Theist Claims "Design" Points to a Creator? Heated Debate Ensues! | Matt Dillahunty + Eve Was Framed
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 พ.ย. 2024
- A caller named John makes a case for a nonspecific God without reference to any specific religion. The host Matt pushes him to specify a definition of God and provide his single most convincing argument. John defines his God as a supreme being who created the universe. He feels an ensemble of philosophical arguments makes belief in God reasonable, but the design argument is most convincing to him personally.
Matt counters the design argument by bringing up the analogy of a puddle fitting a hole, arguing we evolved to fit this universe rather than the universe being designed for us. An extended back and forth emerges around whether science points to God. John notes early pioneering scientists were often theists, but Matt argues they failed to find evidence of God, while modern scientists overwhelmingly reject theism, so proper understanding of science does not lead one to God belief.
Matt grows frustrated with John dodging some key questions. He tries to get John to directly address why he persists in believing science points to God when almost all expert scientists disagree. John suggests many scientists rule out supernatural explanations due to social taboos and boundaries around methodological naturalism in science. Matt asserts this is just coping rather than providing evidence.
SUPPORT THE NETWORK
---------------------------------------------------
Patreon: / calltheline
Become a Channel Member:
SUPPORT PRODUCTION
---------------------------------------------------
Paypal: www.paypal.me/...
Cashapp: cash.app/$jimm...
Amazon Wishlist: www.amazon.com...
MORE LIVE SHOWS & CLIPS
---------------------------------------------------
/ @callthelinex
CONTACT US
---------------------------------------------------
contact@qnaline.com
HOSTS
---------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Snow: @JimmySnow
Matt Dillahunty: @SansDeity
Arden Hart: / theardenhart
Katy Montgomerie: @KatyMontgomerie
Forrest Valkai: @RenegadeScienceTeacher
Dr. Ben: @FamilyDrBen
Aron Ra: @AronRa
Shannon Q: @ShannonQ
John Gleason: @godlessengineer
Dave Warnock: iamdyingoutlou...
ADDRESS
---------------------------------------------------
The Line
110 N Interstate 35
Suite 315-1027
Round Rock, TX 78681
United States
SHOWS ON THE LINE
---------------------------------------------------
Sundays: The Sunday Show
Monday: Skeptalk
Tuesday: Dying Out Loud
Wednesday: The Hang Up
Thursday: The Trans Atlantic Call In Show (TACIS)
Look out for “HOSTility” and “Cus I Wanna” any day, any time
#CallTheLine
![ปฏิเสธไม่ไหว (Crush on you) - LIPTA feat. No One Else [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NBw1jF342vw/mqdefault.jpg)
John reminded me of a good friend of mine who once told me that us humans were special and we were more highly evolved and I told him to go to a polar bear and tell it how special he was
Im special
@@VondoodleI just bet you are sweetie. Bless yer heart
@@Vondoodle Vladimir Pooter have a special military operation for you.
he could go to the bear armed with an assault rifle, which is one of the things that make us special, and refute your point
@@cosmodradek Try the same thing with a giant squid in the middle of the ocean
It was quite astonishing how the caller admitted that science cannot prove the supernatural, then criticises the scientific community for not being brave enough to confirm the existence of supernatural phenomena.
He's just making it up as he goes-he's never been seriously challenged on anything because he's got some buzz words...
He is thinking one step at the time, resolving problems as they are exposed by Matt. When he is granted two options, he picks the best one that works in that particular moment. It inevitably leads to contradictions down the road.
The idea that science can't prove the supernatural is a misunderstanding of science. Science is a process of figuring things out. Given time, and tech, and advancement of the people utilizing it, it should be able to prove anything.
A great irony of those sorts of positions is -- the scientific community has in fact long engaged in the supernatural.
It's just that every attempt to generate valid evidence corroborating its existence keeps coming up with goose-eggs.
So it's not that scientists "are not brave enough to confirm" the supernatural -- it's that they have spent literally centuries attempting to do so and consistently failing.
Which is of course consistent with it not existing.
@@grabble7605
Talking of misunderstanding, science is about the natural world.
Supernatural by definition is not natural, if we figure it out it's now natural.
I've lived through 47 Canadian winters. No, this world isn't made for us, we adapted to it.
70.
54 here
You people want a medal?
@@RMoore713ify yes please
@@RMoore713ifyCan I get one even if I never went to Canada?
Argues for generic god. Holds deep belief in specific god.
All he needs is a script and he gets the presup trifecta.
Every fuckin time lmao
Well you can't admit to believing in a specific god, otherwise people might hold you to a specific claim. Can't have that!
@@thomasstuart6861 Please explain how "current scientific reasoning" seems to point towards a generic god?
@@thomasstuart6861
You "seem to be" profoundly misinformed.
Goodness, this person seemed to be trying their darndest to not have a conversation. At every opportunity he was like how can I prevent this conversation from moving forward in any productive direction?
welcome to the land of trying to argue with a theist
He is thinking one step at the time and picking answers to problems as they are exposed by Matt, which leads to contradictions down the road. God propositions are unfalsifiable.
That's probably the only way he ever won arguments.
I agree all matt did was shout him down and mute him so the convo never was able to get anywhere cuz when the reasonable guy would try to calmly and respectfully answer matt like the little man bitch he is shouts him down and mutes him like a petulent child, even the woman was cringing at matts uncontrollable rage, im willing to bet he lies about his divorce, im perfectly willing to bet he beat the total shit out of his ex wife, good on her for leaving his pathetic ass
@@pavel9652 Most people call it a script.
