Viced Rhino is a very good channel (Its an anagram of Eric Hovind...lol) .. also about the Laryngial Nerve... the Human Eye is also an example if incompetent "design" the blood vessels are IN FRONT of the Retina and we have quite a big BLIND SPOT... it's like designing a TV where the cables are in front of the screen and there's a patch of dead pixels that moves when you look at it...lol
First, I love seeing Joe respond to Design arguments given that Joe has said that he sees them as some evidence for theism in weighing all the factors that lead him to agnosticism. So it is nice to get a better idea of how much he weighs design arguments towards theism. Joe Schmid's response to the argument made from 9:47 in the video that continues through 3:05 in the video was super cool because it reminded me of a recent question that Dustin Crummet helped answer for me in the Reason and Religion discussion group that we all interact with. You can't legitimately cheat a Bayesian Liklihood ratio. By making the prior more complex by positing something like God being such that he is very likely to create the exact conditions leading to the flower outside my window, you make seeing those conditions more likely on that God Hypothesis at the expense of making that Hypothesis itself less plauaible. It is simply taking some of the improbability of the data we see on the God hypothesis and putting instead into the hypothesis itself. I hope I stated that correctly.
2:09 The needle of a compass has the goal of pointing north. Once it points north, it doesn't deviate, having achieved its goal. Its purely mechanistic action shows no sign of being directed by intelligence.
@@fjolnir3431 Any magnetic object has the goal of aligning with its ambient magnetic field. The compass is designed to exploit this behaviour. The design of the compass does not cause the needle to have the goal of pointing north.
Another thing about point 2. In the Aquinas 5th Way. What if the most efficient cause in a particular part of nature is not harmony and order but Chaos.. there could be a million chaotic steps to get to the desired goal... for example.... Evolution is not Order and Harmony as it is basically Chaotic changes in DNA causing either improvements, Disabilities or a null effect, thats hardly Ordered or Harmonious yet it achieves its end goal..
15:04 Statement 1 is backwards. What it *should* say is that humans sometimes makes artifacts that resemble natural objects. We would then have to convert statement 3 to 'some human artifacts are intentionally designed by humans to resemble natural objects. From there, 4 & 5 are simply non sequiturs. 35:00 I discount the fine-tuning argument for a simple reason: we have no idea what the odds of these values of the constants are, or even what constants there might be (the law structures Joe mentioned). [And personally, I *do* find Craig to be intentionally deceptive.] 1:15:40 The Earth appears to be basically flat. By this argument, we are justified in taking the Earth to be flat. But it's not.
20:00 just a quick correction, Dover V Kitzmiller was a bench trial, since the right to a jury did not apply. The outcome was decided by a judge, not a jury. I recommend you read the judges review of the court case though, it’s great.
Some interesting objections to Fine-tuning! I wonder how the 'Electrons in love' position coheres with Dustin Crummet's psycho-physical harmony, as they are both about psychophysical laws yet yield opposite conclusions. Also, I just read Joshua Rasmussen's and Felipe Leon's 'Is God the Best Explanation of Things?' and its by far the best Phil. of Religion book I've read!
Bruh that Rasmussen-Leon dialogue book is on another level. I heartily recommend it to everyone! And yes, Dustin’s/Brian’s argument there can actually be seen as an “improved fine-tuning argument” - and it would, indeed, apply to the electrons in love, since there seem to be many more epistemically possible chaotic or non-harmonious psychophysical laws concerning electron consciousness than there are orderly or harmonious such laws. This is one reason why it’s becoming one of my favorite arguments for theism🙂
35:00 the lottery analogy is very good. Fine-tunning arguments are basically: "Fine-tunning for life is very improbable by chance, therefore the universe was designed for life." But this reasoning is like a lottery winner saying to himself: "Winning the prize is very improbable by chance, therefore the lottery must have been designed for me to win."
