Wait, what? Jean Paul Sartre changes his beliefs? Sartre died in 1980. I took philosophy in 1998 and Sartre was used as a foundation for atheism. Doing an internet search on Sartre's conversion was actually difficult to find. Pierre Victor was one who revealed Sartre's conversion. Sartre' long-term companion, Simone de Beauvoir, critisizes Sartre after his death and called him a senile turncoat. Having to do a deep search on this in 2022, 42 years after Sartre's death, is pretty indicative of the university system pushing anti-Christian religion. Thank you for revealing this.
Satan has made a huge effort to conceal this fact from us. He's the father of lies. Where you see what appears to be lies and cover ups, I assure you, Satan isnt far away. And many modern universities are a breeding ground of lies, nonsense, hedonism, and destruction. Of course they'll hate and conceal anything pointing towards Christianity. They celebrate literally any other religion... Just not Christianity... Because Satan doesn't care what lie you believe, he simply doesn't want you to know the truth.
It might be worth noting that Nietzsche said in the 1800s, when science was young, “God is dead”. I reckon it’s significant that by the 1960s with more knowledge, we’re asking, “Is God dead?”, then now 50 years forward into the 21st Century, “Is atheism dead?”.
Anthony Few, by my best memory, reported The Origin of DNA-Especially The Origination of DNA’s INFORMATION-was the BiggEST reason for thinking there was a Creator.
There’s a species of one-celled amoeba that has a genome two hundred times larger than the human genome. How do you explain this from the perspective of a creator?
@mcmanustony DNA contains information. Information is measured in bytes. A byte is a sequence of bits - 8 bits, where each bit is a binary digit (0 or 1). A DNA sequence is a sequence of bases, where each base can have one of 4 values, A T G or C. Each DNA sequence can thus be represented by two bits (00 for A, 01 for T, 10 for G, 11 for C). A byte, 8 bits, can thus hold information about 4 bases. We do not understand the language of DNA any more than I understood what assembly language was when I was 8 plugging codes into my NES game genie (a piece of hardware that injects bytes into assembly). I knew when entered a specific code I got infinite lives in Mario 3. I didn't know anything about how much assembly there was, what the game engine was, or that I was modifying a global variable for the game. I assume from your comment that an onion or something might have "more DNA" than a human. Simple code can often give rise to very complex emergent behaviors. For example, there are just a few functions and constants that give rise to all of reality. In coding, some codes are extremely efficient and some are not. You can write a text editor in assembly that fits in under 1KB. You can also write the same thing in java and bring in packages that require a gigabyte. Why aren't all forms of life information optimized or compressed? No idea, but that does not mean the information doesn't exist. Intelligent design does not mean micro evolution doesn't exist, either. Organisms have basic adaptability where stressors trigger different functions of the organism to activate. What does not exist is generative evolution.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 "Intelligent design does not mean micro evolution doesn't exist, "- what is "micro evolution"- is there a theory of "micro gravity"? Bricks can fall on your foot, sure, but planets orbiting a star- give me a break! Macro evolution has been understood for decades and has a precise, if rarely used, definition in science. I doubt you could give that definition with a gun to your head.
When I was in home room at school, a kid brought in the magazine that said, "Is God Dead?". I remember that clearly. I enjoyed this video a lot. Thanks. The heavens declare His glory.
I'm afraid he's completely misinterpreted the 'fine tuning argument'. Why? There is a virtually infinite number of planets and galaxies. Just like one of an infinite number of monkeys would produce the works of Shakespeare, similarly at least one galaxy might be expected to have the goldilocks conditions to sustain life.
@@bluegtturbo That's not what the fine tuning argument is about. It's not at the galaxy or planet level. It's at the universe level. Things like the speed of light, e=mc squared, and all the universal constants that appear in physics and cosmology. The fine tuning argument at the universe level is such that without them, life couldn't appear anywhere in the universe, let alone earth.
@@bluegtturbo What do you mean an infinite number of planets? God knows how many planets he made just like He knows how many hairs there are on your head. That's simple for the creator to know everything about what He created.
@Mike I think your question is good, but it probably needs reframed a bit because you use the word "should". Statistics don't really describe what should or ought to be. They describe what is and the probability that something would be different than it is. The idea of "should" is a philosophical, not mathematical, endeavor. A better word for your question would be "could." In that case, you can statistically evaluate the possibilities of what would/could happen if any of the universal constants changed. Inevitably, it is disastrous for the universe and life. There are people that have written volumes on this stuff. A comment here in UA-cam won't do it justice, so I'm not going to try to go in depth. Anyone interested needs to just go read up on the topic for themselves. However, to oversimplify the matter, if any of the constant forces change even slightly (e.g. gravitational force, nuclear force, electromagnetic force), you end up with it being impossible to have certain elements develop, for stars to form, for molecules to be created, etc. Without any of these basic building blocks, at best you end up with a universe in which no life is possible, but equally possible, you end up with no universe at all. So, statistically speaking, the math shows that we have to have these constants to have a universe to begin with, and even more so to have any possibility of life in the universe. And statistically speaking, you can evaluate how infinitely small the possiblity is that if everything was just a random chance that you'd ever end up with this universe in particular without intelligent design at work in it. Scientists are compelled to answer the question of the origin of various species. An alternative way of putting that question is, how did species come to be as opposed to no species at all. Similarly, scientific inquiry compels us to answer the question of how this universe came to be, even if it's the only universe that exists, as opposed to no universe at all.
@Mike It sounds like you're just not ready yet to accept where the evidence leads. I respect your right to disbelieve the conclusion, but how would you interpret the evidence? Proposing other possible universes with different laws of nature has no evidence for it and ignores the evidence we do have. Saying we can't know because there's only one universe to examine also seems like an attempt to evade the conclusion to which the evidence points. You're positing something as being more likely than fine tuning when the statistics say otherwise. What I'm saying is the evidence in general and statistics in particular don't support your ideas about "likelihood" of other possibilities versus this one that is. About your point on if there is a God, it must not care about humans, that can be checked against evidence too. It sounds like you've set up a standard by which to judge that evidence, and that you think according to your observations there must be no possible way to explain x, y, or z about the human condition because if said God thought like you, then said God would do a, b, or c, and since it hasn't acted according to your criteria, it therefore doesn't care. What if your criteria isn't right? Plenty of other people have examined the evidence for God and have come to a different conclusion (I.e., there is a God, and that God cares about you more than you could ever imagine). So that makes me wonder if you're starting with your conclusion or if you're open to where all the evidence leads. Lastly, you say that if the universe was so complex, then it seems unreasonable that it was created by something more complex (God) because then that God would've had to be created by an even more complex thing. Your logic is flawed. First, your logic could be turned around on you, so it's self defeating. If the cause was something more simple, then that simple thing would need something more simple, etc., and you get an infinite regression of simplistic causes. That just doesn't make sense. Second, everything we know in the observed universe in which we have new information and complexity (e.g., computers, cars, buildings) all comes from something more complex...the human creative process (i.e., a mind). Third, there is consensus in the scientific community that the universe had a beginning at which point time, space, matter/energy all began to exist. Before this point, there was no time, matter/energy, or space. So if a God created the universe, by definition that God existed outside of time, space, and matter/energy and therefore wasn't created because to be created means to exist inside the dimension of the time in order to have a beginning. Interestingly enough, the Judeo-Christian God fits the definition of being an uncreated immaterial spirit that claims to have made everything in the universe and existed before it was created. So, we have an instance in which at least one deity has claimed to reveal itself in a way that aligns with modern scientific inquiry about the beginning of the universe. That's worth examining, don't you think?
Irony of the 1966 Time magazine cover asking, "Is God Dead"? That same year was the Wistar Conference in Philadelphia. It came about from an argument that broke out at an MIT faculty picnic between mathematicians and biologists over the ability of random processes to produce life. The mathematicians had been looking at the DNA molecule and Crick's sequence hypothesis and posed a mathematical challenge to Darwinism.
The trumpet player reminds me of when our older friend played the violin at a free dinner for poor people, in a Church basement. The room was filled with diverse people. Any number had obvious mental impairments. Any number were hapless young people. Some were filled with tattoos and strange hairdos. Some seemed not necessarily real bright. Some were quite elderly. The room was filled with all different sorts and ages of people. They were all there for the free meal. Jim started to play "The LORD'S Supper" on his violin. Many were paying him no attention and just kept talking. After a few minutes a hush came over the whole room. The only sound was his playing. Other than his amazingly beautiful playing, you could have heard a pin drop. It was almost like everyone was holding their breath. It was like God was in that room.
Sounds.impressive, he must have been a great musician! Music moves us. It is part of the beauty of life. I do not see god in there but i appreciate the anecdote!
@Mike God created music to worship Him. When churches truly worship Him in Spirit and Truth with music they are fulfilling the very reason music created.
@@goatboy150 One random person merely asserting that Santa is real? I'd not pay them much mind, no. But it might depend somewhat on how serious I thought they were and what I knew about them otherwise. On the other hand, if it were millions or billions of people making the claim and arguing its rationality when I and others didn't see that it made any sense then I've be very curious about their claims. Such emphatic beliefs that aren't universally held highlight something strange about how people think. Quite an interesting thing to me, if not others.
from the article in Scientific Reports @ around 53:00: "In addition to the usual debris patterns typical of ancient cities destroyed by warfare and earthquakes, the excavations of the final phase of the MB II stratum revealed highly unusual materials: pottery sherds with outer surfaces melted into glass, some bubbled as if ‘boiled’; melted and ‘bubbled’ mudbrick fragments; partially-melted roofing clay (with wattle impressions); and melted building plaster. These suggest that the city’s destruction was associated with some unknown high-temperature event."
@41:57: Why is the multiverse theory of fine tuning "preposterous", while the Hebrew mythology version (you know, the one with Noah's Ark, Eve being created from a rib, forbidden fruit, etc.) reasonable?
Biblical accuracy is measurable. There are archeological findings that would attest to things written 3k years ago. The multiverse is science fiction. I could genuinely come up with a more interesting idea of the universe with a couple buddies and some psychedelics.
@@truthseeker5447 Plenty of fiction books contain real word details. I don't think you're going to find archeological evidence of forbidden fruit, talking snakes, or two of every species loaded onto an ark.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
@@truthseeker5447 OHH OOOH! Big Numbers and "math equations!!" I'm terrified of MATH EQUATIONS! Are you sitting comfortably? The probability "calculations" are due to Douglas Axe- former scientist now full time activist at a Christian fundamentalist pressure group. His Very Large Numbers are generated by starting with an existing protein and working backwards- ex post facto- calculating meaningless "probabilities" as he goes. It so far beyond stupid it strays into comedy. The same "argument" would rule out the deal of cards in front of me. The probability or this particular deal occurring is 1 in 8.0658175170094x1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...roughly. YET HERE IT IS!! The probability of A deal happening is 1. The probability of A protein forming is 1. The rebuttal of the very very tired fine tuning argument is left as an exercise for the interested reader. You're welcome.
@@user-wk2me3uc2f The belief in God through scientific approach is rather straightforward. The chance of the universe being born by coincidence is so infinitely small that the more logical answer is Intelligent Design. That's how science works or should work but atheists seem to differ.
This would be an interesting experiment: a billboard in close proximity to a state university in the Midwest with this simple message "The coming collapse of materialism"(something I honestly believe) with a link to a website. The first approach would be to discuss epistemology: how do we know what we think we know. Humans are not nearly as rational as they like to think they are because the emotional factor can really make you do stupid things like going with the crowd even though they are wrong. This is how those financial bubbles expand and crash. And this is why over 90% of first-time traders in commodities lose. If you trade commodities using fundamental analysis and take a position, it is amazing how emotionally committed you are to that position. This is always a fatal mistake. You need to be humble and realize that if you are only 55% right, but you cut your losses and hang on to your winners (a knack that comes with experience), you can do reasonably well. Even if you have a winning formula you're only 25% on the road to success. The other 75% is transforming yourself because you are emotionally wired to do exactly the wrong thing. Warren Buffett, a very experienced investor, gets excited about buying in a plummeting market! A discussion of epistemology and the weakness of human rationality would be a good entry point. Metaphorically, It would be like the heavy artillery opening up defensive holes. It would make them question their unexamined beliefs.
Eric's "apologetic of beauty" and his trumpet story reminded me of Eldridge Cleaver who laid out his early life and his commitment to Marxist dialectical materialism in his book "Soul on Ice. He subsequently wrote about his coming to faith in God in "Soul on Fire" Cleaver tells about living out in the countryside of France, a fugitive from the law.. He was holding his newborn son in his arms under a star filled sky. Experiencing the juxtaposition of those two aspects of creation, he was just overwhelmed by a powerful sense of awe. His Atheism just dissolved in that moment with a certainty that there must be a God. I wrote a haiku about this years ago: The once doubting man hugged his infant under the stars: "I wonder..."
THE EMPEROR has NOTHING, good God! Eric J. Metaxas. This interview is entertaining and revealing and brilliant. Especially revealing that atheistic scientists have not properly understood science! That is an ironic twist. Eat your heart Richard Dawkins!
What pompous, arrogant drivel. Dawkins, having written one of the most significant books in the history of the life sciences, having a glittering academic career, having devoted much of his work to science education of the public deserves a bit more respect that you, in your pitiful ignorance, can muster. He's an ATHEIST!!! That's the best you can do? Which chapter of The Selfish Gene was most significant for you? Which of his many peer reviewed research papers was your favourite? You've no idea, do you? ATHEIST! What a hopeless bigot you are. You peddling the notion of a distinguished scientist like Dawkins being "educated" by a scientifically illiterate fool like Metaxas shows simply the extent to which fundamentalist religion can rot the brain. Have you tried reading books?