Throughout history human kind has NEVER once studied anything and the answer ended up being “oh well god did it.” Never once.
Unless they studied the bible. It's easy to come up with "Goddidit" as an answer for everything when you don't think past whatever you think your pastor wants to hear.
Well actually all of history proves you wrong. That was the first 10k years of civiliaztion. Tf are you talking about
@@CorbinB-Rax was the answer to the study "god did it"? Or was the answer "we don't know yet"?
@@Theoden40000 did i mention a particular study? Nope. I said all of history. Quit specifying the general, serpent.
@@CorbinB-Rax nope but the other person mentioned anything once studies. And I don't need a particular one, any study that resulted in god instead of I don't know therefore God will work, any and all.
"The puddle argument."
It puzzles me when these people refer to analogies used to explain how silly theist claims are... as arguments.
That is the level they are operating at ;)
It's not an argument, it's an analogy.
I'd say it's an argument used to show how design cannot be inferred by pointing out that something exists as nature allows it to exist. It's an argument to break down the idea of purpose.
We, much like the puddle, exist as we do because nature allows for it. If nature didn't allow for it, we wouldn't. We, like the puddle, are not the intended purpose but merely the result.
They are in fact arguments. What they are not are arguments for or against design. What they are are arguments against the arguments presented in favor of design. As Matt pointed out, the puddle analogy is specifically in response to design arguments.
So yes they are arguments, but one could call it a "meta-argument" in that it is not supporting any claim, but rather a counter to another argument.
Arguments are a set of statements, premises and conclusion. Maybe in colloquial meaning, but everyone (except the caller) calls it puddle analogy.
Anything that exists in reality is natural by definition. The supernatural is an incoherent concept such that anything supernatural can only be natural, but not understood, or doesn't exist. If gods, magic, souls, ghosts, etc are actually real and exist, they are natural.
Reminds me of flat earthers. They think just because something is man made means it's not natural lol
I have told people that all food is natural provided it doesn't have _miracle_ ingredients.
Not really, what exactly means existing? Because god escapes time and form in order to "create" it. What made the universe? In theory it has to be something different to itself, nothing happens just because, you need action and reaction. And supernatural is not different to natural, is what you just said trying to explain what it should be.
@brianmonks8657. If we make our own definitions,we are inconquerable in any argument! Aren't we?😏
Naw God exists
I am trying to figure out where this "social taboo" against religion in the US is.
@@thomasstuart6861 What *are* you on about? This has nothing to do with a social taboo against religion much less anything to do with a taboo against it *in the US* (of which the opposite is the case in the general populace).
@@thomasstuart6861
"We meet again "Diviance"."
*No clue who you are.*
"I would suggest it is because it requires an indoctrination from which it is easier to be innocent of religion than to deny it. Following that, in support of the self's desire to be free, then knowledge of errors in the scripture propel the self to a greater sense of freedom. The self wants to do what it wants to do and religion, for no good logical reason, prevents the self from doing what it wants to do, even though the self knows it is not a good thing to do. argumentum ad verecundiam"
*What quantum woo level nonsense is this? Wanna run that by me again?*
LOL "quantum woo level nonsense" indeed.
Persecution syndrome.
@@thomasstuart6861 I noticed many Christians have persecution syndrome and claim they are oppressed. While in the reality they have been oppressive side fire at least thousands years.
We humans are very very badly designed. Imagine putting the garbage disposal next to the pleasure principal.
Imagine making the food hole the same as one of the breathing holes.
At least we don't have a Cloaca...
Imagine making all of the sensory systems capable of not working simultaneously. Or... just not working at any point.
Or the pleasure holes as waste distribution.
Or putting the g-spot actually IN the disposal for almost half the species.
Arguments from authority, from ignorance, and ad populum AND a tu quoque fallacy all in a row. Goddamn. This guy has done his work.
🔥😂
in a wasted effort.
Always with the fallacies, these theists. It never fails.
The funny part was when he tried to claim Matt was engaged in the argument from authority fallacy, when in reality, Matt was CORRECTLY appealing to the actual authorities for the issue. Saying “90% scientists don’t believe in a god, so god probably isn’t real” would be fallacious but saying “90% scientists don’t think science points to god, therefore science probably doesn’t point to god” is completely reasonable. Scientists are the authorities on conclusions you should reach from science. Pretty simple.
@@pidayrocks2235 Science and scientists are 2 very different things. Science is the method, scientists have conclusions. If 5 independent data TODAY points on a 14,7 billion year old universe, and one data point to a 28 billion year old universe, then MOST scientists would conclude the universe is 14,7 billion years old. If future data shows more support for the 28 billion year model, then scientists will start to change their view and claim the universe is 28 billion years old.
So what scientists say in a specific time and situation is limited to what the scientific data is available at the time.
So "science not pointing to god" is a false or at least weak conclusion of several reasons. First one would have to define HOW scientific methods could point/prove God, as that has not been established, God has never been tested... so we don´t have scientific data on if or if not God does exist.
To make my argument clear: science doesn´t point to existing alien life in the universe (there is NO proof), the claim and fact has NOTHING to do with the reality if or if not there is alien life in the universe. We don´t have a scientific way of determining if there is alien life... we COULD find life by receiving data signals, or finding certain molecules in the atmosphere on some planet, but we have found none, however, we haven´t been able to cover even 0,01% of the universe.
