
Hey Anthony, just discovered your channel a few days ago and I love it! Great work!
I noticed how often you talk about faith with your interview partners and how they might "use" it as a method to determine whether their belief is true. I never would have thought of faith being a method but rather of something that you have after you have already formed your belief. And I think the reason for this confusion on my part is that I am German and that in the german language we have no separate words for faith and believe but only the word "Glaube". For everyday statements like "I believe it's going to rain tomorrow." (German : Ich gaube, dass es morgen regnen wird.) or something like that we use the exact same word as in "I have faith in god." (German: Ich glaube an Gott.). Then again, when you ask people in the beginning of your talks whether they have a deeply held believe they want to explore, a German person would probably not use the word "Glaube" either but rather something like "Überzeugung" which translates to conviction.
So from a foreigners perspective it's really interesting to see how language might shape a significant part of the discussion here. You have to distinguish between faith and believe to even ask the question whether faith can make you believe something. Without that distinction the question becomes meaningless or at least circular from the start.
Anyway, just wanted to share my observation with you! I hope my English is good enough to understand what I wanted to say. Keep up the good work, I love it!
Well, many chrisitans (or religious people for that matter), often use the term "faith" to refer to trust God, to say, the religious experience they feel. In this context, faith is reduced to not question a premise even if proved wrong, because you can't disprove how a person feels about a premise.
The same situation in Polish. We have one word - wiara (verb = wierzyć). Often during such discussions you can meet with sentences like: "Everyone believes in something, eg you believe that tomorrow your exam will go well."
Thx for the cultural perspective, Amandus. Also, I'm fascinated with language, so appreciated that angle, too.
@@swamihuman9395 You're welcome. I also find it interesting that Grzegorz said that it is the same in Polish. It would be interesting to know how many languages make that distinction between faith and belief. If only I could remember some of the French I learned in school... :)
@@amandus2800 in french too there is a difference. They use ''foi'' (faith) and ''croyance'' (belief).
But even then, ''je crois'' (i believe) could also means ''i think''. Thus, there is some times where the proper meaning needs to be clarified.
This guy seemed like a well intentioned and chill dude. And those finger guns had me dyin
This was a good conversation and I am sure that Jacob walked away with some stuff to think about. Pointing out the difference of standards for accepting the claims was one of the key points of the dialog!
The old “Look at the trees” argument...
Wow, ok, it's so damn nice to see someone doing this better than I presently can. Not only does it mean I'm not frustrated by you saying something I think is stupid or missing something I think is obvious, it also makes it a good learning experience for me. Kudos, man.
Hi Jacob, Thanks for your thoughts. Just at the end there you said "Well I'm willing to accept it based off the evidence of everything that's been created". I'd like to ask you, if I may: If someone from a different religion stated the same thing about their creator god, what would be a good question that we could ask them to determine how valid their statement is?
Well, I ain't Anthony, but if I may, I think you must ask the person how they arrived at that conclusion, from there, you can ask if there is a way other than creation that things could have been in, from there you can have a conversation where you ask questions about their belief to understand where the person stands in that belief to how they do define it. Most of the time, we think we understand people, but we might be wrong, or the reasons they hold a belief might be really different from what you think, heck, sometimes people don't even know why they hold a belief, just accepted it blindly.
Asking Jacob directly how he arrived at that conclusion is one way to go. My way above is essentially asking Jacob to to colaborate with me to ask our person of different religion how they arrived at their (same) conclusion. I see Jacob and my question as asking the same question - just phrased in third person.
You do an excellent job of keeping yourself and the interviewed calm and collected. A lot of times just trying to have such a discussion goes overboard with feelings and emotions due to dealing with peoples core beliefs.
I can only hope that after revealing twice that his standard of evidence is not the same for a claim he already believes is true and a claim he already believes is not true, that Jacob might have a revelation.
Wow it took a long time to get here. 24:45 the tap dancing was incredibly difficult for me to wade through. Anthony has a lot of patience for sure!
Jacob, what kind of designer would put an entertainment centre in a waste disposal area?
Peace
Also, what kind of designer mixes digestive and respiratory systems? We can die choking on food - something that we need to live.
that is clearly a designed feature - it's so when they pass out you can carry them home like a 6-pack
I really enjoyed this. Jacob kept pointing out "i see what you're doing" and acknowledged the dissonance in his thinking quite well... but he seemed to also dismiss it too fast as if on an apologetics autopilot...