Ahahaha On a more serious note, this allows me to highlight some of the reasons I make these videos!🙂: (1) many people didn’t watch the 12 hour video precisely because of its length, so breaking it up into smaller videos will appeal to more people who would otherwise have missed the design argument section of the video; (2) breaking up the 12-hour video into further videos makes it easier for people in the future to find specific videos and arguments in which they’re interested; (3) some people were (unjustifiably) annoyed with aspects of my 12 hour video and so didn’t continue watching behind a certain point - making this video allows me to reach that audience; (4) this gives me time to work on other epic forthcoming videos; (5) this gives me time to work on my actual scholarly research (currently working heavily on my book manuscript with Springer), which in turn is an investment in future epic videos on those published topics; and more!❤️
I can't get any work done listening to this or other videos here. The information/time doesn't allow me to process it and my work. Normally ill speed up videos, Joe is fine as is, then he clips himself and speeds it up... Brutal.
For the first one if you can find examples showing things going against "gods goals" does that counter the aquinas fifth way argument? I liked viced rino. He is funny and seems to be well researched and when he is not he gets someone who is in the area.
You and James fodor should collab on FTA .James recently made many response videos to FTA . Logos will be also a good person to join you guys since he will soon discuss FTA with Dr Philip Goff on Real Atheology . Joe, I noticed that you have playlist for every popular arguments for God's existence except FTA/ argument from design/Intelligent design. I wonder why ? You usually don't make videos on FTA but argument from design is very popular among majority of theists even atheists like Sean carroll and Christopher Hitchens think this is the best argument for theism. I think in the future you should create a playlist for FTA/argument from design/intelligent design and make videos/discussions on it. Thanks❤
Idk if they are that dumb, or just don't fully consider all options. Man o man. Lol I forgot to add another option, maybe they are just dishonest. Who knows...
Joe have you watched *Timelapse of the future a journey to the end of time (4k)* from *Melodysheep* TH-cam channe? If you didn't then you should definitely definitely definitely watch it. it's fantastic! It shows how our universe ONLY allows 0. Billion billion billion billion billion billion billions billions % of its full lifespan to have life.this video and *LIFE BEYOND* 3 part series from melodysheep are fantastic resources for arguing against FTA.
How does that argue against fine-tuning? The fact that this is the only time life could exist doesn't conflict with the fine-tuning claim at all. It further shows the further selective pressures prohibiting life (requiring stellar evolution to occur, which itself requires fine-tuning).
@@calebp6114 it's like someone claims that this clock is fine tune for showing the correct time. But this clock only shows 8 seconds correctly out of 24 hours . It shows incorrect numbers for the rest of 24 hours of a day. Will buy such *fine-tuned* clock for yourself?
@@senkuishigami2485 You are misunderstanding what the claim pf fine-tuning means. FTA does not claim that the universe will support the maximum amount of life possible in the universe. That's a straw man. Instead, when anyone claims that any system is fine-tuned, they mean that specific outputs can only come about due to a tiny range of specific inputs. IN the context of the FTA, that means that the ratio of life-permitting universes to possible universes (given what we know about the laws of nature, the initial conditions, and the constants) is infinitesimally low. Your objection only works if FTA claimed that the universe would contain the maximum amount of life, whilst in reality, the observation is that *any* life (or any advanced life) would exist in the universe.
Your recurrent laryngeal nerve counterexample to design is misinformed though, in Grey's Anatomy (the reference book, aka "the doctor's bible") we can read that the nerve has multiple destinations, it branches into the heart, the esophagus, the mucous membrane etc. The larynx is not its only destination, so there is no "detour" to be invoked here. “As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”
Thanks for this! Note, first, that it’s a toy example; there are boatloads of cases I could have chosen - atrocious backs, knees, etc.; Vestigial organs not only in humans but in other organisms that cause serious health and flourishing problems; genetic disorders; and so on. So my broader point remains untouched. The toy example is precisely that - an *example* illustrating an entirely cogent point. Second, merely from the fact that there are other destinations of the nerve, it doesn’t follow that the nerve doesn’t detour. There may very well be an irremediably inefficiency in *one respect* for the nerve despite being efficient in *other respects*.
@@MajestyofReason Why would efficiency be relevant for a hypothetical being with unlimited resources and time? Surely the very concept of 'waste' would break down for such a being? That's Craig's response, anyway.
