Years ago I wrote this guy a PM on facebook and he sent me a bunch of material and a personal letter with an autographed version of his book. Incredibly good guy. It's my most prized possession.
@@sandwichbreath0 Indeed. Although I mean, to be fair, he or his team should've done maybe a little more research into him before hand. There's a reason scientists don't respect Stephen Meyer, and they should looked into it before inviting him.
Dr. Meyers ability to communicate deep scientific AND philosophical concepts in a calm, courteous manner is extraordinary. His interest in Joe's questions , and no doubt in him personally, is genuine. Stephen appeared to thoroughly enjoy the conversation while at times Joe seemed unsettled by what he was hearing.
@@Reclaimer77 The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at its best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
@@ikestrawman4625 Also don't know why... I'll repost it here, maybe this time it will work? "The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at his best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
@@CRCov The modern inflated economy is surely stopping him, at least now he won't be rejected based on mere racial factors now that the supreme court made the wonderful decision of ending affirmative action.
Here is the quote by Terrence McKenna that Joe referenced. “Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”
For real. These people are in denial. They just don't want to admit that they are sinners and Need Jesus to forgive their sins. Boom. There you go. You're welco.e
Men have always known God is a tool of fiction. You can explain everything with fiction. Re: Luke 11:29-36 "As the crowds increased", Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. Jonah 1:15-17 KJV So they took up Jonah and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows. The superstitious crowd is wicked.
We know them by their works & those use the vocabulary of fiction as if we did not know nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. No man looks for prophet as a job description outside of fantasyland. Even Jesus Christ proclaims faith is worthless since you can't get mountains to jump on command, as if they could ask "How high sir." Jesus Christ is fiction so you can cherry-pick a number of things. I'm trying to use the text to point out nothing is sacred or divine, it is your faith which heals you & not touching the hem of his tunic like people do, by virtual touching the shroud of Turin. The scream from the wicked generation says look there is a magic image of Jesus, He is not fiction. Men have always known God is fiction. The Temple of God serves the best meat, & if Gods existed, She would have no need of men for teachers. Thanks for the reply. How is it possibly ethical to suggest the equivalent of a notion we all travel with one foot in a stranger's fantasyland, using fictional vocabulary: prophecy, prayer, etc. We have Moses: World's worst navigator leading a party as if travel were best done with one foot in fiction. If Christianity were so good, why are the Jews unconvinced? The religious lack any standing for a vacuum of quality-control. The Jews have a joke: God made Mormons so Christians would know how Jews feel. As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah, who was sacrificed overboard & the raging sea grew calm." The sign of Jonah is the superstitious working their way to a majority & good people dying. Need we add more? Should we ignore it was secular law & order ending the inquisitions, the witch killing? Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. We don't recommend prophet as job description. We know them by their works & Christians have attempted to put their new wine in the old Jew wineskin. They both come from genital mutilation spun up with circumcision as a shortcoming. We know them by their works, the vocabulary of fiction, of spin.
It doesn’t though. Joe worships something he may or may not call god but God desires worship through free will. If you aren’t worshipping God you are living in Sin and actually worshipping the devil.
Joe’s only retort to the points that Stephen cited throughout the whole podcast was “Well could there be more data collected in the future that could provide a different explanation? Yeah? Then these current studies aren’t 100%.” Rogan couldn’t seem to / wasn’t open to comprehend anything beyond his current belief system.
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq How would you expand the topics, is there other ways of asking for other interpretations, or potential attractive theories of a subject to continue expanding the conversation?
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq That was noticeable for me but, it was only for a period in the podcast joe was stuck on at a certain point he was trying to drive. Steve himself complimented Joe as he transitioned to cohesive subjects in the full interview and they were interchangeable.
@Xlippo I came to the conclusion because a lot of it essentially came down to Joe saying "well yea but isn't that just your view or your opinion". Well of course it is. Isn't that why you had him on? Is he supposed to give an opinion that's not his? It was at times as tho Joe was trying to change the guys mind or opinion to the same as Joe. Not joes best in my opinion but opinions are like assholes, everybody has one
I sat and watched a snake in a cage repeatedly going to the corner by the window and trying every possible position and combination of positions to get through that glass and outside. The determination and certainty that it could get out was built on observation and understanding. I can't help but think of that snake when humans espouse understanding the universe. I'm pretty sure there's an element missing in the equation because it's just so far beyond comprehension, just like the snake will never understand how humans make glass.
That’s a great way of illustrating the concept of inhabiting a space where something with a far greater intelligence has set the parameters for existing inside the “cage”. Meanwhile the inhabitant knows there’s more beyond the bounds of its domain even if it can’t comprehend the situation it finds itself in in its entirety.
What a dumb way of saying “I absolutely KNOW there has to be more than evolution and big bang.” Totally bro. Watching a snake totally proves an intelligent designer, but why stop there, as another commenter has alluded, your experience proves his god lul. You two have contributed much to our overall knowledge today. Thanks for your work. It is so incredible how people project their own bs on other people, that they have no idea what their work is about, they can’t even take the time to learn it, only say that it’s wrong, or they know better, because I watched a snake, and made an analogy. It’s so funny how oblivious you all are to this. Joe Rogan is a moron, who cannot help but find conspiracies everywhere. He surrounds himself with charlatans, like this guy, Bob Lazar, Graham Hanock, etc.
I feel that he is very articulate. The reason he pauses at certain points is because he is deciding what to say. The ideas he is trying to explain to a layman audience are very complex, and he wants to explain things so that normal people like us can understand. The guy has devoted his life to study these topics and clearly has an immense amount of knowledge, seen by the fact that he is constantly quoting or references endless amounts of scientists, dates, and even specific events in his life. So when Joe asks a question, his brain is probably going in multiple directions as to how to best answer a question. And he doesn't seem nervous at all, he has spoken to much more hostile audiences. He is awesome!
@@johnnyboy1586 He is also way more wrong than Dawkins. And yeah, he is smooth, isn't he? Most conmen are, it's not exactly a prerequisite, but it helps enormously.
@@johnnyboy1586 You are in good company then, as Meyer isn't a scientist either. His doctorate is in philosophy. Car salesman is actually a good analogy, now that I think about it. He has been embroiled in this ridiculous "teach the controversy" thing from a few years back and he continues to push "creation science" and intelligent design, both of which are demonstrable nonsense. Effectively, every time he quotes a scientist, you can trust that quote. You can also trust that he has taken it out of context and that whatever he claims as a conclusion has no basis in science. Stephen Meyer is a snakeoil salesman who seeks to discredit all of astrophysics, because it doesn't mesh well with scripture.
@@johnnyboy1586 In more specific terms, and I beg you to forgive the double post: In this particular segment, he has mislabeled the Big Bang as the "beginning" of the universe. Which he needs to be true so he can say "god did it", which he does all the time. The first 6 minutes are him waffling about. It is a preamble for what comes next. Starting at minute 6, he starts to talk about a "beginning". Which was originally prompted by Rogan, but he didn't correct him on it. Which he SHOULD have because the Big Bang is not the "beginning". We do not know what happened before the Big Bang. Calling it the beginning of the universe is therefore disingenuous. He then mentions hawkins and Penrose, saying how their findings point towards "a beginning". No, they don't. Both of which have done work exploring the idea of the Big Bang, and Penrose in particular has forwarded the idea of a cyclical universe. Meaning, that there IS no beginning if Penrose is correct. And again, he KEEPS calling it "the beginning". That is disingenuous. The big Bang is not the beginning of the universe. And this is important for Meyer of course, becuase he NEEDS a beginning to justify his "theistic implications" that he mentions at the 11 minute mark. Ask yourself this: He talks about "proofs" for a beginning. I already told you that "beginning" is a deliberate mislabeling by Meyer, but what proofs were actually mentioned in this clip? He just says they exist, he mentions names, he mentions his book, but he makes no effort to explain what they actually are. This entire segment is him waffling. Cheers comes to mind, in particular the famous "but he didn't say anything!" exclamation in episode 11x21 And then of course he launches into the whole fine tuning bullshit at the end of the clip, on which I would refer you to Douglas Adams and his puddle analogy.