@chrismurray790: "Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence." I know that the, "Intelligent Design," argument is often dismissed, but when we examine every thing humans have designed, without exception, have a purpose, a function, a well-reasoned design.....and yet the universe does not? A chair, an auto, a computer, etc.,had a designer who had a purpose for its creation. And within the design, every part has a functional purpose. We may not know the purpose of each element or part, but the designer of the invention does. For me, one position is reasonable, while the other position (atheism) isn't.
Naturalistic abiogenesis is a farce...and it's not based on what we don't know, it's based on all that we do know about organic chemistry. Eric M. mentions this at about 14:20 mark. So it's not an argument from ignorance, it's an argument from knowledge. Important point. Thank you Eric, Dr. Tour!
Tour is a malignant, lying fanatic who does not work in Origin of Life research. He has published nothing in the literature of the field. His sermons have been debunked by those who do.
@@mcmanustony How do you synthesize a phospholipid? How do you synthesize a nucleic acid? How do you synthesize a protein? These are all valid questions that relate directly to OOLR. So your ad homenim is a massive mistake. There has been zero "debunking" going on from the naturalists. Tour has pleaded with them to be debunked...and they have nothing. Instead, they admit the chemistry doesn't work.
@@sbgtrading You also don't understand the term "ad hominem". It refers to a fallacy of the from X is a bad person therefore X is wrong about Y. Creationists often use it: Darwin ate babies therefore evolution is wrong. That's not what I said about Tour. I stated- and would say to his face- that he is a malignant lying fanatic. His attacks on OoL research are a religiously motivated smear campaign. You'll note that his 700 academic publications have one thing in common: not ONE has anything to do with the origin of life. You could convincingly argue that not one has been actually read by his claque of science hating sycophants. You read any? Which was your favourite? gimme your top 5....
Romans chapter 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen. Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a lawless mind, to do those things which are not fitting; These verses prove from the scriptures everything that Eric and the others have said about the state atheists find themselves in. God seals unbelievers into a lawless mind. And until God calls someone, they cannot escape from these penalties they have brought upon themselves. As Jesus said in John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 _No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;_ and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
Atheism came to science with some politically supported atheistic researchers, notably Charles Darwin. Before that science was made by God-believing scientists who in fact created the modern science. Natural sciences started declining with Darwin and his followers. It was the monk Gregor Mendel who became the "Father of modern Genetics", not Darwin. Perhaps that's the reason why neo-Darwinists still do not really understand the limits of genetic variation. The greatest names in science were devout Christians or at least believing in God: Nicolaus Copernicus (a monk), Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein. Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington. And today's scientists - the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson ... and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian. Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God. It seems that the more uneducated a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism.
Looking around at the world today there's not the slightest evidence that atheism is anything but very much alive. We live in a society where hedonism and selfishness rule OK
In response to the conversation about the "New Atheists", reason is exactly why we know there is something beyond or outside of matter. C.S.Lewis talks about this extensively in Miracles. He wrote it in the 1940's, before we knew much of anything of the "science", and his logic is very sound.
@@jumbalayaismisspeells3363 I'm sure the one's who developed reason and logic could attest to that? I mean, does everyone reason the same? If people have have been using Lewis's logic to argue this "logic of God", then it seems pretty poor to me.
@@iloveyoursnottyattitude6137 I honestly don't know what you're talking about. People have the ability to not only think, but to reason. That cannot be an evolutionary construct. It doesn't matter that some people are ignorant. Maybe you should actually read the book, Miracles, before commenting on it. Warning: It takes a high level of thought to comprehend his exegesis.
@@jumbalayaismisspeells3363 I don't know what you mean by evolutionary construct and why are you recommending a C.S. Lewis book to me after telling you I don't find his arguments as compelling as you seem to? You're kind of funny. You know? Are you also unaware of the history of the development of logic?
Many things became obvious to me when studying physics. I noticed that we developed formulas that we relied on and there were so often constants in those formulas. So many do not know the basic definition of science. Science is the same thing as experimental research. For something to be science it must be repeatable. If it is a one time event then it is historical.
what's he done lately if he's so "amazing?" Stop any wars or tsunamis? The reason god doesn't do shit is because he's a fictional character from a fantasy book with talking trees, talking animals, zombies, 950 year old people and mythical global flooding.
@@zenon3021 When anything goes wrong in this broken world people blame God, when much of the evil in this world is man's doing. Natural evil occurs because sin entered the world as Genesis says. There is more evidence for Jesus Christ than any person who has ever lived and His claim to be God as man makes sense. God is supernatural and human laws of nature do not apply to Him. He loved us so much that He came as man, suffered and died to free us of this world's evil and prepare a perfect place for those who follow Him Sounds very credible to me, giving me hope, peace and joy. What hope does atheism give , absolutely nothing, and in addition, it makes no sense of the world and existence. Do more homework and open your mind and heart to God my friend, you will not regret it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. I wish you peace. God bless you.
@@beemer2869 here's a hint when talking to atheists: They see your "divinely-inspired" book as equal to Spiderman comics or Harry Potter. It's even worse than that, because the Spiderman comics have GOOD morals whereas the Bible has crappy ones because it was written in a backwards age. That's why the Bible supports sexism, homophobia, rape, slavery, and infanticide. You spend your whole life assuming your religion is true, just like Muslims spend their whole lives assuming they're right. Maybe YOU'RE the one who needs to "do some more research." I recommend starting @ the nonfiction section of any library in the world.
@@shellymitchell5056 RE: God of Wonders Summary: "The natural universe reveals God's power, majesty, wisdom, and creative genius. The human conscience reveals God's justice and man's need for redemption. Finally, Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God's love for us." Several problems with this summary: 1) Science studies the natural world. God, mermaids, and vampires are supernatural and chances are the supernatural does not exist. (If you find credible evidence of anything supernatural you'll be world-famous) 2) The Bible is a fantasy-fiction book with talking trees, talking animals, mythical global flooding, zombies, 950 year old people... If your religion is based on a fantasy book you're in bad shape. 3) The Bible supports sexism, homophobia, slavery, and infanticide... repeatedly... like the authors were intentional in this crap.
I couldn't watch very much of this, but here's what I got: 1. Research heuristic, because he says "(we're finding out) more and more and more" so God is the only plausible (reasonable) explanation for the universe. 2. Research randomness, because he says that randomness and if I'm interpreting him right unpredictability means God must've done it. 3. Research cell structure, because he says "Making amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) from inorganic substances and (Zeus) zapping the mixture means we need to say God got us from amino acids to cells with their cell membranes, cytoplasm, and cell organelles." 4. Research God of the Gaps. 5. God of some serious double standards: If it starts from simplicity, where's God? If it's too complex to observe and predict behavior, God made it complex. 6. The universe began 13.7 or 13.8 billion years ago, biological evolution has been occurring for millions of years since the inception of biological life, but we have only less than a century to provide enough scientific evidence for the emergence of single-celled organisms as well as their evolution into more complex life for Eric to not simply conclude that God made it all happen. Also, less than a century of scientific research is enough time to conclude that we'll NEVER figure out this emergence. 7. The author is working on converting gaps into God like alchemists were working on turning base metal into pure gold. 8. If biochemists produce a single-celled organism emerging from inorganic chemicals, will Eric call them gods? 9. God of the knobs or God of precision-tuning explains natural laws, such as those of physics, biology, chemistry, etc.
Amen❤❤❤….I am a living, breathing miracle. This was the label attached to me after the hospital told my family to put me in a hospice and instead of dying, I awoke the next morning. My EF had doubled overnight to a life sustaining 10%.
Metaxas amazes me with his inability to get to a simple point without eight minutes of run on blabbity. Metaxas is a lightweight sensationalist. I've never heard him get to a valid point with any sense of cogency.
@@sheilasmith7779 How? Instead of making ad hominem attacks why don't you try to see what they mean. Without that you couldn't possibly know why I'm right. And with two advanced degrees in this stuff plus 3 published books in philosophical theology, I can assure you that my attention span and attention to detail are fine - lol!
@James-ll3jb I don't give a fight if you have 20 advanced degrees, it is you that made a claim Metaxas fails to make a "simple point." Provide the evidence from this podcast in support of your claim. You list lots of labels, your labels for E.M. but zero evidence. With so many degrees, surely you learned at a university that a claim is not evidence.
@James-ll3jb My statement about your attention span is a supposition based on what you stated: You provided not one example in support of your allegation against Metaxas. So what could I reasonably conclude? You did not listen closely? You did not listen to the entire podcast? Your attention wandered easily? Your bias leans atheist? I guessed, short attention span, while there could be another reason for your unsupported accusation.
Thank You Eric, you are an American Treasure. Please keep writing ... your work is helping many people. We can't know what we don't know ... you are helping us to know.
Anthony Flew considered that Atheism was invalid. Flew knew Atheism better than most. I recommend Dr Robert Yarbrough's lectures on Adolf Schlatter available from Covenant Seminary resources. Yarbrough among others have said that a Christian revival is not possible till the Church reads Schlatter's works. I highly recommend these lectures.
Flew only came around to something like deism at the end of his life when he was not only dying but literally suffering so badly from aphasia that it is questionable that he had any substantial role in the writing of the last book he was credited as a co-author of.
@@stevegeorge6880 Aphasia means the inability or lessened ability to verbally speak. Why would that interfere with his inability to write? Beyond that, what is your proof of this aphasia you refer to? These videos show Flew verbally expressing his thoughts on creation: ua-cam.com/video/MbKsIAib5YM/v-deo.html://ua-cam.com/video/VHUtMEru4pQ/v-deo.html
Metaxas I know and Flew I know but who are Yarbrough and Schlatter? Never heard of them. And what do they have to do with the topic of this video? I seriously question your assertion re revival. There are a great many Christians who would do better to read the Holy Bible which is greatly neglected today.
@@ClassicJukeboxBand So what's your excuse? Where is your evidence that this radically engineered universe and conscious life within is a blind, purposeless accident. Lying about the Christians isn't a justification. Ignorant atheist dope.
Atheism is dead as a credible theory, just like the evolution theory is dead as a credible theory. The latter is still taught in schools because evolutionists have too much to lose if they admit teaching a false theory. Just think of it: 160 years of a theory believed to be based on science but being just a house of cards 😮
@@user-wk2me3uc2f Not believing in something that does exist isn't exactly a sign of good mental health either. Atheism is a religion which needs an iron-hard faith to miracles that work against the laws of nature.
@@DrgnSlyr Can you show some clearly true premises, some logical deduction from "information", which you've not defined, to god? "Mind vs Brain" is a fragment of a sentence, not an argument for anything.
@@mcmanustony Information is anything which can be known (whether it's known to every person or not). Data if you will. Brain is not mind. Brain is a collection of cells performing a task. Mind is thoughts, dreams, emotions, etc. Information and mind are inseparable and immaterial. Information is irrelevant without mind. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that immaterial things can exist in the universe. Does this 'prove' God? No! But it pushes open the door if one is willing to honestly follow ALL of the evidence.
@@vuho2075 You missed the point That point being, IF thee is no God, then all this (the universe) just happened by random chance, and there is no meaning to it all. So the question remains, What did he do to put him in prison?
@@stevenwiederholt7000 Being a mob moss is against society's rules. When you don't obey society's rules, society sends people with guns and uniforms to put you in ugly buildings where you can't bother society anymore.
The universe would be a mathematical impossibility with billions and billions of codirectional happenstances. One must be fool to believe such could happen. Also the theory of random DNA mutations creating new body plans is nonsense to anyone who has studied the DNA-structure. There are billions of possible wrong choices against one correct choice. A random choice would have to succeed within only 3-15 times trial/error to create the correct nucleotides before the relevant DNA section gets irrefutably destroyed. So there is no infinite time and no unlimited choices to randomly find correct solutions for evolution to succeed. Only uneducated fools can believe in evolution theory.
Another excellent book is, "God's Undertaker: Has science buried God?" by Dr John Lennox (Cambridge mathematician). Paperback - March 20, 2009. I will have to get this one too by Eric. In 1952, Miller got only two of the simplest amino acids mixed in with a whole lot of tar. He then had to draw off those aa before they get destroyed in the continuous cycle of that closed loop simulation apparatus. And furthermore, those amino acids were 50% chiral (one-half were left-handed and the other one-half right handed) but life has ONLY left-handed amino acids. My comment is made after listening to the first 15 minutes of this presentation. Maybe the chirality problem is dealt with later in the video (or somewhere in the book). It does not matter how much time is available, it is IMPOSSIBLE to go from non-life to living cells.
I'm not a scientist but I've read a little bit. It is well established that only Left handed amino acids can produce correct proteins needed for a living cell.
" Miller got only two of the simplest amino acids mixed in with a whole lot of tar."- You are wrong. He identified FIVE amino acids. Another FIFTEEN were subsequently identified. Don't let the facts slow down your hatred of science.
@@mcmanustony Nope, only two of the simplest amino acids (at 50% chirality), and a whole lot of tar. Plus, he had to draw them out since continued circulation will destroy even those two.
To get a better philosophical understanding of materialism and naturalism versus theism read John C Lennox's work and also he has a grear youtube interview on DW with Jordan Peterson.
Eric, please study Eric Dubai’s theories on flat earth, there are 260 verses in the Bible supporting the flat earth and none supporting the heliocentric model. David Weiss is also very convincing.