As we have NO tools to check if God does or doesn´t exist, we can´t have evidence for either claim, but we can have opinions. A scientists opinion on God is simply an opinion.
The design argument only makes sense if you pre suppose everything has to be designed. We recognize design by simplicity, efficiency, and comparing with nature, yet they try to say nature looks designed because it’s complex, but nature is really inefficient as well. If this world and all in nature is designed, the designer is either stupid, or just snapped everything into existence without a single thought going threw it’s head.
Not to mention the multiple diseases and mutations that would be called faults, from a design perspective.
@@reefhogBut then they just say the diseases are our fault because two of our ancestors ate a piece of fruit 😂
@@user-vt3vo1yd3v There are abnormalities, diseases etc. in every life form. Surely a god , capable of creating the universe and everything in it, would be capable of creating it all perfectly.
Everything is a consequence force + function + purpose. Anything can be "pre-supposed" including the pre supposition of purposelessness if circular reasoning is your thing. Suffice to say using deductive reasoning for every effect there is a primal cause.
@@ZoneTelevisionnobody is presupposing purposelessness in this thread
It's kind of self defeating for theists to point out that scientists who made significant discoveries thought god existed. They were ultimately curious and set out to prove their beliefs by finding things that might point to the supernatural and instead advanced modern science and shrunk the idea that anything in our realm could ever be supernatural. Argumentum ad verecundiam.
@@thomasstuart6861 Science has not "found" any empirical evidence for a simulated reality, it is a proposed hypothesis that is speculative and unfalsifiable.
@@thomasstuart6861
That's certainly your claim. Why should we indulge it?
The reason so many more scientists were believers in the past (at least publicly) is the same reason so many people are believers today in many countries: they, like other people, would like to keep their head attached to the rest of their bodies and/or avoid other possible unpleasant results from being a non-believer. These scientists who may or may not have been religious know that two scientists praying for a divine revelation revealing the explanation for some natural phenomenon has no value - following the scientific method does.
In what verse god said to you that you cannot make electricity or travel through the ocean? Not a single scientist who believed in God later found out something enough solid to deny their faith.
@@Ericwvb2Right? By your logic now we should not have religious people in the field, but it's the opposite. Has nothing to do with revelations, social force or fear, if you believe in god you are believing in yourself, and basically your work is on you, we are free for a reason.
This guy: Here’s my argument.
Matt: Your argument is flawed for this reason.
This guy: But I’m not saying that’s my argument though.
Lol
spot on... he literally said that.
I particularly liked his remarks (to the effect), their are plenty of arguments, I just can't think of any of them at the moment.
@@sigmaoctantis1892
The caller also said, early in the call, something to the effect that there was a multiplicity of arguments for god.
The problem isn't solved by generating more bad arguments. Any idiot can do that. Someone has to come up with.a GOOD argument. And that turns out to be much harder.
So far, after thousands of years of trying - a period in which we've gone from not knowing that the Earth is a planet, not knowing what comes after grinding sand into dust, to knowing with fair confidence how the universe originated, and what is the fundamental structure of reality - we still have no credible arguments and no credible evidence that ANY kind of god exists. Not promising lines of investigation or intriguing data, nothing. We still have nothing.
Bad arguments, even a great many more bad arguments than we already have (and there are very few that haven't already been tried to death) are really not going to get us around this basic observation.
@@starfishsystems Yes. After listening to a significant number of apologists, I have come to the conclusion that god is a bad argument. That is all they ever present.
John is so scared to answer the questions cause he knows hes being irrational and he doesnt want to be.
Yup. He doesn't want to know the truth, so he pretends that he already knows.
He's just another babbling simpleton that would rather just believe, for the simple sake of believing... It's that simple!
It could also be the case that all the atheist types living in their heads and laughing with each other about the poor stupid theist types are missing the whole point and not realizing it.
Science can most definitely point to the supernatural. Thats what ghost investigators do.
@mahoganyrush300 I read this while drinking, now I have to clean my computer 🖥
You can lead a religionist to reason, but you can't make him think it.
s/make him think it/force him to think/
Matt is a former religionist, just saying.
@@advorak8529 "Matt is a former religionist, just saying." - He started to think by himself, obviously.
@@freddan6fly that is because he did it himself. Just as I did. Nobody can make us do it. We have to open ourselves up.
Well first of all, what is a "religoinist"? Secondly, a LOT of us were believers in a religion. For me reading the Bible is what broke my faith.
I cannot be certain that NO god(s) exist but I can be certain that incoherent Gods do not (that covers every religion I've ever come across). For me the concept of a God that knows all and the idea that we still have free will makes the concept an incoherent proposition.
so you believe design doesnt have to have a creator? just like you believe in the scientific impossibility of something popping out from nothing? and God is a fairytale?
You can lead an atheist to reason, but you can't make him think it.
The caller's annoying, but Eve's so blasted pretty I stuck thru the whole video.
Thanks for dropping her name! First time I see her she is indeed hot.
Agreed!
I always wondered what Eve looked like (jk)
As with so many theists or deists, it's FEELINGS over FACTS. If they could stop and listen to themselves, they'd hear what we hear. The irony of them accusing scientists of having a bias without realising that is their position.
They aren't trained in spotting bias, unlike scientists.
@themadkalimurjiasecularist6683 we cringe at those too, that's a poor reason. I've personally never met anyone saying anything like that, only heard tell of them from theists
@themadkalimurjiasecularist6683 what a ridiculous and desperate comment
@themadkalimurjiasecularist6683Fact? Your little anectdote is not a fact. Try again.
