Reliable Creator? Makes perfect sense(s)! (feat. Shannon Q)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Our examination of the "Evolution Exposed" all-star creationist six-hour epic seminar with Ray Comfort and 10 other well-known prominent anti-evolution speakers. This time, Dr Jason Lisle tells us that the reliability of our senses is proof of a God, who made our senses perfect. Any imperfections are obviously part of our punishment for sin... right?
Grab AtlasVPN Special deal for 82% OFF get.atlasvpn.c... !
Shannon Q
/ shannonq
/ shann_q0
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzs...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada
Grab AtlasVPN Special deal for 82% OFF get.atlasvpn.com/Paulogia !
One of the most interesting psychology class I had was Sensation&perception. The class covered optical illusions in human perception. Your senses are easily fooled and often mistaken. Not just in optical test, but in real life. Hunters shoot what they are sure is a deer, but turns out to be another hunter. Dozens of a crowd of hundreds swear the sun danced across the sky, while the rest saw no movement. Why? Because your brain tells you what it thinks you see.
"Is science anti-science?" asks the supernaturalist who literally lies about science for a living.
Off to a good start.
Creationism is anti-god so maybe they are projecting.
@James Henry Smith Oh yes, these people tell you that they are the messengers of Jesus who can save you from your sins (so they say) (when you donate) -
AFTER they have indoctrinated you from earliest childhood that you are an original sinner, a sinner even though you did not do anything, that you are doomed to go to hell and be roasted forever, that you must be saved.
If you abolish the concept of sin, all falls apart.
Replace it with you are responsible for your actions, so you should watch out that your actions do not harm others, as you want that the actions of others should not harm you. Elaborate that concept, teach it, learn how to apply it circumstantially, as our life is complex and not always realizable in the way you want it to be, and learn to cope with the fact that neither you nor the others are perfect and shit happens.
Then you have a very good basis to cope with your life.
And in principle that is exactly what the Bible wants to do - give you a guide to cope with life. Explain the wonders of the world, why it is so shrewd.
Just the issue is that it pretends to have simple answers, that are universal, and that an ultra-powerful entity is ruthlessly behind it that every single rule is kept to the letter.
Plus that the whole was obviously written from the standpoint of a struggilng tribe that fought for its survival against other tribes, so it was important that the own tribe is chosen by the entity, is special, has divine backing that the others lack.
@@feedingravens that dude has been spamming the same 2 messages on nearly every comment. I’ve reported at least 15 of the exact same sentence as spam already… sad that he doesn’t have anything fun to do with his free time.
@@CraftyVegan He wrote 4 comments to my comment. He is in a state of hysterical elation, lost any contact with reality. ZERO facts, only "It's true, I am RIGHT by definition, that gut feeling of being saved (they sold me) is great!."
One could say "poor sod" if such radicalism of ANY (religious or non-religious) cult would not be so dangerous.
He asks if it's _the anti-science_ actually, which I think is worse than just asking if science is anti-science. Violating the law of identity? Typical everyday creationist lying. Making a field of science into an evil avatar of Untruth(tm)?
...well okay that's also typical everyday creationist lying, but with bells on. Okay, _larger_ bells on.
13:08 - All living organisms are able to sense their environment. Using his own example, grasses display geotropic (the ability to tell up from down) and phototropic (the ability to detect light intensity) awareness, courtesy of a few enzymes. Someone really needs to let him know that auxins are a thing. As an aside, one of my favorite things as a biochemist and farmer is watching the slow rotation of my sunflowers as they track the sun's movement during the course of a day.
I am also growing some sunflowers, though not as a farmer. And it's absolutely wonderful to see these plants go from almost nothing to sizeable plants. And yeah, their ability to find the sun is amazing!
@@mike140298 I feel you, there's nothing more beautiful than nature just being herself.
@@2Sor2Fig yeah, nature is absolutely full of wonders. And it saddens me greatly that a lot of creationists don't see that and talk about plants and other animals as "just" plants and "just" animals.
@@mike140298 So true, it's not like we're some special, separate, piece of existence. We're all in this together. I'm sure their personal live are just as deep and important to them as any of ours are to us.
the devil is in the sneaky wording. "grass has no visual sensory organs" is correct by most definitions of an organ. what is sneaky is the implication that organs are required to sense light. as noted above this is not true, a photo receptor can be as small as an organelle, or even a single molecule ,and still provide visual information.
I am still amazed at how the Christian apologist attempt to twist and warp reality, science, logic and reason to try to justify their belief in their religion. Their biggest problem is and always has been their lack of compelling evidence to support their beliefs.
Mammalian eyes vs Avian eyes are an interesting example that can't be explained by the fall distorting our eyes. But evolution explains it perfectly. Bird eyes are dinosaur eyes. Dinosaurs favored daylight. They hunted by daylight. At the time of the dinosaurs, mammals were mostly creatures of the night. For one thing, dinosaurs were not hunting at night. Mammals lost some of the color receptors, but their eyes were much better adapted to low light levels. Once the large dinosaurs went extinct the daytime became safer, so mammals expanded into environmental niches previously occupied by dinosaurs. But the ancient ancestors of the groups like canines and primates had already lost some of those light receptors. Birds already had them, and they kept them. Bats show us how mammals might have evolved if mammals had all remained creatures of the night.