@Learn with Jared and Maria I obviously can’t provide you on this platform, send me your email. Are you disputing the 260 or the fact that the Bible provides proof of a flat and static earth?
@@freek45044my previous comment got deleted. Either by Eric or by YT. One of them will probably delete this one too. Either way, check out The Flat Earth Files podcast.
☆ "Perception is Reality". ☆ "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" ☆ Relationship with Jesus = marriage of Life.
☆ Perception is subjective. Reality is that which can be demonstrated as being real. ☆ Faith is the excuse people give as the reason for believing something is true when there is no incontrovertible evidence that proves what they believe to be true. ☆ Anyone who exists has a "marriage" with life... No gods required, including the dead prophet, "Jesus."
It is sad to think so many people rely on James tour because he lies about or doesn't know about much of the modern research on early chemical evolution.
Seriously: what do you say to those, that when faced with this argument, answer that they think extraterrestrial advanced life is the source of the design, when they otherwise agree with you? My answer is " who created them?", but they persist.
Some people are so invested in the lie that they refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. Boil it down... they don't want to give up their sin.
@@stevegeorge6880 the idea of an omniscient and eternal creator is really only obscure to us because we are created. Its like asking an ant to write a thesis on molecular engineering when they don't even comprehend language, but likely more extreme than that even. Short answer, none of us know anything and neither do you.
@@stevegeorge6880 Actually, it’s perfectly rational. If the evidence shows that the universe was created, then by necessity it must have been created by something outside itself - and therefore also outside its rules. Within this universe, things are created. Outside it, no one knows. The rules are entirely different. So suggesting an uncreated God is not special pleading, it’s simply recognition that the rule of having been created only applies within the universe we know.
Meh. Atheism "dies" when any theistic beliefs are borne out to be true. Argue apologetics all you want, but you're just making an echo chamber. Meanwhile, no gods demonstrated to exist.
Genesis tells what science is trying to discover. Accordingly, the deeper science advances the more it discovers, and the more it discovers the more it proves of Genesis. Genesis tells the work of God, not just the work of a vague Intelligent Designer. The Intelligent Designer indeed has name - Jesus Christ. He is not a religion, he is the very Truth incarnated.
Of course! There'll always be atheists, but with the discoveries made in modern science they can't refer to science to support their faith anymore. After years of observing the battle between the evolution theory and the intelligent design, I have become to the conclusion that we see a battle between atheism and science. These Dawkins' words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” So Dawkins inadvertently admits that atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Instead, atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from science. Here we can see the atheistic world view, not a scientific approach. Atheism is a religion, no more no less en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion No scientific evidence, direct on indirect, can affect it. Bible also confirms that. Even those who saw Jesus Christ and all His deeds did not all believe in Him. And this will be the case to the very end of mankind. In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand".
@@jounisuninen Of course! There'll always be atheists, but with the discoveries made in modern science they can't refer to science to support their faith anymore. After years of observing the battle between the evolution theory and the intelligent design, I have become to the conclusion that we see a battle between atheism and science. These Dawkins' words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” So Dawkins inadvertently admits that atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Instead, atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from science. Here we can see the atheistic world view, not a scientific approach. Atheism is a religion, no more no less en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion No scientific evidence, direct on indirect, can affect it. Bible also confirms that. Even those who saw Jesus Christ and all His deeds did not all believe in Him. And this will be the case to the very end of mankind.
In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand".
I hate when people say atheist hate God how can you hate something you don't believe itI hate when people say atheist hate God how can you hate something you don't believe it
@@jerrygibbons7746 Really? No characters you thought were not-so-nice? Are there any fictional characters that you've loved or connected with? A character you sympathize or have sympathized with?
Atheist here, lots of assertions but nothing concrete... help me out here and bring something other than "i like what i believe and its crazy to believe anything other than what i believe"... very disapointed
If you want to believe, you will find all the evidence you need to do so and the same is true for disbelief. Debating the existence of God is a mute point most of the time because people don't want to change their mind anyway. Why don't you want to believe?
@@FutureNihilist if it is true i WOULD like to believe. The problem is i have no reason to believe it is true.. i look at these videos hoping to discover something i have missed, something that could convince me. A reason to believe. Do you believe? And what convinced you?
@@myssadonno2759 You would like to believe in something only IF it is proven True? If something is True it doesn't require belief, even animals "believe" in the material world. Part of what separates man from animal is the degree to which we can think abstractly and so it is reasonable to presume that a God may not give us direct proof. I hold an ancient worldview, one in which meaning is at the center, not the material world. I do not dismiss the material world mind you, I believe it to be God's creation and so I respect it's laws but if you remove the notion of a creator, the material world is nothing more than a prison devoid of purpose that we arrived at by chance. Maybe I am weak minded in that I refuse to live in a constant existential crisis but this is the mind I have and it isn't that far off from most people's mind in my experience. To have faith in a divine creator is to believe that I and all other persons have purpose beyond that which we assign to ourselves, that we have value beyond what other men give to us. I adhere to the theology of the Orthodox Christian Church because I find it to be the most open to mysticism and I consider myself a Christian mystic, someone who seeks God through prayer rather than legalistic rationality. I do not know if the path I follow is the only path to knowing God but I do know that it is a well worn and proven path. Imaginative does not always mean the same thing as imaginary.
@@constanceheuring6872 thanks! Whatched his entire series though and not only does start of every video with "i'm a chritian and love christ more than anything, i love him so much" but also he seems to play the "we dont know anything yet, therefor god" card a lot... but i do appreciate you replying and trying to help me find what i am searching!
Yes the scientist will say" Yes, we don't know yet". Nothing in religion even comes close to explaining the big Bang or creation of life on Earth. The Christian Bible says their God said let it be and it was created. Really does that explain to you the infinity of the Universe?
A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands; How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he. I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green stuff woven. Or I guess it is the handkerchief of the Lord, A scented gift and remembrancer designedly dropt, Bearing the owner’s name someway in the corners, that we may see and remark, and say Whose?
Walker: "Have they proved, by the way, that nothing exists beyond matter?" Of course they have. Just as monotheists have proved, by the way, the undeniable, irrefutable, incontrovertible existence of a Creator. Then the other hypocrite starts talking about the "irony and so many layers of crazy" related to science. I love it when God killed all of Humanity except for Noah & his family. Then Noah made a big boat for all the animals on Earth. That was cool. Was it the act of a Vengeful and Wrathful Deity? No, God's heart was broken. What else could God do? God had no choice. Those wicked humans had merely been exerting their Free Will as endowed by their Creator. So God wiped out Humankind out of loving mercy.... Came here to hear a serious philosophical discussion about the demise of atheism but instead it's just two lightweights regurgitating the same old, lame & unconvincing Anthropic Principle, Intelligent Design and Creationism. Clearly aimed at believers seeking confirmation bias. If a Creator exists, it bears no resemblance to the Mythological Beings created by the human imagination. p.s. this guy also claims in his book that because of Christianity we got the Renaissance & the Scientific Revolution. LMFAO. That's like saying because of Covid we got the Vaccine! Because of Ted Bundy, we got VICAP. lol.
"Then Noah made a big boat for all the animals on Earth." No, not for all the animals on Earth. If you read Bible you notice, that only the stem species ("Kind") of each land animal breathing through nostrils were taken. We can derive "Kind" meaning animal Genus or Family in the taxonomic classification. Modern organisms have descended from the stem species presenting different taxonomic genera and family. There is no fossil evidence for anything else. There is no trace leading back to Darwin's imaginary "Universal Common Ancestor". Darwin's "tree of life" has always been upside down, since millions of species have gone extinct and no species have ever descended from preceding species with different body plan. Contrary to Darwin's theory, we now have less species than there was in the beginning of life and after the Noah's Flood.
They were sinners just like us. Luke 13: Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them-do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
? He has just put together an anthology of what the sciences are saying. Nasa, for example says the same thing about the many things you have to have to have life on another planet.
Yes, he said he wrote this for the Christian. It’s a pity because the topic was for the unbeliever. But then, book sales and speaking engagements come from the church.
It’s interesting that these infamous atheists aren’t dedicating their lives, finances and careers disproving Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, Leprechauns, or the tooth fairy. 🤔
Is atheism dead? What a ridiculous notion. Regardless of the author's claim of a magic man in the sky there are many who reject such a notion. I am one of those people. Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural being. We get along in life just fine. We are contributing to our communities and the world. We have brains and we use them to think critically as we move thru life. There is no need to believe in a god.
Atheism is a religion, no more no less en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion No scientific evidence, direct on indirect, can affect it. Bible also confirms that. In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand".
Atheism will never die. In fact, statistics show atheism is on the rise. There have always been nonbelievers and there will always be those who don't believe in a god, and as people become more enlightened and science continues in closing the gaps as it has been, the number of atheists will only increase. And while it's possible that there might be a "creator" in the deist sense, there is no incontrovertible evidence that proves the 'God' of the bible is that creator.
@@bible1st The end of what? Life? The Earth? The cosmos? And if there will be an end, what makes you think humans will still be around billions of years from now to witness any revelation or an end? What stuff do you think will be revealed? Proof of a god? If that is possible then the opposite is also possible and whereas modern science has slowly been filling in the mystery gaps that have always been at the root of religion, it appears the latter is most likely rather than the former.
@@Aurealeus Because it hasn't. Scientist still have no idea what is actually going on, pertaining to life itself and the universe. They have not disproved a 2000 year old collection of books that make astonishing claims about both. Basically the more we know, the more we realize that we know nothing.
Eric its simple....Scientists do not know how life on earth started.......and neither do you. Its called intellectual honesty something you guys appear not to be.
Actually Eric, there is evidence that the earth is an oval disk shape, and not a globe. Not that majority belief proves anything, but the globe earth shape is a more recent belief. Most, like Eric, have not examined the "flat-earthers " evidence....or their arguments. In the scheme of things however, the shape of the earth is not of significant importance. The existence of God, or not, does matter.
@James-ll3jb You are the poster child of the impulsive emotional responder. In debates or discussions, attack the argument with YOUR evidence, not childish mudslinging.
@James-ll3jb Yeah, well they locked up Galleleo for being criminal with his science claims. Oops, they discovered he was right. There was no debate. You made a claim about Eric M. I asked you to support with evidence. You didn't because you couldn't. BTW: MISSTATING others is known as lying. And no one should have a conversation with a liar. 👋
@@lewissociety you don't have to like it. But these tired old tropes are not for the atheist. You're preaching to the converted, to calm their doubt about a god who hasn't made himself known (something he's done many time in the bible), and you know it.
@@lewissociety saying that something is very improbable and must therefore be the result of magic isn't logical. And when your version of the fine-tuning argument rests upon Cosmic constants that do not appear to be malleable at all, the odds aren't even that high.
@@joeschmoe4205 It really depends on whether you use reason and the evidence as the basis for your own views. Perhaps the following videos will be helpful- The Fine-Tuning of the Universe ua-cam.com/video/EE76nwimuT0/v-deo.html The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 1: Scientific ua-cam.com/video/6CulBuMCLg0/v-deo.html The Ontological Argument ua-cam.com/video/xBmAKCvWl74/v-deo.html Leibniz’ Contingency Argument ua-cam.com/video/FPCzEP0oD7I/v-deo.html The Moral Argument ua-cam.com/video/OxiAikEk2vU/v-deo.html God and Mathematics ua-cam.com/video/QJBOiZXkKu8/v-deo.html Maxwell’s Angel: God and the Physics of Design in Life's Molecular Machines ua-cam.com/video/muj1FDctzd4/v-deo.html
@@lewissociety thanks for the wealth of information. But I am extremely familiar with each argument. God and not god are of equal explanatory power in these cases. I'm back to my original point that god should reveal himself. And god would know how to do this in such a way as to be convincing. My assertion is that some people accept faith as compatable justification for their worldview. And other people (like me) are not willing to rely on faith. Only god revealing himself resolves this fundamental conflict.
Atheism is not an anwer at all, because; what is atheism? The answer is given in the word, someone says: A-Theism = NO-God-belief. - I am thinking of a number, but the number is not 986357, what number am I thinking of? My name is not Snrrp, what is my name? I don't live in Gudvangen, where do I live? None of these questions can be answered with even microscopic probable certainty. Nor, what is atheism. Only well-defined pairs of 2 opposites can be answered with, NOT; like this: I am not she = I am he, not night=day etc. The answer to whether one believes in or the outlook on life one has can, because the word ´belief´ is fluid, and the term God is only implied as something elevated over us, cannot therefore be answered with: I do not believe in God, I am an Atheist. The question must be clarified like this: I didn't ask what you don't believe, I asked what your outlook on life IS, what IS being an atheist? Someone will then try to rewrite NOT with other words: Rejection of, refutation of, etc... It doesn't help much. What IS atheism? The question has a NOT-free answer(I am a non´3+7=9´-believer exactly only because I know am a ´3+7=10´-believer). I want an answer from an atheist about what atheism IS. Not what they do not believe, are not convinced of, what they reject, what they dismiss etc. Yes, atheism is defined as what they do not believe, are not convinced of, what they reject, what they dismiss etc. I am not satisfied with that definition; I not their not´s, so 2 not´s cancel, and we are back to what is left: What is left of the atheist when all the NOTs have done their job? Science? I also believe in science, but I am not an atheist. No-one of them comes forth with an answer, only: "We don't believe in God", they shout a bit louder, as if that helps. Describe what you don't believe in? I ask then. And the atheist cannot answer, and even tells me to ask those who believe in God about it! So the atheist depends on what the believers say to have the slightest idea of what they don't believe in! But the believers cannot define or describe God, noone can. And round and round it goes, . . so I will give my answer: When one does not want to look up to something higher and more powerful than oneself, then it is only oneself and that which is lower than oneself that can be seen. When you think yourself are at the mountaintop, all further movement will lead downward. If you have no higher idea about life and existence, the road only goes downhill for you. And downhill in this context means destruction, breakdown, dissolution, disaster, desperation, aimless flight downwards and downwards to death and unconsciousness. And in time it will spread to everything, both personal, cultural, scientific, artistic, moral - EVERYTHING That is WHAT Atheism is. Don't go that way! If, on the other hand, one has something higher which is not just a word or an abstract, theoretical and very vaguely defined concept, but a supreme concrete example - God's Son Christ Jesus - which we can visualize through concrete sources, then we always have something to reach for and we are securely anchored in the highest.