In Matt’s case, it’s “I’m gay therefore no God.”
Which is probably the most common reason for atheism.
Host: “Which God do you believe in and why?”
Caller: “The supreme one true God.”
Me: *forehead* far out.
Sorry caller. Can you be more specific?
I am pretty sure he meant The Great JuJu from the mountain. I don't know of any other god that is real.
He is a Christian and this is their new way to argue because they know arguing for Christianity is a losing strategy
i can throw the same at atheists.....describe the God you say theists believe in but which you see no evidence for.....and exactly what evidence is missing? works both ways buddy.
Jogrygus, why atheists should bother describing theists' god? It isn't our proposition. Sounds like your are shifting the burden. I can easily describe Christian god, though. All it takes is to read the Bible. Their god can walk on water, unaided, without Kubota flip-flops, thinks bats are birds, and can make a donkey speak Hebrew, as well as frequently engages in planetary level extinction. The evidence I am looking for is a donkey speaking Hebrew. Can you demonstrate it?
I appreciate the fact Matt is helping the caller understand why he is missing the argument under his own rationale as he (caller) attempts to articulate his statements - each and every time the caller is fallen in a circular argument (albeit in Matt’s unique style). I’ll go on to say that for some people who have a compromised bias, any pragmatic approach will seem counterintuitive (even contentious) to them at this stage. Many people who left theism went through something similar at some point until they finally truly understood what was being explained to them. Conversations like this also help other viewers to understand if there are flaws in their own arguments.
I became an atheist when I found that the churches here seem more keen on being Saved than on Being Good.
Matt has said several times that his purpose is not to change the mind of the caller he’s talking to (that doesn’t happen for a whole variety of reasons) but to make people in the audience think.
@@pansepot1490Yup, I've heard him say that repeatedly through the years. I appreciate that about him.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 Personally I think as long as you presuppose god, saved > good is rational. Have a good limited time on earth or have a good eternity in heaven, pretty easy choice. It's why we often call christianity a death cult
She said "right" and I was mesmerized.
She had me before that , those eyes are incredible aren't they
@garyk1334 is she is an atheist too?
The most compelling argument of the entire 20 minutes.
Eye candy?
It would have been nice to see Eve's opinion included in the clip somehow.
She said “yes” at the end
she’s not going to fuck you, give up.
That's OK. It was nice seeing Eve. She has lovely eyes!
This is what she said! ;) Jokes aside, other co-hosts often struggle to contribute when Matt goes full nelson on the caller. There just isn't much to do left ;)
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 Yeah, she's so pretty!
Great synopsis in the video description! (It concludes with Matt pointing out that trying to portray science as progressing toward a god conclusion is more of an exercise in emotional coping than it is any kind of reasonable analysis.)
It is really interesting to see how far we've come over the relatively short course of recorded history. The earliest records are of authoritarian rule, superstition and magical thinking, with emerging efforts at codification, mathematics, rational inference, experiment, epistemology and a search for ordering principles of all kinds.
Looking back on this period, what's remarkable is how much progress in knowledge and abilities of all kinds has been due to the rational aspects of inquiry, leaving superstition and gods to occupy the shrinking gaps in knowledge. Many individuals still hold on tightly to these superstitious gaps, putting them increasingly in conflict with human progress, just as authoritarians find themselves increasingly in conflict with democratic progress.
If we manage to survive the next few thousand years - still just a brief chapter in evolutionary terms - we may look back with equal amazement at the progress made through this transition between one fundamental kind of human thought, based on a conflict between instinct and reason, to another in which instinct and reason operate in accord.
I, for one, mistakenly believed that we were mostly there already, but it turns out that I was living in a state of intellectual privilege. Our emergent Information Age has made it abundantly clear that there are "haves" and "have nots" in the allocation of resources toward making sense of all this information. The transition is only beginning. But, if we survive as a species at all, I think it's unstoppable.
Religion will never disappear. Look at flat-earthers. They are literally two thousand years behind. There will be always some people somewhere who will believe in arbitrarily ridicules claims.
I was trying to figure out where the caller was going with this one, only to have god-of-the-gaps put its hand up 15 minutes into a 20-minute video.
The irony there is that John denied that he was attempting a "God of the gaps" argument when it was clear that that's exactly what he was doing.
And a pity, @@thomash.schwed3662, because he had the start of a better call in there with:
_"I believe that science points to a god, and here's why...."_
But he veered off into conspiracy country, which is something that gets one a sippy cup and a seat with the flerfers instead of someone taken seriously.
"The digital code in DNA..." That is where this caller goes completely off the rails, although he has shown his utter irrationality a few times prior to that as he argued multiple times for the opposite of a declarative assertion he made only moments before.
Correct. Everyone knows that DNA is analog.
Yes, whenever theists try to say DNA is "like digital programing" you have to explain that that is only an analogy that is used in teaching a complex subject. DNA is chemical sequences, there is nothing digital about it.
I'm just pedantic enough of a chemist to say that the DNA is exactly the same for every organism. The NA stands for Nucleic Acid. Two helices of it are bound together by pairs of organic bases and the fact that a base pairs with an acid. The actual coding pattern is the long varied sequence of these bases.
@@primafacie9721 It's not a code at all.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 As a biochemist I have to agree with your first three sentences (I'd suck as a biochemist if I didn't because what you said is a fact) but as a biologist I have to disagree with the use of "coding". It's simply a result, not a coding. The only thing special about it is that sometimes the random mutation works and sometimes it's selected for (which just means that it's pretty much always discarded but sometimes it's a change that kinda works without killing the organism and as the environment changes becomes a necessary trait for survival).