"im willing to accept it on the evidence of everything that was created" with no evidence as to how or if it was created......sigh
I like this guy. I hope we get more with him.
I like this guy. He’s very engaged and actually cares about figuring things out.
That being said - a lot of fallacies he needs to be disabused of.
He’s great with expressing these relatable analogies, but should be reminded that when an analogy sounds good and makes sense, we still need to proof that the comparison is actually accurate.
Constructing a compelling analogy is only the first step of communicating an idea. We next need to evaluate the hypothesis being proposed, with more critical thinking than just an affinity for its poetic qualities.
e.g. that chair in the forest AKA the watchmaker analogy.
If you were a being who had never seen a chair before, you wouldn’t have a frame of reference to identify it as a familiar human-made piece of furniture.
Maybe if we had factories for designing and producing universes, and then you saw this universe and it appeared very similar to all the manufactured universes you’re familiar with, like chairs and watches, then you could say with some confidence that yeah, this universe looks like an intelligently designed one.
"can you do your thing on me" is exactly what I am going to say if I ever meet you one day. Your vids have been so great to listen to while walking around these past few weeks. Fuckin' love what you're doing.
he doesn't understand evolution, everything he thinks he knows about evolution was told to him by a preacher
@4:25 I love Anthony's lil' reaction to his realization that the mascot is walking through his video during an interview :)
Especially in the end there, it seemed like he was trying to avoid even the hypothetical that evolution is factually true, which makes me understand how difficult it must be for someone like him to actually accept evolution.
Well its impossible that evolution could be true. Its not even science.
“Could you do your thing on me? Make me abandon my belief? I’ve really got a lot better things to do on Sunday mornings!”
Anthony, great interview. Jacob seemed very guarded and careful about what he was willing to consider, but you still managed to elicit moments of openness.
that was painful, he needs to watch some Aron Ra videos on both of Aron's channels
Omarose Moon Did you get the impression that Jacob was ready for that? I’m not quite so sure.
@@magnabosco210 Might be ready for Aron's high school series or systematic classification of life - but not the falsehoods of creationism. That might be too much for him. Though being challenged by that series might just make him question more of his faith.
He should watch "Evolution Crash Course".
Everything in the human body has a purpose? Someone tell him about wisdom teeth, appendix, etc.
As an agnostic: all of those do have some useful possible functions. Especially Gallbladder. However, the fact that "some people have wisdom teeth and some do not" should be an obvious give away that there is no singular industrial purpose to the existence of humans or to evolution though.
Gallbladder does have a purpose and I'm pretty sure foreskin does too but god decided he didn't like it after designing it and rather than design it out in the next version (post flood) he kept it and told everyone to do their own mod.
Male nipples
The crazy Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve is a dead give away! It connects the larynx to the brain - maybe 8" away but does a trip down to the heart where it does a U turn comes all the way back up - a distance of maybe 36" or so! In the giraffe it's about 100 times longer than it needed to be! Evolution can explain why (fish have no neck) How does 'God is our intelligent designer' explain it though???
Even the appendix is thought to be important. We might not fully understand its function, but that doesn't mean it has no function.
Now, your broader point that there can be evolutionary byproducts that are inefficient or unnecessary is true. A better example would be how the eyeball inverts images onto the retina, which the brain then has to invert again to make it appear "upright." It would have been far more efficient if the image were never inverted in the first place, but...evolution.
Lol you almost fooled me with that bee!! I had to slow the video down to see its wings werent moving. I'll have to be even more skeptic of what I see in your videos from now on!
Maybe the frequency of it's wings were locked with the camera's framerate ;)
Very good intervention by Anthony. From about 15 minute mark I think Jacob knew he would have to defend bullshit from that point on. That's when Jacob pretended not to understand the hypothetical question about having a scientist be able to explain the mechanics of evolution. He knew he was cornered. But as we all know, in these types of discussions, the believer will attempt to look for back doors to slip out of. But even if an extremely sharp witted person can quickly divert the conversation in the direction he wants, he still has to defend bullshit. And by the time Anthony brings up the idea of Jacob using different standards, Jacob knows deep down he has been nailed in a special pleading area. From here on it's the usual theist tapdance such as pretending not to understand even the most simple hypothetical questions, disputing the meaning of terms being used ( e.g. demonstration ).