@@therick363 Why the "adult conversation" remark? I have no other than adult conversation ever, so I disliked that remark greatly! I have heard all the atheists not, reject, refute etc. I know what they say. And now I also know that them themselves don´t know what atheism IS.
@@toreoft I think some words of yours got mixed up, the “I have no other than adult conversation ever”?? So I don’t want atheism IS?? Why don’t you enlighten me what atheism IS….
Scientist do not know yet how life emerged, thatswhy god. This argument is so stupid and so old, I almost feel embarrassed watching somebody else say that….
Oh we are way beyond that. If there was a “Big Bang”, who created the radiation and matter into the “egg”, and then who or what caused it to explode? And why is our tiny spot in our galaxy, in space among billions of other galaxies etc, the only planet with intelligent life?
The question for these debates - How life began or how life “evolves” is “Exactly how?” Another thought is that “Millions of years ago” is a hypnotic phrase meant to stupify the listener. It means “don’t think”, “don’t ask” and especially don’t ask “exactly how”
" Another thought is that “Millions of years ago” is a hypnotic phrase meant to stupify the listener. "- speak for yourself. To me it means "millions of years ago". Do you know how books work?
Their is no angels or demons. Their is only angelic scientists and demonic artists intelligently designed to defeat devious that organized crime.(TT)
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 Explain, please, in what way do you think that fossils show that Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Ratio are a product of evolution. I've not heard this said before.
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 Explain, please, in what way do you think that fossils show that Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Ratio are a product of evolution. I've not heard this said before.
Is there any doubt about God ?! The originator of the universe !!! Origination is the simplest key to dispel doubt. How can one begin to think about the idea of no God when every existence is impoverished to his being.
Doubt is more important than faith, for doubt leads to inquiry and inquiry is what leads to truth, not faith. This is the main reason religion encourages faith and discourages doubt, because they don't want their adherents and congregations to know the truth.
@@Aurealeus Doubt is more important than faith, for doubt leads to inquiry and inquiry is what leads to truth, not faith. That's why I started to doubt evolution and found out it is pure fiction. The main reason why evolutionary religion encourages faith in evolution and discourages doubt is that evolutionists don't want their adherents and congregations understand that they've been cheated for over 160 years.
@@jounisuninen How Original! Sure, you can cherry-pick my words and twist them to say whatever you like, similarly as you do when cherry-picking your scripture. The difference between our comments is, one is fiction while the other is not. Guess which is which. Evolutionary science is based upon facts and evidence, whereas faith is not! Evolutionary science has no dogma and holds no beliefs and is ever changing as new information about the natural world is discovered, whereas faith does not. Additionally, evolutionary biology is a crucial basic science for medicine. That is why it is taught in most all medical schools throughout the world. In addition to looking at established evolutionary methods and topics, such as population genetics and pathogen evolution, evolutionary biology demonstrates how natural selection leaves bodies vulnerable to disease. The same can't be said for faith. Faith is self-deception and people have been deluding themselves for thousands of years. It is pretending to know what you don't know and is just simply assuming things without reason and defending them against all reason. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something is true when they don't have evidence, even if 'everyone' believes it.
With a television you don't have to be supernatural. God prefer that because it's more social but we have to use it correctly. Right now we have anarchy blindness. Despite the anarchy blindness I figured it out. That proves we can be God like. Only a person getting crucified would suspect something greater. They crucified me with exact same disease that in pink Floyd the wall. Victor said it's all good. It should be possible to make everything all good.=-O
Although not intentional Eric misquotes James Tour who has said repeatedly (on video) that we may very well explain how life originated but that at present “we’re not even close”. The illustration of the target getting farther away is apt. At present each new discovery adds a new layer of complexity with no ‘biological theory of everything’ in sight. Best guess is a form of fine tuning that “makes life inevitable” which is part of a belief system, not science.
James Tour presents the most irrefutable arguments against both the random progrssion espoused by atheistic evolution and the notion that time is the "hero of the plot" in explaining away (discouraging inquiry on) the impossibility of random complex design. In fact, in the organic chemical process Tour outlined, more than a few days ... let's say 6, would have been destructive to the complex process of constructing even the cell wall, especially without intentional stabilization of the incredible number of chemical interactions involved in original... creation.
@traegreenlee-dg4st I have respect for the argument; the clear implications of the more relevant facts that no honest (credible) organic chemist would fundamentally deny. Arguments of authority among flawed and biased individuals has a limited shelf life. Anyone desiring to convince me needs to make a better argument vs. appealing to their superior position as the deciding factor. I'm not interested in being anyone's slave.
As Eric said, the name atheist isn’t dead, nor is the mind set, it just has no evidence to back up the position. It is therefore a faith position as the atheist would call “religion”. You believe in something that is completely absent of ay facts, proof or examples.
@@kellyclemensen3730 Atheism is not defined by what an atheist “believes”. It is NOT a belief system no matter how many times you say it is. It is just a rejection of a claim that has ZERO supporting evidence. You’re an atheist too when it comes to the thousands of other gods. I just go one god further and don’t believe your god exists either. It’s that simple.
You are correct, atheism isn’t dead, but science has made it look so foolish, you have to have some mental health issues, or a low IQ to embrace it anymore.
There's nothing in a strict materialist worldview that disallows personal statements of value and meaning. For that matter, if we're talking about objective meaning, you still don't get that with a deity.
On the contrary, we would suggest that naturalism/materialism/atheism cannot withstand rational challenges-it is incoherent and self-refuting. Here is just a sampling: Articles: "The Argument from Reason," by Victor Reppert www.lewissociety.org/reason/ "Darwin, Mind and Meaning," by Alvin Plantinga www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/plantinga/dennett.html "Naturalism Defeated," by Alvin Plantinga www.scribd.com/document/143800935/Naturalism-Defeated-Alvin-Plantinga "Naturalism and Libertarian Agency," by Stewart Goetz www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1756 "Economic Science and the Poverty of Naturalism: C. S. Lewis’s ‘Argument from Reason’, by David J. Theroux www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2278 "Naturalism and Moral Realism," by Michael Rea appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/rea-michael-22naturalism-and-moral-realism22.pdf "Theism, Atheism, and Rationality," by Alvin Plantinga tinyurl.com/29ftpbw4 Books: "Naturalism," by Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliferro (Eerdmans) amzn.to/3H9et5b "Naturalism: A Critical Analysis," edited by William Lane Crain and J.P. Moreland (Routledge) amzn.to/3t5HU30 "Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism," by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford U. Press) amzn.to/3t6vtEt "Warrant and Proper Function," by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford U. Press) amzn.to/35oG84Q "Warranted Christian Belief," by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford U. Press) amzn.to/3LVo9Eg "C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason," by Victor Reppert (IVP Academic) amzn.to/3t0Wxoj
@@lewissociety the god argument is just a magic box Beyond which you simply derp out and don't ask any actual questions. It's also simply lovely how you don't try to formulate any argument of your own but instead just provide a laundry list.
@@lewissociety there's no objective meaning with theism. Instead, you get about 5 different levels of subjectivity from deity to allegedly inspired texts to transcription error riddled copies of those allegedly inspired texts to translations of those copies to interpretation of those translations of those copies. At no point does a supposedly objective meaning come into it.
Yes. In fact being a fascist Christianity is so hot and fashionable right now. Look how people just give them money. I'm taking about tens of Mullins just to condemn atheists.
Wait, what? Jean Paul Sartre changes his beliefs? Sartre died in 1980. I took philosophy in 1998 and Sartre was used as a foundation for atheism.
Doing an internet search on Sartre's conversion was actually difficult to find.
Pierre Victor was one who revealed Sartre's conversion.
Sartre' long-term companion, Simone de Beauvoir, critisizes Sartre after his death and called him a senile turncoat.
Having to do a deep search on this in 2022, 42 years after Sartre's death, is pretty indicative of the university system pushing anti-Christian religion.
Thank you for revealing this.
Satan has made a huge effort to conceal this fact from us. He's the father of lies. Where you see what appears to be lies and cover ups, I assure you, Satan isnt far away. And many modern universities are a breeding ground of lies, nonsense, hedonism, and destruction. Of course they'll hate and conceal anything pointing towards Christianity. They celebrate literally any other religion... Just not Christianity... Because Satan doesn't care what lie you believe, he simply doesn't want you to know the truth.
It might be worth noting that Nietzsche said in the 1800s, when science was young, “God is dead”. I reckon it’s significant that by the 1960s with more knowledge, we’re asking, “Is God dead?”, then now 50 years forward into the 21st Century, “Is atheism dead?”.
Science only seems to uncover more mysteries. It never gets simpler, only more complex.
The majority of the world’s scientists are atheists.
Religion is in steep decline in most western countries
Keep whistling
It sounds like you don't understand what he meant.
@@vladtheemailer3223… sounds like you don’t know what the comment meant.
@@johnalbert5786 you don't understand either. It appears.
Anthony Few, by my best memory, reported The Origin of DNA-Especially The Origination of DNA’s INFORMATION-was the BiggEST reason for thinking there was a Creator.
*Flew.
What is this information measured in? What are the units? Does an onion have more than a human?
There’s a species of one-celled amoeba that has a genome two hundred times larger than the human genome. How do you explain this from the perspective of a creator?
@mcmanustony DNA contains information. Information is measured in bytes. A byte is a sequence of bits - 8 bits, where each bit is a binary digit (0 or 1). A DNA sequence is a sequence of bases, where each base can have one of 4 values, A T G or C. Each DNA sequence can thus be represented by two bits (00 for A, 01 for T, 10 for G, 11 for C). A byte, 8 bits, can thus hold information about 4 bases.
We do not understand the language of DNA any more than I understood what assembly language was when I was 8 plugging codes into my NES game genie (a piece of hardware that injects bytes into assembly). I knew when entered a specific code I got infinite lives in Mario 3. I didn't know anything about how much assembly there was, what the game engine was, or that I was modifying a global variable for the game.
I assume from your comment that an onion or something might have "more DNA" than a human. Simple code can often give rise to very complex emergent behaviors. For example, there are just a few functions and constants that give rise to all of reality. In coding, some codes are extremely efficient and some are not. You can write a text editor in assembly that fits in under 1KB. You can also write the same thing in java and bring in packages that require a gigabyte. Why aren't all forms of life information optimized or compressed? No idea, but that does not mean the information doesn't exist.
Intelligent design does not mean micro evolution doesn't exist, either. Organisms have basic adaptability where stressors trigger different functions of the organism to activate. What does not exist is generative evolution.
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 Does an onion have more information than a human?
@@misterkittyandfriends1441 "Intelligent design does not mean micro evolution doesn't exist, "- what is "micro evolution"- is there a theory of "micro gravity"? Bricks can fall on your foot, sure, but planets orbiting a star- give me a break!
Macro evolution has been understood for decades and has a precise, if rarely used, definition in science. I doubt you could give that definition with a gun to your head.
When I was in home room at school, a kid brought in the magazine that said, "Is God Dead?". I remember that clearly. I enjoyed this video a lot. Thanks. The heavens declare His glory.
I'm afraid he's completely misinterpreted the 'fine tuning argument'.
Why?
There is a virtually infinite number of planets and galaxies.
Just like one of an infinite number of monkeys would produce the works of Shakespeare, similarly at least one galaxy might be expected to have the goldilocks conditions to sustain life.
@@bluegtturbo That's not what the fine tuning argument is about. It's not at the galaxy or planet level. It's at the universe level. Things like the speed of light, e=mc squared, and all the universal constants that appear in physics and cosmology. The fine tuning argument at the universe level is such that without them, life couldn't appear anywhere in the universe, let alone earth.
@@bluegtturbo What do you mean an infinite number of planets? God knows how many planets he made just like He knows how many hairs there are on your head. That's simple for the creator to know everything about what He created.
@Mike I think your question is good, but it probably needs reframed a bit because you use the word "should". Statistics don't really describe what should or ought to be. They describe what is and the probability that something would be different than it is. The idea of "should" is a philosophical, not mathematical, endeavor. A better word for your question would be "could." In that case, you can statistically evaluate the possibilities of what would/could happen if any of the universal constants changed. Inevitably, it is disastrous for the universe and life.
There are people that have written volumes on this stuff. A comment here in UA-cam won't do it justice, so I'm not going to try to go in depth. Anyone interested needs to just go read up on the topic for themselves.
However, to oversimplify the matter, if any of the constant forces change even slightly (e.g. gravitational force, nuclear force, electromagnetic force), you end up with it being impossible to have certain elements develop, for stars to form, for molecules to be created, etc. Without any of these basic building blocks, at best you end up with a universe in which no life is possible, but equally possible, you end up with no universe at all.