I would've LOVE to see Dr. Michael Heiser on Joe's show b4 he passed. He was such a great communicator for the complexities of the Ancient Near East languages. He could've helped Joe really understand the cuneiform tablets of Sumer or the hieroglyphics of Egypt or what the Biblical Hebrew REALLY says about the Unseen Realm. Hopefully Dr. Heiser's videos come up while looking into Dr. Meyer.
You are right very good professor. And he also had knowledge of the UFO subject that Joe is so interested in, I have seen his program fringepop321 on TH-cam, very good.
I went into this interview hoping to hear something convincing, instead what I got the overwhelming sense of while he spoke was that he went into science seeking evidence of God, not that he discovered God in science. The fact that he said one of his confirmatory experiences with God was that he heard God's voice in his head kinda hints his frame of reference
Exposing Discovery Institute : Stephen Meyer th-cam.com/video/Akv0TZI985U/w-d-xo.html These are the top 5 institutions promoting creationism. They are all bogus, pseudo-scientific . 1. The Discovery Institute (DI) 2. Institute for Creation Research (ICR) 3. Creation Ministries International (CMI) 4. Reasons to Believe (RtB) 5. Answers in Genesis (AiG) This is actual science. Evolution Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: th-cam.com/play/PL0FB1F085BD950D0F.html
Exactly! I love Joe's podcast but I notice a lot of his viewers put a huge emphasis on the charisma and personal connection with the guest rather than their actual evidence or epistemology. Nothing wrong with charisma or personal connection but it shouldn't be used to base the truth or believability off of, but unfortunately it's a common pitfall of human psychology
@@19JMT96He talked about and even referenced various theories and their respective theorists. Considering there is no evidence of the beginning, I'm not sure what you're looking for.
It wouldn't be a JRE episode without Joe not grasping half of what his guest is saying/arguing and Joe taking everything literally and derailing the topic from what his guest just said every time he opens his mouth.
@@Nebx1989SM was outlining his views on metaphysics vs science in a really profound way that I had never considered and Joe couldn't wait one second before blurting out a complete brain fart after. Excruciating to listen to.
Listen to Oxford Maths professor John Lennox on this subject also. His discourse with Jordan Peterson on JBP’s podcast is essential listening. Meyer talks so eloquently, he’s a superb listen. I’m also now convinced 🙏🏻
I would say that I was totally shocked to see Stephen on Joes show but then he’s always been good about having people on with different views. During my conversion, when I was struggling to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with what we know about the origins of life, I came across Stephens work. Love this man of God! Great podcast!
@luciferfn5367 I once took a lot of magic mushrooms and went to sleep and had a crazy dream about Lil Wayne on The Joe Rogan podcast it was very Vivid and it WAS A GREAT PODCAST
absolutely great episode no matter what worldview you hold, some did say joe was being a little combative but that's understandable, they're discussing entire worldviews which would probably bring along some kind of defensiveness on both sides but regardless I'm glad joe did bring on someone he disagrees with, his ability to do that separates him from the rest..amazing stuff
i'm 90 minutes through so far, i listen to about an hour of a podcast every single day and Joes attitude this episode has been really disappointing, he hasn't smiled or laughed once and seems to dismiss EVERYTHING Stephen says...not sure if he was in a bad mood the day this was recorded or what but it's been painful to listen to so far..
@duane6504 If "God" exists outside of our physical realm of space and time (and it'd have to If it created this construct), then we'd have no way of measuring . Our inability to prove something simply proves our limitations, not that something doesn't exist.
I've just finished the entire interview - awesome discussion. Some have suggested that Rogan was unfairly combative, but he seemed genuinely curious. The stakes here are high if Meyer is right and so probing questions are absolutely called for. Meyer fielded them well - an intellectual tour de force.
Rogan seems so unwilling to accept anything that Meyer put forward. “Isn’t that based on a limited amount of information?” In reference to all the collected information we have spanning scientific research from the beginning of science as we know it.
I thought Rogan was being pretty obtuse. He doesn't ask any other scientist "but isn't that just based on our current knowledge?". Besides that his thing questioning the validity of Meyer's personal experience was pretty odd given how often Joe talks about the validity of psychedelics based on people's personal experiences with them.
It was a tough conversation for Joe at times, it’s great to see some constructive conflict at such a high level on a fascinating topic. Some of the best stuff on the internet today
This guy was spewing bullshit about evolution, not being real, that in a binary digital computing system it doesn't make sense. Nature works on the quantum computing system as kaku said. So this guy is completely off to begin with
Joe made some very dumb "counterpoints". He wasn't following the guest arguments at all some times. I think he was too predisposed to ridiculing intelligent design which did a disservice to the conversation because he used very basic, anti intellectual arguments against it. Like 5th grade level arguments. Like Stephen said there's actually a lot of scientists questioning the theory of evolution these days which is mind-blowing in itself.
This is another example of why this is the best podcast on the face of the Earth. The ideas stem from comedy, to politics, to health, to religion, and a fusion of all of those things together in a myriad of combinations, that teases and pleases the intellect.
You say this like millions of other people don’t talk about the same shit. They just weren’t global celebrities when they started talking about the same shit.
@@jsweetness5 My point is that you’re praising Joe for something he isn’t even remotely unique or special for doing just because he has the name recognition others don’t.
@@AzarathMetreon you don’t know my intent. Did someone hurt you? Why are you picking fights with strangers on the internet? Do you struggle when people have different opinions than yours?
Perception and priority. If we assemble our priorities properly, the perception we receive will propel us alot farther forward. Its like trying to walk across a bridge as you build it.
Simply isn’t how science works. You’re suggesting that we draw conclusions prior to making even a hypothesis. Your logic should extend to exactly where you applied it: construction. Science is not a bridge, making poor analogies isn’t helpful.
I second this, especially as Dr. Ross has a tonne of insights regarding the alien / UAP phenomenon, which would likely interest Joe. Lots of great info regarding black holes too, which I’ve heard him describe as “evidence of God’s care”.
I am about 2/3 of the way through the conversation and am disappointed. It has its bright spots, the clip above is one of them, but the overall conversation feels like two steps forward and one step back.
As interesting as the story is, what it really makes me consider is the fact that we now live in an age where our information is being so distilled and twisted to support a specific point of view that the average consumer of news cannot get the straight information: it always comes with someone’s bias wrapped around it, and that is really hurting us as a species right now. Whether it be politics, science, religion, healthcare, or any other community-centric topic, it is really hard for us to discuss these things when the information comes half-baked and distorted.
I think it's the opposite. The average IQ of the world has gone up so much due to social media. News is always biased and 70% of the world is programmed by nature to fall for for biases (survival of the fittest is a significant law of nature) if anybody wanted to fund the truth the information is out there. Most choose to the way of fast food new due to whatever excuses one may have.
Put those guys in a room with actual experts in Evolution and enjoy the Intelligent Designers squirm uncomfortably around the easy rebuttals to their nonsense. In most cases these guys are either misrepresenting the experts they vaguely cite or are parroting science that was already debunked and abandoned half a century ago.
