You guys only understand what, 4% of the universe and then use abstraction to constrain the other parameters. To say you actually understand anything is quite ignorant.
I have come to find Intelligent Design to be the more persuasive argument. I've been a devout atheist since age 15. I still don't believe in pregnant virgins, boats with 2 of every animal, or resurrected messiahs. I honestly feel like Intelligent Design simply has a better argument. Darwinism has fallen short, orgin of life researchers haven't even created a cell. The more and more we learn the more life looks designed. Perhaps the unwillingness by the other side to step up and debate people like Stephen have left them exposed to his types of rational objections. They have grown accustomed to dismissing them with a hand wave and now, imo, they are behind and have no answers for the objections they thought they could ignore.
Wrong. Scientists are quite open about not understanding a lot. As far as dark ednergy is concerned scientists vhave a pretty good idea of what it is. That is completely different from saying that God did everything with absolutely no evidence.@@lightien
What blows my mind is we live in a time where these conversations are available to the public and not behind the doors academia. Think about that we are lucky to even have these conversations.
@@matswessling6600 because academia acts like tyrants to the people they deem uneducated. The COVID pandemic was blown out of proportion so for profit companies could gouge money. Why else have COVID vaccines STILL NOT BEEN properly vetted?
These conversations have gone on in the public for centuries. These arguments are nowhere to be found in academia as there is no academic merit or peer reviewed hypotheses that have any scientific validity in creationism.
I think of myself as a smart guy, smarter than anyone around me. But then I listen to this podcast and it reminded how really smart some people are. I appreciate Dr. Keating for inviting Dr. Meyer on this episode. I have always suspected there is a higher power and listening to Dr. Meyer gives me additional confidence to think I might be right.
How much smarter? A little? A lot? If there is a higher power/consciousness, how do you think it regards you? Would it regard you above an ant, or a virus? Would it have any regard for any type of lifeform? Or could the truth be more along the lines that we are but a momentary arrangement/pattern of matter/energy. That's all. Both these guys talking. You. Me. We're barely beyond the throwing our own feces stage. In some cases some of us still do. The notion that there are people...who believe they have any idea on what the true nature of reality is is frankly laughable.
It’s called the Dunning Kruger effect dude. The reason this nonsense sounds smart to you is because you don’t have the intellectual will or capacity to evaluate the individual premises and come to the logical conclusion that Zero plus Zero times Zero still equals Zero.
@@davepurcell1318 maybe the logical conclusion that Zero plus Zero times Zero still equals Zero is valid if information and logic carry no physical weight per se. But if one extends the logic to unlimited statements and reasonably assumes it is instantiated in reality by necessity via energy/quantum states then at some point the concentration of such logical statements could collapse into a blackhole in quantum gravity sense due to event surface and information density relations. Then at that point the logic no longer necessary trivially implies such a bold conclusions but reflects a kind of hubris about the self evident transcendental nature of certain understandings.....
he is not, he's frighteningly followed. all these people are wasting their time, surely they know that, they can only prove that all things are natural, god has spent the last 2000 years telling people they need faith - he is not going to come out of hiding and ruin our free will by demonstrating that he is real - are you really that dumb? one thing though, if i have morality written on my heart, how can i have a sinful nature? and doesn't having morality written on my heart interfere with my free will to steal and bump people off? it's STORIES folks.
"Frighteningly smart"? Here's a list of his publications in the professional literature. I've omitted one paper as the journal in question responded to the fact that the review process had been cheated to sneak it in behind the backs of the editors by instantly dropping it. So here goes......you ready? 1. .
@@mcmanustony Stephen Meyer is treated as a pseudoscientist by darwinists which we all know is of the majority. Why try to publish anything when you know the exact results you'll get. Stephen Meyer doesn't get grants or other things average scientists usually get. Do you even try to properly reason through his arguments and adjudicate reasonably or are you just trying to defend your belief at all cost. Maybe because of your credibility or friends and family. It's not really worth it. The materialistic explanations for the origin of the universe and life is all self defeating and need no debunking, but you don't care, all you do is to just defend your atheism which also has no evidence at all. Nice to meet you again! (This should be around the 4th or 5th time )
Philosophy not Science(tho science is a subset of Philosophy really), it’s Metaphysics supported by Scientific evidence. I agree It is great hearing less orthodox ideas.
Dr. Keating is the prime example that you don't need to resort to fallacies to counter-argue a position. This guy is the most fair, good faith, respectful, but combative individual out of the whole bunch. It's a pleasure to see this discussion.
@@William89809Declaring something is a false dichotomy without proving it, it's also a fallacy. (Fallacy of false characterization) You see, it doesn't follow that just because you point something out, it is the case. I see no fallacy. His argument is, since god gives intelligibility and grounds and secures the fundamental axioms that we derive everything from, and you need an intelligible, stable, repeatable set of rules from where to conclude science, therefore, God is a necessary precondition to science. If God is necessary for intelligibility and intelligibility is necessary for science, then if there is science, it entails God. You can't have science without god. It's either Science and God, or no God, therefore no science. You might disagree with the veracity of his claims, but his argument, in the context he is portraying them, is not a false dichotomy. If you mischaracterize his position in order to knock it down, that is a strawman fallacy.
@@William89809The problem is that there is basis for his claim that you might ignore. Rationally speaking, unless you have justified true beliefs then you have knowledge. Infinite regress is a problem, since you must have an arbitrary axiom to start from. Now, in reality, there are rules and laws that are unchainging that science can't account for. Since those Characteristics are consistent with the concept of god, therefore, they see their worldview proven. In their argument, the observations are consistent with the description of god, and you have no account for it. So, in order to have intelligibility, it is the case you need all those preconditions. Now, he does provide sufficient reasons to make his argument coherent and definitely a true dichotomy, therefore, not the fallacy you accused him of.
@@William89809 That is a strawman, since you are assigning arbitrary values to a character. Those values where assumed and listed as properties of god before knowing these conditions. You are creating a post-hoc explanation that is not even consistent with the character.
Even Christopher Hitchens considered the fine tuning argument the best argument for the existence of god he had encountered. I consider those who outright dismiss what Dr Meyer says without even listening to he has to say to be just as dogmatic as the most religious fundamentalists out there.
@@rogerphelps9939 Yeah, it is exactly this kind of dismissal I'm talking about. No arguments, no sign of any cognitive processes at work besides dogma that ends up with the rather unfulfilling statement "no" I am not claiming that Dr Meyer is correct, my point is that he deserves to be heard and responded to in an intellectually honest way. Not by dogma.
@@wearemany73 You are just proving what I said. You did obviously not listen to what Dr Meyer actually said, instead you made a very ugly straw man to attack that bear no reasonable similarity to what he says and attacked that straw man. Nor do present anything else besides a very narrow minded and dogmatic view "no". How about actually listening to the episode and present an actual argument after that?
@@l.m.892 let me guess.... DNA is like computer code blah blah DNA is information. Information comes from a mind blah blah you can't make random changes to code and expect the same results blah blah true, but DNA can do that. More than one gene can code for the same protein. Meyer ignores inconvenient truths that don't fit his narrative, so why should anyone listen to him?
It really drives me crazy when people who should know better interview this hack and give him a fluffy forum to spew his nonsense. Dr. Brian Keating, why didn't you, or anyone else, ever ask this clown what his model is? What is the Intelligent Design model. Does anyone know?? Do they even have one!!? They have a hypothesis they just repeat over and over again. We get it. But HOW does the "designer" influence life-sciences on Earth? HOW did that information come to be? What force does the "designer" use to move and manipulate particles, chemistry, proteins etc etc here on Earth to his fashion? Can you test for it? Have you built a detector for it? It's simply not enough for them to repeat their broad-view hypothesis over and over again. They spend all their time trying to poke holes in Evolutionary Theory. Which actually HAS a working model. That actually IS doing real science based off of. Discovery Institute can't say the same and it's frustrating that nobody seems to interrogate them on this fact. What is the Intelligent Design MODEL!
When a program gets to a place where people complain about “platforming” this, that, or whom you know you have arrived as a serious public intellectual. Well done.
In answer to Brian’s questions as to how God manifests differences in the universe, this is answered easily by an analogy. How does a non-pixilated computer engineer, who isn’t digital in nature, create a video game universe of digital laws and codes and rules with general order?” By using the physical reality and manipulation of the physical with willful, rational intent to form the digital world. God’s being is as different if not more different than ours than the engineer’s being is different to Mario and Luigi’s. Mario and Luigi can argue over whether Nintendo exists and one may say there is no “digital evidence” for Nintendo being this company with non-digital beings with minds that made their world. Asking for digital information is the wrong demand just as asking for scientific evidence for God is the wrong question. We wouldn’t have hieroglyphics without intelligent minds, and we wouldn’t have the information we have in biology without some kind of mind as creator. Also answers the miracle question as cheat codes are easily added to video games without destroying the game. Momentary suspensions of the rules don’t necessarily break the universe.
all these people are wasting their time, surely they know that, they can only prove that all things are natural, god has spent the last 2000 years telling people they need faith - he is not going to come out of hiding and ruin our free will by demonstrating that he is real - are you really that dumb? one thing though, if i have morality written on my heart, how can i have a sinful nature? and doesn't having morality written on my heart interfere with my free will to steal and bump people off? it's STORIES folks.
Thanks to all ! - What delightful, ongoing excursions! The perfect teaser for the episode: 35:02 So you can't absolutely prove the existence of God. But the consequences of denying the existence of God as a theoretical postulate at least is a system of physics which ends up eating its own - which ends up destroying for epistemological reasons our ability to rely on our own reasoning capabilities about the world around us. 35:23 So at the end the choices between God and science or no God and no science. HOWEVER, don't Prof. Meyers' arguments actually force us to choose "between effective mindbodies and science; or no effective mindbodies and no science?" Yes, if there's a UNIQUE potent mindbody, then that unique being is the powerful and knowing creator, God. BUT... Yes, if you DECLARE that you don't exist, or that you can't know, or that you are impotent -- then you tend to bring about the consequence of those declarations (just as any consistent performative may bring about what it implies) - nescience, impotence, swoon! Drive yourself out of existence, and (to the degree that your declaration act effectively) you're driven out... but you're left with the previously-less-problematic exercise of "saving the appearances." Wasn't it CS Lewis who pointed out that, before approximately the period of the Renaissance, it didn't occur to scientists (i.e. philosophers of Nature) to center their investigations on "Laws of Nature" (as though God had injected these fiats onto and into Nature, from some alienated stand-point outside the World)? Rather, they preferred to allow the REASONS for thing to remain WITHIN the THINGS themselves, and interrogated Reason, Purpose, and Value IN THE FIRST AND SECOND PERSONS: MY Reason, my Purposes, my Values, immediately at hand; YourAndMy Reasons, Purposes, Values - fresh and joyfully open to our assays... unalienated, unexiled, immediately accessible to Reason gracefully according with Value. At their best, Kabbalists (up through at least Leibniz) are SO much more sensitive to the promptings of Nature Naturing, and so much more productive at creating better questions (as well as better answer), than are self-depotentiated Galileans, and Aristotelians in general.
Ive been listening and reading Dr Meyers work for years. Thank you for giving this man a chance to speak. Its a little BS how most including yourself didny have him on until after his Rogan appearance, even after saying you've studied his work for years. Regardless thank you because he has a lot of researchers who still attack his religious beliefs and not his work.
NO, no one attacks his religious beliefs, what is worth to be attacked is his pseudoscientific method. What a lame belief, that needs unnessecary arguments from artificial design and cosmological fine-tuning to work.
@@Thomas-gk42 In the two comments you make here [NO, no one attacks his religious beliefs, what is worth to be attacked is his pseudoscientific method. What a lame belief, that needs unnessecary arguments from artificial design and cosmological fine-tuning to work.] and then [wow, that's valid arguments, all the best], you do not seem to understand that in the first comment you make claims about Stephen Meyer' views and yet you do not advance any evidence to support these claims and in the second you accuse someone else of not advancing evidence for his claims against you. Unfortunately, it appears that both of you are lacking here in being able to provide evidence to support the claims you make. Have you asked yourself if this lack in yourself is actually effective in being able to argue rationally and logically? As you have not provided any evidence for claiming that his method is pseudo-scientific, one has to consider that you do not understand what is involved in classifying anything as pseudo-scientific. You have not shown that anything is [lame] or [unnecessary], which should be a piece of cake for you if you comments were actually evidenced. One could well take it that you are not at all capable of arguing your position in any rational and logical manner.
Regardless of what your preferred theory is of the origin/s of our universe, ultimately, one has to admit this glaring universal fact: Only sentients have the capacity to choose life over non-life, a universe over no-universe, natural laws over chaos, order over disorder, etc. Science is able to exist because our universe is comprehensible with patterns that can be studied. And science and our observations tell us that non-sentients like planets, gravity, the sun, stars, energy, etc. do NOT have the ability to make choices simply because they don't have feelings and thoughts. Only a Being can, ultimately, be responsible for any universe because nothingness tends to stay nothing left on its own, don't you think?
Take a look at a Galton board. Pure randomness produces order in the aggregate behavior. Order contains information. Sentient beings are sentient because they process information. Our intelligence derives from order in the natural world, not an imaginary friend upstairs.
@@CarlosElio82 what an idiot! order is not natural. and information and sentience are not natural either. Proof? Before the big bang OUR universe did not exist. Are you telling me to have faith that a dense microscopic dot of energy PRODUCED time, space, matter, and all the natural laws? That is the dumbest theory of all.
@@CarlosElio82 don't you realize that even the Galton board and chance itself is governed by physical laws and forces? Those laws are not random; they require intelligence and great power to create. and Laws DEMAND an intelligent lawmaker.
Mathematics and religion are two important areas of human concern with many common attributes. Stephen Jay Gould would call them "overlapping magisteria." 1. They both deal with nonphysical entities, angels, demons, gods, prophecy, faith, on the one hand, and points, lines, continuity, theorems, and truth on the other. 2. The nonphysical entities become the characters of a narrative woven by faith in one case and by deductive implications / logical reasoning in the other. 3. After 3000 years of recorded history, we have accumulated enough evidence to judge the worthiness of these two magisteria from the point of view of the human experience. 4. We see diversity in both cases. Algebra, number theory, calculus in one case and Christianity, Islam, Judaism, in the other. 5. We see contradictions like the internal angels adding up to 180 and adding up to something else in one case, or being saved by grace only or by works in the other. 6. The similarities makes them worth comparing. Why their contribution to human well-being is so starkly different? One history is full of wars, excommunications, and inquisitorial eyes from the supreme while the other is animated by letters, friendly duels to exhibit mathematical prowess, and contributions among the different branches of mathematics. All of the theorems proved by mathematicians cohere with one another. Even the sum of the internal angels.