Now, let's look at the claim that the fall ruined our eyesight. Why didn't it ruin the eyesight of birds and insects? That might be explained by the fact that birds and insects didn't eat the forbidden fruit. But what about the other mammals? They didn't eat the fruit. Why did wolves lose their ability to see color? Were they being punished? Do wolves have agency? Are wolves redeemed from the fall by the blood of Christ? Should we be out preaching the message of Christ to wolves? What about rats, gophers, and moles? If they can be redeemed, will they be in heaven?
There is soooo much wrong with what you said there.
First, birds evolved FROM dinosaurs. Please stop spreading this misinformation. They are not themselves dinosaurs. Thus, they have bird eyes, NOT dinosaur eyes.
Second, mammals have NEVER been nocturnal. The mammals of the time were VERY SMALL. That's how they escaped being eaten by dinosaurs. Dinosaurs had vision based on MOVEMENT. That is why they had trouble eating mammals; small animals that moved very little. Most mammals at that time were herbivores and thus had no need to be nocturnal. Predators hunt at night so their prey does not see them. Dinosaurs are REALLY hard to not see. A rodent is VERY EASY to see.
Third, carnivores (like many of the dinosaurs) hunt at night, not during the day. The dinosaurs that were herbivores ate during the day when their predators were asleep.
Fourth, aside from bats, humans, wolves, and cats what mammals lack color vision? The reason these species lack color vision is because they HUNTED AT NIGHT. They didn't need to have color vision. Primates however do not hunt. They eat bugs, nuts, berries, etc. so they have no need for being nocturnal. This is why the other primates still have color vision. Most mammals are herbivores in fact. Thus, most mammals have excellent color vision.
Fifth, birds are no more all the same than mammals are. Some birds-like hawks, eagles, and falcons-are predatory nocturnal carnivores. The rest are seed eating, nut munching herbivores that are generally awake during the day. These birds have color vision.
Can you please provide empirical evidence for your creationism claim.
@James Henry Smith Are you going to post that lame comment in every reply?
Dang, now I'm curious about how bronze age people would have explained the differences in animal perception.
Like, basic observation and intuition can lead you to conclude that dogs use their nose for a wide variety of things.
But how would ancient people explain how it is that dogs appear to have much more powerful senses of smell than us?
I suppose a lot of myths and folktales cropped up to explain some animal behaviors. Their keen senses being bestowed by gods and what have you.
But is that the case for every behavior? Were there whole classes of behavior which ancient people didn't recognize as distinct that we do thanks to research?
Now I'm curious to know more about the adaptation owls must have
Shannon, you are forgetting the prime tenet of Creationists...
"Don't confuse the issue with facts."
“Intelligent Design,” my ass! Have you seen how many problems there are with the human body?
No, but mostly because my eyes are pretty crappy.
Due to corruption through SIN. Not the initial state of creation.
@@stefanblumhoff1562 No.
@@stefanblumhoff1562 Which implies the design was never perfect to begin with anyway if it could be corrupted. Furthermore, if sin could corrupt God's creation, it implies one of 2 things:
1.) If we assume God did not WANT sin to corrupt his creations, then the fact that sin DID corrupt his creations according to you means that sin surpasses God in terms of its capability of corrupting his creations against God's will without God being able to know beforehand it would, which violates his omniscience, or being able to do anything about it after the fact, which would make him not omnipotent. In short, Sin is more powerful than God, and hence, so is the source of sin, Satan.
2.) God knew that sin would corrupt his creation and could have prevented it either before or after the fact. This implies that God intended for his creations to be corrupted by sin. That sin was God's plan after all, that God worked with the serpent/Satan to ensure that this corruption happened and he then punished everyone that has ever existed with this corruption that he knew beforehand would happen and that he fully INTENDED to happen. In other words, God punished humanity for a corruption that was his intention all along, which means he isn't just by our standards of justice. It also means that God is...well...immoral and evil by our current standards of morality.
@@stefanblumhoff1562 I will add to the DeludedOne's comment above, that if God was aware that "sin" might damage His creation, the He's a very poor engineer if He didn't build in some safe-guards to stop "sin" from happening through such a simple action.
Anyone knows that the heirarchy of safety is:
1) Avoid completely if possible
2) Engineer in as many safeguards as possible
3) Ensure personnel are properly trained and install written procedures
4) Employ protective equipment
God jumped straight to (3), and did a poor job of that.
I'm kind of glad God doesn't design aeroplanes or nuclear power plants. Adam and Eve ought to claim compensation under the Health and Safety at Work act.
Do creationists not understand the concept of credibility?
Do they not know the consequences of losing credibility?
No, they don't.
They are clearly under the influence of Satan. God would never tell them they were right and had the truth. He's all "I am the Truth. You can't handle the Truth. Trust me." :)
I thought all publicity was good publicity... it's a marketing strategy to lie and double down on the lie for the follower types to foam at the mouth with as they dig in deeper into the lie and sacrifice more.
They don't care. "Credibility" to them equals "gullibility", they don't care as long as there are suckers who believe them...