@@williamingramm2293 What, so they can fail to to explain the gaping holes in their own theory? Even Gerd Müller acknowledges the problem Developmental Gene regulatory Networks (dGrns) present for current micro and macroevolutionary models (check out Eric Davidson's work at Caltech see what I mean). Meanwhile, David Berlinski and David Galertner are not "intelligent designers," so now who's "misrepresenting" William? In which case, I'd suggest, it's people who seem to think this is "a competition" that make the problem all that much harder. This should be about (not) guarding ego and paradigm, and (not) siloing "the truth" (according to only certain experts), and 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 acknowledging what questions remain. That's all a person like Stephen Meyer is saying. New atheism is dead, try and keep up.
It's cool that we can still get intelligent people having intelligent conversations on JRE. Lately I've been losing faith in the scientific convos that Joe brings on. It's just as good to see that Joe is able to ask relevant questions and let the qualified guest answer, without having to butt in every 10 seconds. And that he's perfectly confident in admitting when he doesn't understand a point being made
Watching a man speak like this like watching a ballet, or listening to mozart...... a brilliant human is an art form that just like the musician or the dancer took thousands of hours of hard work and should be reveered
What Joe talks about towards the end of this interview is what is talked about in the vedas, srimad bhagavatam, and in bhagavat gita by Lord Krishna. The vast amount of knowledge in hinduism and sanatan dharma informs us so much about the multiverse, origins of these universes, and life origins and how everything is sustained by Krishna. The fact that these books and literatures of the vedas and bhagavat gita from thousands of years ago, far before any modern science, and far before any other common religions today confirms the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe.
which is why i think that, basically, we all need to just chill and enjoy the ride as much as possible. which for me has taken god coming into my life in the 'form' of jesus christ.
We can only see the observable universe, but it's not enough. To understand its entirety, we'd have to experience what's beyond the universe, if there is a beyond. If the universe is infinite, we won't find the answer
I have a question... 1. Assume there is a starting point where the universe started. 2. Assume that the universe is expanding from that single point. 3. Assume that we also originate from the same point and moving away from that point due to expansion. If we are looking back in time by detecting light billions of lightyears away are we not at the same time concluding that we moved away so fast (faster than light in fact) from that single point, that we have to look back at the light that is still trying to catch up to us? In short, explain to me how we are at this position in space relative to this single point (big bang point) and there is light that has not caught up to us yet. How fast were we that we literally outran it by billions of lightyears? If we were in fact faster, do we not just discover something faster than light aka us? If we are not faster than this light, then where did we come from, another starting point that is not the big bang point? I wish you luck and answering my question. And thanks in advance.
Nothingness = Infinity, as both refer to a lack of boundary conditions. The "starting point" of the universe, aka "nothingness", is effectively "infinity", making it all-encompassing rather than a central point. Expansion is only one-half of the model. A static universe with "contracting" content, the mirror-image of an expanding universe, is the proper explanatory model. In the contracting model, the original "infinity" never changes. Discrete quantum systems have zero entropy. If nothing else, the universe is a discrete quantum system (for lack of other universes). Given the facts, the universe has zero entropy forever. The source of the universe, a "static infinity", can't possibly change or be acted upon. No matter where we, or any other intelligent life, or any measuring device whatsoever happens to be, it will always appear to be the "center" of a static-scaled universe with virtually "contracting" content. To understand what I'm saying, imagine a light bulb in deep space. As the universe around the light bulb "expands" at light speed, the light from the bulb is effectively motionless with respect to expansion, in which case it makes more sense to model the bulb as virtually "contracting" in a static-scaled system. None of the experts you'll see on YT have this level of comprehension on the subject.
After watching this TH-cam clip earlier today, I went to Spotify and watched the entire interview. My reaction is WOW! This is the best interview I have ever seen Joe Rogan do. Dr. Stephen Meyer is obviously very brilliant but lots of folks are brilliant. What is so impressive to me is that his arguments make great sense when I ignore my desired presuppositions.
Ok I just downloaded Spotify to watch this video as I'm a huge fan of SCM. So it was first time on Spotify. The app didn't let me see the video only the audio?? Is that normal or do I need to do something to activate the video of this discussion? Dumb question I suppose for ppl who have used Spotify before.
Solution: Galaxy Formation was much more intense and earlier than previously thought, due to a much more rich and abundant presence of matter in a smaller space.
😂 Romans 1:20-22: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." Ring any bells dumby? Hahahahaha
This is the best of Rogan, when he has an intelligent, articulate interviewee. You may not agree with them but you have to listen and give them their due. I don't understand the "nothing from nothing" argument. At the moment of the big bang, everything was contained in the singularity, if I am interpreting it correctly. It is the same with the uber massive black holes that are now in the 100 billion solar mass range. The first singularity would have had to have been a lot more massive.
The issue with the materialistic theory of the big bang, is in order for it to happen, you would need the fundamental laws of nature, how did those exist if there was nothing?
@@atheosmonde Two things. First: Why did you put "simple" in quotes? Second: I don't understand your question, and not just because you didn't put a question mark. God bless you!
He's complicating what's very simple. The point is James Webb Telescope disproved the big bang theory. But these secular zealots changed their theory "again" and are arguing the change never occurred. They were are wrong.
Surprisingly enjoyable conversation that gave me a lot to think about. Stephen humbly reminding me that I still have prejudices, if I'd known he was a proponent of intelligent design I doubt I'd have listened but he makes a great argument for it.
I don't understand why evolution itself can't be the "intelligent design". I mean when human beings design A.I., we try to design it to evolve and adapt to anything. I just think evolution vs intelligent design is an unwinnable argument, because they both are the same thing. Evolution is the intelligent design.
@@weshouser821 That was basically Stephens argument though wasn't it? How we have that (I forget the proper terminology he used) integrated circuit which is evidence of fine tuning and cannot itself handle any kind of mutations without shutting down the whole framework. So the advantageous mutations that cause evolution are reliant on a system that was seemingly fine tuned from the get go. And the more levels you regress the more fine tuned systems there appear to be to even get to having a galaxy/solar system/planet for all this to occur in the first place. As Sagan said, if you wish to build an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe... but literally :')
@@weshouser821especially when you consider the implication that time is relative, and really, something only expirenced by objects with mass. Several billion years of evolution to create a human, or a day, might as well be the same thing if time is relative.
I met Stephen Hawking years ago at the Burger Continental restaurant. He was in his wheelchair at the table right next to us and was being fed by this Hot young blond. We greeted him and he said Hi. RIP ❤ brother
Finally Steven on Joe’s podcast. Can’t wait for another. They just barely touched subjects from Steven’s first and second book. Such a pleasure to listen to Steven and such a pleasure to listen to so thoughtful and respectful host.
Ok I just downloaded Spotify to watch this video as I'm a huge fan of SCM. So it was first time on Spotify. The app didn't let me see the video only the audio?? Is that normal or do I need to do something to activate the video of this discussion? Dumb question I suppose for ppl who have used Spotify before.
Thank you Joe for having Stephen Meyer on your podcast. You were very cordial and I enjoyed the entire interview. I'm praying that you will seek and find the Lord Jesus Christ.
Found the atheist ostrich Ok sorry, that was a bit snarky 😅 My friend, did you even listen to the conversation? I ask because you’re coming off as an arrogant fellow who is afraid of hearing compelling arguments, scientific or philosophical or both, for a reality that contradicts your worldview. I’m not saying you ARE that way, I’m saying you’re sounding that way. If you don’t want to listen to the conversation, allow me to do you a favor and give you a timestamp where Joe talks about something that, technically proves miracle(s) are real. This will only take a minute of your life. Start at 12:06
@iservHim It's not a miracle. Let me give you an example: Sir Isaac Newton was kind enough to offer us a very good understanding of how gravity works, to the point where we can use this understanding to make very accurate predictions. But Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation couldn't explain Mercury's orbit. At that time, with what we knew of physics, Mercury's orbit was impossible. It seemed like a miracle, do you see where I'm going? Then Einstein, in his theory of general relativity, gave us an insight into the nature of gravity and was able to explain and predict Mercury's orbit. It doesn't mean that Newton was wrong, as Newtonian physics is still valid. It just means he was missing an aspect of the universe that he couldn't imagine. Now, the Big Bang is no different. Right now, we can't explain what happened before it. But someone will come up with a successor theory to General Relativity and show us the aspect of the universe that we overlooked. Without the math for it, simple things like Mercury's orbit can indeed seem like a miracle. So no... the big bang is not a miracle. It's just an event that we aren't smart enough to understand yet. we're only human.