I conjecture that Stephen Meyer would answer my question by saying that the other religions are fundamentally wrong and the malaise that religion has imposed on humanity is due to the erroneous beliefs of others. Surely Mohamad did not go up to heaven on a winged horse nor Athena popped out of Zeus's thigh. "Unfortunately, the other religions are wrong, only mine is true" would be the reasoning that Mr. Meyer would offer to himself to protect his belief system. In that case why would a personal god with preferences cast in commandments cast in stone allow mathematics, a totally amoral magisterium with no personal preferences, flourish as it has and his own turf, the true meaning of life in celestial light, be so clouded in confusion and error? I suspect that the immense creativity of Dr. Meyer, would propel him to some impressive intellectual pirouettes saying that god wanted it that way to test our endurance.
There is a quantum view of the self: as a particle or as a wave. As a particle we are the sum of our inner desires, something that wants to be partially known, never fully known. As a wave we are the sum of collective desires, like the well-being of the family, or the victory of the sports team, or the success of the investments. Religion sees the soul as a particle and pontificates on sins and redemption for the salvation of the particle. Humanism sees it as a wave and pontificates about education, public libraries, green policies and public spaces. Levinas and Buber have written beautifully about the conundrum between I and THOU.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer does not publicly discuss his Christian beliefs, but constrains his professional arguments to his doctoral credentials in the philosophy of science.
@@techteampxla2950 I present an argument using comparative techniques. I ask important questions. And all your concern is about silly grammatical rules? Is this the most powerful output of your brain?
I'm very glad you had this man on, Stephen C Meyer is probably one of the greatest natural theologians of our time. I know enough about theology to know that the new atheists were pandering to the lowest common denominator... the problem is, most public theologians were christian apologists doing the same. Even though I'm no Christian, not even a monotheist, I'm glad someone else came to a similar conclusion about information theory and design without tripping over the many obvious fallacies scattered around.
Meyer is a staunch christian creationist "theologian", heading the Discovery Institute that has no other goal than to advance pseudoscientific creationism into public schools. They have been thrown out of courts for their claims and have never ever published anything falsifiable in support of their "goddidit" "theory". To assume we were "designed", necessitates one provides evidence for the "designer" ... where is it? To reject or even question evolution by natural means does not advance the existence of their illusive divine creator. Not having a definitive answer to how our universe started, does in no way make a divine creator more plausible. The one fallacy that stands out for IDiots is the most basic in logic, non sequitur, ... it doesn't follow, period. Even if we would never be able to explain how life emerged naturally, it doesn't follow that "therefore goddidit".
meyers is an idiot, religists ought to stay inside that empty tomb and just pat each other on the back in private, why folks, grown ups, adhere to this superstition, well needy people for a needy god. all these people are wasting their time, surely they know that, they can only prove that all things are natural, god has spent the last 2000 years telling people they need faith - he is not going to come out of hiding and ruin our free will by demonstrating that he is real - are you really that dumb? one thing though, if i have morality written on my heart, how can i have a sinful nature? and doesn't having morality written on my heart interfere with my free will to steal and bump people off? it's STORIES folks.
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
You have a purpose. I have a purpose. Every living organism has a purpose. Blind evolution does not create purpose.Only a gracious Creator generously grants the gift of purpose
I fully agree as to purpose and intent being so apparent in the universe and in life. But not so sure about a "gracious" creator. It does not seem to me that any such creator has the well-being of living things as its primary purpose. Life lives upon life. Suffering, pain and want are universal. "All life is suffering" said the Buddha. The very real and glorious beauty and joy to be seen, found and experienced in life in in spite of the natural state life almost always finds itself in.
And only by following your heart, and doing that which you "Love" to do can you find that purpose. So many children are never taught that in school. "Aptitude Tests" have misdirected so many children from their purpose in Life because they go down a career path that does not include doing what they Love. I became an accountant instead of a musician/sound engineer. I am a musician playing drums now, trumpet and french horn in school and loved it. But was the "only" musician in my family who never understand the magic of music. The entire world and Universe is made up of Frequency + Vibration = Energy. "If you wish to understand the mysteries of the Universe, think first in terms of Frequency, Vibration and Energy". Tesla. In the 1930's it was discovered that Resonant Frequency can be used to cure cancer and disease (caused by virus). Non invasive Frequency, you just are surrounded by speakers and the correct frequency will kill the cancer cells in your body. And doesn't hurt healthy cells because they have a different Resonant Frequency. In fact, Humans emit 3 different "normal" Resonant Frequencies one for each mind, body and spirit. And when a disease (virus) or cancer enter healthy cells it changes their frequency. BUT corporate interests and Pharma companies swept this discovery under the carpet. And to this day there is still "cancer research". Can you imagine curing yourself of disease and cancer at home by simple sound and frequency? No corporation makes any money if you can do that. The Power of God is His voice. And meets the criteria of Frequency, Vibration, and Energy. "God said, Let there be light, and there was Light". That is the Big Bang and the beginning of our Universe. God spoke, and it became true. Creating something out of Nothing. Yeah God and science are not mutually exclusive because God is the greatest scientist of all. Hey, Look Up "Kinesin Proteins". They exist in every living cell, plant or animal. And they will blow your mind. Peace. (Think how in the early days people lived hundreds of years? To do so would mean you have a cure for disease, otherwise it will cut your life short. In ancient times there were "Healers" not doctors. Just like when Tesla tried to give "free electricity" from the ground. Think of how many times the earth gets hit by lightning? It's 3 billion times a year. That energy does not disappear. The earth is a giant capacitor, and all you need is the correct frequency and an extension cord and you could get all the electricity you need just from your backyard. Again, corporations, and "mankind" says "No" to God's gifts to man and woman on the earth.)
"Acta Pilate" the letter found and authenticated by archaeologists from Pontius Pilate to Caeser in Rome regarding this person Jesus, and the last 2 years of his life in Jerusalem which Pilate was the mayor. One of the many references of Jesus outside the bible. Whether He was the Son of God that is up to you. But he was a real person. And is "The Only" claimed "Son of God (history has many) who did not spread His message of "Love and Peace" by the Sword. Like say Mohammed. Jesus The "only" one. But Acta Pilate is worth a read and helps give an understanding of Roman times and education at the very least. The Letter by Pilate's wife to a friend regarding Jesus is not authentic.
You have a self-conscious feeling of purpose. You have no objective purpose in the cause of the universe, you existence is entirely irrelevant to anything outside an extremely fleeting moment of consciousness.
Whenever I want to understand the weakest links in any particular scientific paradigm, I read the brightest, most articulate opponents of that paradigm, and not those committed to indoctrinating me into that paradigm. I did that with Darwinian evolution. And, so, I read Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt," and feel the far better informed as a result. In the end, though, I'm a whole lot closer to the Analytical Idealists, oh-so-briefly mentioned by Meyer, than to any Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other theist ontology.
Can we get a list of all the Gods who have claimed responsibility for creating the Earth, Universe and Humankind? Must we accept all such claims as potentially true or would the Intelligent Design community have definable rules which would distinguish between false creator claims from the true Creator claim?
@@StereoSpace I am quite certain that I understand but I doubt that believers do because believers don't have to understand. The argument rests upon ignorance and obfuscation.
I found this discussion informative. It reminded me of a book I read years ago by a Jewish author by the name of Gerald L. Schroeder entitled God According to God. Written from a physicists perspective, many points seem to mirror those of today's guest. For instance, the topic of randomness - not enough time has elapsed since the big bang to ensure the presence of life randomly evolving. It's as if all matter WANTS to become living.
You might have a point worth considering IF "life evolved randomly". However, since life does not evolve completely random (natural selection and inheritance is a form of conservation/preservance), your "argument" is based on a strawman and hence fallacious. Also, "living" is that which we, as biased observers, call living. To nature, or the nature of things, there might not be any difference between silica becoming a rock and biochemistry forming reproductive biological systems that perform work.
people just don't understand what random means in this context, random WITHIN limits, there are only so many ways the geometry can fit together, and only so many materials to work with - life my be INEVITABLE, and saying "life is so unlikely it needs god" really says "god picked the method most likely to fail" not very god like, god should be 1:1 not a bzillion to one AGAINST. amazing the brains on this channel can't work out that god odds ought be 1:1
@@klegs79 all these people are wasting their time, surely they know that, they can only prove that all things are natural, god has spent the last 2000 years telling people they need faith - he is not going to come out of hiding and ruin our free will by demonstrating that he is real - are you really that dumb? one thing though, if i have morality written on my heart, how can i have a sinful nature? and doesn't having morality written on my heart interfere with my free will to steal and bump people off? it's STORIES folks.
@@lizadowning4389 On the contrary, it's also biased to include the abiotic variables which made life possible. For instance, thermodynamics are fundamental laws to our understanding, however those same laws may cease to exist or function in a completely different way outside our universe. In other words, there are logical forces which served to accelerate development as a species within our environment, and it is possible that these forces exist only on a "microcosm" limited to our universe as the environment. So long as we cannot determine what, if anything, exists outside of our universe, we will always be working within a skewed sample of an understanding of reality.
It's so refreshing to hear a discussion like this between respectable and respectful, brilliant scientists. There's so much to learn not just about the subjects they're discussing, but about how to treat people we don't always agree with. Great lessons in human behavior, not just scientific principles! Thanks guys!
Brian, great interview. Thank you. You do a great job with these videos and I mean that sincerely. I do have an observation about a point you made around the 22:36 mark. You said that despite the proofs that Stephen makes in his book that there are counter-proofs from everybody else! Ok, I think "everybody" is a bit of an overstatement buuuut whatever. :) The criticism I have is to challenge the characterization of those arguments as proofs! Just because someone makes a fancy argument doesn't mean that he's proved anything. Do they hold water, is the question and I would say they don't. I watched the interview with Penrose and I made the same comment I'll make here. He's spot on when he tries to avoid using inflation because he, as well as everyone else, knows that inflation is not science. It's story telling whose only reason for existence is to make the Big Bang believable. So unfortunately he turns to the completely illogical and impossible idea of an infinite past. To me it's axiomatic that time can't extend infinitely back. Events are things that occur at specific points or regions in time. With an infinite past you can not have any specific points. And this is typical of the lengths that people go to in order to avoid the God question. The points that ID people like Stephen make are very very solid. They (the ID bunch) are the modern equivalent to that little boy who asked, "Mommy why isn't the emperor wearing any clothes?" The crowd (the secularists in the science community) keep pretending that they see clothes. I just wish they'd get a little more honest and stop dissing the degreed ID and YEC scientists who make legitimate challenges. And there are quite a few of those "little boys."
@@TheCrossroads533the point is, these "problems" don't exist. Meyer has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Watch Jackson Wheat's 2-part video "Darwin's Confidence" (see what he did there?) or Dave Farina's take down of Meyer in his Discovery Institute debunks
In reply to Brian’s “many aeons of boring universe” we find the answer, as we often do, in Chesterton: “Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, ‘Do it again’ to the sun; and every evening, ‘Do it again’ to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.” G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy So, nothing is wasteful, and God can glory eternally in every little detail without growing tired of it or getting bored. Unending vitality, even more than little children, loves all of creation with unending joy.
and then there is the pretty obvious metafor of making different things on successive days… for god some billions of years are not, maybe, a long time at all. this isnt what i think but it should jump up to anyone thinking about the “boring” part. its a matter of perspective
1:08:08 is the worst argument I’ve ever heard against a creator. What is the purpose of that galaxy and why would an intelligent mind do that? Humans do that all of the time. We create art for the sake of art even though we don’t have to do it. You could argue that this lends credibility to being made in the image of the creator in that we create superfluous things solely as a form of expression.
It's a bit of a leap, from the hypothesis, "At least one God creates the universe," to "Exactly one God creates the universe." As far as ever I've been able to tell, the minimum occasion of conscious attention is the dialog. You can call this "Proposer/Critic," or "Thesis/Antithesis," or "Perception/Error." However you do it, any solipsistic process seems mere subsistence, without critical or creative abilities. So, yes, the Gods create the universe, in the process of creating Themselves. Really: Has ANY deep and honest thinker ever persuaded any large group that monotheism is the reality? Judaism has El and his Holy Shekinah (Eternal Bride, Habitation); Christians have Trinity; Moslems have El and His Holy Quaran; we don't need to do more than mention the Hindu.
Two points here: 1. Shouldn't all of us be concerned about statements like "the choice is between God and science or no God and no science"? And 2. Meyer sidestepped the final question ("is Intelligent Design proof of a Judeo-Christian God?") with the light-footedness of a veteran politician.
The rambling questions are difficult to piece together. ‘The Mind’ by means of of it/through it - being the source, propagate ‘right action’ in everything. There is ‘free will’ mixed in there that determines outcomes.
I think that the energy that makes up our universe is infinitely old and just is. I like Sabines point that from an entropy perspective the beginning of the big bang and the heat death of the universe are identical.
My pet notion is that once the universe decays to a sea of diffuse massless radiation space time breaks down and concentrates all of that energy to a point singularity and begins again. I'm sure it's not an original notion but it's one that feels rite.
@gerardmoloney433 demonstrate that you it's your god in particular and not any other. Just because you believe that the universe needed a mind or god to create it, that doesn't mean it's you god.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
You guys should look at the work of Dr Michael levin biologist, on bio electricity is the main contributor to building and being the scaffolding and not DNA, thank you, love the channel.
@@Shiloh3498 The only one who can absolutely prove the existence of God is God. This points to your quote. We must have faith, while God knows absolutely. This is the contention of the atheist. They feel they should be able to know absolutely, which means they want to be like God even though they deny His existence!? God is the standard by which all other things can be measured.
Brian, I like your work. I am glad you are. If black holes evaporate and, as Penrose argues, on the long, long distant future only photons will exist, what information can be found in such a universe?
@@johnnytass2111 The problem one faces when trying to reason with people like you is that there is no reason at all. For you things just happen willy nilly. Dedekind showed how irrational numbers emerge out of the existence of rational numbers by the power of reasoning. You would say that your Mickey Mouse god commanded "Let the irrational be" and by the grace of god the irrational came to be. Things are a bit more nuanced than your silly god clasping hands and existence happening.
@@CarlosElio82 I agree things are nuanced, indeed, far more nuanced than a bit. Are you familiar with the concept of the Nous? Is it possible that reason can be influenced and even ruled by human passions?
@@johnnytass2111 yeah that was really helpful, anything in the bible about how to get cold fusion working? jesus healed a leper, humans cured leprosy, measles, mumps, rubella, hep, meningitis, smallpox, aids - fractures and dentistry - god is a really crap person at his job, maybe he will cure one cancer patient if they get lucky, we will cure ALL cancer. god sucks.