So, statistically speaking, the math shows that we have to have these constants to have a universe to begin with, and even more so to have any possibility of life in the universe. And statistically speaking, you can evaluate how infinitely small the possiblity is that if everything was just a random chance that you'd ever end up with this universe in particular without intelligent design at work in it.
Scientists are compelled to answer the question of the origin of various species. An alternative way of putting that question is, how did species come to be as opposed to no species at all. Similarly, scientific inquiry compels us to answer the question of how this universe came to be, even if it's the only universe that exists, as opposed to no universe at all.
@Mike
It sounds like you're just not ready yet to accept where the evidence leads. I respect your right to disbelieve the conclusion, but how would you interpret the evidence? Proposing other possible universes with different laws of nature has no evidence for it and ignores the evidence we do have. Saying we can't know because there's only one universe to examine also seems like an attempt to evade the conclusion to which the evidence points. You're positing something as being more likely than fine tuning when the statistics say otherwise. What I'm saying is the evidence in general and statistics in particular don't support your ideas about "likelihood" of other possibilities versus this one that is.
About your point on if there is a God, it must not care about humans, that can be checked against evidence too. It sounds like you've set up a standard by which to judge that evidence, and that you think according to your observations there must be no possible way to explain x, y, or z about the human condition because if said God thought like you, then said God would do a, b, or c, and since it hasn't acted according to your criteria, it therefore doesn't care. What if your criteria isn't right? Plenty of other people have examined the evidence for God and have come to a different conclusion (I.e., there is a God, and that God cares about you more than you could ever imagine). So that makes me wonder if you're starting with your conclusion or if you're open to where all the evidence leads.
Lastly, you say that if the universe was so complex, then it seems unreasonable that it was created by something more complex (God) because then that God would've had to be created by an even more complex thing. Your logic is flawed. First, your logic could be turned around on you, so it's self defeating. If the cause was something more simple, then that simple thing would need something more simple, etc., and you get an infinite regression of simplistic causes. That just doesn't make sense. Second, everything we know in the observed universe in which we have new information and complexity (e.g., computers, cars, buildings) all comes from something more complex...the human creative process (i.e., a mind). Third, there is consensus in the scientific community that the universe had a beginning at which point time, space, matter/energy all began to exist. Before this point, there was no time, matter/energy, or space. So if a God created the universe, by definition that God existed outside of time, space, and matter/energy and therefore wasn't created because to be created means to exist inside the dimension of the time in order to have a beginning. Interestingly enough, the Judeo-Christian God fits the definition of being an uncreated immaterial spirit that claims to have made everything in the universe and existed before it was created. So, we have an instance in which at least one deity has claimed to reveal itself in a way that aligns with modern scientific inquiry about the beginning of the universe. That's worth examining, don't you think?
Irony of the 1966 Time magazine cover asking, "Is God Dead"? That same year was the Wistar Conference in Philadelphia. It came about from an argument that broke out at an MIT faculty picnic between mathematicians and biologists over the ability of random processes to produce life. The mathematicians had been looking at the DNA molecule and Crick's sequence hypothesis and posed a mathematical challenge to Darwinism.
The trumpet player reminds me of when our older friend played the violin at a free dinner for poor people, in a Church basement.
The room was filled with diverse people. Any number had obvious mental impairments. Any number were hapless young people. Some were filled with tattoos and strange hairdos. Some seemed not necessarily real bright. Some were quite elderly. The room was filled with all different sorts and ages of people. They were all there for the free meal.
Jim started to play "The LORD'S Supper" on his violin. Many were paying him no attention and just kept talking.
After a few minutes a hush came over the whole room. The only sound was his playing. Other than his amazingly beautiful playing, you could have heard a pin drop. It was almost like everyone was holding their breath. It was like God was in that room.
Sounds.impressive, he must have been a great musician! Music moves us. It is part of the beauty of life. I do not see god in there but i appreciate the anecdote!
@Mike i agree, its all part of the indoctination sceme
Praise the lord
Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything - Plato.
@Mike God created music to worship Him. When churches truly worship Him in Spirit and Truth with music they are fulfilling the very reason music created.
Love exists beyond matter..
SOUL as Source Of Unconditional Love 💓
So does hate.... What's your point
"They zapped it and it proved somehow something" ... good thing he was such an attentive and curious student!
Would you pay attention to someone telling you Santa is real?
@@goatboy150 One random person merely asserting that Santa is real? I'd not pay them much mind, no. But it might depend somewhat on how serious I thought they were and what I knew about them otherwise.
On the other hand, if it were millions or billions of people making the claim and arguing its rationality when I and others didn't see that it made any sense then I've be very curious about their claims. Such emphatic beliefs that aren't universally held highlight something strange about how people think. Quite an interesting thing to me, if not others.
from the article in Scientific Reports @ around 53:00: "In addition to the usual debris patterns typical of ancient cities destroyed by warfare and earthquakes, the excavations of the final phase of the MB II stratum revealed highly unusual materials: pottery sherds with outer surfaces melted into glass, some bubbled as if ‘boiled’; melted and ‘bubbled’ mudbrick fragments; partially-melted roofing clay (with wattle impressions); and melted building plaster. These suggest that the city’s destruction was associated with some unknown high-temperature event."
@41:57: Why is the multiverse theory of fine tuning "preposterous", while the Hebrew mythology version (you know, the one with Noah's Ark, Eve being created from a rib, forbidden fruit, etc.) reasonable?
Biblical accuracy is measurable. There are archeological findings that would attest to things written 3k years ago. The multiverse is science fiction. I could genuinely come up with a more interesting idea of the universe with a couple buddies and some psychedelics.
@@truthseeker5447 Plenty of fiction books contain real word details. I don't think you're going to find archeological evidence of forbidden fruit, talking snakes, or two of every species loaded onto an ark.
@@truthseeker5447 There are archaeological findings that render the bible fiction.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Seriously? This drivel?? Again???
@@mcmanustony nice retort. I like how you disproved the math equations and provided an answer to how human consciousness exists.
@@truthseeker5447 OHH OOOH! Big Numbers and "math equations!!" I'm terrified of MATH EQUATIONS!
Are you sitting comfortably?
The probability "calculations" are due to Douglas Axe- former scientist now full time activist at a Christian fundamentalist pressure group. His Very Large Numbers are generated by starting with an existing protein and working backwards- ex post facto- calculating meaningless "probabilities" as he goes. It so far beyond stupid it strays into comedy.
The same "argument" would rule out the deal of cards in front of me. The probability or this particular deal occurring is 1 in 8.0658175170094x1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000...roughly.
YET HERE IT IS!! The probability of A deal happening is 1. The probability of A protein forming is 1.
The rebuttal of the very very tired fine tuning argument is left as an exercise for the interested reader.
You're welcome.
@@truthseeker5447 You've gone a bit quiet. Are we done?
@@user-wk2me3uc2f The belief in God through scientific approach is rather straightforward. The chance of the universe being born by coincidence is so infinitely small that the more logical answer is Intelligent Design. That's how science works or should work but atheists seem to differ.
This would be an interesting experiment: a billboard in close proximity to a state university in the Midwest with this simple message "The coming collapse of materialism"(something I honestly believe) with a link to a website.
The first approach would be to discuss epistemology: how do we know what we think we know. Humans are not nearly as rational as they like to think they are because the emotional factor can really make you do stupid things like going with the crowd even though they are wrong. This is how those financial bubbles expand and crash.
And this is why over 90% of first-time traders in commodities lose. If you trade commodities using fundamental analysis and take a position, it is amazing how emotionally committed you are to that position. This is always a fatal mistake.
You need to be humble and realize that if you are only 55% right, but you cut your losses and hang on to your winners (a knack that comes with experience), you can do reasonably well. Even if you have a winning formula you're only 25% on the road to success. The other 75% is transforming yourself because you are emotionally wired to do exactly the wrong thing.
Warren Buffett, a very experienced investor, gets excited about buying in a plummeting market!
A discussion of epistemology and the weakness of human rationality would be a good entry point. Metaphorically, It would be like the heavy artillery opening up defensive holes. It would make them question their unexamined beliefs.
Eric's "apologetic of beauty" and his trumpet story reminded me of Eldridge Cleaver who laid out his early life and his commitment to Marxist dialectical materialism in his book "Soul on Ice. He subsequently wrote about his coming to faith in God in "Soul on Fire"
Cleaver tells about living out in the countryside of France, a fugitive from the law.. He was holding his newborn son in his arms under a star filled sky. Experiencing the juxtaposition of those two aspects of creation, he was just overwhelmed by a powerful sense of awe. His Atheism just dissolved in that moment with a certainty that there must be a God.
I wrote a haiku about this years ago:
The once doubting man
hugged his infant under
the stars: "I wonder..."
Holy crap. So if I get some Goosebumps I need to accept Jesus. Sorry no
THE EMPEROR has NOTHING, good God! Eric J. Metaxas. This interview is entertaining and revealing and brilliant. Especially revealing that atheistic scientists have not properly understood science! That is an ironic twist. Eat your heart Richard Dawkins!
What pompous, arrogant drivel. Dawkins, having written one of the most significant books in the history of the life sciences, having a glittering academic career, having devoted much of his work to science education of the public deserves a bit more respect that you, in your pitiful ignorance, can muster. He's an ATHEIST!!! That's the best you can do? Which chapter of The Selfish Gene was most significant for you? Which of his many peer reviewed research papers was your favourite? You've no idea, do you? ATHEIST! What a hopeless bigot you are.
You peddling the notion of a distinguished scientist like Dawkins being "educated" by a scientifically illiterate fool like Metaxas shows simply the extent to which fundamentalist religion can rot the brain.
Have you tried reading books?
I’m 20 minutes in and I’ve only heard an argument from complexity and god of the gaps. What is the evidence?
So as Stephen Meyer says "What is the best conclusion from multiple competing hypothesis?"
@chrismurray790: "Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence."
I know that the, "Intelligent Design," argument is often dismissed, but when we examine every thing humans have designed, without exception, have a purpose, a function, a well-reasoned design.....and yet the universe does not?
A chair, an auto, a computer, etc.,had a designer who had a purpose for its creation. And within the design, every part has a functional purpose. We may not know the purpose of each element or part, but the designer of the invention does.
For me, one position is reasonable, while the other position (atheism) isn't.
Naturalistic abiogenesis is a farce...and it's not based on what we don't know, it's based on all that we do know about organic chemistry. Eric M. mentions this at about 14:20 mark. So it's not an argument from ignorance, it's an argument from knowledge. Important point. Thank you Eric, Dr. Tour!
Tour is a malignant, lying fanatic who does not work in Origin of Life research. He has published nothing in the literature of the field. His sermons have been debunked by those who do.
@@mcmanustony How do you synthesize a phospholipid? How do you synthesize a nucleic acid? How do you synthesize a protein? These are all valid questions that relate directly to OOLR. So your ad homenim is a massive mistake. There has been zero "debunking" going on from the naturalists. Tour has pleaded with them to be debunked...and they have nothing. Instead, they admit the chemistry doesn't work.
@@sbgtrading Can you name a few origin of life researchers whose work you've read?
@@sbgtrading You also don't understand the term "ad hominem". It refers to a fallacy of the from X is a bad person therefore X is wrong about Y. Creationists often use it: Darwin ate babies therefore evolution is wrong.
That's not what I said about Tour. I stated- and would say to his face- that he is a malignant lying fanatic. His attacks on OoL research are a religiously motivated smear campaign. You'll note that his 700 academic publications have one thing in common: not ONE has anything to do with the origin of life. You could convincingly argue that not one has been actually read by his claque of science hating sycophants. You read any? Which was your favourite? gimme your top 5....
@@sbgtrading "Instead, they admit the chemistry doesn't work."- they did what now? Who admitted what, where?
Romans chapter 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.
Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a lawless mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
These verses prove from the scriptures everything that Eric and the others have said about the state atheists find themselves in. God seals unbelievers into a lawless mind. And until God calls someone, they cannot escape from these penalties they have brought upon themselves.
As Jesus said in John 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 _No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;_ and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
Atheism came to science with some politically supported atheistic researchers, notably Charles Darwin. Before that science was made by God-believing scientists who in fact created the modern science. Natural sciences started declining with Darwin and his followers. It was the monk Gregor Mendel who became the "Father of modern Genetics", not Darwin. Perhaps that's the reason why neo-Darwinists still do not really understand the limits of genetic variation.
The greatest names in science were devout Christians or at least believing in God: Nicolaus Copernicus (a monk), Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, Michael Faraday, Joseph Priestley, James Clerk Maxwell, Charles Darwin, Gregor Mendel (the founder of genetics and abbot of a monastery), Lord Kelvin and Albert Einstein.
Plus, many of the pioneers of quantum physics: Werner Heisenberg, Max Plank, Erwin Schrödinger, James Jeans, Louis de Broglie, Wolfgang Pauli and Arthur Eddington.
And today's scientists - the astrophysicist Paul Davies, Simon Conway Morris (Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge), Alasdair Coles (Professor of Neuro-immunology at Cambridge), John Polkinghorne (who was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge), Russell Stannard, Freeman Dyson ... and Francis Collins, who led the team of 2,400 international scientists on the Human Genome Project and was an atheist until the age of 27, when he became a Christian.
Over 60% of all Nobel Laureates in Science believe in God. It seems that the more uneducated a person is, the more he is inclined towards atheism.
Looking around at the world today there's not the slightest evidence that atheism is anything but very much alive.
