Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
AtheistDebates - Argument From Design, Part 1: Order and Purpose
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2024
- From the Atheist Debates Patreon project (tinyurl.com/prn...
A brief look at the Argument From Design in its early formats, focusing on order, purpose and the appearance of design.
Part 2 will focus on fine-tuning, probability, alternate universes and more.
Matt, you were the first person I saw speaking openly about Atheism on the Atheist Experience. That was a bit over a year ago and since then, I've found The Thinking Atheist, Ra-Man etc.. and I have left go of the lingering fear that 'god' would punish me for considering that I didn't believe he existed. Thank you for all that you do. It IS making a difference. I'm 61 years old.. and pretty new to accepting it's way okay to say.. I don't know!.
how foolish you truly are
Awesome....🥰🥰🥰
yay for connie
Beautiful. Hope you’re still enjoying your life.
Oh, yeah. Everything is intelligently designed, such as how our air passages and food passages are interconnected, causing thousands to die each year by choking when eating. Such brilliant design!
So if no one chokes then there is God?
Eat slowly friend. Enjoy your food.
Gerald Chua Thats not a good rebuttal to the OPs statement.
It simply refutes the intelligent design argument outright by highlighting the obvious flaw with our biology (one of many, btw.)
The human body is perfectly timed so is the universe. Just because you cant eat your food properly theres no God? hahahahahaha
Sean_Toner64 lmao idiot
This Fine Tuning ‘argument’ has always struck me as a total non-starter.
If things were slightly different to how they are, either we wouldn’t be here to remark on the fact because the universe wouldn’t exist, or we’d be here as life ‘fine tuned’ to however the universe turned out.
Douglas Adams’ Puddle Analogy puts it perfectly.
I think you have to take the apparent probabilities into account though.
All these physical constants seemingly have very little margin of error in order for the universe to harbour life.
The argument is sorta like there's a 1 in a billion chance the constants would be good enough for life to occur, but life does occur and it's too unlikely to just be by chance, so there was design.
I personally don't know if life couldn't occur, maybe completely different particles to anything we have in this universe could arise and form a different sorta life.
It's god of the gaps essentially though.
@@colinjava8447The probabilities are MEANINGLESS unless you can offer one scrap of evidence for ANY plausible alternative to the known universe
You can't put any significant weighting on probabilities in a sample size of one with imperfect understanding of that one (universe) example , fine tuning is literally one of the dumbest arguments
The watchmaker argument in a nutshell: "This watch is clearly designed because it is so different from the natural world. Therefore, the natural world is designed."
Find something that designed itself with absolutely no thinking. Duplicate what you claim the universe did
@Alex McAuliff the universe was created duh
@Alex McAuliff the word created literally means, to bring something into existence.
So the fact that there was a time time matter and space didn't exist but they suddenly began to exist means that they were in fact created....
However you insist random non thinking nothing is capable of creating a Universe and i would say that the Universe had to have been created by an intelligence.
The problem with you atheists is that you use fallacy arguments that other atheists such as yourself created 100s of years ago. That's called biased argument. Its also clear evidence of brainwashing via confirmation bias.
You spout out a philosophical argument that support your own logic from a sect of people who thinks and have the same logic as you.
Logical arguments were created by atheists for atheists to argue against theists.
Logic was created to explain the reality we live in yet atheists have no explanation for the reality they live in therefore atheist logic is unfounded and based upon their false assumptions of what life or reality is.
Therefore anything that goes against their false logic they're unable to fathom
@@kevinjohnson8016 You said yourself, “The word created literally means to bring something into existence.” And then you said, “So the fact that there was a time when matter and space didn’t exist but then suddenly began to exist means that they were in fact created.” But you don’t realize exactly how your deceiving yourself by conceptually smuggling in words to the sentences you’re using to conceptualize these notions. Because if the word “created” literally means “to bring something in to existence”, as you said, don’t forget to keep in mind the word “bring”... Because yes, “creation” implies a “creator” that “brings something into existence”... But the fact of the matter is you’re going one step further than you’re justified in going when you want to think that therefore the universe was “brought into existence”. You actually even said the other part correctly when you said, “then the universe suddenly began to exist”. Yes, that’s correct, the universe began to exist. But you’re failing to recognize that just because the universe “began to exist” does not mean that someone brought it into existence. While “created” means to bring something into existence... that doesn’t mean that the mere fact that something “exists” means that it MUST HAVE been created. That’s an assumption and assertion that needs to be demonstrated and have its own justification before you can assume that’s the case. Creation implies a creator. But existence doesn’t automatically necessitate that some thinking agent BROUGHT IT INTO existence. You would first need to demonstrate that there is no possible way something could just begin to exist through purely naturalistic processes.