DNA is an information code and is among numerous information systems necessary for a functioning cell. Useful information requires a designer..that designer is God.
I have come to find Intelligent Design to be the more persuasive argument. I've been a devout atheist since age 15. I still don't believe in pregnant virgins, boats with 2 of every animal, or resurrected messiahs. I honestly feel like Intelligent Design simply has a better argument. Darwinism has fallen short, orgin of life researchers haven't even created a cell. The more and more we learn the more life looks designed. Perhaps the unwillingness by the other side to step up and debate people like Stephen have left them exposed to his types of rational objections. They have grown accustomed to dismissing them with a hand wave and now, imo, they are behind and have no answers for the objections they thought they could ignore.
It's because Meyers has already decided his conclusion based on theistic faith. Everything he does thereafter is to fit into that predetermined religious belief. It's fundamentally not scientific.
The sun gives you cancer and half the population will give themselves an infection if they wipe the wrong way... There is no intelligence designing anything.
@@nitsujism A few points as a rebuttal. First, as if this exact same point can't be made about Dawkins or several other "scientists". Especially those in the Orgin of Life feild. Second, either his points can be rebutted or they can't. It makes no difference which direction he traveled to conclude them. He has very specific, well articulated reasons that are based on rational observations, math, and psychics. To even bring his relgous beliefs into the debate is in and of itself telling. Go after the points he makes. Third, Meyers isn't alone by a far strech. He is joined by a ever expanding list of experts in their respected field. From famed mathematicians to, cutting edge physicist neodarwinism is in decline. People rarely attack the issues with darwinism, they always attack the messengers. It's losing them the debate.
"Modern science is based on the principle: 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest'." - Terence McKenna "That would be an ecumenical matter" - Father Jack . Live long & get funding... 🖖
@@Autobotmatt428 Thanks for that snippet - "Every day is a school day..." 😊 A quick search confirms this & says it was also a 2-handed salute, so there were probably a lot of people secretly getting there fingers into position before they did the gesture (just like some actors did on the show)
Great questions and answers For every chance for something to occur there is an equal chance for something to not occur unless there is an intelligent author?
Maybe the purpose life is to create conditions at the end of the universe that tune the beginning of the next so life can continue and it happens over and over again. 🤯 We are our own creator. I like this idea, it's much more comforting than chance. It could mean that after the first universe that supports life came into existence all successive universes supported life.
The purpose or meaning of life is the meaning you give it, even if that is to sit day in day out on a mountain trying not to think of anything that's your lifes meaning. It's moment to moment, working, eating, drinking a coffee playing sports etc is your meaning, from birth to death every moment in between is your meaning, there is no "meaning" of life, its the meaning we give it
@@ryleighloughty3307 are you talking about a judeo Christian god? You beleive in a religion that was castrating children just so children can sing longer in the choir whose beleivers are slaughtering each other in the middle east and you look down on me.
It is insane how many atheist accuse christians of being gullible by using metaphysical truths to build a cohesive argument for God's existence. Yet, they are the ones postulating their whole argument and belief on the big bang hyphothesis without any science to prove its existence or repeatability.
Or, holding out the primordial soup theory of the origins of life as fact. Science - “life spontaneity came from non-life, trust us, its a fact, or maybe it was panspermia ”
59:45 - 1. Some theologians would argue that the universe was created With time, not In time. The past is only deduced from the present, which is being constantly sustained. The only reasonable answer to the question "when was the universe created?", is "now". 2. Maybe it was the will of the creator to place the human condition within the context of a surrounding abyss, An abyss of time, space and meaning. This way we humans always enjoy the privilege of plausible deniability.
Dr. Keating, 👍👍 for having a very respectful and civilized discussion on a subject - intelligent design - in which you - most likely - don't believe for one second. Thank You Dr. Stephen C. Meyer for a very interesting and pleasant discussion: 👍👍👏
I think Brian believes in a Jewish God. Than he could believe in intelligent design. Which could or could not be ignorant design. Who of us knowing the absolute truth ? @@Kenneth-ts7bp
58:43 🙋🏽♀️ me next. Il try answer after S.M 1:07:18 why does Sean ask such questions when he hasn't explored the use of increasing 1% of his own synaptic neurones. 1:09:40 my turn? ... He didn't do it, every few centuries or so there are popular cultural movements that radically change our perspective in life. In turn those people development thier connection to the cosmos and give thier experience one word. These words over time become the file given to the next generation that will arrive to continue that work. If there was a library of files (data) or scrolls (tones) in their future (our present). This would be like harvest time but the fruits are not what we are accustomed to finding. Apples shaped like Bananas, Oranges shaped like Passionfruit, Strawberry shaped like Pears. Nah He is always conspiring with us. But He should NOT be doing it by His own hand. We should (have to) willingly be open to do the work, files, etc that was put there to be picked up at crucial times in our human evolution. Otherwise if He did it, we will not be a human race. Like literally, He would destroy us, even our galactic alien friends won't mess with Him.
I’m agnostic that the universe had a beginning. I do believe the Big Bang happened, the evidence is overwhelming. But the question that arises for me is, was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe or was it a phase transition from a previous universe? We don’t have an answer too that question yet. We may never know.
Ok, but then that supposes that the universe is eternal, while nothing we can observe is eternal. Also, how/why did that magnificent phase change happen? It was such a magnificent event because it led to the creation of galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually, life.
@@Mr.Anders0n_maybe the nature of matter is that it always breaks down to complete entropy over a set amount of time, based on the laws of physics, but the universe is eternal because there are other forces at play to restart the process? I'm just thinking. I do believe the universe is eternal and simply repeats. It's the only thing that sort of makes sense for me. Adding god into it only complicates an already complicated problem.
@@bigcauc7530 why/how does a Creator complicate things? What about your take on the fine-tuning problem? Or the creation of life? Do you find it convincing that life came to be from only random chemical processes?
Being religious means you are less likely to worship science itself. Worshiping science itself makes true scientific inquiry less possible. Institutional science often functions like a cult.
Institutional science certainly does not function as a cult. You have no clue. Science is a cutthroat business with every scientist seeking to disprove or modify the theories of others. That is how it progresses and there is absolutely no worship. It is the complete opposite of dogmatic religion where things are set in stone, have zero evidence and have to believed nevertheless.
25:50 "Does this mean that mind should predate the universe?" Yes! Because time is basically a pillar of the construction of the universe within the consciousness that we all share and that consciousness is not defined or limited to time but is always existent in the now or present of reality. All construction of reality spheres like this one are created very precisely by accumulations of consciousness identities from which we are focuses of attention!. Channelled communications have been explaining this since the 1970s. When Jane Roberts 'Seth's personality first explained it in his dictated books and sessions.
There is the question about 'THAT WHICH KNOWS, currently being called "consciousness". And the difference between THAT WHICH KNOWS, and "that which is known". And are they both different attributes of the same thing, and process. In other words, can "reality" be anything that "consciousness" can imagine?? To proceed any further down the road, be that science, religion, biology, astronomy, philosophy, psychology etc. is a waste of time until these primary questions are sorted out.
Save yourself an hour and 20 minutes. Some people just want to believe. The giveaway, of course, is that "God" is the answer to creation and not Zeus, Thanos, a council of Gods, Gary Mitchell, or a giant 3D printer.
he was not the best philospoher but not an Idiot like you, see my comment-reminder on the subject matter; his mistake:"philosphical laws" are just a formal cause (of Universe) but the 1st cause, who created such laws is still perfect YHWH(Ex.3:14)/Ipsum esse (S.Th 1a,2,3).@@davidjanbaz7728
The problem that all hitherto arguers about existence or nonexistence of GOD totally ignore is: DEFINITION OF WHAT THEY MEAN BY THAT WORD "GOD". Specifically, nobody who argues about this has bothered to separate the two essentially different meanings assigned to that word: 1) the generator and sustainer of the universe 2) the one that demands subordination to own rules (either revealed ~ as in conventional religions, or discovered ~ as in science) and prayers. Once this separation is done it becomes obvious that the former's existence is undeniable, but it doesn't imply the latter. So the most rational conclusion that tallies 100% with observable facts is that an evil generator and sustainer GOD certainly exists, that doesn't deserve any respect, let alone subordination and prayers, but only deserves compelling to submit to our own ideals and rectify hans (her/his) errors as we instruct. What is common to both, conventional religions and science, is that they both insist on the second aspect, irrespective of our own ideals, although science has changed the name for the source of its laws from GOD to NATURE and the method of realization of the laws from revelation to experiments and observations, but without any relevance to SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF BEINGS,the single purpose all knowledge SHOULD serve. In the final result both, conventional religions and science, justify all evil (predation, disasters, diseases, death) as immutable, inevitable and irrefutable given that must be born by all beings. There is no choice between the frying pan and fire, between science and religions, between FATALISTICALLY SLAVISH CHAOCRACY and FATALISTICALLY SLAVISH THEOCRACY. We must strive to discover the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface to deliver and sustain beings there, and then design and implement the means to rectify the errors in that mechanism that cause all the evil, while they are still inside the earth, so that they never reach the surface to harm any being. In short, the ideal of search for knowledge should shift from current "PREDICTIONS that tally with results of observations and experiments" to "PREVENTION of all evil before they occur".
All major religions are non prime they inherit and import from prior religions. The only thing that seperates the branch dividians or Mormons from major religions is popularity and time. The idea that something can mearly exist is an assault on how we perceive things working. Is creation necessary can we have a creator with out winding up in some recursive or circular argument, who created the creator. A circular universe doesn't preclude a creator. Existence is an Enigma that I don't think any one has the answer to.
agree, it is a process with a few steps, not just rolling a dice over and over roll the dice, set aside all the fives, and roll the others again. repeat. there is a good chance that you will soon have mostly fives...
Created the universe, then made the tube we breath out of the same as the one we have to swallow chunks of solids down multiple times daily for our whole life to survive. Brilliant design.
Well, 100,000,000,000 of us have been produced following the same basic design with no recalls or improvements in 200,000 years. Pretty good record for an engineer.
materialism is false. You can search TH-cam for a verifiable case of remote consciousness after the heart and brain had stopped working. The patient was able to identify post-it notes left for the surgeon only after the surgery started. Search NDE cardiovascular surgeon. Dr. Rudy gives the account and a surgeon that was present that day verifies it in the comment section. PS. Dr Rudy says he believes in God based on multiple patient accounts of death and recessitation.
@@odinson6348 You might want to read what God said (of what you called God's mistakes) about what you see is going on here on this planet. Who is to blame? What is God going to be done about these problems? When will this happen? Etc.
Without Scholasticism-from St. Thomas Acquinas there would have been no scientific revolution. No matter how much you want to play Jacobin science stems from Christian epistemology.
I’m listening to you guys while brewing beer! I’ve met Stephen years ago at Scottsdale Bible Church and urged him to get on (then) Twitter. Great discussion gentlemen!
It's literal 2023, on a planet that's billions of years old, yet we are still having debates about an invisible space wizard who created himself and everything else out of nothing. Wtf?!
@@markcredit6086 except it's not. Science has given us everything while. "God" has gives us pain death and destruction. If god exists why doesn't he stop the killing in his name!!??
@@justinoff1Most contemporary philosophers have conceded that Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense has solved the problem of evil regarding the existence of God.
@@justinoff1 Just putting it out there that if u accept that God gave you pain, death and destruction, surely you would have to equally accept all the good things God has allegedly created. Just a slightly annoying argument in my opinion.
It's only Preachers that need "money". And why one must seperate God from religion. And look to the bible for answers even though there have been "changes" to the bible. Mostly by the Catholic church and Pope. I contend the Catholic church added the verse about "tithing 10%" of your wages to the church. Because Jesus "Never" asked for money at the end of His sermons. Jesus never gave a sermon inside a building. And had a "real" job "carpenter" to pay the bills. Being a Preacher is not supposed to be a full time job. The Catholic church also defamed Mary Magdalene calling her a prostitute. But it has been historically proven she came from a wealthy family. Her father owned a number of ships and was in the logistics business of transporting goods. She had no need to be a Prostitute. In fact, she was Jesus' wife. He met Mary working as a carpenter repairing ships for her father. What makes more sense? Jesus had a wife? Or for thousands of years Catholic Priests "Not" having a wife? What's more "abnormal"?
"Acta Pilate" the letter found and authenticated by archaeologists from Pontius Pilate to Caeser in Rome regarding this person Jesus, and the last 2 years of his life in Jerusalem which Pilate was the mayor. One of the many references of Jesus outside the bible. Whether He was the Son of God that is up to you. But he was a real person. And is "The Only" claimed "Son of God (history has many) who did not spread His message of "Love and Peace" by the Sword. Like say Mohammed. Jesus The "only" one. But Acta Pilate is worth a read and helps give an understanding of Roman times and education at the very least. The Letter by Pilate's wife to a friend regarding Jesus is not authentic.
@@johannjohann6523 - I agree with you that it is more plausible that Jesus had a wife instead of a prostitute relation with Mary Magdalene but I would not phrase it the way you have. I would also NOT assume, infer, claim (as you have) that any humans past present or future have anything at all to do with god. Claims by humans, plausible or not, are not proofs of anything. Thanks for your input, you make some interesting points.
I kept listening, in the hope that Meyers would finally put forward some logical arguement that we could all tussle with, but all I heard was over-toasted waffle word salad. Maybe someone with an attention span longer than mine and a love of deciphering linguistic gymnastics can find some substance in there somewhere, but it passed me by.
You didn't miss anything unless u were playing fallacy bingo. I've never heard anyone so smart say so many stupid things in such a short time. The opening clip starts with a false dichotomy based on confirmation bias and then the interview doesn't get any better from there.
The basic logical argument is that created things have creators. Evolution isn't a causal explanation theory, and plus there isn't near enough time for it to actually do anything. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that we were created by God.
@@tesseract535 Life is Not inherent in mechanistic ⚛️ atoms and lifeless molecules. Also, secular materialistic-scientists will Not create a living organism, like a simple protoplasm, from just atoms and lifeless molecules.
@1:11:50 - The mutliverse theory *does away* with fine tuning, it has no need for it in the same way the anthropic principle does, another strike for Stephen there.