@@iservHim You responded to my snarky comment with a snarky comment. No offense taken. Well played sir. I am very familiar with Stephen Meyer and his arguments. That’s why I feel confident in my comment and stand by it. His views are extremely “anti scientific” and intellectually dishonest But I will review the link you sent. Thanks!
@@iservHimit’s very difficult to take seriously someone who is so seriously invested in the religious argument. I mean your tag is ‘’ iservhim’ for crying out loud?! I think the difference between the atheist types that you point out and you is that their arguments seem to be more convincing for one particular reason. They’re not self serving. In other words, they’re putting forward the atheist argument, which is when you think about it pretty grim. No real purpose to life, and no after life. where as believers like yourself want to believe because it just feels a lot better than the grim realisations of the other side.’ I mean who wouldn’t want to live forever and re-meet their dead family and friends. It’s just so comforting and peaceful. I really really wish there was some solid evidence for it as I miss my father very much.
@@rogerthornhill1491 Yes, there are comforting aspects of faith in God, but it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. Moreover, we can also say that atheism is comforting because if it is true, then you won’t be judged, there are no significant consequences of your actions, so you can live a life that aims at what feels good. It is easy to put aside Christianity or Theism saying it is based on wishful thinking, but there is much more solid basis for it.
As much as I love learning about these subjects. I strongly believe the science community knows about 1% of what the universe is and the potential of what is possible. We all need to be open minded and explore all possibilities and leave ego at the door.
@@Marrikable How about you actually take the time out of our busy schedule to listen to the entirety of the podcast before resulting to fruitless insults.
As an ex atheist, I noticed, when I was continually denying the creation of God around me, I figured out that it all boiled down to one thing. No matter what I knew to be true, I just wanted to say, “NO” to God. I simply just didn’t want to make God the God of my life. I was God and nothing was going to change that.
But what exactly did you learn? The facts?...... or what a creation apologist wanted you to take away from it (to doubt the credibility of the scientific method)?
Years ago I wrote this guy a PM on facebook and he sent me a bunch of material and a personal letter with an autographed version of his book. Incredibly good guy. It's my most prized possession.
“Years ago they tried to”
You would think you mentioned his name if that was the case lol
@@elbandido420 What are you trying to say?
Yes @ellbandido420 what do you mean man?
@@ryank843 I doubt anyone cares whether or not he used this guy or the actual name except for simple minded folk such as yourself.
Stephen Meyer is gift to humanity.
Thank you Joe for the interview.
We need more clips from this podcast
I love the range of people Joe has on this show it's bloody fantastic.
It's a shame he invited a blatant liar onto his show though
@@fohrum4757 Not all his guests are hits. Some are misses. But that's what comes when you open yourself to conversations with everyone.
@@sandwichbreath0 Indeed. Although I mean, to be fair, he or his team should've done maybe a little more research into him before hand. There's a reason scientists don't respect Stephen Meyer, and they should looked into it before inviting him.
@@fohrum4757which one?
@@fohrum4757”there’s a reason the people who disagree with this guy don’t like him”
Dr. Meyers ability to communicate deep scientific AND philosophical concepts in a calm, courteous manner is extraordinary. His interest in Joe's questions , and no doubt in him personally, is genuine. Stephen appeared to thoroughly enjoy the conversation while at times Joe seemed unsettled by what he was hearing.
Guy is a fraud and pretends he's doing science when it's creationism.
"God did it" ohhhh so deep and philosophical 😂
@@Reclaimer77 The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at its best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
@@renatomorais8136i can't see your entire comment for some reason
@@ikestrawman4625 Also don't know why... I'll repost it here, maybe this time it will work? "The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at his best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
I am a plumber… But I wish I was an astrophysicist… I love thinking👍
@@CRCov The modern inflated economy is surely stopping him, at least now he won't be rejected based on mere racial factors now that the supreme court made the wonderful decision of ending affirmative action.
Seems like a pipe dream 😜
I’m a dumbass that climbs trees and cuts them down and feel the same way …. We were taught nothing in school
And you would bring more common sense to modern science ! They detached from reality and they need fresh blood!
wouldnt take much to be on the same level as meyers
I sure appreciate Joe's common sense and his ability to listen and think. This was a very interesting interview. Thanks.
Here is the quote by Terrence McKenna that Joe referenced.
“Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”
For real. These people are in denial. They just don't want to admit that they are sinners and Need Jesus to forgive their sins. Boom. There you go. You're welco.e
@@tylermorgan9018Jesus isn’t coming to save you bro
@@tylermorgan9018 I would say religious people are in denial. But whatever floats your boat
Jesus has already saved me, brother! He can and will save you also if you humble yourself and ask him to. ~Peace!@@Craig-gq4gb
Men have always known God is a tool of fiction. You can explain everything with fiction.
Re: Luke 11:29-36 "As the crowds increased", Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.
Jonah 1:15-17 KJV So they took up Jonah and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows. The superstitious crowd is wicked.
We know them by their works & those use the vocabulary of fiction as if we did not know nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. No man looks for prophet as a job description outside of fantasyland. Even Jesus Christ proclaims faith is worthless since you can't get mountains to jump on command, as if they could ask "How high sir." Jesus Christ is fiction so you can cherry-pick a number of things. I'm trying to use the text to point out nothing is sacred or divine, it is your faith which heals you & not touching the hem of his tunic like people do, by virtual touching the shroud of Turin. The scream from the wicked generation says look there is a magic image of Jesus, He is not fiction.
Men have always known God is fiction. The Temple of God serves the best meat, & if Gods existed, She would have no need of men for teachers. Thanks for the reply.
How is it possibly ethical to suggest the equivalent of a notion we all travel with one foot in a stranger's fantasyland, using fictional vocabulary: prophecy, prayer, etc. We have Moses: World's worst navigator leading a party as if travel were best done with one foot in fiction.
If Christianity were so good, why are the Jews unconvinced?
The religious lack any standing for a vacuum of quality-control. The Jews have a joke: God made Mormons so Christians would know how Jews feel. As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah, who was sacrificed overboard & the raging sea grew calm." The sign of Jonah is the superstitious working their way to a majority & good people dying.
Need we add more?
Should we ignore it was secular law & order ending the inquisitions, the witch killing? Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. We don't recommend prophet as job description. We know them by their works & Christians have attempted to put their new wine in the old Jew wineskin. They both come from genital mutilation spun up with circumcision as a shortcoming.
We know them by their works, the vocabulary of fiction, of spin.
I love the fact that Rogan has him on even though his worldview conflicts with his. Too many podcasts out there are ecochambers
It doesn’t though. Joe worships something he may or may not call god but God desires worship through free will.
If you aren’t worshipping God you are living in Sin and actually worshipping the devil.
@@daveonezero6258 no such thing as free will, especially if you believe in a soveriegn God.
@@nolivesyes there is, especially if you believe in god
@@headsofhiphop i believe he was asking for evidence, and you managed to avoid that, didn't you?
I haven't seen any evidence for intelligent design, but it's a fascinating topic for conversation.
This interview hit the limit of joes ability to interpret the information he’s getting and respond insightfully. Great interview still!
What made you come to that conclusion?