Religion seems to have provided this fellow with a large dose of self imposed ignorance and as a 2 for 1 deal it threw in a side helping in dishonesty.
@Jcs57 You have it the wrong way round. Ideas like religion SELECT FOR ignorami......then send them out on tragic missions to find other 2-digit IQ types.
The more I hear the theist callers who try to rationalize some god or other, the more incredulous I become. There have been lots of gods throughout history-Judeo-Christianity and Islam crystallized around comparatively widespread political structures, so naturally have more adherents. But why should that somehow demonstrate that the other gods were all fantasy? I guess I'm expecting too much.
Religions today, mythologies tomorrow. If humanity survives one thousand years more, all these pathetic religions will be gone, probably. Maybe there will be new religions. Who knows...
Taking the non Judaism/Christianity/Islam polytheisms into account, is the Judaic/Christian/Islamic line that formed monotheism a sort of anthropomorphic psuedo pantheism?
@@dion5804doesn't have to be unfortanately. Hinduisme survived for a long time (around 6000 years now) and is still ongoing so the same could be for the other widespread religions. I do agree that people will stop practicing them like it went for most religions. But yeah maybe new religions will come in their place. Or we F'ed the planet up by then.😅
You'd have to wonder how proud the Christian God to be in seeing apologists abandoning him and just touting a general God... knowing the Bible and God's character.. mad and very jealous.
That’s only the first step. They think that if they’get confirmation on the generic god, they can start on why the Christian god makes the most sense. Most people who say they actually believe in a generic god are deists. They label those guys that on the show.
This is like putting foot in the doorstep, but they don't realize it will be hard to progress to their favourite variant of personal god walking on water and carefully instructing what to do with their dingies at night. Deists, on the other hand, claim they detected undetectable.
@@joemiller7082 1 John 4
King James Version
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
I've decided it's more reasonable there are magic gremlins in matt's car, Screwing up the transmission. The fact that ninety nine percent of all mechanics disagree, Well that just doesn't matter. Car mechanics simply have a taboo against gremlins.
The reason car mechanics hate gremlins so much is the fact that gremlins deny the existence of car mechanics. And pizza, they also reject pizza.
I saw a Bugs Bunny cartoon about a gremlin in a USAAF bomber, so gremlins must be real.
And why would i get angry at you for believing something only affects you?
These callers always regurgitate some argument they think justifies their beliefs. What I always find fascinating is how many different ways the hosts demonstrate those arguments to be wrong. One side tries to repeat things they’ve heard and don’t understand. The other side actually demonstrates actual critical thinking skills.
After 10 to 15 mins, Eve should have a go, otherwise what's the point of having a co-host.
The caller apparently read the book Intelligent Design. I'd suggest there's a lot of UNintelligent design in our makeup and my favorite example is our skeletons.
The vertebrate design works well for snakes because the spine is supported by the ground as they slither along. It works almost as well for quadrupeds because the spine is supported by all four feet.
But it doesn't work as well for bipeds like us, and results in lower back problems like my compressed disc (and upper spine conditions like Scheuermann's kyphosis which I've also got), because we just adapted the same skeletal design already in use by all the vertebrates that came before us. Those problems wouldn't plague us if we'd been divinely endowed with a brand-new just-for-humans skeleton.
But we weren't.
The Design Argument... essentially, the environment was tailor-made for life and specifically mankind. I've heard apologists go on for hours at a time trying to talk about cosmic constants and how fractional changes would make the universe unlivable. Just once, I'd like to see someone debate a William Lane Craig-type, sit through his 30 minute opening statement, and when it was his turn to pose the counter argument, he walks to the mic, clears his throat, takes a sip of water, looks out over the audience, and in a flat tone, utters one word: "sunburn". Then he walks back to his seat.
Caller twice mentioned the 'digital code of DNA' as evidence for god.
Well, firstly, it ain't digital, & secondly, it ain't a code. I cringe every time I hear 'DNA code'.
Somebody once used a poor analogy to try to make genetics a little simpler for simple folks, & theists ever since have shouted *"A CODE NEEDS A CODER!!!"*
Actual adults talking about the supernatural and thinking DNA points to the supernatural. Wild .
I’ve been hearing from other scientists like Tyson for example, say the majority of top scientists do believe in a god but can leave their religion out of the lab.
Excellent point. Believing in God will only hurt your career if you’re in the STEM fields. That’s why most scientists that do believe don’t openly discuss it.
That's nonsense, even if Tyson did say that it wouldn't necessarily make it true - but he didn't say anything about a "majority" he was acknowledging there's scientists who can continue to do unbiased and objective work while leaving their religious beliefs at the door.
Matt is a towering master of his subject... All others are cannon fodder falling on the barbed wire of his positions ....
Even co-hosts have hard time contributing ;)
Like Eve, I wouldn't have said a word. @@pavel9652
1 John 4
King James Version
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
@@paulgemme6056You are the false prophet.
For millennia people have assumed “God” with no evidence. The fact that science is no longer doing that is primary reason that we have discovered so much about the natural world. Asking scientists to stop doing that is tantamount to them just giving up on finding more complex things about the Universe. I believe that would most certainly be counterproductive to their goals.
"Digital code in the DNA..." 0011000101000101
Did I just change my DNA? 🤣🤘
This call reminds me of the Spongebob Man Ray meme. 😂
Our frustration comes from the fact that we make every effort to clarify an argument, while the apologists, do everything they can to muddy the waters and/or just deflect.