Here is one piece of information that maybe could be interesting to cosmologists. It's about the perfect overlap between the Vedic way of calculating time and astrophysics, i.e. the cycle of the movement of our planet. It is generally known that modern science recognizes a third axis along which the earth moves, which is called the precession of the equinoxes or Plato's year, or Great Year, and which lasts 25920 years. When it is divided by 12, that is, the number of constellations towards which the central axis of the earth tilts, we get a period of 2160 years per constellation (time period in the zodiac sign). So, roughly, from 139 BC to 2021 AD, we were in the Age of Pisces (Christians used fish as a symbol of the new age), from 2299 BC to 138 we were in the age of Aries, from 4459 BC to 2298 BC we were in the age of the Taurus (from the end of that era is the famous sculpture of Mithra killing the bull), ... and and so on. On the other hand, we have the existence of two formalized traditions with different interpretations of cosmic time, the followers of Asuras and the followers of Devas. That is, Two variations of Surya Siddhanta: The first Mayasura with Conjunction in Aries FEB 22. 6778 BC and second Latadeva with Conjunction in Pisces 17/18. FEB. 3101 BC. According to the second Latadeva tradition, the Maha yuga lasts for 4.320.000 years and is divided into four periods, each twice shorter than the previous one. Satya yuga lasts 1.728.000 years, Treta Yuga lasts 1.296.000, Dvapa yuga lasts 864.000 years and Kali yuga lasts 432.000 years. If we take any of those numbers and try to divide them by the previously mentioned length duration of the time period of one zodiac sign (2160 years) we get whole numbers, not decimal numbers as would be normal to expect. And so: Kali yuga in 432000 years contains exactly 200 such periods of zodiac signs Dvapa yuga in 864000 years contains exactly 400 such periods of zodiac signs Treta Yuga in 1296000 years contains exactly 600 such periods of the zodiac signs Satya yuga in 1728000 years contains exactly 800 periods of such zodiac signs Maha yuga thus lasts exactly 2000 periods of the zodiac signs. The chance that it's just a coincidence is less than 0.05 percent.
@@rogerphelps9939 what makes you so sure? No one, and least of all materialism, can explain how consciousness arises. If you look at the cosmic web image of the visible universe, it does resemble a neuronal brain structure.
One could "postulate" that there are flying pink elephants that carry the force of gravity, and dark matter is simply the absence of those elephants... What's the logic and/or evidence behind your idea?
I am very much expecting that professor Dave will be doing an episode on Dr. Keating very soon 😂 You lost me man. Jordan Peterson, the members of the discovery institute....... who is next. I am willing to bet you continue your studied at Prager university.
Just finished Signature in the Cell. Those who have read this volume have 2 choices. 1. non life brought life to planet earth. 2. An intelligence brought life to earth. I am convinced that there is too much intelligence on earth to accept 1.
I spent years in college and university becoming an engineer, and I still think when I look at some things, there is no evidence of intelligent design…!!!
yes like math is dumb but i consider engineers might be the end of humankind anyway since you discharge anything that dont fit , women dont fit in mens world or like a nature the stupid ais might be the end of us sicne it were made by men in the scientific realm , we get culled since we are not suffint enough - this dont make me mens hater but , men are as unsuccient in some ways ,women in other ,god maybe also or gods or uber gods - i guess a blind cant see and we cant see god
How many years? I'm curious because my son just started the engineering program at his college and it's a four year program and I asked him if they said he'd need more degrees afterwards and he didn't seem to know? I assumed they couldn't possibly teach enough in four years to be very experienced. Ty.
For most of us we watch this video and think, "Wow, this guy's blowing my mind. He's so much smarter than I am in this field. Maybe he's really on to something here." But then sit him down in a room with Roger Penrose or Sean Carroll and suddenly his theories don't seem so impressive anymore 🤔
I obviously dont have proof of this but i dont think this is a crazy thought if there is a God. He has not been crazy patient, He probably has been busy in other galaxies. Why would be the only living creatures in this vast universe?
As far as I know, Meyer's argument for Intelligent Design is based entirely on disputing evolution. Worse, he's disqualifying the entire scientific community on any field that casts doubt on the historicity of the bible, because the scientific facts are in conflict with the bible. He never gives a reasonable argument for the existence of his personal god, in my opinion. The best he can do is give a philosophical argument that comes at best to the conclusion there might be a god. And even that is a stretch. From there he makes an unfounded leap to the Christian god. His argument for his personal god comes down to: Because the bible tells me so and there are so many Christians in the US that my religion must be the true religion. He'll probably throw in the fine tuning argument; "How is it possible that the hollow ground has the exact shape as the puddle of water in that hollow. " He'll claim that because we're taking about the laws of physics there must be a Law giver, denying that the Laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive. We don't have a reason to think they're prescriptive. in the same vein he'll say Morality is absolute and God given. He can't accept there are perfectly good reasons for morality to develop naturally. To be fair, I don't know how many of these arguments he uses. The arguments I've given here are some common arguments from Christian apologists. Telling is, that in order to be working where he is working, he has to commit to the validity of the Bible. Never can any doubt be expressed, proving he is a failed scientist.
Are you saying Dr. Meyers is using the good old fashioned circular reasoning. With a dash of cherry picking. Divine fallacy as a sweetener. I could go on.
As far as I know, Meyer's argument for Intelligent Design is based entirely on disputing evolution. Worse, he's disqualifying the entire scientific community on any field that casts doubt on the historicity of the bible, because the scientific facts are in conflict with the bible. He never gives a reasonable argument for the existence of his personal god, in my opinion. You clearly have only the vaguest idea of what his arguments are, and in Darwin's Doubt he mentions neither the Bible nor Christianity. He was a Darwinist (like me and Dr Behe) until he delved deeply into the evidence. He's not making a "god of the gaps" argument at all, it's a purely scientific and mathematical argument. His argument is that Darwin's hypothesis is correct at the local level, that bird's beaks and feather have a range in which they change under environmental pressures, for example. But at the larger level, the evolution of complex organisms and the origin of species it's demonstrably incorrect, and the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. You should read his book, it's quite impressive.
I think science does change when new evidence is accepted by being test again as fact. As Brian pointed out in a 100 years science will have different understanding. Read the history of 100 years ago. And look at now some beliefs are the same. Many beliefs have been replaced by new beliefs.@@tesseract535
I am not smart enough to know the truth. I am smart enough to know when someone is promoting their religious faith. As people from the Discovery institute does. Don't believe me read their mission statement. Please show where I can find "the evidence is overwhelmingly against it ". And how the overwhelming evidence we have today is wrong concerning evolution. Show the evidence that God created everything. And if you can show God did I'm good with that. Which God would we say created us. To me this is one side of the argument from ignorance. Lawrence Krauss is on the other side of argument from ignorance. I have no need to prove what is true when it comes to why we're here. @@StereoSpace
22:00 it is well phrased question but meaningless when you deal with a particular thinker that happens to be religious and has certain bitter attitude towards the rest of us let us say. At the end of every type of reasoning and not reasoning there is always Ch/I/J God period. It is sad for me that I recognize in Mr Mayer that ugly side of religious certainty. It had been built in by religious environment. I know, I have been there. Over the years hearing about the Verse I no longer am awestruck by the fact that in one mode of thinking there is a infinity at the point zero. The whole existence trumps the theoretical infinity and the latter no longer implicates God for me. Fifth force before our boring 3d ones for sure, God as described in a book written by a constructed ape, nah. How one can not understood beyond the verse we have and can think about particular version of a God? You can not have it both ways... Language in Wittgenstein and Godel informed observation has its illusions, limits, and is not in direct correspondence with reality. Why code binary, dna, language needs to correspond to a God? Is a God just the product of an equation: our minds plus "language"/ information/code game = God? 1:03:54 Not only(sic!) from a Conscious(sic!) activity. 1:18:00 Are we not told, constantly about quantum computing, quantum effects, that in effect map reality simultaneously and extract one state of the real, aside from the fact that fundamentally uncalculable raw randomness is present nowhere in a "macro" world of chemistry... The whole discussion in this point is on its head. There is only one way to connect lego blocks, that fact alone does something to the randomnes that is from that point bound to produce rather characteristic structures. Atoms are not raw random mixture of every possible way of interacting, the way atoms interact give a rise to same structures. Structures x time x how many galaxies? = raw randomness? I am only thankful that he lives in times where so much knowledge is available to other secular side as well. Imagine how this type of thinking would produce in past times a tyrany of religiously motivated cruelty. I love his erudition and passion but not one of his argument is forcing us to think about the Mind, less so of a God's mind...personal God - no. There are physical ways of moving meat through space and time. I will give you this. Outside of our verse could be set of forces that in a similar way created mind like matter does with us. But this second aleph mind is not a God... it is a product of the reality, whatever reality is.
The problem with the whole creationist / ID movement is that they always seem to be in retreat from the advances of science. As science advances, these apparent “design” features gain scientific understanding and the ID proponents retreat into more and more abstract or distant territory to defend their biases. In fact, this is why the ID movement itself exists.
The apparent design features are very apparent unaffected by advances of science. The origin of information cannot be explained now any more than it could 20 years ago by so called natural processes. It seems to me discoveries are making the obvious design of life and the universe more apparent and this is why the ID movement exists.
If you look how monkeys navigate through the trees...make them as smart and conscious as we are and they are way more versatile than a human. But hey, think what makes you think YOU are there for a reasons and a sky daddy watches EVERY step you make.
Navigation is not on par with abstract conceptual thought. We can actually study the way they navigate right down to the brain processes they are employing while they do it. They don't aren't even aware that they have a brain.
Whose arguments more persuasive, Professor Dave, or Stephen C. Meyer? Can you be devoutly religious and also a real scientist?
Happy Birthday Dr. Keating!🎉
Dave Farina is...what was I thinking....some word Farina used.....IDiots......yes idiot.
You guys only understand what, 4% of the universe and then use abstraction to constrain the other parameters. To say you actually understand anything is quite ignorant.
I have come to find Intelligent Design to be the more persuasive argument.
I've been a devout atheist since age 15. I still don't believe in pregnant virgins, boats with 2 of every animal, or resurrected messiahs. I honestly feel like Intelligent Design simply has a better argument.
Darwinism has fallen short, orgin of life researchers haven't even created a cell. The more and more we learn the more life looks designed.
Perhaps the unwillingness by the other side to step up and debate people like Stephen have left them exposed to his types of rational objections. They have grown accustomed to dismissing them with a hand wave and now, imo, they are behind and have no answers for the objections they thought they could ignore.
Wrong. Scientists are quite open about not understanding a lot. As far as dark ednergy is concerned scientists vhave a pretty good idea of what it is. That is completely different from saying that God did everything with absolutely no evidence.@@lightien
What blows my mind is we live in a time where these conversations are available to the public and not behind the doors academia. Think about that we are lucky to even have these conversations.
Exactly!
why you ever think that this would belong in academia?
meyer is an idiot or dishonest, a complete waste of time and not a good look for keating.
@@matswessling6600 because academia acts like tyrants to the people they deem uneducated. The COVID pandemic was blown out of proportion so for profit companies could gouge money. Why else have COVID vaccines STILL NOT BEEN properly vetted?
These conversations have gone on in the public for centuries. These arguments are nowhere to be found in academia as there is no academic merit or peer reviewed hypotheses that have any scientific validity in creationism.
I think of myself as a smart guy, smarter than anyone around me. But then I listen to this podcast and it reminded how really smart some people are. I appreciate Dr. Keating for inviting Dr. Meyer on this episode. I have always suspected there is a higher power and listening to Dr. Meyer gives me additional confidence to think I might be right.
How much smarter? A little? A lot? If there is a higher power/consciousness, how do you think it regards you? Would it regard you above an ant, or a virus? Would it have any regard for any type of lifeform? Or could the truth be more along the lines that we are but a momentary arrangement/pattern of matter/energy. That's all. Both these guys talking. You. Me. We're barely beyond the throwing our own feces stage. In some cases some of us still do. The notion that there are people...who believe they have any idea on what the true nature of reality is is frankly laughable.
It’s called the Dunning Kruger effect dude. The reason this nonsense sounds smart to you is because you don’t have the intellectual will or capacity to evaluate the individual premises and come to the logical conclusion that Zero plus Zero times Zero still equals Zero.
@@jimj9040you definitely a zero bro, how did you get here, did you take a wrong turn
@@davepurcell1318 maybe the logical conclusion that Zero plus Zero times Zero still equals Zero is valid if information and logic carry no physical weight per se. But if one extends the logic to unlimited statements and reasonably assumes it is instantiated in reality by necessity via energy/quantum states then at some point the concentration of such logical statements could collapse into a blackhole in quantum gravity sense due to event surface and information density relations. Then at that point the logic no longer necessary trivially implies such a bold conclusions but reflects a kind of hubris about the self evident transcendental nature of certain understandings.....
@@toddsuriano9117ur claiming to know what reality is by claiming we have no idea what it is?
Steven meyer is frighteningly smart. And good at this. Love his personality.
he is not, he's frighteningly followed. all these people are wasting their time, surely they know that, they can only prove that all things are natural, god has spent the last 2000 years telling people they need faith - he is not going to come out of hiding and ruin our free will by demonstrating that he is real - are you really that dumb?
one thing though, if i have morality written on my heart, how can i have a sinful nature? and doesn't having morality written on my heart interfere with my free will to steal and bump people off?
it's STORIES folks.
No he isn't he believes in a sky daddy. As an atheist I'm automatically smarter than he is.
"Frighteningly smart"?
Here's a list of his publications in the professional literature. I've omitted one paper as the journal in question responded to the fact that the review process had been cheated to sneak it in behind the backs of the editors by instantly dropping it.
So here goes......you ready?
1.
.
really frightening......
@@mcmanustony Stephen Meyer is treated as a pseudoscientist by darwinists which we all know is of the majority. Why try to publish anything when you know the exact results you'll get. Stephen Meyer doesn't get grants or other things average scientists usually get.
Do you even try to properly reason through his arguments and adjudicate reasonably or are you just trying to defend your belief at all cost. Maybe because of your credibility or friends and family. It's not really worth it. The materialistic explanations for the origin of the universe and life is all self defeating and need no debunking, but you don't care, all you do is to just defend your atheism which also has no evidence at all.
Nice to meet you again!
(This should be around the 4th or 5th time )
One of if not the best episode. Watching it a second time
Is this the same conversation as last time, just re-released? (Which is fine. Just checking).
as an agnostic I am glad we give a voice to alternate ideeas outside mainstream science. Let the debate go on. Don't silence ideas.
Next week we talk about evidence of Thor defeating the ice giants. 😃
Philosophy not Science(tho science is a subset of Philosophy really), it’s Metaphysics supported by Scientific evidence.
I agree It is great hearing less orthodox ideas.
Well said.
Ahh, the "both sides" logical fallacy.
But giving equal time to fringe ideas in an attempt to maintain "balance" just draws the gullible to these ideas.
Dr. Keating is the prime example that you don't need to resort to fallacies to counter-argue a position. This guy is the most fair, good faith, respectful, but combative individual out of the whole bunch. It's a pleasure to see this discussion.
@@William89809Declaring something is a false dichotomy without proving it, it's also a fallacy. (Fallacy of false characterization) You see, it doesn't follow that just because you point something out, it is the case.