No.
When an astrophysicist needs to retreat to the presupposition apologetics script to best defend their position instead of addressing it with the science they got their degree in speaks volumes to the actual strength of their case.
@James Henry Smith I am more than willing to place any bet that the god of young earth creationism is fake, absolutely.
What you'd expect from evolution is senses that are mostly good enough, with some variation, but far from perfect. Which is obviously what we have
There is a certain point where it simply becomes unproductive to keep questioning everything. I can't definitively prove that I'm not just a brain in a jar experiencing a simulated reality. However, since all the evidence of my senses tells me that I am not just a brain in a jar, and that this is not just a simulated reality, then until I have sufficient reason to think otherwise it is reasonable to behave as if I can trust my senses.
This isn't rocket science it's just basic pragmatism.
It's not rocket science but it is ontology.
You missed the massive circular reasoning he used when he said that he can trust his senses that the bible is true because the bible says it's true.
And even though every word was written by humans 'it comes from god''
I love it! Listen to an Astrophysicist share his entirely unrelated ideas about Creationism. Next week, a Rocket Scientist will disprove the effectiveness of Plumbing. Coming up Next; Stay Tuned as a Brain Surgeon builds an Ark in less than 120 years.
I honestly can't tell if you're trolling or an evangelical🤣
@@PaTrick-cf6ev Perfect. Bless you my child. Send $20.00
@@EverettVinzant Tom is making fun of the creationist astrophysicist that's featured in this video, not Shannon or Paul.
@@EverettVinzant BOOM! Get in. Right off the Bat, an insult. If I do not care what Jason Lisle has to say, what makes you think I care about your petty nonsense? Ah yes, insults... Your Mother was a Hamster and your Father Smelled of Elderberries. I Blow my Nose at You. I Break Wind in your General Direction.
Done. Now we are even. Have a Wonderful Life.
@@Daniel8857 Thank you. Paul and Shannon deserve the highest respect. Absolutely I was mocking the "Appeal to Authority" oft used by the likes of Jason Lisle. My Masters is in Military History, My Doctorate is in Napoleonic Warfare. This in no way qualifies me to become an expert on all things Religious. Cheers.
Soon as I saw this video was Evolution Exposed and only 17 minutes I knew the argument had to be trash.
And man was I not disappointed. Took Shannon less than a minute to blow it out of the water, then she nicely spent the rest of the time cleaning it up.
Almost a nice change of pace. So many creationist claims about evolution require large amounts of time to address.
But then this argument was not one of the better ones I've seen.
I almost chop my head off because of how strongly I facedpalmed myself after hearing that plants don't have sensory organs, geez.
I wish there was a Huge "Little Shop of Horrors" size Venus Fly trap. So I could buy one, feed it with, faithfools!
Making Earth Healthy. Eliminating One, Infected, at a Time!
15:45
So babies can figure out that they they can trust their senses without knowing anything about the bible, but if you don't believe in god, then you can't conclude you can trust your senses?
Shannon, you were right. This is so far off the rails that I don't even know what he is trying to say any more.
Babies can't even _see_ properly for the first few months, I think. Blurry vision, unable to focus, until they finish developing. This is why you shouldn't the pedagogical insights of a pretend-astrophysicist, but if you try telling Jason that he'll just say 'What I can't hear you my senses aren't reliable the bible says babies' eyes are like hawks'
“There’s no reason to trust your senses except for what the Bible tells you…”… says it all
He compared all of mankind to BLADES OF GRASS! No buddy we're killing it😂
*_Fastest way to lose an argument... DENY EVOLUTION!_*
@James Henry Smith OK. Let's do this. What part of evolution do you think is wrong and why? 🤔
This is the silliest argument I've heard, and I've heard many
It is really bad
Creationist are such lightweights. Peewee Herman stepping into the ring with Tyson. 3rd graders trying to debate Einstein.
Shannon , you are so good. I am grateful to have found you out there. Sharing your insight and questioning these assertions. Thank You.
EDIT : It is specially humorous to hear an astrophysicist, whose very job depends on extending sensory input, make claims regarding our visual system being imperfect. Does he think we started out with the ability to perceive the entire electromagnetic spectrum? With polarity? How about gravity waves? Did we loose all that in that instant? Could Adam and Eve even been human before the fall? With superpowers?
It breaks parody and passes ridicule. Even symmetry.
@James Henry Smith it is not, no.
@James Henry Smith Christianity and Islam contradict each other... both have different sects that disagree with each other... how can both be true?
14:45 A reference to the 80's show Seeing Things. I am overcome with a warm flood of nostalgia. Thank you.
My impression of Astrophysicists just plummeted to the ground... I think his reasoning deserves a "For the bible tells me so" jingle.
Always good to remember there's a spectrum within any group of people we look at. Finding a bad sample in a group, doesn't do an accurate representation of the group.
Also, I think applying the word reasoning to what Jason did here, is a somewhat loose usage of that word.
I think Jason has demonstrated himself capable of engaging in reason, and using the scientific method. Clearly that was not a priority in this particular talk.