@@calebp6114 it’s certainly not incompatible with such a being; but we have to ask whether it’s expected on the hypothesis that such a being is designer. And by my lights, it’s surprising - it’s surprising that an effect doesn’t seem rational if it’s designed by a perfectly rational being. (I can re-cast my earlier comment on terms of rational-seeming rather than efficiency)
You are mistaken. The recurrent laryngeal nerve does still make a detour and you have misread your quote. The branchings come off the never when it comes BACK UP after having connected to the heart, which is wasteful since it could simply have branchings coming off on the way down but does not. Notice that your quote says "As it ASCENDS in the neck it gives off branches". Ascends means going up, which it does after it came down through the neck. You can go to imgur and see it here DtuO0Ds.
ALSO, WHEN DISCUSSING STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION WE ARE ADDING GOLDILOCKS ZONES, COSMOLOGY, BILOLOGY, HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY (in the distinctly human ability to rationalize abstracts), IN, 1. THE WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE 2. THE STRONG ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE 3. THE META-SUPER ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, YHVHJESUS. Mean, median, mode, Stan dev, you do the math smart guy.
AQUINAS 5th way, I don't like the way its stated either, what we could say is that any deviation from expected thermodynamics appears to have an intelligent goal in mind. Photosynthesis for example, but what should have ever caused thermodynamics to appear from a singularity which has no apparent cause to expand. These are classic scientific WTFs, there is no apparent cause for the direction of time and the stretching of space we observe. Having no natural explanation it is by definition supernatural. It doesn't follow from the argument from ignorance that there is a natural explanation at all. In because thermodynamics tends to lose information rather than gain information the complexity of structure sought to explain the cause of apparent design decreases over time. This is then apparently a sweet spot in the manifold. Appealing to imaginary planets with imaginary life is not a valid alternative.
Biological design arguments should never be used, cuz, ya know, evolution exists. The fact that apologists still give biological design arguments credence and some even think they are good arguments its baffling.
huh? but the the point of many, if not all design arguments is that evolution is false or gided. it's not just apologists tho, scientists make design arguments too. like, there's a whole movement/organization of scientists who do that.
@@jonathacirilo5745 But, heres the thing. Evolution is essentially a fact. Its has been demonstrated in the lab, in nature, in the fossil record, in medicine etc. Further, the amount of correct predictions made by evolution is staggering. Further further, to demonstrate the evolution is false, ya actually gotta do some experiments, come up with some explaination of how the proposed mechanisms of evolution are false. Explain how all the evidence for evolution does not actually point towards evolutions. Not just sit in a chair and think evolution away. Ya gotta actually falsify the claims and discoveries made by evolutionary biology, which, so far, just about every attempt has failed. The only reason evolutions is still "debated" is because some people are incapable of changing their views in light of incredibly strong evidence affirming evolution and they just wanna stay put and complacent with their preconceived notions of design. It only shows ignorance and a bit of intellectual dishonesty. Thnx for listening. My rant is over lol
@@jonathacirilo5745 Got it. Ik micheal behe is actually wrong with his irreducible complexity arguments. Professor dave explains just posted a video on his a week or two ago demostrating how theres a lot of evidence against the claim the irreducibly complex biological structures cant evolve. The others, I either havent heard of or heard of them in passing. Thnx. Edit: Clarified something.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK PROBABILITIES, EVALUATE EVOLUTION AS STRONGLY, LIST YOUR VALUES IN COLUMNS WEIGH THEM, ESTABLISH YOUR GRAPHS, PLUG IT INTO KYBERGS EPISTEMOLOGY FORMULA, THEN TAKE YOUR SUM FROM EACH KYBERG STATEMENT AND YOU WILL ACTUALLY SATISFY "words are wise men's counters, and the currency of fools" ON BOTH POINTS.
WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SUPPOSE THERE IS ONE UNIVERSE? Why, because you learned science from PBS and the HISTORY CHANNEL? Lol. Show any evidence for another universe and it's functionally equivalent to evidence for God and you can't go to the hypothetical other universe to prove the difference.
IF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT VALID, WHY ARE SCIENTISTS SERIOUSLY DEBATING THE SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS? IT'S BECAUSE EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN THE INFORMATION PROBLEM.