I see no fallacy. His argument is, since god gives intelligibility and grounds and secures the fundamental axioms that we derive everything from, and you need an intelligible, stable, repeatable set of rules from where to conclude science, therefore, God is a necessary precondition to science.
If God is necessary for intelligibility and intelligibility is necessary for science, then if there is science, it entails God.
You can't have science without god. It's either Science and God, or no God, therefore no science.
You might disagree with the veracity of his claims, but his argument, in the context he is portraying them, is not a false dichotomy.
If you mischaracterize his position in order to knock it down, that is a strawman fallacy.
Let us not mention that the core of ID is a fallacy ad ignorantiam.
@@William89809The problem is that there is basis for his claim that you might ignore. Rationally speaking, unless you have justified true beliefs then you have knowledge. Infinite regress is a problem, since you must have an arbitrary axiom to start from.
Now, in reality, there are rules and laws that are unchainging that science can't account for. Since those Characteristics are consistent with the concept of god, therefore, they see their worldview proven.
In their argument, the observations are consistent with the description of god, and you have no account for it.
So, in order to have intelligibility, it is the case you need all those preconditions.
Now, he does provide sufficient reasons to make his argument coherent and definitely a true dichotomy, therefore, not the fallacy you accused him of.
@@William89809 That is a strawman, since you are assigning arbitrary values to a character. Those values where assumed and listed as properties of god before knowing these conditions. You are creating a post-hoc explanation that is not even consistent with the character.
@@William89809 The only problem is that you refuse to accept the evidence. You see, the reality is that "denial" is not a counter-argument.
Even Christopher Hitchens considered the fine tuning argument the best argument for the existence of god he had encountered.
I consider those who outright dismiss what Dr Meyer says without even listening to he has to say to be just as dogmatic as the most religious fundamentalists out there.
No.
@@rogerphelps9939 Yeah, it is exactly this kind of dismissal I'm talking about.
No arguments, no sign of any cognitive processes at work besides dogma that ends up with the rather unfulfilling statement "no"
I am not claiming that Dr Meyer is correct, my point is that he deserves to be heard and responded to in an intellectually honest way.
Not by dogma.
Discounting the existence of an all powerful, celestial sky jellyfish isn’t Religious Dogma. Nor is the absence of any mystical thinking.
Wrong. ID is the dogma. Absolutely no evidence for it. I take it you are a creationist, probably from the US.@@NomenNescio99
@@wearemany73 You are just proving what I said.
You did obviously not listen to what Dr Meyer actually said, instead you made a very ugly straw man to attack that bear no reasonable similarity to what he says and attacked that straw man.
Nor do present anything else besides a very narrow minded and dogmatic view "no".
How about actually listening to the episode and present an actual argument after that?
It's nice to hear an intelligent conversation
When was that???
@@jonathanrussell1140 Watch the video.
@@l.m.892 I would rather watch an intelligent conversation. This guy's been debunked sooooo maaaannny times...
@@l.m.892 let me guess.... DNA is like computer code blah blah DNA is information. Information comes from a mind blah blah you can't make random changes to code and expect the same results blah blah true, but DNA can do that. More than one gene can code for the same protein. Meyer ignores inconvenient truths that don't fit his narrative, so why should anyone listen to him?
@@jonathanrussell1140 So are you admitting you're being a troll by commenting without the benefit of watching the content?
I absolutely loved this conversation Dr. Keating. Thank you stimulating our minds with these great discussions.
It really drives me crazy when people who should know better interview this hack and give him a fluffy forum to spew his nonsense.
Dr. Brian Keating, why didn't you, or anyone else, ever ask this clown what his model is? What is the Intelligent Design model. Does anyone know?? Do they even have one!!?
They have a hypothesis they just repeat over and over again. We get it. But HOW does the "designer" influence life-sciences on Earth? HOW did that information come to be? What force does the "designer" use to move and manipulate particles, chemistry, proteins etc etc here on Earth to his fashion? Can you test for it? Have you built a detector for it?
It's simply not enough for them to repeat their broad-view hypothesis over and over again. They spend all their time trying to poke holes in Evolutionary Theory. Which actually HAS a working model. That actually IS doing real science based off of. Discovery Institute can't say the same and it's frustrating that nobody seems to interrogate them on this fact. What is the Intelligent Design MODEL!
Many thanks. It's privilege to be able to listen to such discussions.
Have you tried listening to scientists or do you stick to lying religious activists?
When a program gets to a place where people complain about “platforming” this, that, or whom you know you have arrived as a serious public intellectual. Well done.
lol, no, keating wants his god and god people just make themselves look silly.
In answer to Brian’s questions as to how God manifests differences in the universe, this is answered easily by an analogy. How does a non-pixilated computer engineer, who isn’t digital in nature, create a video game universe of digital laws and codes and rules with general order?” By using the physical reality and manipulation of the physical with willful, rational intent to form the digital world. God’s being is as different if not more different than ours than the engineer’s being is different to Mario and Luigi’s.
Mario and Luigi can argue over whether Nintendo exists and one may say there is no “digital evidence” for Nintendo being this company with non-digital beings with minds that made their world. Asking for digital information is the wrong demand just as asking for scientific evidence for God is the wrong question.
We wouldn’t have hieroglyphics without intelligent minds, and we wouldn’t have the information we have in biology without some kind of mind as creator.
Also answers the miracle question as cheat codes are easily added to video games without destroying the game. Momentary suspensions of the rules don’t necessarily break the universe.
all these people are wasting their time, surely they know that, they can only prove that all things are natural, god has spent the last 2000 years telling people they need faith - he is not going to come out of hiding and ruin our free will by demonstrating that he is real - are you really that dumb?
one thing though, if i have morality written on my heart, how can i have a sinful nature? and doesn't having morality written on my heart interfere with my free will to steal and bump people off?
it's STORIES folks.
TCL
Thanks to all ! - What delightful, ongoing excursions!
The perfect teaser for the episode:
35:02 So you can't absolutely prove the existence of God. But the consequences of denying the existence of God as a theoretical postulate at least is a system of physics which ends up eating its own - which ends up destroying for epistemological reasons our ability to rely on our own reasoning capabilities about the world around us.
35:23 So at the end the choices between God and science or no God and no science.
HOWEVER, don't Prof. Meyers' arguments actually force us to choose "between effective mindbodies and science; or no effective mindbodies and no science?" Yes, if there's a UNIQUE potent mindbody, then that unique being is the powerful and knowing creator, God. BUT...
Yes, if you DECLARE that you don't exist, or that you can't know, or that you are impotent -- then you tend to bring about the consequence of those declarations (just as any consistent performative may bring about what it implies) - nescience, impotence, swoon! Drive yourself out of existence, and (to the degree that your declaration act effectively) you're driven out... but you're left with the previously-less-problematic exercise of "saving the appearances."
Wasn't it CS Lewis who pointed out that, before approximately the period of the Renaissance, it didn't occur to scientists (i.e. philosophers of Nature) to center their investigations on "Laws of Nature" (as though God had injected these fiats onto and into Nature, from some alienated stand-point outside the World)? Rather, they preferred to allow the REASONS for thing to remain WITHIN the THINGS themselves, and interrogated Reason, Purpose, and Value IN THE FIRST AND SECOND PERSONS: MY Reason, my Purposes, my Values, immediately at hand; YourAndMy Reasons, Purposes, Values - fresh and joyfully open to our assays... unalienated, unexiled, immediately accessible to Reason gracefully according with Value.
At their best, Kabbalists (up through at least Leibniz) are SO much more sensitive to the promptings of Nature Naturing, and so much more productive at creating better questions (as well as better answer), than are self-depotentiated Galileans, and Aristotelians in general.
I really enjoyed the discussion. Applaud both men for stepping out of comfort zones.
Ive been listening and reading Dr Meyers work for years. Thank you for giving this man a chance to speak. Its a little BS how most including yourself didny have him on until after his Rogan appearance, even after saying you've studied his work for years. Regardless thank you because he has a lot of researchers who still attack his religious beliefs and not his work.
NO, no one attacks his religious beliefs, what is worth to be attacked is his pseudoscientific method. What a lame belief, that needs unnessecary arguments from artificial design and cosmological fine-tuning to work.
@@Thomas-gk42 ya, you're nonintelligence default position seems so much more logical! LOL 😆
@@davidjanbaz7728 wow, that's valid arguments, all the best
@@Thomas-gk42
You don’t have idea of what the scientific method is. Therefor your comment does not have much wait
@@Thomas-gk42 In the two comments you make here [NO, no one attacks his religious beliefs, what is worth to be attacked is his pseudoscientific method. What a lame belief, that needs unnessecary arguments from artificial design and cosmological fine-tuning to work.] and then [wow, that's valid arguments, all the best], you do not seem to understand that in the first comment you make claims about Stephen Meyer' views and yet you do not advance any evidence to support these claims and in the second you accuse someone else of not advancing evidence for his claims against you.
Unfortunately, it appears that both of you are lacking here in being able to provide evidence to support the claims you make. Have you asked yourself if this lack in yourself is actually effective in being able to argue rationally and logically?
As you have not provided any evidence for claiming that his method is pseudo-scientific, one has to consider that you do not understand what is involved in classifying anything as pseudo-scientific. You have not shown that anything is [lame] or [unnecessary], which should be a piece of cake for you if you comments were actually evidenced. One could well take it that you are not at all capable of arguing your position in any rational and logical manner.
Regardless of what your preferred theory is of the origin/s of our universe, ultimately, one has to admit this glaring universal fact: Only sentients have the capacity to choose life over non-life, a universe over no-universe, natural laws over chaos, order over disorder, etc. Science is able to exist because our universe is comprehensible with patterns that can be studied. And science and our observations tell us that non-sentients like planets, gravity, the sun, stars, energy, etc. do NOT have the ability to make choices simply because they don't have feelings and thoughts. Only a Being can, ultimately, be responsible for any universe because nothingness tends to stay nothing left on its own, don't you think?
Just common sense. Dont need a Phd to figure out what you state. Yet, even some Phd's cant get it.
@@digital1083they are agenda driven that’s why
Take a look at a Galton board. Pure randomness produces order in the aggregate behavior. Order contains information. Sentient beings are sentient because they process information. Our intelligence derives from order in the natural world, not an imaginary friend upstairs.
@@CarlosElio82 what an idiot! order is not natural. and information and sentience are not natural either. Proof? Before the big bang OUR universe did not exist. Are you telling me to have faith that a dense microscopic dot of energy PRODUCED time, space, matter, and all the natural laws? That is the dumbest theory of all.
@@CarlosElio82 don't you realize that even the Galton board and chance itself is governed by physical laws and forces? Those laws are not random; they require intelligence and great power to create. and Laws DEMAND an intelligent lawmaker.
Mathematics and religion are two important areas of human concern with many common attributes. Stephen Jay Gould would call them "overlapping magisteria."
1. They both deal with nonphysical entities, angels, demons, gods, prophecy, faith, on the one hand, and points, lines, continuity, theorems, and truth on the other.
2. The nonphysical entities become the characters of a narrative woven by faith in one case and by deductive implications / logical reasoning in the other.
3. After 3000 years of recorded history, we have accumulated enough evidence to judge the worthiness of these two magisteria from the point of view of the human experience.
4. We see diversity in both cases. Algebra, number theory, calculus in one case and Christianity, Islam, Judaism, in the other.
5. We see contradictions like the internal angels adding up to 180 and adding up to something else in one case, or being saved by grace only or by works in the other.
6. The similarities makes them worth comparing. Why their contribution to human well-being is so starkly different? One history is full of wars, excommunications, and inquisitorial eyes from the supreme while the other is animated by letters, friendly duels to exhibit mathematical prowess, and contributions among the different branches of mathematics. All of the theorems proved by mathematicians cohere with one another. Even the sum of the internal angels.
I conjecture that Stephen Meyer would answer my question by saying that the other religions are fundamentally wrong and the malaise that religion has imposed on humanity is due to the erroneous beliefs of others. Surely Mohamad did not go up to heaven on a winged horse nor Athena popped out of Zeus's thigh. "Unfortunately, the other religions are wrong, only mine is true" would be the reasoning that Mr. Meyer would offer to himself to protect his belief system.
In that case why would a personal god with preferences cast in commandments cast in stone allow mathematics, a totally amoral magisterium with no personal preferences, flourish as it has and his own turf, the true meaning of life in celestial light, be so clouded in confusion and error? I suspect that the immense creativity of Dr. Meyer, would propel him to some impressive intellectual pirouettes saying that god wanted it that way to test our endurance.
There is a quantum view of the self: as a particle or as a wave. As a particle we are the sum of our inner desires, something that wants to be partially known, never fully known. As a wave we are the sum of collective desires, like the well-being of the family, or the victory of the sports team, or the success of the investments. Religion sees the soul as a particle and pontificates on sins and redemption for the salvation of the particle. Humanism sees it as a wave and pontificates about education, public libraries, green policies and public spaces. Levinas and Buber have written beautifully about the conundrum between I and THOU.
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer does not publicly discuss his Christian beliefs, but constrains his professional arguments to his doctoral credentials in the philosophy of science.
Then why say “god” ?
@@techteampxla2950 I present an argument using comparative techniques. I ask important questions. And all your concern is about silly grammatical rules? Is this the most powerful output of your brain?
Happy birthday Dr. Keating. Keep doing your thing
I'm very glad you had this man on, Stephen C Meyer is probably one of the greatest natural theologians of our time. I know enough about theology to know that the new atheists were pandering to the lowest common denominator... the problem is, most public theologians were christian apologists doing the same. Even though I'm no Christian, not even a monotheist, I'm glad someone else came to a similar conclusion about information theory and design without tripping over the many obvious fallacies scattered around.
Meyer is a staunch christian creationist "theologian", heading the Discovery Institute that has no other goal than to advance pseudoscientific creationism into public schools.
They have been thrown out of courts for their claims and have never ever published anything falsifiable in support of their "goddidit" "theory".
To assume we were "designed", necessitates one provides evidence for the "designer" ... where is it?
To reject or even question evolution by natural means does not advance the existence of their illusive divine creator.
Not having a definitive answer to how our universe started, does in no way make a divine creator more plausible.
The one fallacy that stands out for IDiots is the most basic in logic, non sequitur, ... it doesn't follow, period. Even if we would never be able to explain how life emerged naturally, it doesn't follow that "therefore goddidit".
So basically he is (one of ) the best because you more or less agree with him.