You atheists just don't get it. If you started by believing in the bible you would believe it and know that it is right! You just gotta believe and then it'll all make sense. Of course it doesn't make sense if you don't believe first, you silly geese!
My guess is, he knows perfectly well that he's lying his a** off, but it pays much better than honest astrophysics work...
@@rapdactyl Damn it, that's the answer and it was there, right under my nose all the time! Bible is true, science is make believe! Next time I see a snake, instead of running away, I will sit down beside it and strike up a conversation!
@@rapdactyl ah… I think you’ve had too much flav-r-ade… go sleep it off my dude.
A "Seeing Things" reference? Awesome!!
All touchy feely 🤗🤗🤗🤗
Thanks Paul & Shannon, keep highlighting the 'poor' if not ridiculous theist crap on the Tubes. 😁👍
"How do you know you're not a blade of grass?". That guy is _deep_ or high.
Yet another cool TH-camr who is Canadian.
I've watched a half dozen of your videos before discovering that you are from Canada.
Hi, from Vancouver.
"You can't rely on your sensing the world to determine that your senses are somewhat reliable, but I can rely on my sensing the world and the bible to determine that my senses are somewhat reliable."
What an interesting example of special pleading!
“…It’s odd that sin would effect our visual systems….” lol
6:30 Reliability of the senses is not a Biblical principle, and it's certainly not exclusive to the Bible. And the reason why we trust our senses is because we literally have no other choice but to do so for the most part. They were, for a really long time, our only means of perceiving the world around us. That is until machines came along that enhanced our ability through these senses or other mediums to perceive the world in different ways. And guess what? We have relied more on these means as they have proven more reliable than our rather limited senses.
7:28 Welp. We have had more reliable non-Biblical ways to perceive our world since. So, the fall isn't really that much of a concern anymore? (at this point, Lisle has basically simply asserted that our perceptions are designed and that they have become "less perfect" after the fall. Actually proving this? Not yet).
12:12 We know because we've actually been able to deceive our senses. And we've invented stuff that allows us to perceive the world better. That's how we know our sense aren't always reliable.
12:28 Reliability of the senses IS a survival trait. I shouldn't even need to explain why. But Lisle is deceitfully pairing "reliability" with "truthfulness" here. Reliability of the senses by itself doesn't need to be at the level where it can reveal to us the "truth" of all things, only enough that we can survive. That's what natural selection does. And hence our eyes are neither perfect nor absolutely reliable, but reliable enough for us to survive as a species.
13:09 Yup, based on the environment, cave fish have no need of eyes for survival. This is endorsing the concept of evolution, not debunking it.
13:18 Which is irrelevant because so many species have survived in a myriad of forms each in their own way even within a specific environment. Lisle is making the ridiculous implication that all the creatures in a single environment would need the exact same traits to survive in it. If anything the opposite is true, the diversity of forms is what sustains a food web in a natural environment.
Unless it's an artificially created homogenous culture like a wheat field (and even then it isn't 100% homogenous), no environment has ever required all species in it to have the exact same traits. They may require common traits, but not all traits have to be exactly the same.
13:28 Because we can perceive that we are not grass?
13:40 You don't, but do we really have to go solipsist Descartes's Demon here? This isn't supposed to be about philosophy right?
15:08 That's not a good reason. I could simply say that our senses were the work of Descartes's Demon and it would still be just as good an answer.
15:21 No you're not. Lisle has just skipped over the fact that his position is no different from everyone else's as he puts it. He has to assume his senses are reliable before even being able to perceive "God" and believe in him through reading the Bible or whatever. Before that there's no way for him to 'know" that God even exists, let alone that God creates his senses to be "reliable".
Thus, Lisle is in the exact same position as everyone else but lies about it. He, just as much as anyone else, has to assume without good reason, that his senses are reliable before he can even know of God's existence, much less things like God creating those senses in the first place. He created this conundrum for others not realizing that it applies perfectly to him as well, as is expected with most apologists who foist standards on others without first checking how those same standards apply to THEIR beliefs and worldview.
So yeah, Lisle claims he has good reason to know his sense are reliable, but he had to assume without good reason that his sense were reliable FIRST before he could even "know" that good reason. So he can't accuse anyone else for believing in the reliability of their sense without good reason without being a hypocrite. Since he has, then well, he's a hypocrite.
15:26 This is his way of trying to avoid the above conundrum, by asserting that everyone can intrinsically "know" God through some sort of hard wiring. It's basically touting the Romans 1:20 verse except even THAT verse requires the use of one's perceptions in order to even get to know God (Look at the TREES!!!).
This is provably bollocks of course, because people who lived before the time of Jesus had no concept of Christianity or Jesus, and people who have never ever been in contact with Christianity or Judaism their entire lives have had no knowledge of God for their entire lives. Lisle is one-upping the stupidity of "Look at the TREES" with "It's in your heart". Entire cultures have lived and died without ever knowing of Judaism or Christianity and hence, of God. Their hearts never led them to Christianity the way it should have if Lisle is correct about his PIDOOMA "hard wiring".
15:30 Nope, they are born "knowing" nothing at all, they simply trust their senses because that's all they have. And even if they did, it doesn't also follow then that they know that God is the one that created their senses and that's why they are 'reliable".