We live in a society where hedonism and selfishness rule OK
In response to the conversation about the "New Atheists", reason is exactly why we know there is something beyond or outside of matter. C.S.Lewis talks about this extensively in Miracles. He wrote it in the 1940's, before we knew much of anything of the "science", and his logic is very sound.
Or reason is why some honestly don't know and probably enough cause to doubt?
@@iloveyoursnottyattitude6137 Your ability to reason is outside of matter. Lewis' book goes into great detail of the logic of God.
@@jumbalayaismisspeells3363 I'm sure the one's who developed reason and logic could attest to that? I mean, does everyone reason the same? If people have have been using Lewis's logic to argue this "logic of God", then it seems pretty poor to me.
@@iloveyoursnottyattitude6137 I honestly don't know what you're talking about. People have the ability to not only think, but to reason. That cannot be an evolutionary construct. It doesn't matter that some people are ignorant.
Maybe you should actually read the book, Miracles, before commenting on it. Warning: It takes a high level of thought to comprehend his exegesis.
@@jumbalayaismisspeells3363 I don't know what you mean by evolutionary construct and why are you recommending a C.S. Lewis book to me after telling you I don't find his arguments as compelling as you seem to? You're kind of funny. You know? Are you also unaware of the history of the development of logic?
Many things became obvious to me when studying physics. I noticed that we developed formulas that we relied on and there were so often constants in those formulas. So many do not know the basic definition of science. Science is the same thing as experimental research. For something to be science it must be repeatable. If it is a one time event then it is historical.
Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation and is used to prove or disprove a hypothesis.
@pixelfan2261 what do you do with narratives and things beyond our ability to comprehend? Not everything can be put into data.
I bought the book, and subscribed to this channel, thanks!
wonderful to listen to. Please let me know when the film will be out. Our God is amazing beyond words Thank you.
what's he done lately if he's so "amazing?" Stop any wars or tsunamis?
The reason god doesn't do shit is because he's a fictional character from a fantasy book with talking trees, talking animals, zombies, 950 year old people and mythical global flooding.
@@zenon3021 When anything goes wrong in this broken world people blame God, when much of the evil in this world is man's doing.
Natural evil occurs because sin entered the world as Genesis says.
There is more evidence for Jesus Christ than any person who has ever lived and His claim to be God as man makes sense. God is supernatural and human laws of nature do not apply to Him.
He loved us so much that He came as man, suffered and died to free us of this world's evil and prepare a perfect place for those who follow Him
Sounds very credible to me, giving me hope, peace and joy.
What hope does atheism give , absolutely nothing, and in addition, it makes no sense of the world and existence.
Do more homework and open your mind and heart to God my friend, you will not regret it. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I wish you peace. God bless you.
@@beemer2869 here's a hint when talking to atheists: They see your "divinely-inspired" book as equal to Spiderman comics or Harry Potter. It's even worse than that, because the Spiderman comics have GOOD morals whereas the Bible has crappy ones because it was written in a backwards age. That's why the Bible supports sexism, homophobia, rape, slavery, and infanticide.
You spend your whole life assuming your religion is true, just like Muslims spend their whole lives assuming they're right. Maybe YOU'RE the one who needs to "do some more research." I recommend starting @ the nonfiction section of any library in the world.
Check out the film "God of Wonders"
@@shellymitchell5056 RE: God of Wonders Summary: "The natural universe reveals God's power, majesty, wisdom, and creative genius. The human conscience reveals God's justice and man's need for redemption. Finally, Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God's love for us."
Several problems with this summary:
1) Science studies the natural world. God, mermaids, and vampires are supernatural and chances are the supernatural does not exist. (If you find credible evidence of anything supernatural you'll be world-famous)
2) The Bible is a fantasy-fiction book with talking trees, talking animals, mythical global flooding, zombies, 950 year old people... If your religion is based on a fantasy book you're in bad shape.
3) The Bible supports sexism, homophobia, slavery, and infanticide... repeatedly... like the authors were intentional in this crap.
I couldn't watch very much of this, but here's what I got:
1. Research heuristic, because he says "(we're finding out) more and more and more" so God is the only plausible (reasonable) explanation for the universe.
2. Research randomness, because he says that randomness and if I'm interpreting him right unpredictability means God must've done it.
3. Research cell structure, because he says "Making amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) from inorganic substances and (Zeus) zapping the mixture means we need to say God got us from amino acids to cells with their cell membranes, cytoplasm, and cell organelles."
4. Research God of the Gaps.
5. God of some serious double standards: If it starts from simplicity, where's God? If it's too complex to observe and predict behavior, God made it complex.
6. The universe began 13.7 or 13.8 billion years ago, biological evolution has been occurring for millions of years since the inception of biological life, but we have only less than a century to provide enough scientific evidence for the emergence of single-celled organisms as well as their evolution into more complex life for Eric to not simply conclude that God made it all happen. Also, less than a century of scientific research is enough time to conclude that we'll NEVER figure out this emergence.
7. The author is working on converting gaps into God like alchemists were working on turning base metal into pure gold.
8. If biochemists produce a single-celled organism emerging from inorganic chemicals, will Eric call them gods?
9. God of the knobs or God of precision-tuning explains natural laws, such as those of physics, biology, chemistry, etc.
What video were you listening to?
Thank you Eric, I read your book “Miracles”. It was wonderful.
Amen❤❤❤….I am a living, breathing miracle. This was the label attached to me after the hospital told my family to put me in a hospice and instead of dying, I awoke the next morning. My EF had doubled overnight to a life sustaining 10%.
Metaxas amazes me with his inability to get to a simple point without eight minutes of run on blabbity.
Metaxas is a lightweight sensationalist. I've never heard him get to a valid point with any sense of cogency.
The classic apologist playbook
That tells me, James, that you have a short attention span, or that details do not matter to you.
@@sheilasmith7779 How? Instead of making ad hominem attacks why don't you try to see what they mean. Without that you couldn't possibly know why I'm right.
And with two advanced degrees in this stuff plus 3 published books in philosophical theology,
I can assure you that my attention span and attention to detail are fine - lol!
@James-ll3jb I don't give a fight if you have 20 advanced degrees, it is you that made a claim Metaxas fails to make a "simple point." Provide the evidence from this podcast in support of your claim.
You list lots of labels, your labels for E.M. but zero evidence.
With so many degrees, surely you learned at a university that a claim is not evidence.
@James-ll3jb My statement about your attention span is a supposition based on what you stated: You provided not one example in support of your allegation against Metaxas.
So what could I reasonably conclude?
You did not listen closely?
You did not listen to the entire podcast?
Your attention wandered easily?
Your bias leans atheist?
I guessed, short attention span, while there could be another reason for your unsupported accusation.
Thank You Eric, you are an American Treasure. Please keep writing ... your work is helping many people. We can't know what we don't know ... you are helping us to know.
Anthony Flew considered that Atheism was invalid. Flew knew Atheism better than most. I recommend Dr Robert Yarbrough's lectures on Adolf Schlatter available from Covenant Seminary resources. Yarbrough among others have said that a Christian revival is not possible till the Church reads Schlatter's works. I highly recommend these lectures.
Flew only came around to something like deism at the end of his life when he was not only dying but literally suffering so badly from aphasia that it is questionable that he had any substantial role in the writing of the last book he was credited as a co-author of.
@@stevegeorge6880 Aphasia means the inability or lessened ability to verbally speak. Why would that interfere with his inability to write? Beyond that, what is your proof of this aphasia you refer to? These videos show Flew verbally expressing his thoughts on creation:
ua-cam.com/video/MbKsIAib5YM/v-deo.html://ua-cam.com/video/VHUtMEru4pQ/v-deo.html
Metaxas I know and Flew I know but who are Yarbrough and Schlatter? Never heard of them. And what do they have to do with the topic of this video? I seriously question your assertion re revival. There are a great many Christians who would do better to read the Holy Bible which is greatly neglected today.
"... acts of Sovereign grace..." were what finally broke me.
Great interview, Eric is a blessing and source of inspiration
GREAT. VIDEO. Lots of good information.
51:00 “Paul is a nano scientist.”
He looks full size to me!
I came here from the James Tour interview too 🤣
Muh' Taxes? Okay, I had to, lol. Pretty good conversation though.
Ah the Glory of God!!!
...all Glitz and Glitter!
Is Atheism dead? As long as I'm alive, it won't be...
You must be dumb as a rock or uninformed. Shouldn't flaunt your stupidity and obstinance.
@@JimCastleberry Christian moron alert...
@@ClassicJukeboxBand So what's your excuse? Where is your evidence that this radically engineered universe and conscious life within is a blind, purposeless accident.
Lying about the Christians isn't a justification. Ignorant atheist dope.
Atheism is dead as a credible theory, just like the evolution theory is dead as a credible theory. The latter is still taught in schools because evolutionists have too much to lose if they admit teaching a false theory. Just think of it: 160 years of a theory believed to be based on science but being just a house of cards 😮
@@jounisuninen You are not a critical thinker.
The atheist said to God - “I can make life without you” and he leant over to pick up dirt.
God said “ uh uh, you get your own dirt!”
😂😂😂 Good one
If you don't mind, I'll repeat this. It's great fun!
John Lenox quote?
@@Keepitoriginalministry I don’t think so, can’t remember .
@@user-wk2me3uc2f Not believing in something that does exist isn't exactly a sign of good mental health either. Atheism is a religion which needs an iron-hard faith to miracles that work against the laws of nature.
About time for this honest conversation. Thanks Eric
How’s it honest? Atheism isn’t dead.
@@therick363 No, but the atheists are spiritually dead.
@@jounisuninen how so?
Define spiritual
Information is another strong argument for Gods existence. Mind vs Brain is another argument.
no it isn't.
@@mcmanustony Perhaps you would like elaborate?
@@DrgnSlyr Can you show some clearly true premises, some logical deduction from "information", which you've not defined, to god?
"Mind vs Brain" is a fragment of a sentence, not an argument for anything.
@@mcmanustony Information is anything which can be known (whether it's known to every person or not). Data if you will. Brain is not mind. Brain is a collection of cells performing a task. Mind is thoughts, dreams, emotions, etc. Information and mind are inseparable and immaterial. Information is irrelevant without mind. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that immaterial things can exist in the universe. Does this 'prove' God? No! But it pushes open the door if one is willing to honestly follow ALL of the evidence.
@@DrgnSlyr Can you give an example of a "mind" not tethered to a brain? Otherwise this is vacuous......
There never was one to die!
What a nutty man. Never heard of him before but it seems he's making money from his books.
31:34 A question I often ask is "If there is no God, and all this happened just by random chance, Why did John Gotti die in Federal Prison?"
It's called Throat Cancer.
@@vuho2075
You missed the point That point being, IF thee is no God, then all this (the universe) just happened by random chance, and there is no meaning to it all. So the question remains, What did he do to put him in prison?
@@stevenwiederholt7000 Being a mob moss is against society's rules. When you don't obey society's rules, society sends people with guns and uniforms to put you in ugly buildings where you can't bother society anymore.
Five murders, tax evasion, bribery, obstruction of justice
The universe would be a mathematical impossibility with billions and billions of codirectional happenstances. One must be fool to believe such could happen. Also the theory of random DNA mutations creating new body plans is nonsense to anyone who has studied the DNA-structure. There are billions of possible wrong choices against one correct choice. A random choice would have to succeed within only 3-15 times trial/error to create the correct nucleotides before the relevant DNA section gets irrefutably destroyed.
So there is no infinite time and no unlimited choices to randomly find correct solutions for evolution to succeed. Only uneducated fools can believe in evolution theory.
Great guest, what a live wire. Great questions, great show. Thanks so much! Glad to find you.
36:34 as I’ve been saying for a few years now we live in a simulacrum.
Another excellent book is, "God's Undertaker: Has science buried God?" by Dr John Lennox (Cambridge mathematician). Paperback - March 20, 2009. I will have to get this one too by Eric.
In 1952, Miller got only two of the simplest amino acids mixed in with a whole lot of tar. He then had to draw off those aa before they get destroyed in the continuous cycle of that closed loop simulation apparatus. And furthermore, those amino acids were 50% chiral (one-half were left-handed and the other one-half right handed) but life has ONLY left-handed amino acids. My comment is made after listening to the first 15 minutes of this presentation. Maybe the chirality problem is dealt with later in the video (or somewhere in the book). It does not matter how much time is available, it is IMPOSSIBLE to go from non-life to living cells.
IMPOSSIBLE in all caps? You sound very certain. Care to give your proof?
I'm not a scientist but I've read a little bit. It is well established that only Left handed amino acids can produce correct proteins needed for a living cell.
" Miller got only two of the simplest amino acids mixed in with a whole lot of tar."- You are wrong. He identified FIVE amino acids. Another FIFTEEN were subsequently identified.
Don't let the facts slow down your hatred of science.
@@mcmanustony Nope, only two of the simplest amino acids (at 50% chirality), and a whole lot of tar. Plus, he had to draw them out since continued circulation will destroy even those two.
@@ArroEL922 You're wrong.
He must be very rich and happy, you know, writing lots of best-selling books.
Which reminds me of something said.
(Luke 6:24)
You sound envious. Maybe check what Scripture has to say about envy.
@@goatboy150
I have read the Qur'an.
I don't recall any advice about envy.
To get a better philosophical understanding of materialism and naturalism versus theism read John C Lennox's work and also he has a grear youtube interview on DW with Jordan Peterson.