Or perhaps because he agrees with you.
no midwit, try again.@@oscargr_
meyers is an idiot, religists ought to stay inside that empty tomb and just pat each other on the back in private, why folks, grown ups, adhere to this superstition, well needy people for a needy god. all these people are wasting their time, surely they know that, they can only prove that all things are natural, god has spent the last 2000 years telling people they need faith - he is not going to come out of hiding and ruin our free will by demonstrating that he is real - are you really that dumb?
one thing though, if i have morality written on my heart, how can i have a sinful nature? and doesn't having morality written on my heart interfere with my free will to steal and bump people off?
it's STORIES folks.
Shame Meyer omits the bits we know about evolution that don't fit his narrative. He's not a scientist.
Dr Meyer is amazing!
@@rosalind1750 No Dr Meyer is not amazing. What he says about evolution is plain wrong and has been debunked many times.
No he isn't. He omits the bits about evolution that do not support, or outright contradict, his flaky narrative.
Fascinating interview with Stephen Meyer!
Thanks so much! *What was your favorite takeaway from this conversation?* _Please join my mailing list to get _*_FREE_*_ notes & resources from this show! Click_ 👉 briankeating.com/list
You have a purpose. I have a purpose. Every living organism has a purpose. Blind evolution does not create purpose.Only a gracious Creator generously grants the gift of purpose
You create your own purpose.
I fully agree as to purpose and intent being so apparent in the universe and in life. But not so sure about a "gracious" creator. It does not seem to me that any such creator has the well-being of living things as its primary purpose. Life lives upon life. Suffering, pain and want are universal. "All life is suffering" said the Buddha. The very real and glorious beauty and joy to be seen, found and experienced in life in in spite of the natural state life almost always finds itself in.
And only by following your heart, and doing that which you "Love" to do can you find that purpose. So many children are never taught that in school. "Aptitude Tests" have misdirected so many children from their purpose in Life because they go down a career path that does not include doing what they Love. I became an accountant instead of a musician/sound engineer. I am a musician playing drums now, trumpet and french horn in school and loved it. But was the "only" musician in my family who never understand the magic of music. The entire world and Universe is made up of Frequency + Vibration = Energy. "If you wish to understand the mysteries of the Universe, think first in terms of Frequency, Vibration and Energy". Tesla. In the 1930's it was discovered that Resonant Frequency can be used to cure cancer and disease (caused by virus). Non invasive Frequency, you just are surrounded by speakers and the correct frequency will kill the cancer cells in your body. And doesn't hurt healthy cells because they have a different Resonant Frequency. In fact, Humans emit 3 different "normal" Resonant Frequencies one for each mind, body and spirit. And when a disease (virus) or cancer enter healthy cells it changes their frequency. BUT corporate interests and Pharma companies swept this discovery under the carpet. And to this day there is still "cancer research". Can you imagine curing yourself of disease and cancer at home by simple sound and frequency? No corporation makes any money if you can do that. The Power of God is His voice. And meets the criteria of Frequency, Vibration, and Energy. "God said, Let there be light, and there was Light". That is the Big Bang and the beginning of our Universe. God spoke, and it became true. Creating something out of Nothing. Yeah God and science are not mutually exclusive because God is the greatest scientist of all. Hey, Look Up "Kinesin Proteins". They exist in every living cell, plant or animal. And they will blow your mind. Peace. (Think how in the early days people lived hundreds of years? To do so would mean you have a cure for disease, otherwise it will cut your life short. In ancient times there were "Healers" not doctors. Just like when Tesla tried to give "free electricity" from the ground. Think of how many times the earth gets hit by lightning? It's 3 billion times a year. That energy does not disappear. The earth is a giant capacitor, and all you need is the correct frequency and an extension cord and you could get all the electricity you need just from your backyard. Again, corporations, and "mankind" says "No" to God's gifts to man and woman on the earth.)
"Acta Pilate" the letter found and authenticated by archaeologists from Pontius Pilate to Caeser in Rome regarding this person Jesus, and the last 2 years of his life in Jerusalem which Pilate was the mayor. One of the many references of Jesus outside the bible. Whether He was the Son of God that is up to you. But he was a real person. And is "The Only" claimed "Son of God (history has many) who did not spread His message of "Love and Peace" by the Sword. Like say Mohammed. Jesus The "only" one. But Acta Pilate is worth a read and helps give an understanding of Roman times and education at the very least. The Letter by Pilate's wife to a friend regarding Jesus is not authentic.
You have a self-conscious feeling of purpose. You have no objective purpose in the cause of the universe, you existence is entirely irrelevant to anything outside an extremely fleeting moment of consciousness.
Whenever I want to understand the weakest links in any particular scientific paradigm, I read the brightest, most articulate opponents of that paradigm, and not those committed to indoctrinating me into that paradigm. I did that with Darwinian evolution. And, so, I read Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt," and feel the far better informed as a result. In the end, though, I'm a whole lot closer to the Analytical Idealists, oh-so-briefly mentioned by Meyer, than to any Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other theist ontology.
It would help if IDiots like Meyer stopped misrepresenting, mine quoting and blatantly lying about science.
Can we get a list of all the Gods who have claimed responsibility for creating the Earth, Universe and Humankind?
Must we accept all such claims as potentially true or would the Intelligent Design community have definable rules which would distinguish between false creator claims from the true Creator claim?
They simply claim a creator, and then go from there...
It's called the Wedge Strategy. They want to get ID over the line then give you a reach around and say Jeebus done it all.
I suspect you A) Didn't actually listen this, or B) Didn't understand what was said.
@@damienroberts934 what is a "Creator"? You need to define that term.
@@StereoSpace I am quite certain that I understand but I doubt that believers do because believers don't have to understand. The argument rests upon ignorance and obfuscation.
Thanks!
I found this discussion informative. It reminded me of a book I read years ago by a Jewish author by the name of Gerald L. Schroeder entitled God According to God. Written from a physicists perspective, many points seem to mirror those of today's guest. For instance, the topic of randomness - not enough time has elapsed since the big bang to ensure the presence of life randomly evolving. It's as if all matter WANTS to become living.
Schroeder is awesome. He got me into apologetics decades ago
You might have a point worth considering IF "life evolved randomly".
However, since life does not evolve completely random (natural selection and inheritance is a form of conservation/preservance), your "argument" is based on a strawman and hence fallacious.
Also, "living" is that which we, as biased observers, call living. To nature, or the nature of things, there might not be any difference between silica becoming a rock and biochemistry forming reproductive biological systems that perform work.
people just don't understand what random means in this context, random WITHIN limits, there are only so many ways the geometry can fit together, and only so many materials to work with - life my be INEVITABLE, and saying "life is so unlikely it needs god" really says "god picked the method most likely to fail" not very god like, god should be 1:1 not a bzillion to one AGAINST.
amazing the brains on this channel can't work out that god odds ought be 1:1
@@klegs79 all these people are wasting their time, surely they know that, they can only prove that all things are natural, god has spent the last 2000 years telling people they need faith - he is not going to come out of hiding and ruin our free will by demonstrating that he is real - are you really that dumb?
one thing though, if i have morality written on my heart, how can i have a sinful nature? and doesn't having morality written on my heart interfere with my free will to steal and bump people off?
it's STORIES folks.
@@lizadowning4389 On the contrary, it's also biased to include the abiotic variables which made life possible. For instance, thermodynamics are fundamental laws to our understanding, however those same laws may cease to exist or function in a completely different way outside our universe.
In other words, there are logical forces which served to accelerate development as a species within our environment, and it is possible that these forces exist only on a "microcosm" limited to our universe as the environment.
So long as we cannot determine what, if anything, exists outside of our universe, we will always be working within a skewed sample of an understanding of reality.
It's so refreshing to hear a discussion like this between respectable and respectful, brilliant scientists. There's so much to learn not just about the subjects they're discussing, but about how to treat people we don't always agree with. Great lessons in human behavior, not just scientific principles! Thanks guys!
Brian, great interview. Thank you. You do a great job with these videos and I mean that sincerely. I do have an observation about a point you made around the 22:36 mark. You said that despite the proofs that Stephen makes in his book that there are counter-proofs from everybody else! Ok, I think "everybody" is a bit of an overstatement buuuut whatever. :) The criticism I have is to challenge the characterization of those arguments as proofs! Just because someone makes a fancy argument doesn't mean that he's proved anything. Do they hold water, is the question and I would say they don't.
I watched the interview with Penrose and I made the same comment I'll make here. He's spot on when he tries to avoid using inflation because he, as well as everyone else, knows that inflation is not science. It's story telling whose only reason for existence is to make the Big Bang believable. So unfortunately he turns to the completely illogical and impossible idea of an infinite past. To me it's axiomatic that time can't extend infinitely back. Events are things that occur at specific points or regions in time. With an infinite past you can not have any specific points. And this is typical of the lengths that people go to in order to avoid the God question.
The points that ID people like Stephen make are very very solid. They (the ID bunch) are the modern equivalent to that little boy who asked, "Mommy why isn't the emperor wearing any clothes?" The crowd (the secularists in the science community) keep pretending that they see clothes. I just wish they'd get a little more honest and stop dissing the degreed ID and YEC scientists who make legitimate challenges. And there are quite a few of those "little boys."
Great interview. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Is an interview with Meyer great if it fails to call him out on the parts of evolution he omits because they don't fit his narrative?
Sure, if evolutionists don't omit the problems Meyer points out.
@@TheCrossroads533the point is, these "problems" don't exist. Meyer has been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Watch Jackson Wheat's 2-part video "Darwin's Confidence" (see what he did there?) or Dave Farina's take down of Meyer in his Discovery Institute debunks
In reply to Brian’s “many aeons of boring universe” we find the answer, as we often do, in Chesterton:
“Because children have abounding vitality, because they are in spirit fierce and free, therefore they want things repeated and unchanged. They always say, "Do it again"; and the grown-up person does it again until he is nearly dead. For grown-up people are not strong enough to exult in monotony. But perhaps God is strong enough to exult in monotony. It is possible that God says every morning, ‘Do it again’ to the sun; and every evening, ‘Do it again’ to the moon. It may not be automatic necessity that makes all daisies alike; it may be that God makes every daisy separately, but has never got tired of making them. It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.”
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
So, nothing is wasteful, and God can glory eternally in every little detail without growing tired of it or getting bored. Unending vitality, even more than little children, loves all of creation with unending joy.
...and none shall enter the Kingdom, save they have the faith of a child.
Fascinating.
and then there is the pretty obvious metafor of making different things on successive days… for god some billions of years are not, maybe, a long time at all. this isnt what i think but it should jump up to anyone thinking about the “boring” part. its a matter of perspective
“Oh , I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now.”
1:08:08 is the worst argument I’ve ever heard against a creator. What is the purpose of that galaxy and why would an intelligent mind do that? Humans do that all of the time. We create art for the sake of art even though we don’t have to do it. You could argue that this lends credibility to being made in the image of the creator in that we create superfluous things solely as a form of expression.
Fantastic discussion - agree or disagree with him, Meyer is an excellent guest who brings depth and intelligence to this perennial question.
It's a bit of a leap, from the hypothesis, "At least one God creates the universe," to "Exactly one God creates the universe."
As far as ever I've been able to tell, the minimum occasion of conscious attention is the dialog. You can call this "Proposer/Critic," or "Thesis/Antithesis," or "Perception/Error." However you do it, any solipsistic process seems mere subsistence, without critical or creative abilities.
So, yes, the Gods create the universe, in the process of creating Themselves.
Really: Has ANY deep and honest thinker ever persuaded any large group that monotheism is the reality? Judaism has El and his Holy Shekinah (Eternal Bride, Habitation); Christians have Trinity; Moslems have El and His Holy Quaran; we don't need to do more than mention the Hindu.
Two points here: 1. Shouldn't all of us be concerned about statements like "the choice is between God and science or no God and no science"? And 2. Meyer sidestepped the final question ("is Intelligent Design proof of a Judeo-Christian God?") with the light-footedness of a veteran politician.
The rambling questions are difficult to piece together.
‘The Mind’ by means of of it/through it - being the source, propagate ‘right action’ in everything. There is ‘free will’ mixed in there that determines outcomes.
I think that the energy that makes up our universe is infinitely old and just is.
I like Sabines point that from an entropy perspective the beginning of the big bang and the heat death of the universe are identical.
My pet notion is that once the universe decays to a sea of diffuse massless radiation space time breaks down and concentrates all of that energy to a point singularity and begins again.
I'm sure it's not an original notion but it's one that feels rite.
@gerardmoloney433 demonstrate that you it's your god in particular and not any other. Just because you believe that the universe needed a mind or god to create it, that doesn't mean it's you god.
That's Roger Penrose's theory not Sabine Hossenfelder's if I'm right.
@@jameslay1489There is only one God who claims to have created everything--the God of the Bible/Tanakh
@@KG-jx8zt Really? I can name other gods who created the world according to other religions. Demonstrate that your god exists.
17:23 I could not find any mention of Stephen j Gould using the phrase "historical sciences."
Great episode, thank you.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
I missed the whole podcast reading that. But it was informative. Thanks.
You guys should look at the work of Dr Michael levin biologist, on bio electricity is the main contributor to building and being the scaffolding and not DNA, thank you, love the channel.
There is a very good reason why no one can absolutely prove the existence of God.
@@l.m.892 Absolutely! In God’s great wisdom He chose to justify men by their faith.
“Without faith it is impossible to please God.” - Holy Bible
@@Shiloh3498 The only one who can absolutely prove the existence of God is God. This points to your quote. We must have faith, while God knows absolutely.
This is the contention of the atheist. They feel they should be able to know absolutely, which means they want to be like God even though they deny His existence!?
God is the standard by which all other things can be measured.
Brian, I like your work. I am glad you are.
If black holes evaporate and, as Penrose argues, on the long, long distant future only photons will exist, what information can be found in such a universe?
If only photons would exist, all would be Light, the face of God revealed,
“Our God is a consuming fire.” Be blessed on your journey.
@@johnnytass2111 The problem one faces when trying to reason with people like you is that there is no reason at all. For you things just happen willy nilly. Dedekind showed how irrational numbers emerge out of the existence of rational numbers by the power of reasoning. You would say that your Mickey Mouse god commanded "Let the irrational be" and by the grace of god the irrational came to be. Things are a bit more nuanced than your silly god clasping hands and existence happening.
@@CarlosElio82 I agree things are nuanced, indeed, far more nuanced than a bit. Are you familiar with the concept of the Nous? Is it possible that reason can be influenced and even ruled by human passions?
@@johnnytass2111 yeah that was really helpful, anything in the bible about how to get cold fusion working?
jesus healed a leper, humans cured leprosy, measles, mumps, rubella, hep, meningitis, smallpox, aids - fractures and dentistry - god is a really crap person at his job, maybe he will cure one cancer patient if they get lucky, we will cure ALL cancer. god sucks.
@@johnnytass2111 you have to talk english if you want to make a point chum.