15:36 How about if they never learned to read or learned of the Bible or of Christianity? Do they still arrive at the same conclusions that Christians do about the reliability of their senses? No? Then you're full of shit.
Damn. Lisle has creds in astrophysics, but he's completely useless anywhere else it seems.
It's amazing how someone can make a circular argument, admit that it is, and say that it is fine lol. "No, I can trust my senses, despite me having to get there by presupposing that my senses are reliable!" We both have the presuppose it, period. You can't get anywhere without it. It's pretty much a presuppositionalist "because I presuppose God, I'm justified in it".
@James Henry Smith Cool story troll
@James Henry Smith Okay boomer
Degrees in divinity - the lack of embarrassment baffles me.
@James Henry Smith Quite and "Euw .."
@James Henry Smith Did you bring enough for everyone?💊
@James Henry Smith If it didn't, I wasn't trying hard enough. When it comes to "Doctors of Divinity, " I think a better description would be "defecation of character." The graduates of Hogwarts can at least do some tricks other than getting people to part with their money, common sense, and dignity. 😊✌️
Thanks for another interesting 🤔 presentation! 💯❤️🙏🏽
So.......where were their 'experts' on Evolution?
Science asks questions that might never be answered; religion preaches answers that may never be questioned.
"Taste and see that the Lord is good"
So if something tastes bad...?
Having grown up a catholic, I can assure you the flesh of the lord tastes rather bland.
And his blood is too sweet for my taste.
*Shannon UNLEASHED!*
WWWWWWWHHHHHHHOOOOOOOO Glasses combo take Down!!!!!
P.S. This is the only thing I could think of to comment with out taking more that 5 minutes out of my day.
Shannon is actually a beast
You can technically train yourself to see polarization. I never taken the time to do it, but I did read about it.
Jason is so bizarrely confident in putting forward his obviously circular argument: he can trust his senses because his senses tell him that the Bible says they were created by God. I mean? I can trust that everything I imagine is true, because I imagine that an infallible purple dragon named Rodney told me I can?
When we question their God, his ways are not our ways and we could not possibly know why he does what he does. But if they think it'll prove their God? Oh sure, "He made our senses so we could experience and enjoy the world"
Creationist says "Likely", "Probable", or "Chance" - Yep i can ignore this statement because they dont understand how probability works. Love the use of probability when talking about the universe, as if we have another one to compare against.
Escape your theocracy! That ad really made me feel attacked
Next time on Evolution Exposed Exposed, see how powerful my Raid: Shadow Legends character has become after just one week!
I've heard "you can't tell you're not just a brain in a vat" before. Saying "you can't tell if you are a blade of grass" is a new one. I'll give him that.
And I always love when they say anything bad or not reliable is the result of the Fall. But I've been thinking lately, how do Christians think those changes took place? If everything was perfect but the Fall brought pain and suffering, does that then mean God made a whole bunch of new things and reordered the world just because he was upset people who didn't know any better disobeyed him? Like, were viruses and parasites made during creation, or after the Fall? Was the earth capable of earth quakes and volcanoes before the Fall? Did God have to fundamentally change everything to punish humans? That seems tyrannical, doesn't it?
Let's say there's two parents. They both have a child that disobeyed them. One parent tells their child they need go to their room and they take their game console for a week as punishment. The other parent, after their child disobeyed them, chops a hand off the child as punishment.
Both children disobeyed. But wouldn't we look at the way the parents reacted and could say chopping off a hand is not a loving thing to do? How much more for God to implement all these horrible things, like cancer, earthquakes, viruses, etc. As punishment. Or did those things happen against God's will? In which case, is he really that in control and powerful?
I learned that the retina has the circulatory system and nerves on the inside, while rod and cone cells are located near the outside of the eye, so the brain has to compensate in order to enhance perception. I would have expected this the other way around for an intelligent design.
Of course there's this: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design, ultimately found by the court to not be science. 🤣
"How do you know you're not a blade of grass?"
I have sensory organs and grass does not. He just told us this. And I don't cut myself with a lawnmower.
I don't know why I am bothering. Solopsism is the most boring form of argumentation and a total waste of time.
I just have to say that I took a college course called A Philosophy of Science: Scientific Process and the Occult. No, it wasn't calling science the occult, fyi. It was showing how the scientific process changes over time and after a while the science of the past ends up looking like the occult due to how many new things we've learned. It was so interesting and I guess I'd never really thought about what has gone into creating the scientific process as we know it today. I will never look at it the same again.
I propose a great to the efficacy of faith vs. raw senses. It involves a table with a hundred revolvers on it, with only one of them being unloaded. The control group would beat bunch of Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians of other denominations, etc..., each going up to the table in sequence and selecting a pistol to have someone else of a different faith (or atheist) fire it at their head using only their functioning human senses (after each test the pistols well be redistributed at random), while the variable will be him choosing one by faith after each Control Test and don't the same to their.
Only if he told believes what he's talking about, of course.
OK, that creationist convinced me. I really _am_ a blade of grass. :)
He still hasn't convinced me that his god is real, though.
@James Henry Smith
I can't even tell if you're joking. These days, it's impossible to tell.