Joe’s only retort to the points that Stephen cited throughout the whole podcast was “Well could there be more data collected in the future that could provide a different explanation? Yeah? Then these current studies aren’t 100%.” Rogan couldn’t seem to / wasn’t open to comprehend anything beyond his current belief system.
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq How would you expand the topics, is there other ways of asking for other interpretations, or potential attractive theories of a subject to continue expanding the conversation?
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq That was noticeable for me but, it was only for a period in the podcast joe was stuck on at a certain point he was trying to drive. Steve himself complimented Joe as he transitioned to cohesive subjects in the full interview and they were interchangeable.
@Xlippo I came to the conclusion because a lot of it essentially came down to Joe saying "well yea but isn't that just your view or your opinion". Well of course it is. Isn't that why you had him on? Is he supposed to give an opinion that's not his? It was at times as tho Joe was trying to change the guys mind or opinion to the same as Joe. Not joes best in my opinion but opinions are like assholes, everybody has one
This is an amazing conversation.
Great talk and guest! Really enjoyed. Refreshing. 👍props to Joe for having him
I sat and watched a snake in a cage repeatedly going to the corner by the window and trying every possible position and combination of positions to get through that glass and outside. The determination and certainty that it could get out was built on observation and understanding. I can't help but think of that snake when humans espouse understanding the universe. I'm pretty sure there's an element missing in the equation because it's just so far beyond comprehension, just like the snake will never understand how humans make glass.
That’s was a deep observation and analogy bro. I’m for God and Jesus till the end. Seen to much. The Shroud of Turin proves the resurrection imo
That’s a great way of illustrating the concept of inhabiting a space where something with a far greater intelligence has set the parameters for existing inside the “cage”. Meanwhile the inhabitant knows there’s more beyond the bounds of its domain even if it can’t comprehend the situation it finds itself in in its entirety.
What a dumb way of saying “I absolutely KNOW there has to be more than evolution and big bang.” Totally bro. Watching a snake totally proves an intelligent designer, but why stop there, as another commenter has alluded, your experience proves his god lul. You two have contributed much to our overall knowledge today. Thanks for your work.
It is so incredible how people project their own bs on other people, that they have no idea what their work is about, they can’t even take the time to learn it, only say that it’s wrong, or they know better, because I watched a snake, and made an analogy. It’s so funny how oblivious you all are to this. Joe Rogan is a moron, who cannot help but find conspiracies everywhere. He surrounds himself with charlatans, like this guy, Bob Lazar, Graham Hanock, etc.
We melt sand, bro.
Badass snake
Great podcast Joe! Thanks for having him on and engaging in a respectful conversation.
This was great. Thank you. So many things I want yo read in to that they discussed.
This is super interesting! Amazing information..
I feel that he is very articulate. The reason he pauses at certain points is because he is deciding what to say. The ideas he is trying to explain to a layman audience are very complex, and he wants to explain things so that normal people like us can understand. The guy has devoted his life to study these topics and clearly has an immense amount of knowledge, seen by the fact that he is constantly quoting or references endless amounts of scientists, dates, and even specific events in his life. So when Joe asks a question, his brain is probably going in multiple directions as to how to best answer a question. And he doesn't seem nervous at all, he has spoken to much more hostile audiences. He is awesome!
Yes he is waaay more humble than let's say Richard Dawkins 😅
@@johnnyboy1586 He is also way more wrong than Dawkins. And yeah, he is smooth, isn't he? Most conmen are, it's not exactly a prerequisite, but it helps enormously.
@@Alexander_Kale he didn't come across to me like a car salesman,but I'm no scientist so where was he wrong ?
@@johnnyboy1586 You are in good company then, as Meyer isn't a scientist either. His doctorate is in philosophy.
Car salesman is actually a good analogy, now that I think about it. He has been embroiled in this ridiculous "teach the controversy" thing from a few years back and he continues to push "creation science" and intelligent design, both of which are demonstrable nonsense.
Effectively, every time he quotes a scientist, you can trust that quote. You can also trust that he has taken it out of context and that whatever he claims as a conclusion has no basis in science.
Stephen Meyer is a snakeoil salesman who seeks to discredit all of astrophysics, because it doesn't mesh well with scripture.
@@johnnyboy1586 In more specific terms, and I beg you to forgive the double post:
In this particular segment, he has mislabeled the Big Bang as the "beginning" of the universe. Which he needs to be true so he can say "god did it", which he does all the time.
The first 6 minutes are him waffling about. It is a preamble for what comes next.
Starting at minute 6, he starts to talk about a "beginning". Which was originally prompted by Rogan, but he didn't correct him on it. Which he SHOULD have because the Big Bang is not the "beginning". We do not know what happened before the Big Bang. Calling it the beginning of the universe is therefore disingenuous.
He then mentions hawkins and Penrose, saying how their findings point towards "a beginning". No, they don't. Both of which have done work exploring the idea of the Big Bang, and Penrose in particular has forwarded the idea of a cyclical universe. Meaning, that there IS no beginning if Penrose is correct.
And again, he KEEPS calling it "the beginning". That is disingenuous. The big Bang is not the beginning of the universe. And this is important for Meyer of course, becuase he NEEDS a beginning to justify his "theistic implications" that he mentions at the 11 minute mark.
Ask yourself this: He talks about "proofs" for a beginning. I already told you that "beginning" is a deliberate mislabeling by Meyer, but what proofs were actually mentioned in this clip? He just says they exist, he mentions names, he mentions his book, but he makes no effort to explain what they actually are.
This entire segment is him waffling. Cheers comes to mind, in particular the famous "but he didn't say anything!" exclamation in episode 11x21
And then of course he launches into the whole fine tuning bullshit at the end of the clip, on which I would refer you to Douglas Adams and his puddle analogy.
I would've LOVE to see Dr. Michael Heiser on Joe's show b4 he passed. He was such a great communicator for the complexities of the Ancient Near East languages. He could've helped Joe really understand the cuneiform tablets of Sumer or the hieroglyphics of Egypt or what the Biblical Hebrew REALLY says about the Unseen Realm.
Hopefully Dr. Heiser's videos come up while looking into Dr. Meyer.
You are right very good professor. And he also had knowledge of the UFO subject that Joe is so interested in, I have seen his program fringepop321 on TH-cam, very good.
I Love how He has guests I didnt even know I wanted to get to know.
I went into this interview hoping to hear something convincing, instead what I got the overwhelming sense of while he spoke was that he went into science seeking evidence of God, not that he discovered God in science. The fact that he said one of his confirmatory experiences with God was that he heard God's voice in his head kinda hints his frame of reference
Exposing Discovery Institute : Stephen Meyer
th-cam.com/video/Akv0TZI985U/w-d-xo.html
These are the top 5 institutions promoting creationism. They are all bogus, pseudo-scientific .
1. The Discovery Institute (DI)
2. Institute for Creation Research (ICR)
3. Creation Ministries International (CMI)
4. Reasons to Believe (RtB)
5. Answers in Genesis (AiG)
This is actual science.
Evolution Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:
th-cam.com/play/PL0FB1F085BD950D0F.html
Exactly! I love Joe's podcast but I notice a lot of his viewers put a huge emphasis on the charisma and personal connection with the guest rather than their actual evidence or epistemology. Nothing wrong with charisma or personal connection but it shouldn't be used to base the truth or believability off of, but unfortunately it's a common pitfall of human psychology
@@19JMT96He talked about and even referenced various theories and their respective theorists. Considering there is no evidence of the beginning, I'm not sure what you're looking for.
Stephen meyers on the Joe Rogan podcast! Let’s go!
Joe: “Dude that’s cool, but did you hear about the bear that was surviving on hallucinogenic strawberries?” 😂😂
i remember this guy from the creationist failure in that court case where they tried to get creationism in the science class.
👏Great interview
I have a brain cramp. I will definitely listen to this podcast about 3 more times. Good info.