DNA is an information code and is among numerous information systems necessary for a functioning cell. Useful information requires a designer..that designer is God.
slogans and assertions. Nothing more
People just can't accept that the universe is just matter and energy. Like it is what it is.
One does not have to be “nice” to Dr Steve. He’s been inequitably criticized while equally credentialed How cute Dr Brian.
I have come to find Intelligent Design to be the more persuasive argument.
I've been a devout atheist since age 15. I still don't believe in pregnant virgins, boats with 2 of every animal, or resurrected messiahs. I honestly feel like Intelligent Design simply has a better argument.
Darwinism has fallen short, orgin of life researchers haven't even created a cell. The more and more we learn the more life looks designed.
Perhaps the unwillingness by the other side to step up and debate people like Stephen have left them exposed to his types of rational objections. They have grown accustomed to dismissing them with a hand wave and now, imo, they are behind and have no answers for the objections they thought they could ignore.
Apropos virgin birth..
Please check out "The boy whose blood has no father" ~ New Scientist ))
By Philip Cohen
It's because Meyers has already decided his conclusion based on theistic faith. Everything he does thereafter is to fit into that predetermined religious belief. It's fundamentally not scientific.
Virgin birth exists in several species, but the result is always a clone of the mother.
The sun gives you cancer and half the population will give themselves an infection if they wipe the wrong way... There is no intelligence designing anything.
@@nitsujism A few points as a rebuttal. First, as if this exact same point can't be made about Dawkins or several other "scientists". Especially those in the Orgin of Life feild.
Second, either his points can be rebutted or they can't. It makes no difference which direction he traveled to conclude them. He has very specific, well articulated reasons that are based on rational observations, math, and psychics. To even bring his relgous beliefs into the debate is in and of itself telling. Go after the points he makes.
Third, Meyers isn't alone by a far strech. He is joined by a ever expanding list of experts in their respected field. From famed mathematicians to, cutting edge physicist neodarwinism is in decline. People rarely attack the issues with darwinism, they always attack the messengers. It's losing them the debate.
20:40 This scientific theory is famously called the, "Turtles all the way down", hypothesis.
"Modern science is based on the principle: 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest'." - Terence McKenna
"That would be an ecumenical matter" - Father Jack
.
Live long & get funding... 🖖
Fun fact the Vulcan Salute is a Jewish Symbol based on a Priestly Blessing.
@@Autobotmatt428 Thanks for that snippet - "Every day is a school day..." 😊
A quick search confirms this & says it was also a 2-handed salute, so there were probably a lot of people secretly getting there fingers into position before they did the gesture (just like some actors did on the show)
You quoting McKenna reminds me; I need to make some mushroom tea....
He was correct too.... as was Father Jack 😂
Great questions and answers
For every chance for something to occur there is an equal chance for something to not occur unless there is an intelligent author?
Maybe the purpose life is to create conditions at the end of the universe that tune the beginning of the next so life can continue and it happens over and over again. 🤯
We are our own creator.
I like this idea, it's much more comforting than chance. It could mean that after the first universe that supports life came into existence all successive universes supported life.
The purpose or meaning of life is the meaning you give it, even if that is to sit day in day out on a mountain trying not to think of anything that's your lifes meaning. It's moment to moment, working, eating, drinking a coffee playing sports etc is your meaning, from birth to death every moment in between is your meaning, there is no "meaning" of life, its the meaning we give it
The purpose of life is to prepare one’s soul for eternal union with God. Be blessed on your journey.
Atheists tie themselves in knots to avoid giving God credit for having created the heaven and the earth.
Why not just accept that he did so?
@@ryleighloughty3307 are you talking about a judeo Christian god?
You beleive in a religion that was castrating children just so children can sing longer in the choir whose beleivers are slaughtering each other in the middle east and you look down on me.
It is insane how many atheist accuse christians of being gullible by using metaphysical truths to build a cohesive argument for God's existence. Yet, they are the ones postulating their whole argument and belief on the big bang hyphothesis without any science to prove its existence or repeatability.
Or, holding out the primordial soup theory of the origins of life as fact. Science - “life spontaneity came from non-life, trust us, its a fact, or maybe it was panspermia ”
Would be great if you could bring David Z. Albert.
I'm not a mathematician or a cosmologist, and a brief scan of the comments, I don't see anything about this. What's the relevance of 6ZQTXY4?
Great interview.
59:45 -
1. Some theologians would argue that the universe was created With time, not In time. The past is only deduced from the present, which is being constantly sustained. The only reasonable answer to the question "when was the universe created?", is "now".
2. Maybe it was the will of the creator to place the human condition within the context of a surrounding abyss, An abyss of time, space and meaning. This way we humans always enjoy the privilege of plausible deniability.
Hi Dr. Keating! We'd love to have you on the show!
When do I get Stephen Meyer's answers to the "thrilling three"?!!
Dr. Keating, 👍👍 for having a very respectful and civilized discussion on a subject - intelligent design - in which you - most likely - don't believe for one second.
Thank You Dr. Stephen C. Meyer for a very interesting and pleasant discussion: 👍👍👏
Do you think Brian believes in ignorant design?
I think Brian believes in a Jewish God. Than he could believe in intelligent design. Which could or could not be ignorant design. Who of us knowing the absolute truth ? @@Kenneth-ts7bp
58:43 🙋🏽♀️ me next. Il try answer after S.M
1:07:18 why does Sean ask such questions when he hasn't explored the use of increasing 1% of his own synaptic neurones.
1:09:40 my turn? ... He didn't do it, every few centuries or so there are popular cultural movements that radically change our perspective in life. In turn those people development thier connection to the cosmos and give thier experience one word. These words over time become the file given to the next generation that will arrive to continue that work.
If there was a library of files (data) or scrolls (tones) in their future (our present). This would be like harvest time but the fruits are not what we are accustomed to finding. Apples shaped like Bananas, Oranges shaped like Passionfruit, Strawberry shaped like Pears.
Nah He is always conspiring with us. But He should NOT be doing it by His own hand. We should (have to) willingly be open to do the work, files, etc that was put there to be picked up at crucial times in our human evolution. Otherwise if He did it, we will not be a human race. Like literally, He would destroy us, even our galactic alien friends won't mess with Him.
I’m agnostic that the universe had a beginning. I do believe the Big Bang happened, the evidence is overwhelming. But the question that arises for me is, was the Big Bang the beginning of the universe or was it a phase transition from a previous universe? We don’t have an answer too that question yet. We may never know.
"Phase transition from a previous universe" is just a fancy way of saying that we ain't got a clue.
Ok, but then that supposes that the universe is eternal, while nothing we can observe is eternal. Also, how/why did that magnificent phase change happen? It was such a magnificent event because it led to the creation of galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually, life.
@@Mr.Anders0n_maybe the nature of matter is that it always breaks down to complete entropy over a set amount of time, based on the laws of physics, but the universe is eternal because there are other forces at play to restart the process? I'm just thinking. I do believe the universe is eternal and simply repeats. It's the only thing that sort of makes sense for me. Adding god into it only complicates an already complicated problem.
@@bigcauc7530 why/how does a Creator complicate things?
What about your take on the fine-tuning problem? Or the creation of life? Do you find it convincing that life came to be from only random chemical processes?
@@Mr.Anders0n_Because a creator is the most complex of all things abnd you then have to explaine where the creator comes from.
Jeeeesus, @DrBrianKeating, learn to ask succinct questions.
It is always amazing to me that the trepidation always comes down to Christ.
What?
Why can’t all scientists behave like this ? Both are a breath of fresh air
Being religious means you are less likely to worship science itself. Worshiping science itself makes true scientific inquiry less possible. Institutional science often functions like a cult.
Haha sure pal. Being religious means you worship something for which there is no evidence of. All religious people are part of cults.
No.
Lol you don't worship science cause you worship another opposing idea. Best not to worship nothing
Institutional science certainly does not function as a cult. You have no clue. Science is a cutthroat business with every scientist seeking to disprove or modify the theories of others. That is how it progresses and there is absolutely no worship. It is the complete opposite of dogmatic religion where things are set in stone, have zero evidence and have to believed nevertheless.
@@amiramazcool
25:50 "Does this mean that mind should predate the universe?" Yes! Because time is basically a pillar of the construction of the universe within the consciousness that we all share and that consciousness is not defined or limited to time but is always existent in the now or present of reality. All construction of reality spheres like this one are created very precisely by accumulations of consciousness identities from which we are focuses of attention!. Channelled communications have been explaining this since the 1970s. When Jane Roberts 'Seth's personality first explained it in his dictated books and sessions.
Does Dr. Stephen C. Meyer Have Evidence for Intelligent Design? no!
There is the question about 'THAT WHICH KNOWS, currently being called "consciousness". And the difference between THAT WHICH KNOWS, and "that which is known". And are they both different attributes of the same thing, and process. In other words, can "reality" be anything that "consciousness" can imagine?? To proceed any further down the road, be that science, religion, biology, astronomy, philosophy, psychology etc. is a waste of time until these primary questions are sorted out.
Save yourself an hour and 20 minutes. Some people just want to believe. The giveaway, of course, is that "God" is the answer to creation and not Zeus, Thanos, a council of Gods, Gary Mitchell, or a giant 3D printer.
exactly. Even if that "godidit" argument had legs, it does not proof that a particular version of god or pantheon is real.
My money's on Amon-Ra!
Save yourself 6 seconds of reading. Commenter does not comprehend the nature of the argument being made by Dr. Meyer.
You made no intellectual counter arguments. No logic, no cognitive activity nothing but dogma.
I guess we all lie to ourselves about something, but don't expect others to follow.
"What one man calls the Laws of Physics another calls God." -Nikola Tesla
Tesla a great Scientist: lousy ignorant Philosopher !
@@davidjanbaz7728 lousy scientist as well. He couldn't accept the discoveries physics was making in understanding electricity.
he was not the best philospoher but not an Idiot like you, see my comment-reminder on the subject matter; his mistake:"philosphical laws" are just a formal cause (of Universe) but the 1st cause, who created such laws is still perfect YHWH(Ex.3:14)/Ipsum esse (S.Th 1a,2,3).@@davidjanbaz7728
Laws are passed, are they not?
The problem that all hitherto arguers about existence or nonexistence of GOD totally ignore is:
DEFINITION OF WHAT THEY MEAN BY THAT WORD "GOD".
Specifically, nobody who argues about this has bothered to separate the two essentially different meanings assigned to that word:
1) the generator and sustainer of the universe
2) the one that demands subordination to own rules (either revealed ~ as in conventional religions, or discovered ~ as in science) and prayers.
Once this separation is done it becomes obvious that the former's existence is undeniable, but it doesn't imply the latter.
So the most rational conclusion that tallies 100% with observable facts is that an evil generator and sustainer GOD certainly exists, that doesn't deserve any respect, let alone subordination and prayers, but only deserves compelling to submit to our own ideals and rectify hans (her/his) errors as we instruct.
What is common to both, conventional religions and science, is that they both insist on the second aspect, irrespective of our own ideals, although science has changed the name for the source of its laws from GOD to NATURE and the method of realization of the laws from revelation to experiments and observations, but without any relevance to SATISFACTION OF THE NEEDS OF BEINGS,the single purpose all knowledge SHOULD serve.
In the final result both, conventional religions and science, justify all evil (predation, disasters, diseases, death) as immutable, inevitable and irrefutable given that must be born by all beings.
There is no choice between the frying pan and fire, between science and religions, between FATALISTICALLY SLAVISH CHAOCRACY and FATALISTICALLY SLAVISH THEOCRACY.
We must strive to discover the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth develop PLANTS on its own surface to deliver and sustain beings there, and then design and implement the means to rectify the errors in that mechanism that cause all the evil, while they are still inside the earth, so that they never reach the surface to harm any being.
In short, the ideal of search for knowledge should shift from current "PREDICTIONS that tally with results of observations and experiments" to "PREVENTION of all evil before they occur".
All major religions are non prime they inherit and import from prior religions.
The only thing that seperates the branch dividians or Mormons from major religions is popularity and time.
The idea that something can mearly exist is an assault on how we perceive things working.
Is creation necessary can we have a creator with out winding up in some recursive or circular argument, who created the creator.
A circular universe doesn't preclude a creator.
Existence is an Enigma that I don't think any one has the answer to.
True. So God is very much a possibility.
Will there be any actual science in this discussion, or just creationist psudoscience?
There is a fundamental difference between pure chance and pure chance plus natural selection. Meyer is STILL ignoring this.
Natural selection rules God out of the picture from the start. Natural selection hasn't been proven. It's simply an assumption.
agree, it is a process with a few steps, not just rolling a dice over and over
roll the dice, set aside all the fives, and roll the others again. repeat. there is a good chance that you will soon have mostly fives...
There would be numerous birth of monsters later eliminated by natural selection (NS) if it was just unguided random mutations + NS
@@bertyguilbo8536
Most species that ever existed on Earth have died out. The few surviving come from a ginormous graveyard of failed attempts.
He is not ignoring natural selection, he's written hundreds of pages on it.
I have dry skin shoukd I consult a cosmologist?
Created the universe, then made the tube we breath out of the same as the one we have to swallow chunks of solids down multiple times daily for our whole life to survive. Brilliant design.
Well, 100,000,000,000 of us have been produced following the same basic design with no recalls or improvements in 200,000 years. Pretty good record for an engineer.
@@DrBrianKeating
Noah might disagree with the whole no recalls thing. As far as improvements, humans have been fixing God's mistakes for ages.
materialism is false. You can search TH-cam for a verifiable case of remote consciousness after the heart and brain had stopped working. The patient was able to identify post-it notes left for the surgeon only after the surgery started. Search NDE cardiovascular surgeon. Dr. Rudy gives the account and a surgeon that was present that day verifies it in the comment section. PS. Dr Rudy says he believes in God based on multiple patient accounts of death and recessitation.
@@odinson6348 You might want to read what God said (of what you called God's mistakes) about what you see is going on here on this planet. Who is to blame? What is God going to be done about these problems? When will this happen? Etc.
@@danawilkes8322
Which God? Should I be reading the Quran or the Upanishads?
Wonderful discussion regardless of which side of the aisle you occupy. Thank you.
Without Scholasticism-from St. Thomas Acquinas there would have been no scientific revolution. No matter how much you want to play Jacobin science stems from Christian epistemology.
Absolutely wrong. St Thomas Aquinus is irrelevant.
Genetic fallacy 101.
I’m listening to you guys while brewing beer! I’ve met Stephen years ago at Scottsdale Bible Church and urged him to get on (then) Twitter. Great discussion gentlemen!
It's literal 2023, on a planet that's billions of years old, yet we are still having debates about an invisible space wizard who created himself and everything else out of nothing. Wtf?!