@NOMOREBS65 So do they know they're lying, or are they just total idiots?
@@chrisevans1255 They are too terrified of reality to be fully honest.
Merrick Garland does not have what it takes for the situation America finds itself in. It was like putting a mouse in charge of disciplining cats.
*“An ensemble of arguments”*
Red flag for “I Gish-gallop myself”
Well said, none of these arguments are good.
Darwin was taken on board The Beagle to be part of captain's effort to prove the creation as described in Genesis, but what he found was quite the opposite ;)
Who is the guest? They might be the most beautiful human I've ever seen.
Eve! It's pretty hard to get a word in edgewise with Matt sometimes. Who are you and where can one learn more about your area of expertise and your views?
@@Actuizzle Hey, where can I learn more about area of expertise *wink wink*
Wow. She's good looking but she isnt THAT hot
Aaaaah yes. This brings me back in time. Haven’t seen Matt talk over the caller, and leave the other “host” staring into their camera for 20 mins for a while now. Nice to see nothings changed. I actually found the woman staring into the camera on instagram, and enjoyed listening to her speak, looked her up on TH-cam….got to listen to Matt speak….over everyone.
John Copium, 2024 Noble Prize winner for science confirming the Super Natural.
That girl making easy money with Matt being the host lol she don't have to say nothing and get paid
Him: “A lot of the early scientists like Newton were theists and believed in God.”
Also Him: “The fact that only 7% of the scientists are theists is not a good argument.”
"I'm having trouble hearing you when I'm speaking" then maybe, just maybe STOP TRYING TO TALK WHEN MATT IS TALKING. 🤦♂️
And Matt can talk and interrupt any time he wants. After all, basic human decency is not relevant here, because us Atheists are correct, so everyone else better just shut the hell up and get in line.
JESUS CHRIST! Eve Was Framed is a stunner...
agreed! One of the few worthy of invoking the myths name.
I'm anxious about watching this because the whole time I'm just waiting for an "um um um um" of an "of of of of" to kick off
Matt, makes a thirty second argument
Caller: yeah, but here’s this other non connected reason I believe in a god.
Probably 95% of the theist callers have done this to Matt and every time it’s just as frustrating and rage inducing as the last!
It doesn't really matter what they believe.
It matters what they do.
Where in the scientific literature do we ever find the "and then a miracle occurs" step?
Matt: Give a chance for your co-host to talk!
Not trying to sound rude, but I wish we got to here more from Eve Was Framed, I'm sure she had much to say but couldn't find the right time to say it. I know that these sort of interviews tend to be unpredictable in that sense, that being said, the video didn't seem to be very "heated." To me it seemed more like audio inconvenience and the caller making a child like comeback like "no you".
Great job overall, I know dealing with these sorts of people tends to be difficult, if I were brave enough I would try to be a caller because I have some things to say haha!
Take my advice and don't call in. I'm an atheist and agree with Matt about most things, but I'm well aware that if I called in to offer any nuanced critique of anything he's said, he would cut me short, talk over me, shout me down, curse at me, put me on mute, start interjecting questions that are irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make, and never even hear the essence of what I was trying to say. So, unless you're just going to call in to kiss his @ss and confirm his entire world view, save yourself the trauma and humiliation.
I'm not a developer, but I do dabble with code.
If DNA is like "digital code", then it's like my digital code: functional but inefficiently put together. We can even grant that evolution was guided and it'd still be the case: bits and pieces added over a long period of time, prone to corruption, mistakes and bloat because it wasn't made with proper vision or organization from the start.
Right? Imagine if your code randomly mutated every time it was copied to make sometimes good accidents, and sometimes absolutely terrible ones.
If mutation types randomly happened to code everytime it was copied coders would loose their minds 😂
@@whatabouttheearth A theist would say that it's not random, that it's desgined.
Which to me is like keeping junk code cuz something might break if you try to fix it.
@@Fernando-ek8jp
😂 Designed after gods happy hour when he was drunk I guess
@@whatabouttheearth or just not all knowing and figuring stuff out as he goes along.
Anyways, not strong evidence for a trip omni God
It's like trying to mow the lawn with a food blender. There is absolutely no connection between the questions and the answers.
Thanks, Matt and Eve, sorry John you did not convince me in the slightest.
John, my advice would be to stop it with the Christian apologetics nonsense and actually learn some real science.
Great show and still I remain simply unconvinced by the claims that there is a supernatural world.
Yeah like men can be women!
The design argument is the absolute weakest....its actually ridiculous. Wisdom teeth, a way too narrow birth canal, crohns disease, the male testicles hanging on the outside of our body.... cancer....the human eyes blind spot....thats just ridiculous human design options.
My favorite Unintelligent designer disaster through are Sand tiger sharks that have pubs that are so aggressive that they eat each other in the womb. The females can also reproduce without a mate....humans cannot. Unfair designer?!?
Maybe that guy should go and read for example "The Not So Intelligent Designer" by Abby Hafer
Or maybe "Scientists confront Intelligent Design and Creationism 2nd Edition" by Andrew J Petto & Laurie R Godfrey or some of the great works by Michael Ruse like "Darwinism and it's Discontents."
I refuse to acknowledge Jimmy as a Pokemon Master until he accepts my challenge to a battle
Why would anyone be a cohost with Matt? If you do, you will never get to say something...... this was a 20 minute Matt/John discussion. Sorry, Eve.