It wouldn’t be a JRE episode without Joe trying to justify aliens and drugs lol.
It wouldn't be a JRE episode without Joe not grasping half of what his guest is saying/arguing and Joe taking everything literally and derailing the topic from what his guest just said every time he opens his mouth.
Don't forget about chimps and dolphins!
Elk! Eat Elk! Low kick! Smoke weed! HAUSCHASCA. More Elk! Spinning back kick!
@@Nebx1989SM was outlining his views on metaphysics vs science in a really profound way that I had never considered and Joe couldn't wait one second before blurting out a complete brain fart after. Excruciating to listen to.
@@ygb0y Stephen Meyer is indeed excruciating to listen to...
Listen to Oxford Maths professor John Lennox on this subject also. His discourse with Jordan Peterson on JBP’s podcast is essential listening. Meyer talks so eloquently, he’s a superb listen. I’m also now convinced 🙏🏻
I would say that I was totally shocked to see Stephen on Joes show but then he’s always been good about having people on with different views. During my conversion, when I was struggling to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with what we know about the origins of life, I came across Stephens work. Love this man of God! Great podcast!
This has been my dream podcast, Joe finally made it happen, and it didn’t disappoint.
My dream is to see lil wayne on this podcast
@@happymood888😅
@@happymood888holy shit
@luciferfn5367 I once took a lot of magic mushrooms and went to sleep and had a crazy dream about Lil Wayne on The Joe Rogan podcast it was very Vivid and it WAS A GREAT PODCAST
I’ve been wanting to see this as well. So glad it happened!
Insightful conversation but I was distracted by Joe’s Wu Tang t shirt the whole time 😂
absolutely great episode no matter what worldview you hold, some did say joe was being a little combative but that's understandable, they're discussing entire worldviews which would probably bring along some kind of defensiveness on both sides but regardless I'm glad joe did bring on someone he disagrees with, his ability to do that separates him from the rest..amazing stuff
Its unfortunate that hes one of them, no matter how youvlook at it.
i'm 90 minutes through so far, i listen to about an hour of a podcast every single day and Joes attitude this episode has been really disappointing, he hasn't smiled or laughed once and seems to dismiss EVERYTHING Stephen says...not sure if he was in a bad mood the day this was recorded or what but it's been painful to listen to so far..
@@jimmymcgill2557because intelligent design is idiotic without evidence. It’s all faith-based
@duane6504 If "God" exists outside of our physical realm of space and time (and it'd have to If it created this construct), then we'd have no way of measuring .
Our inability to prove something simply proves our limitations, not that something doesn't exist.
@@LuckyFlesh u don’t know any of that for sure 😂
I've just finished the entire interview - awesome discussion. Some have suggested that Rogan was unfairly combative, but he seemed genuinely curious. The stakes here are high if Meyer is right and so probing questions are absolutely called for. Meyer fielded them well - an intellectual tour de force.
Rogan seems so unwilling to accept anything that Meyer put forward.
“Isn’t that based on a limited amount of information?” In reference to all the collected information we have spanning scientific research from the beginning of science as we know it.
I think its just the religious nuts . They dont like you questioning "gods word." But in fact, they are men's word
@@bryanhawkins9418 because Joe like most of his audience is brainwashed only with with one side of the argument/s
Meyer stuttered and folded up like a paper cup whenever he had to try and defend the bible for sure. Multiple times in the interview.
I thought Rogan was being pretty obtuse. He doesn't ask any other scientist "but isn't that just based on our current knowledge?". Besides that his thing questioning the validity of Meyer's personal experience was pretty odd given how often Joe talks about the validity of psychedelics based on people's personal experiences with them.
I really enjoyed the interview. I had the some of the same questions when I was young. Hope to see more philosophical interviews with Joe.
12:10 quote from McKenna is fantastic!
Thanks for having Stephen Meijer on!
It was a tough conversation for Joe at times, it’s great to see some constructive conflict at such a high level on a fascinating topic. Some of the best stuff on the internet today
This guy was spewing bullshit about evolution, not being real, that in a binary digital computing system it doesn't make sense.
Nature works on the quantum computing system as kaku said. So this guy is completely off to begin with
Joe made some very dumb "counterpoints". He wasn't following the guest arguments at all some times. I think he was too predisposed to ridiculing intelligent design which did a disservice to the conversation because he used very basic, anti intellectual arguments against it. Like 5th grade level arguments. Like Stephen said there's actually a lot of scientists questioning the theory of evolution these days which is mind-blowing in itself.
@@ShaferHartno, joe is the smartest human currently so you’re wrong
Space is fake. The Earth is flat.
This is true, but compared to the Layman Joe is doing great
This is another example of why this is the best podcast on the face of the Earth. The ideas stem from comedy, to politics, to health, to religion, and a fusion of all of those things together in a myriad of combinations, that teases and pleases the intellect.
Absolutely. And having this guest on sealed the deal for me. Joe Rogan is my ALL TIME favorite!
You say this like millions of other people don’t talk about the same shit. They just weren’t global celebrities when they started talking about the same shit.
@@AzarathMetreon what’s your point?
@@jsweetness5 My point is that you’re praising Joe for something he isn’t even remotely unique or special for doing just because he has the name recognition others don’t.
@@AzarathMetreon you don’t know my intent. Did someone hurt you? Why are you picking fights with strangers on the internet? Do you struggle when people have different opinions than yours?
This is a good video to watch if your having trouble sleeping
Perception and priority. If we assemble our priorities properly, the perception we receive will propel us alot farther forward. Its like trying to walk across a bridge as you build it.
Simply isn’t how science works. You’re suggesting that we draw conclusions prior to making even a hypothesis. Your logic should extend to exactly where you applied it: construction. Science is not a bridge, making poor analogies isn’t helpful.
This is the first episode of JRE that tempted me to subscribe to Spotify so I can watch it in its entirety.
You should, this was a fantastic interview
😊 it's free, worth it. Of course Joe is coming back to all platforms soon, so.. 😊
Yes! I love Stephen Meyer. Very intelligent and always great discussion with him. So excited for Joe to have more of these discussions.
Stephen is awesome! Maybe Joe will have Caltech astrophysicist Hugh Ross on as well. He matches the science with the Bible surprisingly well.
I second this, especially as Dr. Ross has a tonne of insights regarding the alien / UAP phenomenon, which would likely interest Joe. Lots of great info regarding black holes too, which I’ve heard him describe as “evidence of God’s care”.
I am about 2/3 of the way through the conversation and am disappointed. It has its bright spots, the clip above is one of them, but the overall conversation feels like two steps forward and one step back.
Sad how many of you got conned by this guy lol
@@Reclaimer77Psalm 14 1
The universe is actually older than astrophysicists think it is. That's why there are mature galactic formations earlier than expected.
Joe and Meyer -a delightful and powerful combination.
James Webb is changing a lot of things and it just passed its one year observing anniversary!
I truly hope it holds up for awhile and micro-meteors stop hitting crticial components!
No it doesn't.
@@__WJK__Don’t worry. LGBTQ Climate Change alarmist NASA will just take another 10 billion dollars to send a new telescope up there.
You can tell this guys brain is working faster than his mouth can keep up with
Yeah, Joe rogan’s a beast.
Think you got that backwards.
@@eddieparris2803 says the highschool dropout?
@@Gaxbiezyou love your highschool dropouts !
How is Joe just now getting Stephen Meyer on. His books are legendary.
“Confirmation bias.” Hello pot, meet kettle.
Love Stephen Meyer. Great answers to Joe’s questions. Joe should have on David Berlinski sometime also.
Yes.
Jesus Saves!
bingo! 10000% spot on.
Or William Lane Craig!