A little late but its is way over your little brain
🤣... wow
@@markcredit6086 except it's not. Science has given us everything while. "God" has gives us pain death and destruction. If god exists why doesn't he stop the killing in his name!!??
@@justinoff1Most contemporary philosophers have conceded that Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense has solved the problem of evil regarding the existence of God.
@@justinoff1 Just putting it out there that if u accept that God gave you pain, death and destruction, surely you would have to equally accept all the good things God has allegedly created.
Just a slightly annoying argument in my opinion.
wish I found your work when I was at university... I wouldve snuck into some of your classes!
He only ever taught Jesusological Christology at the College of Christological Jesusology.....he's not qualified to teach science anywhere.
the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox proves there is intelligence in the design, or that the design itself is intelligent....
Would you care to elaborate further on this thought?
Nothing any of us say about god has anything to do with god.
Why would an omnipotent being want/need money?
"What does God want with a Starship?" James Tiberius Kirk.
It's only Preachers that need "money". And why one must seperate God from religion. And look to the bible for answers even though there have been "changes" to the bible. Mostly by the Catholic church and Pope. I contend the Catholic church added the verse about "tithing 10%" of your wages to the church. Because Jesus "Never" asked for money at the end of His sermons. Jesus never gave a sermon inside a building. And had a "real" job "carpenter" to pay the bills. Being a Preacher is not supposed to be a full time job. The Catholic church also defamed Mary Magdalene calling her a prostitute. But it has been historically proven she came from a wealthy family. Her father owned a number of ships and was in the logistics business of transporting goods. She had no need to be a Prostitute. In fact, she was Jesus' wife. He met Mary working as a carpenter repairing ships for her father. What makes more sense? Jesus had a wife? Or for thousands of years Catholic Priests "Not" having a wife? What's more "abnormal"?
"Acta Pilate" the letter found and authenticated by archaeologists from Pontius Pilate to Caeser in Rome regarding this person Jesus, and the last 2 years of his life in Jerusalem which Pilate was the mayor. One of the many references of Jesus outside the bible. Whether He was the Son of God that is up to you. But he was a real person. And is "The Only" claimed "Son of God (history has many) who did not spread His message of "Love and Peace" by the Sword. Like say Mohammed. Jesus The "only" one. But Acta Pilate is worth a read and helps give an understanding of Roman times and education at the very least. The Letter by Pilate's wife to a friend regarding Jesus is not authentic.
@@johannjohann6523 - I agree with you that it is more plausible that Jesus had a wife instead of a prostitute relation with Mary Magdalene but I would not phrase it the way you have.
I would also NOT assume, infer, claim (as you have) that any humans past present or future have anything at all to do with god. Claims by humans, plausible or not, are not proofs of anything.
Thanks for your input, you make some interesting points.
I kept listening, in the hope that Meyers would finally put forward some logical arguement that we could all tussle with, but all I heard was over-toasted waffle word salad. Maybe someone with an attention span longer than mine and a love of deciphering linguistic gymnastics can find some substance in there somewhere, but it passed me by.
I guess you will have to continue the same old hackneyed misinformation that you have been given.
Philosophers always resort to word salad when they have nothing useful to say.
You didn't miss anything unless u were playing fallacy bingo. I've never heard anyone so smart say so many stupid things in such a short time. The opening clip starts with a false dichotomy based on confirmation bias and then the interview doesn't get any better from there.
The basic logical argument is that created things have creators. Evolution isn't a causal explanation theory, and plus there isn't near enough time for it to actually do anything. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that we were created by God.
@@tesseract535 Life is Not inherent in mechanistic ⚛️ atoms and lifeless molecules.
Also, secular materialistic-scientists will Not create a living organism, like a simple protoplasm, from just atoms and lifeless molecules.
@1:11:50 - The mutliverse theory *does away* with fine tuning, it has no need for it in the same way the anthropic principle does, another strike for Stephen there.
How dare you give a platform to such a biased ideologue!! We can't have people questioning the established dogma!😂
I love Stephen Meyer!
Here is one piece of information that maybe could be interesting to cosmologists.
It's about the perfect overlap between the Vedic way of calculating time and astrophysics, i.e. the cycle of the movement of our planet.
It is generally known that modern science recognizes a third axis along which the earth moves, which is called the precession of the equinoxes or Plato's year, or Great Year, and which lasts 25920 years.
When it is divided by 12, that is, the number of constellations towards which the central axis of the earth tilts, we get a period of 2160 years per constellation (time period in the zodiac sign). So, roughly, from 139 BC to 2021 AD, we were in the Age of Pisces (Christians used fish as a symbol of the new age), from 2299 BC to 138 we were in the age of Aries, from 4459 BC to 2298 BC we were in the age of the Taurus (from the end of that era is the famous sculpture of Mithra killing the bull), ... and and so on.
On the other hand, we have the existence of two formalized traditions with different interpretations of cosmic time, the followers of Asuras and the followers of Devas. That is, Two variations of Surya Siddhanta: The first Mayasura with Conjunction in Aries FEB 22. 6778 BC and second Latadeva with Conjunction in Pisces 17/18. FEB. 3101 BC.
According to the second Latadeva tradition, the Maha yuga lasts for 4.320.000 years and is divided into four periods, each twice shorter than the previous one. Satya yuga lasts 1.728.000 years, Treta Yuga lasts 1.296.000, Dvapa yuga lasts 864.000 years and Kali yuga lasts 432.000 years.
If we take any of those numbers and try to divide them by the previously mentioned length duration of the time period of one zodiac sign (2160 years) we get whole numbers, not decimal numbers as would be normal to expect. And so:
Kali yuga in 432000 years contains exactly 200 such periods of zodiac signs
Dvapa yuga in 864000 years contains exactly 400 such periods of zodiac signs
Treta Yuga in 1296000 years contains exactly 600 such periods of the zodiac signs
Satya yuga in 1728000 years contains exactly 800 periods of such zodiac signs
Maha yuga thus lasts exactly 2000 periods of the zodiac signs.
The chance that it's just a coincidence is less than 0.05 percent.
One could postulate we are part of some bigger organism, like bacteria in our own gut. It is certainly possible.
No it id not. The bacteria do useful things for us. What could we do for this bigger organism and what is the mechanism?
@@rogerphelps9939 well, to quote Carl Sagan: "we are a way for the universe to know itself" 😉
We are but Intelligent Design is not part of that.@@Nocturne83
@@rogerphelps9939 what makes you so sure? No one, and least of all materialism, can explain how consciousness arises. If you look at the cosmic web image of the visible universe, it does resemble a neuronal brain structure.
One could "postulate" that there are flying pink elephants that carry the force of gravity, and dark matter is simply the absence of those elephants... What's the logic and/or evidence behind your idea?
Thank you for the discussion! To summarize my impression the following conclusion:" The emperor's new clothes'? I just leave this here...
I am very much expecting that professor Dave will be doing an episode on Dr. Keating very soon 😂 You lost me man. Jordan Peterson, the members of the discovery institute....... who is next. I am willing to bet you continue your studied at Prager university.
"Prof" Dave is a fraud.
No PhD
No published experiments.
Just hot air.
I notice that your comment is ad hominin with no critique!
I haven’t listened yet, but does he not push back? I’m with you about this sketchy list of associations
Just finished Signature in the Cell. Those who have read this volume have 2 choices. 1. non life brought life to planet earth. 2. An intelligence brought life to earth. I am convinced that there is too much intelligence on earth to accept 1.
I spent years in college and university becoming an engineer, and I still think when I look at some things, there is no evidence of intelligent design…!!!
yes like math is dumb but i consider engineers might be the end of humankind anyway since you discharge anything that dont fit , women dont fit in mens world or like a nature the stupid ais might be the end of us sicne it were made by men in the scientific realm , we get culled since we are not suffint enough - this dont make me mens hater but , men are as unsuccient in some ways ,women in other ,god maybe also or gods or uber gods - i guess a blind cant see and we cant see god
Same, ive also worked decades as a engineer and found no sign of intelligent design in humans.
How many years? I'm curious because my son just started the engineering program at his college and it's a four year program and I asked him if they said he'd need more degrees afterwards and he didn't seem to know? I assumed they couldn't possibly teach enough in four years to be very experienced. Ty.
@@Teddythedogsocuteits not up to him its about how much money you want to pay for a certificate
Too much absolutely terrible design mistakes ti have been intelligent design.. If one of the products of said design can figure out a better way....
For most of us we watch this video and think, "Wow, this guy's blowing my mind. He's so much smarter than I am in this field. Maybe he's really on to something here." But then sit him down in a room with Roger Penrose or Sean Carroll and suddenly his theories don't seem so impressive anymore 🤔
I obviously dont have proof of this but i dont think this is a crazy thought if there is a God. He has not been crazy patient, He probably has been busy in other galaxies. Why would be the only living creatures in this vast universe?
As far as I know, Meyer's argument for Intelligent Design is based entirely on disputing evolution. Worse, he's disqualifying the entire scientific community on any field that casts doubt on the historicity of the bible, because the scientific facts are in conflict with the bible. He never gives a reasonable argument for the existence of his personal god, in my opinion.
The best he can do is give a philosophical argument that comes at best to the conclusion there might be a god. And even that is a stretch. From there he makes an unfounded leap to the Christian god. His argument for his personal god comes down to: Because the bible tells me so and there are so many Christians in the US that my religion must be the true religion. He'll probably throw in the fine tuning argument; "How is it possible that the hollow ground has the exact shape as the puddle of water in that hollow. " He'll claim that because we're taking about the laws of physics there must be a Law giver, denying that the Laws of physics are descriptive not prescriptive. We don't have a reason to think they're prescriptive. in the same vein he'll say Morality is absolute and God given. He can't accept there are perfectly good reasons for morality to develop naturally.
To be fair, I don't know how many of these arguments he uses. The arguments I've given here are some common arguments from Christian apologists.
Telling is, that in order to be working where he is working, he has to commit to the validity of the Bible. Never can any doubt be expressed, proving he is a failed scientist.
Are you saying Dr. Meyers is using the good old fashioned circular reasoning. With a dash of cherry picking. Divine fallacy as a sweetener. I could go on.
Is the only logical position that we can't know anything for sure?
As far as I know, Meyer's argument for Intelligent Design is based entirely on disputing evolution. Worse, he's disqualifying the entire scientific community on any field that casts doubt on the historicity of the bible, because the scientific facts are in conflict with the bible. He never gives a reasonable argument for the existence of his personal god, in my opinion.
You clearly have only the vaguest idea of what his arguments are, and in Darwin's Doubt he mentions neither the Bible nor Christianity. He was a Darwinist (like me and Dr Behe) until he delved deeply into the evidence. He's not making a "god of the gaps" argument at all, it's a purely scientific and mathematical argument. His argument is that Darwin's hypothesis is correct at the local level, that bird's beaks and feather have a range in which they change under environmental pressures, for example. But at the larger level, the evolution of complex organisms and the origin of species it's demonstrably incorrect, and the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. You should read his book, it's quite impressive.
I think science does change when new evidence is accepted by being test again as fact. As Brian pointed out in a 100 years science will have different understanding. Read the history of 100 years ago. And look at now some beliefs are the same. Many beliefs have been replaced by new beliefs.@@tesseract535
I am not smart enough to know the truth. I am smart enough to know when someone is promoting their religious faith. As people from the Discovery institute does. Don't believe me read their mission statement. Please show where I can find "the evidence is overwhelmingly against it ". And how the overwhelming evidence we have today is wrong concerning evolution. Show the evidence that God created everything. And if you can show God did I'm good with that. Which God would we say created us. To me this is one side of the argument from ignorance. Lawrence Krauss is on the other side of argument from ignorance. I have no need to prove what is true when it comes to why we're here. @@StereoSpace
22:00 it is well phrased question but meaningless when you deal with a particular thinker that happens to be religious and has certain bitter attitude towards the rest of us let us say. At the end of every type of reasoning and not reasoning there is always Ch/I/J God period. It is sad for me that I recognize in Mr Mayer that ugly side of religious certainty. It had been built in by religious environment. I know, I have been there.
Over the years hearing about the Verse I no longer am awestruck by the fact that in one mode of thinking there is a infinity at the point zero. The whole existence trumps the theoretical infinity and the latter no longer implicates God for me. Fifth force before our boring 3d ones for sure, God as described in a book written by a constructed ape, nah. How one can not understood beyond the verse we have and can think about particular version of a God? You can not have it both ways...
Language in Wittgenstein and Godel informed observation has its illusions, limits, and is not in direct correspondence with reality. Why code binary, dna, language needs to correspond to a God? Is a God just the product of an equation: our minds plus "language"/ information/code game = God?
1:03:54 Not only(sic!) from a Conscious(sic!) activity.
1:18:00 Are we not told, constantly about quantum computing, quantum effects, that in effect map reality simultaneously and extract one state of the real, aside from the fact that fundamentally uncalculable raw randomness is present nowhere in a "macro" world of chemistry... The whole discussion in this point is on its head. There is only one way to connect lego blocks, that fact alone does something to the randomnes that is from that point bound to produce rather characteristic structures. Atoms are not raw random mixture of every possible way of interacting, the way atoms interact give a rise to same structures. Structures x time x how many galaxies? = raw randomness?
I am only thankful that he lives in times where so much knowledge is available to other secular side as well. Imagine how this type of thinking would produce in past times a tyrany of religiously motivated cruelty. I love his erudition and passion but not one of his argument is forcing us to think about the Mind, less so of a God's mind...personal God - no. There are physical ways of moving meat through space and time. I will give you this. Outside of our verse could be set of forces that in a similar way created mind like matter does with us. But this second aleph mind is not a God... it is a product of the reality, whatever reality is.
The problem with the whole creationist / ID movement is that they always seem to be in retreat from the advances of science. As science advances, these apparent “design” features gain scientific understanding and the ID proponents retreat into more and more abstract or distant territory to defend their biases. In fact, this is why the ID movement itself exists.
One Of The Problems With Those Who Deny Creation Is That They've Convinced Themselves That Creation Doesn't Involve Science...
The apparent design features are very apparent unaffected by advances of science. The origin of information cannot be explained now any more than it could 20 years ago by so called natural processes.
It seems to me discoveries are making the obvious design of life and the universe more apparent and this is why the ID movement exists.
exactly, that´s why it´s called pseudoscience
Thank you for attending
If you look how monkeys navigate through the trees...make them as smart and conscious as we are and they are way more versatile than a human. But hey, think what makes you think YOU are there for a reasons and a sky daddy watches EVERY step you make.
Navigation is not on par with abstract conceptual thought. We can actually study the way they navigate right down to the brain processes they are employing while they do it. They don't aren't even aware that they have a brain.