Why are you yelling? And by your own lights, any design argument for god is underdetermined by any Cartesian skeptical scenario like a simulation theory.
I CAN SEE CAPS BETTER, UNDER DETERMINED BY WHAT STANDARD? YOU HAVE ELIMINATED "NATURAL" EXPLANATION FROM EVOLUTION, it may be plausible but not justifiable, THEN YOU DO THE SAME WITH SIMULATION, MULTIVERSE, AND PANSPERMIA, NONE OF WHICH HAVE ANY SUPPORT, THEISM ON THE OTHER HAND HAS ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS "FROM GOD", WHICH CAN ALSO BE SIFTED, Descartes came to that conclusion from consciousness and contingency.
@@whatsinaname691 Oh I don't mind the caps, makes him look insane though. The actual content of what he writes is enough for me to not take him seriously.
Viced Rhino is a very good channel (Its an anagram of Eric Hovind...lol) .. also about the Laryngial Nerve... the Human Eye is also an example if incompetent "design" the blood vessels are IN FRONT of the Retina and we have quite a big BLIND SPOT... it's like designing a TV where the cables are in front of the screen and there's a patch of dead pixels that moves when you look at it...lol
First, I love seeing Joe respond to Design arguments given that Joe has said that he sees them as some evidence for theism in weighing all the factors that lead him to agnosticism. So it is nice to get a better idea of how much he weighs design arguments towards theism.
Joe Schmid's response to the argument made from 9:47 in the video that continues through 3:05 in the video was super cool because it reminded me of a recent question that Dustin Crummet helped answer for me in the Reason and Religion discussion group that we all interact with. You can't legitimately cheat a Bayesian Liklihood ratio. By making the prior more complex by positing something like God being such that he is very likely to create the exact conditions leading to the flower outside my window, you make seeing those conditions more likely on that God Hypothesis at the expense of making that Hypothesis itself less plauaible. It is simply taking some of the improbability of the data we see on the God hypothesis and putting instead into the hypothesis itself. I hope I stated that correctly.
Exactly!
2:09 The needle of a compass has the goal of pointing north. Once it points north, it doesn't deviate, having achieved its goal. Its purely mechanistic action shows no sign of being directed by intelligence.
The compass itself is designed, however...
@@fjolnir3431 Any magnetic object has the goal of aligning with its ambient magnetic field. The compass is designed to exploit this behaviour. The design of the compass does not cause the needle to have the goal of pointing north.
Another thing about point 2. In the Aquinas 5th Way. What if the most efficient cause in a particular part of nature is not harmony and order but Chaos.. there could be a million chaotic steps to get to the desired goal... for example.... Evolution is not Order and Harmony as it is basically Chaotic changes in DNA causing either improvements, Disabilities or a null effect, thats hardly Ordered or Harmonious yet it achieves its end goal..
Joe, speeding you up to 1.25x is like 3x for most people lol
Nice addition of the clip from Viced Rhino's channel. See, New Atheist style atheists can make some great points.
Very true!!!
15:04 Statement 1 is backwards. What it *should* say is that humans sometimes makes artifacts that resemble natural objects. We would then have to convert statement 3 to 'some human artifacts are intentionally designed by humans to resemble natural objects. From there, 4 & 5 are simply non sequiturs.
35:00 I discount the fine-tuning argument for a simple reason: we have no idea what the odds of these values of the constants are, or even what constants there might be (the law structures Joe mentioned). [And personally, I *do* find Craig to be intentionally deceptive.]
1:15:40 The Earth appears to be basically flat. By this argument, we are justified in taking the Earth to be flat. But it's not.
20:00 just a quick correction, Dover V Kitzmiller was a bench trial, since the right to a jury did not apply.
The outcome was decided by a judge, not a jury. I recommend you read the judges review of the court case though, it’s great.
Some interesting objections to Fine-tuning! I wonder how the 'Electrons in love' position coheres with Dustin Crummet's psycho-physical harmony, as they are both about psychophysical laws yet yield opposite conclusions.
Also, I just read Joshua Rasmussen's and Felipe Leon's 'Is God the Best Explanation of Things?' and its by far the best Phil. of Religion book I've read!
Bruh that Rasmussen-Leon dialogue book is on another level. I heartily recommend it to everyone!