Do Creationists consider sin a creative force or entity? If death did not exist before sin it is reasonable to assume that the immune system was created by it. Questions for the next encounter.
*God, as an explanation for anything* = _"A Bigger Mystery"._
The octopus has a better 'designed' visual system than a human, since the nerves are under the retina, not above them. Hence, no blind spot. They also have many more photoreceptors. So maybe we should be worshiping a squid-god.
@James Henry Smith You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?
First time I've heard phenomenology used to support creationism.(if I understand the concept... I remember it mainly from Dark Star.)
'Let there be light.;
So he starts talking about the reliability of human senses and then claims senses are not reliable. Smooth move.
"... they are separate magistrates."
Umm ... "magisteria "? As in S. J. Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria"?
2:40
I disagree, Paul. The scientific method is not a philosophy, it is a methodology. I mean, it's kind of in there, in the name.
The scientific method is objective, not subjective. Philosophy is subjective, not objective.
Now, philosophy may use objective truths in its formation of thoughts, arguments and ideas, however philosophy itself, is not objective. Or am I wrong somehow? 🤔
If I am, please show me where I am incorrect.
it made gravitational theory look ridiculous.
I would like to see all documentation both verifying and involved with this astrophysicist's credentials. The fact that he uses the word "evolutionists" sends off so many alarm bells, I doubt I'll be hearing much over my tinnitus for quite some time.
And a note on Descartes' "Evil Genius" hypothesis: even if I grant all of the premises, the objectively correct course of action is to proceed as though the reality we perceive is actually real. Even if it's possible that we live in a simulation so perfect that we can never distinguish it from reality, there's no point in acting on this possibility without confirmation. It's equally possible that we live in reality and perceive it as is, in which case behaving as though in a simulation is the wrong course of action. Acting on unprovable, unfalsifiable possibilities is foolish regardless of how probable they are. This is the information we have to work with. Trying to use information we don't have, derived purely from our incapability of having it, is irrational and unproductive.
Put it another way - there are an infinite number of extravagant, unprovable, unfalsifiable cosmologies. It could be God, it could be Allah, it could be aliens, it could be the Immaterium, it could be the Id, it could be the Matrix, it could be nothing at all - it could be any of these things and more. Anyone can make up a cosmology, but only a fool would pick one at random and act as though it were real.
Yeah I never understood that. Even if it's a simulation, it's still the reality within that simulation, and it you have to play by the rules of that simulated reality, even if you knew it was a simulation. At least until you've found a way to escape the simulation.
Lol, throwback shout out to SNL's daily affirmations w/ Stuart Smalley!😂😂😂
(Yeah, I just totally dated myself by knowing what that 2 second shot was)
I'm glad someone got it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't our blind spot due to the light detection cells being effective back to front, nerves coming out the front, and hence forced to push back through the layer. I recall hearing, octopi don't have this issue
@James Henry Smith
Quick IQ test...
Solve: 4, 5, 14, 185, ...
@James Henry Smith you appear to be trying to dismiss the whole topic. The supernatural is assumed, because not being part of the natural, it cannot be observed or tested. You don't assume, that which can be predictably be demonstrated, like the natural forces we can observe.
And with all due respect, the other commenter isn't, accusing you of stupidity. That is something you are sufficiently demonstrating. I mean, look at your comments, they appear to summarize a single claim, that only some sort of bias drives the explaination presented. Except, that's based on nothing.
It can only be refuted if a realistic alternative is proposed.
Attributing everything to magic is not an answer!
OMG, did this guy really just Answer the "Brain in a Vat" Argument with "i know i'm not a Brain in a Vat because i was designed by God!"?
Apologists always act as though their imaginary god is a way out of every philosophical problem. It's not like they replace gaps in knowledge of the world with their god, they also use it to pretend to have a solution to all philosophical dilemmas. Convenient, isn't it?
Any Astrophysicist who makes fallacious claims like Jason Lisle does must have signed a "Statement of Faith" which means he doesn't get paid unless he goes against what he knows better and often lies.
Jason Lisle is an astrophysicist? How embarrassing for all other astrophysicists. Condolences.
So if God had to rewire our optic nerve when Eve ate the magic Apple, could we still be said to be in the image of God, if such radical changes happened post Apple compared to pre Apple?
Was a good idea to explain how you use the product your advertising and in which specific videos… in my opinion you should expound on that as you try to work in ads.
OK, two points here, pupils: octopus eyes and hummingbiyurd eyes and brains. Human eyes have the nerves attached to the light-sensing cells in FRONT of those cells. This is why we HAVE to have that blind spot at the back of the retina -- the nerves all gather in a bundle and penetrate the back of the eyeball at the blind spot. Octopus eyes, on the other hand, don't have that problem: their optic nerves attach to the light-sensing cells at the BACK of the sensory cells. Since their nerves are BEHIND the sensory cells, there's no need to gather the nerves into a bundle that penetrates the eyeball in front of the sensory cells. That means a lot less of the neurological gymnastics Shannon referred to.