An incredible talk. His level of self awareness and understanding of the conversation was great and Anthony you did a good job questioning and not attacking (as per usual)
15:20 But doesn't that apply to the god claim as well? I mean yes it is an explanation to some degree but how exactly do you demonstrate it? Also it is quiet fallacious to assume that just because one of two explanations can't be demonstrated therefore the other one is true. They can very well both be false and the honest answer would be "I don't have an answer".
Edit: Well nvm, Anthony said exactly that just seconds later.
This guy is me 10 years ago.
Going out hardcore with the quadruple, no wait quintuple, oh my God he's still going to do ain't he, SEXTUPLE finger guns :D
This was one of my favorite SE conversations. He seemed to really understand what he believes, which makes for a smooth conversation. And because he seemed well versed in the subjects and open to hearing Anthony it allowed Anthony to be very blunt about some of his questions. My favorite quote being something like “ what I’m trying to get at, is that it seems you hold Evolution to a higher standard than Christianity.” And he was willing and able to explore that. Wonderful conversation!
He does not seemed well versed in the definition of theory as defined in science or evolution.
@@carl5438 I suppose what I mean is that its not hard for him to identify his beliefs. Many people, including myself, have trouble identifying the different aspects of why we believe or how we come to know/ believe things. He seems to understand that well, or at least more than the average person.
This guy was fascinating to observe. He'd start out super confident, then you could visibly see him get uncomfortable when questioning himself, then he'd physically move (step to the side or back) and try to go back to an argument he was comfortable with. I'm not as well versed in body language as I'd like, but it was still interesting to watch his as he worked through this.
The hardest part of street epistemology is keeping a straight face when the guy says "I don't believe in evolution because humans can't replicate."
"Are we talking about evolution as in one species forms into another species? Or are we talking about evolution as in adaptations over time?"
You can clearly see that this guy has NO idea what evolution is. This furthers my hypothesis that those that do not accept evolution merely don't understand it.
I thought he was about to bring the Crocoduck.
Loving the dual pistol gestures! Great conversation!
This poor guy is still in the middle of his crisis of faith what a compliment to you that he sought you out, like an island in his sea of confusion. He seems exhausted.
Krinsta1 Interesting metaphor. I wonder if you might be right.
Excellent approach. Loved it. Was especially happy that two people could have such a heavy conversation coming from different sides and nobody was getting angry or yelling. This goes for all the street epistemology videos he has does. He keeps it low key. It took me 48 years of being a Christian to become an atheist and I'll never go back. Christians have nothing to stand on. Not one fact. Checking the Bible to see if something is real is crazy. There is no way the Bible can be true. I didn't become an atheist through studying religion but rather through history. Not the zombie Jesus or the talking snake, doesn't make sense to me.
24:54-25:26
If Jacob believes the Genesis narrative is factual and the Hebrew Bible verifies Jacob’s beliefs about the supernatural characteristics of Jesus, why wasn't the Jesus character included in the Old Testament?
jeffersonianideal
Jesus was God in the flesh. In the Old Testament GOD IS Spirit. You could even say consciousness God. God Had a Son according to the flesh but the Same Father God Spirit in him.
Good conversation, he seems nice. It got really interesting towards the end, he seems to have uncovered the distinction between what *led* him to a particular belief (appearance of design) versus what *supports* his *continuing* belief (evolution being false isn't it)!
"are you using two different standards?" Great question, Anthony.
I really like how he called it out "oh you got me catch 22 it's faith", he verbalized his own thoughts on where the logic was going, I don't think he had any bias towards your questioning. I think his own reasoning led him to that realization. It was beautiful.
I loved how you referred back to your notes and brought up that his 99.9% is contingent on a demonstration of evolution. He seemed to have forgotten that.
You also mentioned his double standard, his bar for proving evolution is set so, so much higher than his beliefs.
I really enjoyed this one, Anthony. Good work.
7:20 - 9:27
Who designed the designer?
jeffersonianideal people.
@@lil-al
You just gave away the sinister secret behind the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated upon humanity.
31:57
This was a switch. Usually, it's Mr. M. asking his interlocutors if they need a drink.
nice work, Jacob clearly just wants jesus and god to be real
Patience, empathy, and sincerity go a long way. This is why I favor civil dialogue over debates between ideologues.
So, Jacob is going with the "I personally don't know how things work so I'm going sticking with my preconceived beliefs" fallacy.