And yes, Dustin’s/Brian’s argument there can actually be seen as an “improved fine-tuning argument” - and it would, indeed, apply to the electrons in love, since there seem to be many more epistemically possible chaotic or non-harmonious psychophysical laws concerning electron consciousness than there are orderly or harmonious such laws. This is one reason why it’s becoming one of my favorite arguments for theism🙂
Is it for beginners?
@@kingvegetakinggoku2008 No it's quite a high level debate book. I'd still recommend it a lot!
35:00 the lottery analogy is very good. Fine-tunning arguments are basically: "Fine-tunning for life is very improbable by chance, therefore the universe was designed for life."
But this reasoning is like a lottery winner saying to himself: "Winning the prize is very improbable by chance, therefore the lottery must have been designed for me to win."
Nice to see you stalling time with these videos, Joe!
Ahahaha
On a more serious note, this allows me to highlight some of the reasons I make these videos!🙂: (1) many people didn’t watch the 12 hour video precisely because of its length, so breaking it up into smaller videos will appeal to more people who would otherwise have missed the design argument section of the video; (2) breaking up the 12-hour video into further videos makes it easier for people in the future to find specific videos and arguments in which they’re interested; (3) some people were (unjustifiably) annoyed with aspects of my 12 hour video and so didn’t continue watching behind a certain point - making this video allows me to reach that audience; (4) this gives me time to work on other epic forthcoming videos; (5) this gives me time to work on my actual scholarly research (currently working heavily on my book manuscript with Springer), which in turn is an investment in future epic videos on those published topics; and more!❤️
@@MajestyofReason I was just kidding, dude. Those are good reasons , and these videos do and will come in handy for many people.
@@jakek.403 I know haha, that’s why I laughed at the beginning 😉❤️
@@MajestyofReason I can understand that. I'm *incredibly* unlikely to click on a 12 hour video.
I can't get any work done listening to this or other videos here. The information/time doesn't allow me to process it and my work. Normally ill speed up videos, Joe is fine as is, then he clips himself and speeds it up... Brutal.
Joe, what's the strongest design argument here in your opinion?
Prolly fine-tuning for discoverability
I swear that there’s another universe where hydrogen atom communities are debating design arguments.
For the first one if you can find examples showing things going against "gods goals" does that counter the aquinas fifth way argument?
I liked viced rino. He is funny and seems to be well researched and when he is not he gets someone who is in the area.
You should get Robin Collins on your channel to discuss his argument
You and James fodor should collab on FTA .James recently made many response videos to FTA . Logos will be also a good person to join you guys since he will soon discuss FTA with Dr Philip Goff on Real Atheology .
Joe, I noticed that you have playlist for every popular arguments for God's existence except FTA/ argument from design/Intelligent design. I wonder why ? You usually don't make videos on FTA but argument from design is very popular among majority of theists even atheists like Sean carroll and Christopher Hitchens think this is the best argument for theism. I think in the future you should create a playlist for FTA/argument from design/intelligent design and make videos/discussions on it.
Thanks❤
I like how they open with Banana man
Idk if they are that dumb, or just don't fully consider all options. Man o man. Lol
I forgot to add another option, maybe they are just dishonest. Who knows...
So ready for your discussion with Jonathan MS Pearce. You 2 are my favorites. 😁
Where?
@@deathnote4171 check out A Tippling Philosopher. It's scheduled for next month I believe.
@@dustinellerbe4125 thanks
@@deathnote4171 no problem!
Good vid
Joe have you watched *Timelapse of the future a journey to the end of time (4k)* from *Melodysheep* TH-cam channe? If you didn't then you should definitely definitely definitely watch it. it's fantastic! It shows how our universe ONLY allows 0. Billion billion billion billion billion billion billions billions % of its full lifespan to have life.this video and *LIFE BEYOND* 3 part series from melodysheep are fantastic resources for arguing against FTA.
The animation and information of Melodysheep videos are beyond this world.
How does that argue against fine-tuning? The fact that this is the only time life could exist doesn't conflict with the fine-tuning claim at all. It further shows the further selective pressures prohibiting life (requiring stellar evolution to occur, which itself requires fine-tuning).