As a side note, in reference to your comments about atheists being the ones having the problems with fallacious, flawed thinking and reasoning and being more prone to biases, etc... I think you better first take a look at yourself. That issue that you think you see in others make actually be what you don’t see in yourself. Take care. I don’t do replies.
For god so loved the world that he created it with 75% salt water...
And 99.999999.% freezing cold, vacuum, full of dangerous radiation. Stuff that would kill a human instantly.
But, it was all designed for us...
He is the living waters that give life. There is plenty in the seas to feed many humans.
@@2gointruth: You didn't watch the video, did you?
@@ghettofreeze
Ha ha, I wasn't replying to the video, but to a comment. You wasn't paying attention to the comment, was you? ... : ))
@@2gointruth ohhhhhhh burnnnnn! That was a good one lol liked your comment though we probably don't agree.
beautiful calm stuff, Matt - it's easier to posit the truth when you are not being assailed by dullards - excellent
Maybe one of the most brilliant constructors of well-reasoned arguments as well as refutations and analyses of previously existing arguments alive today!
Matt really is one hell of a debater.
Looking forward to part 2.
Darwin's theory never "demonstrates" anything, contrary to your assertion. Darwinian evolution is just a product of the mind, it is a presupposition of biology....it was a theory that was dreamed up long before the molecular evidence was uncovered. Never has any new, novel structure been shown to arise by random mutation. Darwinian evolution has never even been tested in multi-cellular organisms in a controlled setting. And let me help you out here: there IS an explanation for the arrival of new traits, and the mechanism is consciousness...Just as God created the universe and man and everything else using consciousness, an individual's interaction with the environment somehow stimulates the nervous system, the production of hormones, and a whole cascade of changes that help the organism adapt, teleologically:
phys.org/news/2013-03-stressed-out-tadpoles-larger-tails-predators.html
Consciousness is the mechanism of creation. Darwinism is a materialist/atheist lie.
suffist pay attention: the darwinist has no viable mechanism of creation. Mutations don't add new, novel structures. Say it over and over and over to yourself until it finally sinks in. You, ozy, the dude in the video and all the darwinists are living in a fairy tale. You're welcome to prove me wrong about the mutations thing....I'll be waiting.
tommy hall
Do you mean 'a single mutation wont add a new, novel structure'?
Or do you mean 'millions of years of accumulated mutations that have been naturally selected wont add a new, novel structure?
Also, what's your evidence for that claim? Challenging people to prove you wrong isn't evidence that you are right merely if they fail to prove you wrong. I can make any number of claims you can't disprove, it doesn't mean there's evidence for it. (That's what the flying spaghetti monster, invisible dragon in my garage, invisible unicorn stereotype analogies are all about.)
tommy hall
Again what does The Theory of Evolution or Darwinism as you call it have to do with atheism?
"all the darwinists are living in a fairy tale. "
and i just gave you loads of proof for Darwinian Evolution fairy tales are fiction like your religion. The Theory Of Evolution has a mountain of evidence to back it up.
I can show you mutations doing all kinds of things, including altering fur color, eye color pigmentation, altering reproduction times, providing resistance in bacteria, duplicating existing features, insertions, deletions, etc do all kinds of things....these are all scientifically verified. I'm simply asking for the same verification that mutations can add new, novel structures. This can be a single mutation, or multiple mutations. This can be a mutation adding a whole new structure, or a new part to an existing structure. Mutations do not add new (non-duplicated) anatomy -- period. You are welcome to prove me wrong with a link. Otherwise, it's safe to say that this whole evolution crap is all in your mind.
and by the way -- this challenge has been run by Fiona, the resident PhD molecular biologist, and she is stumped too....so good luck.
Great video Matt! The most damning thing about intelligent design is that creationists think everything was designed.
If everything was designed you have no way to tell anything was designed. Designed as opposed to what?
if i can design something does that make me a god too????
@@SNORKYMEDIA its will always be makers maker made it. so its still god in the end.of cause one need to prove god first.