John Lennox would be a superstar conversation as well
Berlinski is dead
As interesting as the story is, what it really makes me consider is the fact that we now live in an age where our information is being so distilled and twisted to support a specific point of view that the average consumer of news cannot get the straight information: it always comes with someone’s bias wrapped around it, and that is really hurting us as a species right now. Whether it be politics, science, religion, healthcare, or any other community-centric topic, it is really hard for us to discuss these things when the information comes half-baked and distorted.
News has always been that way, sure it's more now with so many different ways to get media but it has always had twists on what was shown or told.
It's now obvious to more people.
People need to be less stupid and gullible. Unless you have seen and analyzed the raw data, assume it’s untrue
I think it's the opposite. The average IQ of the world has gone up so much due to social media. News is always biased and 70% of the world is programmed by nature to fall for for biases (survival of the fittest is a significant law of nature) if anybody wanted to fund the truth the information is out there. Most choose to the way of fast food new due to whatever excuses one may have.
Like how everyone thinks Mars is red, but that was the NASA changing the colors on the pictures. New pictures of Mars look gray mostly, rocks.
This one was great!👍
Wow, Meyer is a fantastic guest
Great conversation
I love this guy how did i miss this
Big bang was the interdimensional beings hitting the power button
Joe plz bring back Stephen with David Berlinski, and David Gelernter, together the three will blow your mind 🤯
Put those guys in a room with actual experts in Evolution and enjoy the Intelligent Designers squirm uncomfortably around the easy rebuttals to their nonsense.
In most cases these guys are either misrepresenting the experts they vaguely cite or are parroting science that was already debunked and abandoned half a century ago.
@@williamingramm2293 What, so they can fail to to explain the gaping holes in their own theory? Even Gerd Müller acknowledges the problem Developmental Gene regulatory Networks (dGrns) present for current micro and macroevolutionary models (check out Eric Davidson's work at Caltech see what I mean). Meanwhile, David Berlinski and David Galertner are not "intelligent designers," so now who's "misrepresenting" William? In which case, I'd suggest, it's people who seem to think this is "a competition" that make the problem all that much harder. This should be about (not) guarding ego and paradigm, and (not) siloing "the truth" (according to only certain experts), and 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 acknowledging what questions remain. That's all a person like Stephen Meyer is saying. New atheism is dead, try and keep up.
It's cool that we can still get intelligent people having intelligent conversations on JRE. Lately I've been losing faith in the scientific convos that Joe brings on. It's just as good to see that Joe is able to ask relevant questions and let the qualified guest answer, without having to butt in every 10 seconds. And that he's perfectly confident in admitting when he doesn't understand a point being made
There’s a demonic dark side to psychedelics that rarely people talk about.
Finally… someone on the podcast who isn’t a comedian or mma fighter
My dad has a podcast with him today!
Whilst a firm believer in the Big Bang, I am far from convinced that this was the beginning of the universe.
I would love to see Joe Rogan do a podcast with John Lennox.
Joe: have you seen the bear flying a helicopter?
Joe: pull it up Jamie
😂
I wanna imagine what a Joe Rogan podcast with Stephen Hawking would look like
Yeah
"Beep boop bop beep"
Holy smokes bro from like the 10 minute to the 12-minute Mark just spit it out man😂
This talk is even more intriguing than I expected, and the title set my expectations very high.
Signature in the cell, Darwin’s doubt, return of the God hypothesis. All very good, factual books by Stephen meyer
Thank you, Joe, for having him on!!!! Excellent.
What’s next, stork theory of pregnancy expert?
Watching a man speak like this like watching a ballet, or listening to mozart...... a brilliant human is an art form that just like the musician or the dancer took thousands of hours of hard work and should be reveered
What Joe talks about towards the end of this interview is what is talked about in the vedas, srimad bhagavatam, and in bhagavat gita by Lord Krishna. The vast amount of knowledge in hinduism and sanatan dharma informs us so much about the multiverse, origins of these universes, and life origins and how everything is sustained by Krishna.
The fact that these books and literatures of the vedas and bhagavat gita from thousands of years ago, far before any modern science, and far before any other common religions today confirms the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe.
Wow, pleasantly surprised to see Stephen on Joe Rogan.
The more knowledge you gain the more you realise how very little you know and understand. Its a gift and a curse at the same time.
which is why i think that, basically, we all need to just chill and enjoy the ride as much as possible. which for me has taken god coming into my life in the 'form' of jesus christ.
We can only see the observable universe, but it's not enough. To understand its entirety, we'd have to experience what's beyond the universe, if there is a beyond. If the universe is infinite, we won't find the answer
I have a question...
1. Assume there is a starting point where the universe started.
2. Assume that the universe is expanding from that single point.
3. Assume that we also originate from the same point and moving away from that point due to expansion.
If we are looking back in time by detecting light billions of lightyears away are we not at the same time concluding that we moved away so fast (faster than light in fact) from that single point, that we have to look back at the light that is still trying to catch up to us?
In short, explain to me how we are at this position in space relative to this single point (big bang point) and there is light that has not caught up to us yet. How fast were we that we literally outran it by billions of lightyears? If we were in fact faster, do we not just discover something faster than light aka us? If we are not faster than this light, then where did we come from, another starting point that is not the big bang point?
I wish you luck and answering my question. And thanks in advance.
Nothingness = Infinity, as both refer to a lack of boundary conditions. The "starting point" of the universe, aka "nothingness", is effectively "infinity", making it all-encompassing rather than a central point.
Expansion is only one-half of the model. A static universe with "contracting" content, the mirror-image of an expanding universe, is the proper explanatory model. In the contracting model, the original "infinity" never changes.
Discrete quantum systems have zero entropy. If nothing else, the universe is a discrete quantum system (for lack of other universes). Given the facts, the universe has zero entropy forever. The source of the universe, a "static infinity", can't possibly change or be acted upon.
No matter where we, or any other intelligent life, or any measuring device whatsoever happens to be, it will always appear to be the "center" of a static-scaled universe with virtually "contracting" content.
To understand what I'm saying, imagine a light bulb in deep space. As the universe around the light bulb "expands" at light speed, the light from the bulb is effectively motionless with respect to expansion, in which case it makes more sense to model the bulb as virtually "contracting" in a static-scaled system. None of the experts you'll see on YT have this level of comprehension on the subject.
Peter Griffin: You lost me on “The” 🤯
After watching this TH-cam clip earlier today, I went to Spotify and watched the entire interview. My reaction is WOW! This is the best interview I have ever seen Joe Rogan do. Dr. Stephen Meyer is obviously very brilliant but lots of folks are brilliant. What is so impressive to me is that his arguments make great sense when I ignore my desired presuppositions.
Me too!
He was hard to follow for me.
@@GK-qc5ry
it took a while for me as well but the more you familiarize yourself with the concept of Intelligent Design the more dots connect...
@@GK-qc5ryyou're daft
Ok I just downloaded Spotify to watch this video as I'm a huge fan of SCM. So it was first time on Spotify. The app didn't let me see the video only the audio?? Is that normal or do I need to do something to activate the video of this discussion? Dumb question I suppose for ppl who have used Spotify before.
I've lived long enough to now see I.D. guys on Joe Rogan. Bring on William Lane Craig
Solution: Galaxy Formation was much more intense and earlier than previously thought, due to a much more rich and abundant presence of matter in a smaller space.
😂 Romans 1:20-22:
"For since the creation of the world
God's invisible qualities-his eternal
power and divine nature-have been
clearly seen, being understood from
what has been made, so that people are
without excuse. For although they knew
God, they neither glorified him as God
nor gave thanks to him, but their
thinking became futile and their foolish
hearts were darkened. Although they
claimed to be wise, they became fools." Ring any bells dumby? Hahahahaha
Or physics has changed over time
This is the best of Rogan, when he has an intelligent, articulate interviewee. You may not agree with them but you have to listen and give them their due. I don't understand the "nothing from nothing" argument. At the moment of the big bang, everything was contained in the singularity, if I am interpreting it correctly. It is the same with the uber massive black holes that are now in the 100 billion solar mass range. The first singularity would have had to have been a lot more massive.