Would have liked to see Eve get a word in.
Yeah, Matt is the God here. You'll just have to shut up and listen. And never interrupt him, he is always right.
Why in the world would I want to have a conversation about a non-specific God if it’s a God that you don’t believe exist necessarily? Why spend a single bit of energy in defense of a god that’s non-description in some areas but ultimately isn’t the actual God that you actually believe in? Like you are like a Baptist, or a Mormon, or Suni, Muslim
that's right
Many have not thought about thought, the servant who thinks himself different from the slave.
Faith has no honest logical answers
@scamchan. Yes, you are correct. You have insurmountable FAITH that our predecessors ___the single celled organisms ___just HAD TO HAVE ALWAYS EXISTED OR MAGICALLY, INEXTRICABLY POPPED UP. Wait, here's more: After our predecessors SOMEHOW APPEARED, they decided that they needed to start evolving because EVOLUTIONISTS SAY SO! Yeah, very logical and no faith at all huh buddy? This stuff is quite entertaining!
Eve looks so uncomfortable when matt cuts away at this person slice by slice
Amazing!
Perhaps she kind of expected to be involved somehow, as a co-host. Rather than completely ignored.
Point for John; he didn't mentioned a personal god. But... by the context of his talk it's kind of obvious that he meant one until the point when it became inconvenient for him. Deistic, impersonal god is effectively no different than no god at all.
I was brought up as Mormon and thank god (pun intended) for my curiosity of how things actually work or I may still be brainwashed and I was brainwashed by my parents and the church.
Same with me; I grew up as a Southern Baptist.
Me too. Raised LDS.
It is VERY difficult to admit we’ve been bamboozled.
Congratulations.
I got into physics and saw there was absolutely no evidence for anything supernatural whatsoever including gods, especially the Mormon religion which is so obviously made up!
You are always "brainwashed", we are a social animal. An arab lost by what others believers do, and lies that are told, are not the lies neither the do of God.
@@Willingtomb that's true our brains are flawed in many ways so it's best to take human brains out of the equation like the scientific method does! Doesn't matter who you are or how much sense it makes if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong! Courts use evidence for a good reason: it's a tried and tested way to try and find out the truth
He thought Max Planck was working "at the dawn of the scientific revolution." 😅
Yeah I thought the same, he died 100s of years after Newton.
Holy smokes John. Listening skills aren’t even pre-school level. Seriously, my 5 and 6 year old listen better.
Havent listened to Matt in about a year. He literally reached Darth Dawkins levels of rudeness. Take a fucking chill pill and treat your callers better
Eve is soooooooo damn gorgeous! She's like really fucking pretty!
Something regarding what John said which is somewhat contradictory, about how scientists rule out supernatural explanations due to societal pressure. That societal pressure did not exist in ancient times when religion was what held the greatest influence in society and science still found natural causes for phenomena that were previously assumed to be due to supernatural forces.
In fact it is the opposite can be argued for this since the influence in society was once overtly religious and religion not only reigned in terms of influence but also had actual legislating and enforcing power which directly resulted in impacting the development and adoption of certain scientific positions that we know to be true to day, such as heliocentrism. Indeed this religious influence is still felt today in terms of how religious groups are pushing and sometimes succeeding in forcing public schools to teach things like creationism in classrooms
What a beautiful host! No, not Matt. He's fine, too, in his own way, but I'm talking about......Eve? Don't know her name.
I only know that someone who is that attractive and has the ability to politely stay quiet for 20 minutes......is something special.
Elegance, brains, beauty and patience. Where do I send my marriage proposal?
Sad.
@@alamunez I guess you only like negative comments...
@@SpaceCattttt Making completely unrelated remarks about someone’s appearence is not a positive thing, it’s creepy and sad.
@@alamunez It wasn't unrelated. I was pointing out how rare it is for someone as attractive as Eve to be so patient.
She allowed Matt to speak for 20 minutes without interrupting, which is a rare quality.
Especially considering how, today, people just don't know how to shut their trap.
And often, the more attractive a person is, the more entitled they feel to share their opinions, regardless of whether others want to hear them or not.
Eve doesn't. She speaks when she has something to say. And that only adds to her physical beauty in my book.
What's sad is that you interpret a compliment as creepy. Perhaps you should seek help?
@@SpaceCattttt Sad.
Matt's point as usual is excellent. Once again his glasses on his head threw me for a loop i thought it was a head tattoo!
She looks good.
The thing that irked me the most is that Matt could have granted God's existence, and John's logic wouod have still been unsound.
That is, admittedly, an issue we all have (I try to be aware of it when I can), which is that we mistake conclusions with arguments and we try to twist an argument to fit our conclusions. This can happen even if our conclusions are right.
"A lot of scientists don't consider that because we live in the modern age"
He means the age brought forth by the science he said points to god?
That's the thing he doesn't seem to get. If his argument is correct, then it would follow that those that as scientific understanding increases, religiosity should also increase.
I feel like he doesn't understand that just because his argument is flawed, that doesn't immediately disprove god, so he clings to it.
I wish that the co-host lady would hold back a little and stop trying to dominate the discussion.
1 John 4
King James Version
4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
@@paulgemme6056
too much dribble so not bother reading
@@VaughanMcCue In other words, believe (have faith), be saved. No religion needed. Trust God/Jesus Christ and the truth will set you free.
@@paulgemme6056
Believing something isn't a decision that holds up to reality.