And -- here's the REALLY cool part! -- octopuses can change the color and texture of their skins to suit their environment WITHOUT SEEING their background! Now, of course, a lot of kids will SWEAR their parents have eyes in the back of their heads, but that's NOTHING compared to octopuses! I'd LOVE to be able to do that -- especially the changing the color and texture of my skin!
Oh, and one more thing: the vitreous humor of an octopus eye probably matches the refractive index of the water they live in MUCH better than our vitreous humor matches the refractive index of the air we live in.
Speaking of air . . . Hummingbiyurds (Do I need to say "Warrior Junkies"?) Their brains are smaller than a pea, and their eyes are smaller still. Yet they can see in spectra outside the human range: they see the flowers they like most fluoresce in ultraviolet light in ways we can only feebly duplicate through complicated equipment. And despite brains FAR smaller than ours, they can navigate all the way from the Yucatan Peninsula to the Coastal Bend of the Texas Coast while also being able to navigate at beak length with incredible precision -- no human pilot comes close, even after DECADES of flight experience. And hummingbiyurds can do this kind of thing about two or three WEEKS after cracking out of their egg shells!
Humans and our puny senses somehow prove intelligent design? HAH! (Read every bit of derision you can imagine into that "Hah!)
@James Henry Smith, sorry, but that's not how it works. Nice try, though. Play again sometime.
@James Henry Smith, I think you may massively misunderstand how sciences work and how sciences and religions address COMPLETELY different questions. Let me see if I can explain. This isn't going to be short. It's not going to be short because I'm a scientist who studies religions.
So first things first: I'm a sociologist studying (among other things) religion as a social function. That means that I'm interested in using the methods of science -- in this case, sociology -- to study what roles religion plays in making society work. Sociologists use some different techniques than people who pursue physical sciences. I can interview you and ask questions about what you think religion is, what religion does for people and things like that. Geologists wouldn't try using interviewing as a technique for understanding rocks: rocks don't talk and, as far as we can tell, don't have experiences in anything like the sense humans do. But there are some things geologists and sociologists have in common that make it useful to explain science in general.
What physical, biological, and social scientists share is the fact that "science" is actually two things: a body of knowledge, and the means we use to create that knowledge. Despite the fact that scientists study different subjects, we generally follow some basic, shared processes to create and assess knowledge about our different fields. We start by observing the world around us and finding some phenomenon we're interested in understanding. We observe that phenomenon until we can describe it well enough to be sure someone else hasn't already studied it. Once we reach that point, we go back to the body of established knowledge to see if anyone has described a similar phenomenon, and we read all we can about those. As we do, we look for similarities and differences between what we observes ourselves and what others have described with an eye toward developing a preliminary explanation of the phenomenon we want to explain. From that, we develop a hypothesis that we can use to predict what we'd expect to see in particular circumstances. If we see what we expect to see, that's evidence that our hypothesis MAY be correct. The problem is that few of us can predict every way a hypothesis could be wrong, so we create tests to try and find evidence that contradicts our hypothesis --these tests are often referred to as "null" hypotheses, because if they proved true, they'd prove the proposed hypothesis false.
Once we've made observations, defined the phenomena, gathered evidence and developed tests, we publish our results and wait for other scientists in the field to punch holes in our work: it's called "peer review". If people come up with objections, we've got basically two options: admit that we've wasted our time and move on to something else, or patch up the holes in our arguments and do more research. If enough other scientists in our field agree that there are minor problems, but the basic ideas are sound, we tend to continue research. If we look at the wreck of the carefully crafted ship we built from observations, evidence and explanations we thought we'd built and conclude that the torpedoes of fact and logic aimed at our favorite ides didn't hold up to attack, we tend to abandon ship and move on to another subject.
In either case, something is added to the accepted body of knowledge only AFTER enough other scientists in our field agree that our hypothesis has stood up to scrutiny that attacks drop off and we feel relatively safe holding up our flag and looking over the rail of our Ship of Science to say a tentative "Yay?" without someone else launching another barrage of shell fire and torpedoes trying to sink us outright.
Where people like James Randi come in is in reminding us that scientists generally play by the rules and don't try to fool us -- but not always. Randi did a number of demonstrations for scientists to show how easily professional charlatans -- call them "magicians" if you will -- can play upon the assumption scientists make that their fellow scientists and the human test subjects they often use won't intentionally deceive the scientists watching these demonstrations. And here's the point: if you expect the other guy to "play according to Hoyle", but the other guy is determined to show how smart he is, even if it means intentionally fooling you, he's probably going to fool you. It'll happen because the accepted norm in science is to believe that others are acting in good faith.
Many will argue that this kind of chicanery is more likely in religion than in science because science demands observable evidence and repeatability in experiments that just doesn't exist in religion. You wrote, for example, ". . . bad things like judgements and Hell are experienced even by the atheists, though they may still get fooled by the strong delusion and the demon eye mind powers . . . . " The problem is that you can't exactly take me over to a place, point in a direction, say, "That's Hell, my friend!" and convince me that it's true: it just may be Detroit. And nobody has yet pulled me aside to point at something and say, "There! Did you see it? The demon mind eye?" I can say with certainty that I've never seen anything that matches descriptions of a "demon mind eye", so I can't accept the assertion that demon mind eyes actually exist. But I have seen, heard, and read enough personal accounts of encounters with "demon mind eyes" that I'm convinced others have witnessed what they BELIEVE to be demon mind eyes that I want to understand what they're experiencing -- and particularly what social influences are likely to make themTHINK they're experiencing "demon mind eye".