Dillahunty in some of his podcasts, acknowledged that the *appearance* of order and design exists in nature. Yet despite acknowledging such appearance of order and design, he simply brushes off the possibility that there is indeed intelligent design behind such appearance. Instead, without any justification and evidence, he smuggles-in (using his own words against Thomas Aquinas), the idea and the claim that there is actually no design behind such appearance of order and design in the universe.
Well, it is actually a lot more rational and logical to acknowledge that the appearance of order and design in nature is indeed due to the existence of Intelligent Design behind it than to speculate and pre-suppose that it is due to other than design.
What are the alternatives other than Design, anyway?
Just like many other atheists, Dillahunty keeps comparing and contrasting Design with Natural Occurence. There are glaring fallacies on this approach.
First, such comparison is irrelevant, erroneous and defective. Instead of comparing Design with Natural Occurance, he should compare and contrast Design ( which is planned with intent and purpose) with Chance (which is accidental, unplanned without intent and purpose). The opposite and alternate of Design is Chance, not Natural Occurance.
Now how reasonable is it to speculate and pre-suppose that the appearance of design and order in nature and the universe is due to chance? Not reasonable, not rational and not logical at all. Chances and accidents produce chaos and havoc, not order and harmony - not even their appearances. In a chaotic world due to accidents, we won't even exist to observe the appearance of order and design.
Second, to say that the appearance of order and *design in nature* is due to *natural occurence* is a kind of circular logic and argument. It is simply using the adjective form of the object (ie. *natural* ) for an explanation about the phenomena of the object itself (appearance of *design in nature* ).
Basically it is using a kind of weaselling language (using Dilahunty's own words against Thomas Aquinas) to reject the existence of design behind the appearance of order and design in the universe, without having to have any evidence and justifications.
That is somekind of a cheat and a dishonest apologetics ( again using his own words against Thomas Aquinas).
Ironically though, by saying "Natural Occurences" as the explanation for the appearance of design in nature, atheists actually accidently admit indirectly the existence of design as the reason for the appearance of order and design in the universe. Why? Because there are strong indications that natural occurances themselves are products of design - not of chance. There are underlying order and consistent parameters for those natural occurences in the form natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Such natural laws can even be expressed in the form of mathematical equations. It is for this reason the universe is also called "Cosmos" - which means "Order" - and not "Chaos". Such is the prevalence of order and harmony in the Universe that Phytagoras suggested that the Universe is producing music. Consistency, order, harmony, music (if Phytagoras was right ) are signs of designs by Intelligence - not of chance.
Dillahunty also carelessly equates and associates Intelligent Design with Creationism. Hence Dillahunty basically denigrates Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience.
The Creationists have indeed hijacked the Intelligent Design concept in their rejection of evolution theory.
However, Dillahunty fails to differentiate the Creationists' version of "Intelligent Design" with the postulate that there must indeed be an Intelligent Design behind the appearance of Design and Order in nature. The latter postulate of Intelligent Design does not in anyway reject Evolution Theory; infact it considers evolution itself as a product of Intelligent Design. Evolution, as part of natural laws, also follows consistent and orderly parameters ie. random genetic mutation to optimise genetic variations followed by natural selection process ensuring that only those most adaptable to changes will survive. If evolution is a product of chance and accident, there will be no parameters at all as to who will survive in nature.
In fact, Charles Darwin himself, the pioneer of evolution theory, acknowledged the soundness and validity of the argument from intelligent design.
While he could no longer believe in the personal god of Christianity (especially after the death of his beloved daughter at young age), he could not accept atheism either (and settled as an agnostic) in view of the soundness of the argument from intelligent design.
He wrote in his autobiography, " Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an *intelligent mind* in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."
While his conviction of the above fluctuated throughout his life, Darwin wrote to John Fordyce on 7 May 1879: “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”
He died three years later and did not change his mind. He wrote to the author William Graham in one of his last letters “You have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance.”
The universe is definitely complex, and it's definitely not random. It's very tempting to say that a complex, non-random process is indication of some kind of intent. I've always believed it is.
I am really enjoying this series. You've done really good work!
Excellent points regarding how we should go about determining whether something is designed (or created) as opposed to being a natural occurrence. Design does need to be demonstrated, and one can't simply argue from analogy. Spot-on!