Eric, please study Eric Dubai’s theories on flat earth, there are 260 verses in the Bible supporting the flat earth and none supporting the heliocentric model. David Weiss is also very convincing.
Lmao please provide those 260 verses because that is completely false I have studied the Bible many times.
@Learn with Jared and Maria I obviously can’t provide you on this platform, send me your email. Are you disputing the 260 or the fact that the Bible provides proof of a flat and static earth?
@@freek45044my previous comment got deleted. Either by Eric or by YT. One of them will probably delete this one too. Either way, check out The Flat Earth Files podcast.
This should be interesting.
☆ "Perception is Reality".
☆ "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
☆ Relationship with Jesus = marriage of Life.
☆ Perception is subjective. Reality is that which can be demonstrated as being real.
☆ Faith is the excuse people give as the reason for believing something is true when there is no incontrovertible evidence that proves what they believe to be true.
☆ Anyone who exists has a "marriage" with life... No gods required, including the dead prophet, "Jesus."
It is sad to think so many people rely on James tour because he lies about or doesn't know about much of the modern research on early chemical evolution.
I got my degree at Rice University. I can only think they are cringing.
@@wooddoc5956 He is an utter disgrace to his profession. Lying sneering fanatic
Seriously: what do you say to those, that when faced with this argument, answer that they think extraterrestrial advanced life is the source of the design, when they otherwise agree with you? My answer is " who created them?", but they persist.
Some people are so invested in the lie that they refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary. Boil it down... they don't want to give up their sin.
@@allysondoerfler2435 Anything but God, is the answer I keep getting. It's pathological.
Who or what created god? It is special pleading to claim that God could not have been created.
@@stevegeorge6880 the idea of an omniscient and eternal creator is really only obscure to us because we are created. Its like asking an ant to write a thesis on molecular engineering when they don't even comprehend language, but likely more extreme than that even. Short answer, none of us know anything and neither do you.
@@stevegeorge6880 Actually, it’s perfectly rational. If the evidence shows that the universe was created, then by necessity it must have been created by something outside itself - and therefore also outside its rules. Within this universe, things are created. Outside it, no one knows. The rules are entirely different. So suggesting an uncreated God is not special pleading, it’s simply recognition that the rule of having been created only applies within the universe we know.
Meh. Atheism "dies" when any theistic beliefs are borne out to be true. Argue apologetics all you want, but you're just making an echo chamber. Meanwhile, no gods demonstrated to exist.
Genesis tells what science is trying to discover. Accordingly, the deeper science advances the more it discovers, and the more it discovers the more it proves of Genesis. Genesis tells the work of God, not just the work of a vague Intelligent Designer. The Intelligent Designer indeed has name - Jesus Christ. He is not a religion, he is the very Truth incarnated.
I love these reprobates of atheism. Great job my yoke fellows for His story. No one will be remembered but the members of His story.
Atheism is not dead, it is in fact, doing quite well.
Of course! There'll always be atheists, but with the discoveries made in modern science they can't refer to science to support their faith anymore.
After years of observing the battle between the evolution theory and the intelligent design, I have become to the conclusion that we see a battle between atheism and science. These Dawkins' words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” So Dawkins inadvertently admits that atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Instead, atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from science. Here we can see the atheistic world view, not a scientific approach.
Atheism is a religion, no more no less en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion No scientific evidence, direct on indirect, can affect it. Bible also confirms that. Even those who saw Jesus Christ and all His deeds did not all believe in Him. And this will be the case to the very end of mankind.
In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand".
@@jounisuninen Of course! There'll always be atheists,
but with the discoveries made in modern science they can't refer to science to support their faith anymore.
After years of observing the battle between the evolution theory and the intelligent design, I have become to the conclusion that we see a battle between atheism and science.
These Dawkins' words are revealing: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” So Dawkins inadvertently admits that atheism per se has nothing to do with intellect or science. Instead, atheists are just happy if they feel like getting some support from science. Here we can see the atheistic world view, not a scientific approach.
Atheism is a religion, no more no less en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion No scientific evidence, direct on indirect, can affect it. Bible also confirms that. Even those who saw Jesus Christ and all His deeds did not all believe in Him. And this will be the case to the very end of mankind.
In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand".
I hate when people say atheist hate God how can you hate something you don't believe itI hate when people say atheist hate God how can you hate something you don't believe it
Are there any fictional characters you know of that you might not like or hate?
No there isn'tNo there isn't
@@jerrygibbons7746 Really? No characters you thought were not-so-nice? Are there any fictional characters that you've loved or connected with? A character you sympathize or have sympathized with?
Yes I often wonder why atheists devote a large amount of focus on the morality or lack of morality on the god they say doesn’t exist.
@Mike Why not? Anyone who indulges in enough fiction would usually find some character they don't like or even hate. Or maybe you love even the enemy?
Atheist here, lots of assertions but nothing concrete... help me out here and bring something other than "i like what i believe and its crazy to believe anything other than what i believe"... very disapointed
If you want to believe, you will find all the evidence you need to do so and the same is true for disbelief. Debating the existence of God is a mute point most of the time because people don't want to change their mind anyway. Why don't you want to believe?
@@FutureNihilist if it is true i WOULD like to believe. The problem is i have no reason to believe it is true.. i look at these videos hoping to discover something i have missed, something that could convince me. A reason to believe.
Do you believe? And what convinced you?
Maybe watch Dr. James Tour on UA-cam. He's a renowned chemist and speaks of the origin of life issues.
@@myssadonno2759 You would like to believe in something only IF it is proven True? If something is True it doesn't require belief, even animals "believe" in the material world. Part of what separates man from animal is the degree to which we can think abstractly and so it is reasonable to presume that a God may not give us direct proof. I hold an ancient worldview, one in which meaning is at the center, not the material world.
I do not dismiss the material world mind you, I believe it to be God's creation and so I respect it's laws but if you remove the notion of a creator, the material world is nothing more than a prison devoid of purpose that we arrived at by chance. Maybe I am weak minded in that I refuse to live in a constant existential crisis but this is the mind I have and it isn't that far off from most people's mind in my experience.
To have faith in a divine creator is to believe that I and all other persons have purpose beyond that which we assign to ourselves, that we have value beyond what other men give to us. I adhere to the theology of the Orthodox Christian Church because I find it to be the most open to mysticism and I consider myself a Christian mystic, someone who seeks God through prayer rather than legalistic rationality. I do not know if the path I follow is the only path to knowing God but I do know that it is a well worn and proven path. Imaginative does not always mean the same thing as imaginary.
@@constanceheuring6872 thanks! Whatched his entire series though and not only does start of every video with "i'm a chritian and love christ more than anything, i love him so much" but also he seems to play the "we dont know anything yet, therefor god" card a lot... but i do appreciate you replying and trying to help me find what i am searching!
Yes the scientist will say" Yes, we don't know yet". Nothing in religion even comes close to explaining the big Bang or creation of life on Earth. The Christian Bible says their God said let it be and it was created. Really does that explain to you the infinity of the Universe?
A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands;
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he.
I guess it must be the flag of my disposition, out of hopeful green stuff woven.
Or I guess it is the handkerchief of the Lord,
A scented gift and remembrancer designedly dropt,
Bearing the owner’s name someway in the corners, that we may see and remark, and say Whose?
Walker: "Have they proved, by the way, that nothing exists beyond matter?" Of course they have. Just as monotheists have proved, by the way, the undeniable, irrefutable, incontrovertible existence of a Creator. Then the other hypocrite starts talking about the "irony and so many layers of crazy" related to science.
I love it when God killed all of Humanity except for Noah & his family. Then Noah made a big boat for all the animals on Earth. That was cool. Was it the act of a Vengeful and Wrathful Deity? No, God's heart was broken. What else could God do? God had no choice. Those wicked humans had merely been exerting their Free Will as endowed by their Creator. So God wiped out Humankind out of loving mercy....
Came here to hear a serious philosophical discussion about the demise of atheism but instead it's just two lightweights regurgitating the same old, lame & unconvincing Anthropic Principle, Intelligent Design and Creationism. Clearly aimed at believers seeking confirmation bias.
If a Creator exists, it bears no resemblance to the Mythological Beings created by the human imagination.
p.s. this guy also claims in his book that because of Christianity we got the Renaissance & the Scientific Revolution. LMFAO. That's like saying because of Covid we got the Vaccine! Because of Ted Bundy, we got VICAP. lol.
"Then Noah made a big boat for all the animals on Earth." No, not for all the animals on Earth. If you read Bible you notice, that only the stem species ("Kind") of each land animal breathing through nostrils were taken. We can derive "Kind" meaning animal Genus or Family in the taxonomic classification.
Modern organisms have descended from the stem species presenting different taxonomic genera and family. There is no fossil evidence for anything else. There is no trace leading back to Darwin's imaginary "Universal Common Ancestor". Darwin's "tree of life" has always been upside down, since millions of species have gone extinct and no species have ever descended from preceding species with different body plan. Contrary to Darwin's theory, we now have less species than there was in the beginning of life and after the Noah's Flood.
There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophies.
How do I get the books do I go to Barnes & Noble
What is the not-free, rejection-free, dismiss-free, refute-free etc... definition of atheism?
You can't create your own meaning any more than a ship can create its own ocean.
Meaning comes first, then the ship.
Wondering why, out of 4.47K subscribers, only 37000 viewed this video
The others are probably atheists.
Dr. Tour is incredible - actual scientist, not Al Gore or Bill Nye - and VERY FUNNY.
Scientist.....and ethically challenged, lying fanatic.
Yes there is a Creator Brahman from the older Hindu religion. Subsequent younger religions used the term God for example.
We don‘t understand lots of things, so there must be a god. What contemptible drivel.
but what about Tunguska? we're they commiting wickedness as well?
They were sinners just like us.
Luke 13: Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them-do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”
How can he state the exact opposite of the truth!
? He has just put together an anthology of what the sciences are saying. Nasa, for example says the same thing about the many things you have to have to have life on another planet.
Mataxas is really preaching to the choir, because I find this very underwhelming.
Yes, he said he wrote this for the Christian. It’s a pity because the topic was for the unbeliever. But then, book sales and speaking engagements come from the church.
Not a chance!
Was that soup Scotch Broth?
I love ❤ 😍 Scotch Broth Brother Eric!
It’s interesting that these infamous atheists aren’t dedicating their lives, finances and careers disproving Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, Leprechauns, or the tooth fairy. 🤔
Is atheism dead? What a ridiculous notion. Regardless of the author's claim of a magic man in the sky there are many who reject such a notion. I am one of those people. Atheism is the lack of belief in a supernatural being. We get along in life just fine. We are contributing to our communities and the world. We have brains and we use them to think critically as we move thru life. There is no need to believe in a god.
Atheism is a religion, no more no less en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion No scientific evidence, direct on indirect, can affect it. Bible also confirms that. In his posthumously-published Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel, and the Apocalypse of St. John, Isaac Newton expressed his belief that Bible prophecy would not be understood "until the time of the end", and that even then "none of the wicked shall understand".
Is that the absolute truth? Or are you do you have infinite knowledge that there is no being with infinite knowledge?
Atheism will never die. In fact, statistics show atheism is on the rise. There have always been nonbelievers and there will always be those who don't believe in a god, and as people become more enlightened and science continues in closing the gaps as it has been, the number of atheists will only increase. And while it's possible that there might be a "creator" in the deist sense, there is no incontrovertible evidence that proves the 'God' of the bible is that creator.
I disagree somwhat i think there might come a day where some of this stuff is revealed actually. Probably at the end.
@@bible1st The end of what? Life? The Earth? The cosmos? And if there will be an end, what makes you think humans will still be around billions of years from now to witness any revelation or an end?
What stuff do you think will be revealed? Proof of a god? If that is possible then the opposite is also possible and whereas modern science has slowly been filling in the mystery gaps that have always been at the root of religion, it appears the latter is most likely rather than the former.
@@Aurealeus I think it will become more and more apparent that God exist and Jesus Christ was telling the truth in the Bible and he's the one.
@@bible1st What makes you think that, when for the last
2000+ years it has been becoming less and less apparent.
@@Aurealeus Because it hasn't. Scientist still have no idea what is actually going on, pertaining to life itself and the universe. They have not disproved a 2000 year old collection of books that make astonishing claims about both. Basically the more we know, the more we realize that we know nothing.
Eric its simple....Scientists do not know how life on earth started.......and neither do you. Its called intellectual honesty something you guys appear not to be.
Actually Eric, there is evidence that the earth is an oval disk shape, and not a globe. Not that majority belief proves anything, but the globe earth shape is a more recent belief.
Most, like Eric, have not examined the "flat-earthers " evidence....or their arguments.
In the scheme of things however, the shape of the earth is not of significant importance.
The existence of God, or not, does matter.
See a psychiatrist, hun.
@James-ll3jb You are the poster child of the impulsive emotional responder.
In debates or discussions, attack the argument with YOUR evidence, not childish mudslinging.
@@sheilasmith7779 Sorry, but I don't debate with flatearthers, whom I regard as mentally ill.
@James-ll3jb Yeah, well they locked up Galleleo for being criminal with his science claims. Oops, they discovered he was right.
There was no debate. You made a claim about Eric M. I asked you to support with evidence. You didn't because you couldn't.
BTW: MISSTATING others is known as lying.
And no one should have a conversation with a liar.
👋
Hilarious stuff.
Skip to the end. His assertions are unconvincing. Therefore Atheism as a worldview is quite alive.
Skipping the discussion of the logic and evidence and then claiming "unconvincing" is hardly convincing.