Let me close by saying that religion and sociology do different things. Sociology wants to explain how societies work, from the lowest level, personal interactions to interactions between nation-states, while religions strive to provide members with rules for interactions between themselves, other members of their religious communities and people outside their communities. Religions also try to provide people models of "good" lives -- or at least lives that make sense. These aren't wholly incompatible, but giving each its due requires that we all remember that religion and science are trying to answer fundamentally different questions. If we can do that, we can get along OK.
Lyin for Jebus
If humans are 'designed', it's the result of a piss poor designer.
Did he actually claim babies know to trust their senses? Is he not aware that object permanence is a key developmental milestone for children?
He's not aware of much.
@James Henry Smith David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear live on television.
Literal ants!
Science isn’t predicated on our senses being reliable. Quite the opposite actually.
"God made the seeing eye and the hearing ear they are designed and they are designed to work. Maybe not perfectly because of sin and the curse."
Did God design the eye and the ear after Adam committed sin? If so, how could Adam have heard God telling him not to eat the fruit of the forbidden tree?
What difference would it make if I was a blade of grass, and my entire existence was just a slice of photosynthetic Matrix? How does pointing at this or that collection of internally inconsistent and morally defective mythologies guarantee that Lisle is not living in a version of the god delusion? If he can call into question the veracity, validity and reliability of my senses, I can use identical arguments for his foundational beliefs.
Regardless, the sensory argument actually works against the faithful, because the beliefs that they are convinced that they should hold REQUIRE them to ignore or suspend the evidence of their senses when said evidence contradicts their beliefs. Our senses give us no reason to doubt the uniformity and consistency of radioactive decay or redshifting of stellar spectra, yet the YECists demand that we believe that their god, in order to deceive us, has changed those processes in such a significant and ongoing fashion that we can't actually trust any sensory input related to these phenomena. On that basis, faith actually UNDERMINES his belief in his senses, while my scientific perspective posits no such omnipotent and malicious being who would actively work against the reliability of its supposed creation. My senses are thus philosophically more reliable than his, and the other arguments Shannon makes just support that contention.
are there psycological tests so we can find out if these people are actually insane, or just pretending for money?
It never stops being surreal to me to hear people using scientific refutation against stories like Adam and Eve. I mean, it's amusing sure, but thinking of people taking it seriously just...how. It's a fable, and people take it seriously.
Americans - escape your theocracy 🤣
13:42
WT holy F????
Oh, It's Dr Jason Liar! 🤦
You go Paul! 👍
6:15 which is ironic since astrophysics is a science where you *can't* rely on your senses for the data. You know like telescopes seeing in UV XRAY and infrared lights that gives us information on stars and planets we *wouldn't* have if we relied only on the visible human spectrum ?
100k
100k
100k!!!
It is so sad that an otherwise intelligent, well educated person, makes up such twisted excuses to believe something so stupid as a god and magic.
How can you trust your senses are perfectly seeing the word of God? What if your perception of the Bible is just a result of photosynthesis?
"depending on what sort of organism you are you do not need senses to survive" er ? nope! a measure of self regulation is required to support any life. self regulation is only possible through sensing internal conditions.
I guess you validate your senses early enough in life - when you bump your head a few times, burn your finger a few times and so on.
It might take more bumps and burns for some before they start watching their step, but they get there.. eventually..
Or - god gave us good and reliable senses with which we can't find god?
options for reasons to believe in our senses
1. because God created them
2. because my entire life has given me feedback that I can trust my senses.....
@James Henry Smith we know what you believe. We just don't have any good reason to believe it. For one, "demons spilling the truth" doesn't make any sense in a universe controlled by an all powerful God all loving God
and IF he had debunked evolution? Then what? One specific version of 1 god?
I think, we'd be with 0 understanding of biodiversity on Earth, and our deities would be still unproven.
if they wanna prove creation, they really should start speaking about creation.
Yeah evolution has nothing to do with the start of the universe or even the start of life, its just about biodiversity. Disproving it wouldn't tell you anything about gods, the universe, or anything to do with creation.
Its so obnoxious when creationists just lump everything together under evolution
According to the creationistmodel God can change our perception of reality on the fly, for any reason, to either reveal or conceal anything that he wishes, to us or from us. This makes the creationism model less reliable since we can't make testable predictions based on our knowledge of how the senses work.
"i don't know, just trust your senses..!" is gonna be my default answer to everything for a little while now... xD
But they are happy accidents. 😄
👋
I'm half blind and half deaf. How do I get a refund on God's shoddy work?
I can give you the Vatican's address
If humans were made in God's image, with our flawed eyes..
Would that make the mantis shrimp superior to God?
Or maybe God is a mantis shrimp.
What the actual f$#@ did he just say!!?? None of that made any sense whatsoever, and I know this because my evolved senses told me so.
Great. His next point is exactly the same as his first point. Kill me now.