The issue with the materialistic theory of the big bang, is in order for it to happen, you would need the fundamental laws of nature, how did those exist if there was nothing?
I have to give this dude props for how understandable he made this stuff.
God did it, is that how "simple" you need it.
@@atheosmonde Two things. First: Why did you put "simple" in quotes? Second: I don't understand your question, and not just because you didn't put a question mark. God bless you!
@@atheosmondeJust because we're trying to understand what God did. That doesn't deny the work of God and his creations.
He's complicating what's very simple. The point is James Webb Telescope disproved the big bang theory. But these secular zealots changed their theory "again" and are arguing the change never occurred. They were are wrong.
No man.. he was not understandable
Surprisingly enjoyable conversation that gave me a lot to think about. Stephen humbly reminding me that I still have prejudices, if I'd known he was a proponent of intelligent design I doubt I'd have listened but he makes a great argument for it.
This is great to hear!
I don't understand why evolution itself can't be the "intelligent design". I mean when human beings design A.I., we try to design it to evolve and adapt to anything. I just think evolution vs intelligent design is an unwinnable argument, because they both are the same thing. Evolution is the intelligent design.
@@weshouser821 That was basically Stephens argument though wasn't it? How we have that (I forget the proper terminology he used) integrated circuit which is evidence of fine tuning and cannot itself handle any kind of mutations without shutting down the whole framework. So the advantageous mutations that cause evolution are reliant on a system that was seemingly fine tuned from the get go. And the more levels you regress the more fine tuned systems there appear to be to even get to having a galaxy/solar system/planet for all this to occur in the first place. As Sagan said, if you wish to build an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe... but literally :')
If naturalism were true there simply never would have been anything.
@@weshouser821especially when you consider the implication that time is relative, and really, something only expirenced by objects with mass. Several billion years of evolution to create a human, or a day, might as well be the same thing if time is relative.
I met Stephen Hawking years ago at the Burger Continental restaurant. He was in his wheelchair at the table right next to us and was being fed by this Hot young blond. We greeted him and he said Hi. RIP ❤ brother
One of my favorite episodes ever! I ❤️ Joe
Finally Steven on Joe’s podcast. Can’t wait for another. They just barely touched subjects from Steven’s first and second book. Such a pleasure to listen to Steven and such a pleasure to listen to so thoughtful and respectful host.
Ok I just downloaded Spotify to watch this video as I'm a huge fan of SCM. So it was first time on Spotify. The app didn't let me see the video only the audio?? Is that normal or do I need to do something to activate the video of this discussion? Dumb question I suppose for ppl who have used Spotify before.
Thank you Joe for having Stephen Meyer on your podcast. You were very cordial and I enjoyed the entire interview.
I'm praying that you will seek and find the Lord Jesus Christ.
Alternate title: Stephen Meyer lies through his teeth on the JRE
Next time on Joe Rogan “Unicorn Expert”
Found the atheist ostrich
Ok sorry, that was a bit snarky 😅
My friend, did you even listen to the conversation? I ask because you’re coming off as an arrogant fellow who is afraid of hearing compelling arguments, scientific or philosophical or both, for a reality that contradicts your worldview. I’m not saying you ARE that way, I’m saying you’re sounding that way.
If you don’t want to listen to the conversation, allow me to do you a favor and give you a timestamp where Joe talks about something that, technically proves miracle(s) are real. This will only take a minute of your life. Start at 12:06
@iservHim It's not a miracle. Let me give you an example:
Sir Isaac Newton was kind enough to offer us a very good understanding of how gravity works, to the point where we can use this understanding to make very accurate predictions.
But Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation couldn't explain Mercury's orbit. At that time, with what we knew of physics, Mercury's orbit was impossible. It seemed like a miracle, do you see where I'm going? Then Einstein, in his theory of general relativity, gave us an insight into the nature of gravity and was able to explain and predict Mercury's orbit.
It doesn't mean that Newton was wrong, as Newtonian physics is still valid. It just means he was missing an aspect of the universe that he couldn't imagine.
Now, the Big Bang is no different. Right now, we can't explain what happened before it. But someone will come up with a successor theory to General Relativity and show us the aspect of the universe that we overlooked. Without the math for it, simple things like Mercury's orbit can indeed seem like a miracle.
So no... the big bang is not a miracle. It's just an event that we aren't smart enough to understand yet. we're only human.
@@iservHim You responded to my snarky comment with a snarky comment. No offense taken. Well played sir.
I am very familiar with Stephen Meyer and his arguments. That’s why I feel confident in my comment and stand by it. His views are extremely “anti scientific” and intellectually dishonest
But I will review the link you sent. Thanks!
@@iservHimit’s very difficult to take seriously someone who is so seriously invested in the religious argument. I mean your tag is ‘’ iservhim’ for crying out loud?! I think the difference between the atheist types that you point out and you is that their arguments seem to be more convincing for one particular reason. They’re not self serving. In other words, they’re putting forward the atheist argument, which is when you think about it pretty grim. No real purpose to life, and no after life. where as believers like yourself want to believe because it just feels a lot better than the grim realisations of the other side.’ I mean who wouldn’t want to live forever and re-meet their dead family and friends. It’s just so comforting and peaceful. I really really wish there was some solid evidence for it as I miss my father very much.
@@rogerthornhill1491 Yes, there are comforting aspects of faith in God, but it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. Moreover, we can also say that atheism is comforting because if it is true, then you won’t be judged, there are no significant consequences of your actions, so you can live a life that aims at what feels good. It is easy to put aside Christianity or Theism saying it is based on wishful thinking, but there is much more solid basis for it.
I’ve been dying to see Joe interview this guy
Thanks Joe for having Stephen on!
Neil said the same thing in a different way.
ID expert is like being an expert in slender man
Nice one 😂
Love Stephen M., glad to see him on the show
Brilliant and humble man.
I had no business listening to that podcast trying to understand it fully
As much as I love learning about these subjects. I strongly believe the science community knows about 1% of what the universe is and the potential of what is possible. We all need to be open minded and explore all possibilities and leave ego at the door.
This is why a real relationship with the creator is valuable. He does know everything
@@daveonezero6258😅😅😅😅😂😂😂...oh my.
Yea the scientists know 1% and the combined religious groups know a total of 0% 😂
"You, like, only know 1% brah! You should like, give equal time to the imaginary bullshit that I made up based on nothing!"
@@Marrikable How about you actually take the time out of our busy schedule to listen to the entirety of the podcast before resulting to fruitless insults.
I never thought Joe would have a guy like this on his podcast
As an ex atheist, I noticed, when I was continually denying the creation of God around me, I figured out that it all boiled down to one thing. No matter what I knew to be true, I just wanted to say, “NO” to God. I simply just didn’t want to make God the God of my life. I was God and nothing was going to change that.
👻👻BRAVO❤❤
Here's what I wanna know... if the universe is expanding, what are we expanding into? Another universe?
I really liked this episode. I have the book "Signature in the Cell" and I didn't realize he was the author until I was deeper in the show.
I've been waiting to see this guy on the podcast for a while 🎉
I appreciate this man's ability to explain things in such a way that less intelligent people like myself can understand what he is talking about.
But what exactly did you learn? The facts?...... or what a creation apologist wanted you to take away from it (to doubt the credibility of the scientific method)?
"We're pretty sure time began with the Big Bang."
"What caused the Big Bang?"
"We have no idea, except we're certain it wasn't God."