Try believing some dude split the moon in half or smaller like pizza slices. Really give it your best effort.
Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have evidence. If they knew for certain they would use the correct word.
Tell someone that you have faith that you are using an electronic device to broadcast your ignorance on the net.
Stand in front of a person and say you have faith that they are in front of you.
Pretending to know what you do not know Is another way of defining faith- the failed epistemology.
Save is what lifeguards, doctors and thrifty people do.
If you think about it, we don't rush accident victims to churches for self-evident reasons.
You can count your lucky stars that you got one thing correct. Superstitions are not needed.
Trusting the scientific method is more reliable.
If the truth sets people free, why is it that the good Saint Matt Dillahunty has so much difficulty extracting it out of Christian callers?
The truth might set some peeps free but the judge might see it differently.
AUDIO TIP: use a compressor with sidechaining capabilities. Set it up so audio from your microphone goes into the sidechain of the compressor thats on the callers audio. When you talk, the sidechain will automatically mute or lowering the volume on the caller
I agree with all of Matt's arguments. He is on the ball with this stuff. But the caller came in and was polite and sincere. I get it's frustrating, but swearing and muting and ridiculing... who is being the bigger man here? Just have a discussion man, seriously, how hard is it to not lose it to a nice person. Don't paint atheists with the Cliffe Knechtle brush by shouting over them and being obnoxious.
Apparently you & I watched two different callers.
the muting is direct result to stop people from going in endless circles and speaking over him
get over the swearing were are adults here
he didn't ridicule anyone he said he was coping in which he was
Lol shouting is what Matts known for. I really don't see why you people hold him in such high regards.
@@TheLetterJ-c8n
Because we're far more interested in the content than the package. And Matt is very good on content.
@@TheLetterJ-c8n Whining, crying, and moaning about cursing or delivery is copium. His arguments and the substance of what he is saying is the same. The mentally devoid people calling in the same tired pathetic fallacies and never thought out lines of broken reasons year after year after year is the true worst part of the show.
The three most feared words in the theistic lexicon: I Don't Know.
Yes, God did it has no explanatory value.
John has a .0000000000001% chance of existing yet he exists...
Must be God 😂
The probability argument: Sure there's a ridiculously large number of supposed combinations that don't result in life. Doesn't matter at all. The reality is that we are here, therefore it happened. So from our point of view the odds are 1:1
Eve is breathtakingly fine looking
Creepy...
I‘m always baffled how early Matt realizes what type of person he is talking to. I would have always been much nicer, however that would have led to a lot more back and forth. Matt may come across harsh sometimes but at the end of the day most of the time he is right about the caller’s personality and intentions and treats them fair.
So, are the women Matt has in the frame just eye candy? I've never seen them contribute anything
Yep, Matt ?
The caller says that science points to a creator God ( but doesn't want to me more specific about which creator God). That's a claim.
When MD points out that those who understand science best, a group of eminent scientists, statistically overwhelmingly reject God, the caller talks about many reasons including a taboo. This is a second claim, which is even more hard to believe than the first. Obviously, if the Science generally did point to a creator God and design, surely scientists would be MORE religious and not LESS religious than average.
Science only provides a compelling reason to believe in a non-specific God to those who DO NOT UNDERSTAND science! My claim.
ignoring his co host. As always, Matt clearly gets to the point and engages the theist who has not thought through his argument. As always Matt does not use the co host format and never invites his co host to speak.
She could've spoken to at any point but she was letting the conversation go on
Q .
What is she doing on show 😊?
She didn’t respond to any questions !😮
Thanks friends on The Line! One of these days we may find god and I’ll be watching with a drink and popcorn all the way thru
It sounded like the caller wasn't even really interested in defending his own argument. In fact it's not even clear what his argument actually was because he kept retreating at every opportunity.
It was kind of a waste of time to spend so much time on this call tbh. Sure it might be fun to trap them so you can dunk on them, but ultimately it's a hollow victory because we aren't even sure if they are that committed to their own position.
I think after a couple of minutes you should have ended the call with something like, "Hey, you aren't really contributing enough to a discussion here so I need to move on to another caller." That would have been a more graceful way of dealing with this than yelling at the guy to try to force him to make half-hearted assertions.
Nobody forced him to do anything. All of the absurd nonsense he produced belonged to him alone.
If an atheist says he hears someone invisible talking to him, he is referred for psychiatric treatment.
If a believer hears voices, that's it just fine, It is god.
How do I know when to call in? Is there times the show is live? I have really great questions
I am willing to grant a creator, even a designer.
It's the traits of 'omnipotent and intelligent and kind' applied to a creator that are my issue...Because this isn't all omnipotent, intelligent AND nice work. Some may be nice. Some is vile. Some may be well-crafted. Some is like a drunken architect. And beyond that is the notion that a creator is inherently worthy of worship because they created. Nah.
This is pretty much me. Id add that the omniscience is also debatable. Not so sure that this god has a plan or cares all that much for us
The design argument can never work as anything except a rationalization - someone who ALREADY believes can use it to help them feel good about it, but it can't logically convince someone who does NOT already believe.
In your case, how would you disprove that there is a creator?
@@kangjames2492 i wouldn't. Why would I? Why would anyone try to 'prove' a negative anyway? The burden of proof is on the claim, not the skeptic.
The human body has so many design flaws. I.e breathing and eating out of the same hole, guaranteeing a chance of choking to death.
I agree with what Matt says but he really needs to stop cutting people off.
Caller: "I'm having trouble hearing you when I'm speaking" lol.