@@calebp6114 it's like someone claims that this clock is fine tune for showing the correct time. But this clock only shows 8 seconds correctly out of 24 hours . It shows incorrect numbers for the rest of 24 hours of a day. Will buy such *fine-tuned* clock for yourself?
@@senkuishigami2485 You are misunderstanding what the claim pf fine-tuning means. FTA does not claim that the universe will support the maximum amount of life possible in the universe. That's a straw man. Instead, when anyone claims that any system is fine-tuned, they mean that specific outputs can only come about due to a tiny range of specific inputs. IN the context of the FTA, that means that the ratio of life-permitting universes to possible universes (given what we know about the laws of nature, the initial conditions, and the constants) is infinitesimally low.
Your objection only works if FTA claimed that the universe would contain the maximum amount of life, whilst in reality, the observation is that *any* life (or any advanced life) would exist in the universe.
Given our state of knowledge today, backed up by tons of evidence, most of these arguments are just very very weak
Your recurrent laryngeal nerve counterexample to design is misinformed though, in Grey's Anatomy (the reference book, aka "the doctor's bible") we can read that the nerve has multiple destinations, it branches into the heart, the esophagus, the mucous membrane etc. The larynx is not its only destination, so there is no "detour" to be invoked here. “As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”
My exact thoughts
Thanks for this! Note, first, that it’s a toy example; there are boatloads of cases I could have chosen - atrocious backs, knees, etc.; Vestigial organs not only in humans but in other organisms that cause serious health and flourishing problems; genetic disorders; and so on. So my broader point remains untouched. The toy example is precisely that - an *example* illustrating an entirely cogent point. Second, merely from the fact that there are other destinations of the nerve, it doesn’t follow that the nerve doesn’t detour. There may very well be an irremediably inefficiency in *one respect* for the nerve despite being efficient in *other respects*.
@@MajestyofReason Why would efficiency be relevant for a hypothetical being with unlimited resources and time? Surely the very concept of 'waste' would break down for such a being?
That's Craig's response, anyway.
@@calebp6114 it’s certainly not incompatible with such a being; but we have to ask whether it’s expected on the hypothesis that such a being is designer. And by my lights, it’s surprising - it’s surprising that an effect doesn’t seem rational if it’s designed by a perfectly rational being. (I can re-cast my earlier comment on terms of rational-seeming rather than efficiency)
You are mistaken. The recurrent laryngeal nerve does still make a detour and you have misread your quote. The branchings come off the never when it comes BACK UP after having connected to the heart, which is wasteful since it could simply have branchings coming off on the way down but does not. Notice that your quote says "As it ASCENDS in the neck it gives off branches". Ascends means going up, which it does after it came down through the neck. You can go to imgur and see it here DtuO0Ds.
Insta like!!!
ALSO, WHEN DISCUSSING STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION WE ARE ADDING GOLDILOCKS ZONES, COSMOLOGY, BILOLOGY, HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY (in the distinctly human ability to rationalize abstracts), IN,
1. THE WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
2. THE STRONG ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
3. THE META-SUPER ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, YHVHJESUS.
Mean, median, mode, Stan dev, you do the math smart guy.
lol, "Chandler's argument" is basically just pulling convenient probabilities out of the ass.
IF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT VALID, WHY IS THE ANCIENT ALIENS HYPOTHESIS DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO PANSPERMIA? IT'S THE INFORMATION PROBLEM.
The explanation would be terribly difficult to comprehend by people who type in all CAPS.
AQUINAS 5th way, I don't like the way its stated either, what we could say is that any deviation from expected thermodynamics appears to have an intelligent goal in mind. Photosynthesis for example, but what should have ever caused thermodynamics to appear from a singularity which has no apparent cause to expand. These are classic scientific WTFs, there is no apparent cause for the direction of time and the stretching of space we observe. Having no natural explanation it is by definition supernatural. It doesn't follow from the argument from ignorance that there is a natural explanation at all. In because thermodynamics tends to lose information rather than gain information the complexity of structure sought to explain the cause of apparent design decreases over time. This is then apparently a sweet spot in the manifold. Appealing to imaginary planets with imaginary life is not a valid alternative.