@@lewissociety you don't have to like it. But these tired old tropes are not for the atheist. You're preaching to the converted, to calm their doubt about a god who hasn't made himself known (something he's done many time in the bible), and you know it.
@@lewissociety saying that something is very improbable and must therefore be the result of magic isn't logical. And when your version of the fine-tuning argument rests upon Cosmic constants that do not appear to be malleable at all, the odds aren't even that high.
@@joeschmoe4205 It really depends on whether you use reason and the evidence as the basis for your own views. Perhaps the following videos will be helpful-
The Fine-Tuning of the Universe
ua-cam.com/video/EE76nwimuT0/v-deo.html
The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 1: Scientific
ua-cam.com/video/6CulBuMCLg0/v-deo.html
The Ontological Argument
ua-cam.com/video/xBmAKCvWl74/v-deo.html
Leibniz’ Contingency Argument
ua-cam.com/video/FPCzEP0oD7I/v-deo.html
The Moral Argument
ua-cam.com/video/OxiAikEk2vU/v-deo.html
God and Mathematics
ua-cam.com/video/QJBOiZXkKu8/v-deo.html
Maxwell’s Angel: God and the Physics of Design in Life's Molecular Machines
ua-cam.com/video/muj1FDctzd4/v-deo.html
@@lewissociety thanks for the wealth of information. But I am extremely familiar with each argument. God and not god are of equal explanatory power in these cases. I'm back to my original point that god should reveal himself. And god would know how to do this in such a way as to be convincing.
My assertion is that some people accept faith as compatable justification for their worldview. And other people (like me) are not willing to rely on faith. Only god revealing himself resolves this fundamental conflict.
Holy fuck did you say there is a computer code in living cells?
Eric, do u have any physical evidence for a physical Jesus?
ASk Bart Erhman the leading atheist bible critic :)
So your answer is "NO I have no physical evidence for Jesus." You really believe in something you cant prove? Wow.@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n
@@robertlight5227 One of the Major world Religions is based on the guy, would seem pretty compelling evidence there was a Jesus.
Atheism is not an anwer at all, because; what is atheism? The answer is given in the word, someone says: A-Theism = NO-God-belief. - I am thinking of a number, but the number is not 986357, what number am I thinking of? My name is not Snrrp, what is my name? I don't live in Gudvangen, where do I live? None of these questions can be answered with even microscopic probable certainty. Nor, what is atheism. Only well-defined pairs of 2 opposites can be answered with, NOT; like this: I am not she = I am he, not night=day etc.
The answer to whether one believes in or the outlook on life one has can, because the word ´belief´ is fluid, and the term God is only implied as something elevated over us, cannot therefore be answered with: I do not believe in God, I am an Atheist. The question must be clarified like this: I didn't ask what you don't believe, I asked what your outlook on life IS, what IS being an atheist? Someone will then try to rewrite NOT with other words: Rejection of, refutation of, etc... It doesn't help much. What IS atheism? The question has a NOT-free answer(I am a non´3+7=9´-believer exactly only because I know am a ´3+7=10´-believer). I want an answer from an atheist about what atheism IS. Not what they do not believe, are not convinced of, what they reject, what they dismiss etc. Yes, atheism is defined as what they do not believe, are not convinced of, what they reject, what they dismiss etc. I am not satisfied with that definition; I not their not´s, so 2 not´s cancel, and we are back to what is left: What is left of the atheist when all the NOTs have done their job? Science? I also believe in science, but I am not an atheist. No-one of them comes forth with an answer, only: "We don't believe in God", they shout a bit louder, as if that helps. Describe what you don't believe in? I ask then. And the atheist cannot answer, and even tells me to ask those who believe in God about it! So the atheist depends on what the believers say to have the slightest idea of what they don't believe in! But the believers cannot define or describe God, noone can. And round and round it goes, . . so I will give my answer:
When one does not want to look up to something higher and more powerful than oneself, then it is only oneself and that which is lower than oneself that can be seen. When you think yourself are at the mountaintop, all further movement will lead downward. If you have no higher idea about life and existence, the road only goes downhill for you. And downhill in this context means destruction, breakdown, dissolution, disaster, desperation, aimless flight downwards and downwards to death and unconsciousness. And in time it will spread to everything, both personal, cultural, scientific, artistic, moral - EVERYTHING That is WHAT Atheism is. Don't go that way!
If, on the other hand, one has something higher which is not just a word or an abstract, theoretical and very vaguely defined concept, but a supreme concrete example - God's Son Christ Jesus - which we can visualize through concrete sources, then we always have something to reach for and we are securely anchored in the highest.
So you don’t know what atheism is or you think it’s okay to misrepresent it-which is it?
You want to try again but this time in an adult conversation?
@@therick363 Why the "adult conversation" remark? I have no other than adult conversation ever, so I disliked that remark greatly! I have heard all the atheists not, reject, refute etc. I know what they say. And now I also know that them themselves don´t know what atheism IS.
@@toreoft I think some words of yours got mixed up, the “I have no other than adult conversation ever”??
So I don’t want atheism IS?? Why don’t you enlighten me what atheism IS….
@@toreoft well?
If anything even water existed how did the water cometo be.
Scientist do not know yet how life emerged, thatswhy god. This argument is so stupid and so old, I almost feel embarrassed watching somebody else say that….
Oh we are way beyond that. If there was a “Big Bang”, who created the radiation and matter into the “egg”, and then who or what caused it to explode? And why is our tiny spot in our galaxy, in space among billions of other galaxies etc, the only planet with intelligent life?
@@schnauzerloversmom Good questions! I don‘t know. Do you? And if so: Can you prove it? Thanks!
The question for these debates - How life began or how life “evolves” is “Exactly how?” Another thought is that “Millions of years ago” is a hypnotic phrase meant to stupify the listener. It means “don’t think”, “don’t ask” and especially don’t ask “exactly how”
" Another thought is that “Millions of years ago” is a hypnotic phrase meant to stupify the listener. "- speak for yourself. To me it means "millions of years ago".
Do you know how books work?
Is much of modern Atheism 'Hume warmed up' ?
I reply to my own (stupid) comment: it appears not one single (human) life was lost in the Tunguska event. so the point is obviously moot
Their is no angels or demons. Their is only angelic scientists and demonic artists intelligently designed to defeat devious that organized crime.(TT)
Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Ratio is everywhere in nature.
YES!!! The fingerprint of God. 100%
No, the product of Evolution as evidenced by the fossil record.
Your evidence is (besides the Bible told me so) what?
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 Explain, please, in what way do you think that fossils show that Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Ratio are a product of evolution. I've not heard this said before.
@@vincentc.mercandetti9917 Explain, please, in what way do you think that fossils show that Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Ratio are a product of evolution. I've not heard this said before.
"Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Ratio is everywhere in nature"- so what? What's your point?
Is there any doubt about God ?!
The originator of the universe !!!
Origination is the simplest key to dispel doubt.
How can one begin to think about the idea of no God when every existence is impoverished to his being.
Doubt is more important than faith, for doubt leads to inquiry and inquiry is what leads to truth, not faith. This is the main reason religion encourages faith and discourages doubt, because they don't want their adherents and congregations to know the truth.
@@Aurealeus Doubt is more important than faith, for doubt leads to inquiry and inquiry is what leads to truth, not faith. That's why I started to doubt evolution and found out it is pure fiction. The main reason why evolutionary religion encourages faith in evolution and discourages doubt is that evolutionists don't want their adherents and congregations understand that they've been cheated for over 160 years.
@@jounisuninen How Original! Sure, you can cherry-pick my words and twist them to say whatever you like, similarly as you do when cherry-picking your scripture. The difference between our comments is, one is fiction while the other is not. Guess which is which.
Evolutionary science is based upon facts and evidence, whereas faith is not! Evolutionary science has no dogma and holds no beliefs and is ever changing as new information about the natural world is discovered, whereas faith does not.
Additionally, evolutionary biology is a crucial basic science for medicine. That is why it is taught in most all medical schools throughout the world. In addition to looking at established evolutionary methods and topics, such as population genetics and pathogen evolution, evolutionary biology demonstrates how natural selection leaves bodies vulnerable to disease. The same can't be said for faith.
Faith is self-deception and people have been deluding themselves for thousands of years. It is pretending to know what you don't know and is just simply assuming things without reason and defending them against all reason. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something is true when they don't have evidence, even if 'everyone' believes it.
but the chronology and Geography of "Sodom" are apparently off Eric. at least according to some prominent scientists
Great talk, thanks.
With a television you don't have to be supernatural. God prefer that because it's more social but we have to use it correctly. Right now we have anarchy blindness. Despite the anarchy blindness I figured it out. That proves we can be God like. Only a person getting crucified would suspect something greater. They crucified me with exact same disease that in pink Floyd the wall. Victor said it's all good. It should be possible to make everything all good.=-O
Although not intentional Eric misquotes James Tour who has said repeatedly (on video) that we may very well explain how life originated but that at present “we’re not even close”. The illustration of the target getting farther away is apt. At present each new discovery adds a new layer of complexity with no ‘biological theory of everything’ in sight. Best guess is a form of fine tuning that “makes life inevitable” which is part of a belief system, not science.
Religion is just wishful thinking. The universe does not even know that we exist, and cares even less. Sorry. Love and care for your loved ones.
💪
James Tour presents the most irrefutable arguments against both the random progrssion espoused by atheistic evolution and the notion that time is the "hero of the plot" in explaining away (discouraging inquiry on) the impossibility of random complex design.
In fact, in the organic chemical process Tour outlined, more than a few days ... let's say 6, would have been destructive to the complex process of constructing even the cell wall, especially without intentional stabilization of the incredible number of chemical interactions involved in original... creation.
@traegreenlee-dg4st I have respect for the argument; the clear implications of the more relevant facts that no honest (credible) organic chemist would fundamentally deny. Arguments of authority among flawed and biased individuals has a limited shelf life. Anyone desiring to convince me needs to make a better argument vs. appealing to their superior position as the deciding factor. I'm not interested in being anyone's slave.
The answer is, "No, atheism is not dead."
Atheism has always been deaf, dumb and dead, Mariam.
Only Christ gives us Life.
As Eric said, the name atheist isn’t dead, nor is the mind set, it just has no evidence to back up the position.
It is therefore a faith position as the atheist would call “religion”.
You believe in something that is completely absent of ay facts, proof or examples.
@@kellyclemensen3730 Atheism is not defined by what an atheist “believes”. It is NOT a belief system no matter how many times you say it is. It is just a rejection of a claim that has ZERO supporting evidence. You’re an atheist too when it comes to the thousands of other gods. I just go one god further and don’t believe your god exists either. It’s that simple.
You are correct, atheism isn’t dead, but science has made it look so foolish, you have to have some mental health issues, or a low IQ to embrace it anymore.
@@kellyclemensen3730 By that same logic, neither atheism nor theism have sufficient evidence. But then again, who's making claims about a God, here?
There's nothing in a strict materialist worldview that disallows personal statements of value and meaning. For that matter, if we're talking about objective meaning, you still don't get that with a deity.
On the contrary, we would suggest that naturalism/materialism/atheism cannot withstand rational challenges-it is incoherent and self-refuting. Here is just a sampling:
Articles:
"The Argument from Reason," by Victor Reppert
www.lewissociety.org/reason/
"Darwin, Mind and Meaning," by Alvin Plantinga
www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/plantinga/dennett.html
"Naturalism Defeated," by Alvin Plantinga
www.scribd.com/document/143800935/Naturalism-Defeated-Alvin-Plantinga
"Naturalism and Libertarian Agency," by Stewart Goetz
www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1756
"Economic Science and the Poverty of Naturalism: C. S. Lewis’s ‘Argument from Reason’, by David J. Theroux
www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=2278
"Naturalism and Moral Realism," by Michael Rea
appearedtoblogly.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/rea-michael-22naturalism-and-moral-realism22.pdf
"Theism, Atheism, and Rationality," by Alvin Plantinga
tinyurl.com/29ftpbw4
Books:
"Naturalism," by Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliferro (Eerdmans)
amzn.to/3H9et5b
"Naturalism: A Critical Analysis," edited by William Lane Crain and J.P. Moreland (Routledge)
amzn.to/3t5HU30
"Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism," by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford U. Press)
amzn.to/3t6vtEt
"Warrant and Proper Function," by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford U. Press)
amzn.to/35oG84Q
"Warranted Christian Belief," by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford U. Press)
amzn.to/3LVo9Eg
"C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason," by Victor Reppert (IVP Academic)
amzn.to/3t0Wxoj
@@lewissociety the god argument is just a magic box Beyond which you simply derp out and don't ask any actual questions. It's also simply lovely how you don't try to formulate any argument of your own but instead just provide a laundry list.
@@lewissociety there's no objective meaning with theism. Instead, you get about 5 different levels of subjectivity from deity to allegedly inspired texts to transcription error riddled copies of those allegedly inspired texts to translations of those copies to interpretation of those translations of those copies. At no point does a supposedly objective meaning come into it.
@@stevegeorge6880 We would suggest that you actually examine the references provided.
@@lewissociety there is nothing to be gained from them.
Yes. In fact being a fascist Christianity is so hot and fashionable right now. Look how people just give them money. I'm taking about tens of Mullins just to condemn atheists.
socialists are fascists tho so ur projecting that
One can always deny God's existence. Modern science however has made impossible to invoke science while doing it.
Nope. There is NO support for any god from science. Theology cannot be tested so is not part of science.
How and what modern science are you referring to?