Fine Tuning?
Plato's cosmic world soul did it!
Intelligent Design?
Hecate genes mean the goddess Hecate did it!
Checkmate christians
Biological design arguments should never be used, cuz, ya know, evolution exists. The fact that apologists still give biological design arguments credence and some even think they are good arguments its baffling.
huh? but the the point of many, if not all design arguments is that evolution is false or gided. it's not just apologists tho, scientists make design arguments too. like, there's a whole movement/organization of scientists who do that.
@@jonathacirilo5745 But, heres the thing. Evolution is essentially a fact. Its has been demonstrated in the lab, in nature, in the fossil record, in medicine etc. Further, the amount of correct predictions made by evolution is staggering. Further further, to demonstrate the evolution is false, ya actually gotta do some experiments, come up with some explaination of how the proposed mechanisms of evolution are false. Explain how all the evidence for evolution does not actually point towards evolutions. Not just sit in a chair and think evolution away. Ya gotta actually falsify the claims and discoveries made by evolutionary biology, which, so far, just about every attempt has failed.
The only reason evolutions is still "debated" is because some people are incapable of changing their views in light of incredibly strong evidence affirming evolution and they just wanna stay put and complacent with their preconceived notions of design. It only shows ignorance and a bit of intellectual dishonesty.
Thnx for listening. My rant is over lol
@@jonathacirilo5745 Also also, which scientists are you referring to in your comment?
Edit: Fixed spelling error.
@@mustafakalaycioglu9613 Michael behe, ralph seelke, scott minnich, wolf ekkehard, Michael denton...
and others.
@@jonathacirilo5745 Got it. Ik micheal behe is actually wrong with his irreducible complexity arguments. Professor dave explains just posted a video on his a week or two ago demostrating how theres a lot of evidence against the claim the irreducibly complex biological structures cant evolve.
The others, I either havent heard of or heard of them in passing. Thnx.
Edit: Clarified something.
IF YOU WANT TO TALK PROBABILITIES, EVALUATE EVOLUTION AS STRONGLY, LIST YOUR VALUES IN COLUMNS WEIGH THEM, ESTABLISH YOUR GRAPHS, PLUG IT INTO KYBERGS EPISTEMOLOGY FORMULA, THEN TAKE YOUR SUM FROM EACH KYBERG STATEMENT AND YOU WILL ACTUALLY SATISFY "words are wise men's counters, and the currency of fools" ON BOTH POINTS.
Why are you yelling at joe
I SEE CAPS BETTER, WHY DO PEOPLE CALL IT YELLING?
I ALSO LIKE THE FORMAT BETTER, LEGAL BRIEFS USE IT FOR CLARITY.
😭
WE DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE SUPPOSE THERE IS ONE UNIVERSE? Why, because you learned science from PBS and the HISTORY CHANNEL? Lol. Show any evidence for another universe and it's functionally equivalent to evidence for God and you can't go to the hypothetical other universe to prove the difference.
IF INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT VALID, WHY ARE SCIENTISTS SERIOUSLY DEBATING THE SIMULATION HYPOTHESIS? IT'S BECAUSE EVOLUTION CANNOT EXPLAIN THE INFORMATION PROBLEM.
Why are you yelling?
And by your own lights, any design argument for god is underdetermined by any Cartesian skeptical scenario like a simulation theory.
I CAN SEE CAPS BETTER, UNDER DETERMINED BY WHAT STANDARD? YOU HAVE ELIMINATED "NATURAL" EXPLANATION FROM EVOLUTION, it may be plausible but not justifiable, THEN YOU DO THE SAME WITH SIMULATION, MULTIVERSE, AND PANSPERMIA, NONE OF WHICH HAVE ANY SUPPORT, THEISM ON THE OTHER HAND HAS ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS "FROM GOD", WHICH CAN ALSO BE SIFTED, Descartes came to that conclusion from consciousness and contingency.
Stop with the all-caps, they disincentivize me taking you seriously
@@whatsinaname691 Oh I don't mind the caps, makes him look insane though. The actual content of what he writes is enough for me to not take him seriously.
@@rumraket38 good to know