Dillahunty in some of his podcasts, acknowledged that the *appearance* of order and design exists in nature. Yet despite acknowledging such appearance of order and design, he simply brushes off the possibility that there is indeed intelligent design behind such appearance. Instead, without any justification and evidence, he smuggles-in (using his own words against Thomas Aquinas), the idea and the claim that there is actually no design behind such appearance of order and design in the universe.
Well, it is actually a lot more rational and logical to acknowledge that the appearance of order and design in nature is indeed due to the existence of Intelligent Design behind it than to speculate and pre-suppose that it is due to other than design.
What are the alternatives other than Design, anyway?
Just like many other atheists, Dillahunty keeps comparing and contrasting Design with Natural Occurence. There are glaring fallacies on this approach.
First, such comparison is irrelevant, erroneous and defective. Instead of comparing Design with Natural Occurance, he should compare and contrast Design ( which is planned with intent and purpose) with Chance (which is accidental, unplanned without intent and purpose). The opposite and alternate of Design is Chance, not Natural Occurance.
Now how reasonable is it to speculate and pre-suppose that the appearance of design and order in nature and the universe is due to chance? Not reasonable, not rational and not logical at all. Chances and accidents produce chaos and havoc, not order and harmony - not even their appearances. In a chaotic world due to accidents, we won't even exist to observe the appearance of order and design.
Second, to say that the appearance of order and *design in nature* is due to *natural occurence* is a kind of circular logic and argument. It is simply using the adjective form of the object (ie. *natural* ) for an explanation about the phenomena of the object itself (appearance of *design in nature* ).
Basically it is using a kind of weaselling language (using Dilahunty's own words against Thomas Aquinas) to reject the existence of design behind the appearance of order and design in the universe, without having to have any evidence and justifications.
That is somekind of a cheat and a dishonest apologetics ( again using his own words against Thomas Aquinas).
Ironically though, by saying "Natural Occurences" as the explanation for the appearance of design in nature, atheists actually accidently admit indirectly the existence of design as the reason for the appearance of order and design in the universe. Why? Because there are strong indications that natural occurances themselves are products of design - not of chance. There are underlying order and consistent parameters for those natural occurences in the form natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Such natural laws can even be expressed in the form of mathematical equations. It is for this reason the universe is also called "Cosmos" - which means "Order" - and not "Chaos". Such is the prevalence of order and harmony in the Universe that Phytagoras suggested that the Universe is producing music. Consistency, order, harmony, music (if Phytagoras was right ) are signs of designs by Intelligence - not of chance.
Dillahunty also carelessly equates and associates Intelligent Design with Creationism. Hence Dillahunty basically denigrates Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience.
The Creationists have indeed hijacked the Intelligent Design concept in their rejection of evolution theory.
However, Dillahunty fails to differentiate the Creationists' version of "Intelligent Design" with the postulate that there must indeed be an Intelligent Design behind the appearance of Design and Order in nature. The latter postulate of Intelligent Design does not in anyway reject Evolution Theory; infact it considers evolution itself as a product of Intelligent Design. Evolution, as part of natural laws, also follows consistent and orderly parameters ie. random genetic mutation to optimise genetic variations followed by natural selection process ensuring that only those most adaptable to changes will survive. If evolution is a product of chance and accident, there will be no parameters at all as to who will survive in nature.
In fact, Charles Darwin himself, the pioneer of evolution theory, acknowledged the soundness and validity of the argument from intelligent design.
While he could no longer believe in the personal god of Christianity (especially after the death of his beloved daughter at young age), he could not accept atheism either (and settled as an agnostic) in view of the soundness of the argument from intelligent design.
He wrote in his autobiography, " Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an *intelligent mind* in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."
While his conviction of the above fluctuated throughout his life, Darwin wrote to John Fordyce on 7 May 1879: “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”
He died three years later and did not change his mind. He wrote to the author William Graham in one of his last letters “You have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance.”
Why would any rational human downvote such an intelligent, eloquent video like this?
aegisgfx Cognitive dissonance is a powerful drug
Coz God told them to. 😂
A street evangelist once came up to me and used the “this building had a builder, therefore the universe had a creator” argument. It didn’t occur to me in the moment to say “but this building had multiple builders, therefore the universe must have had multiple creators”
The Q Continuum.
I like this series of videos a lot. They break down simply common creationist arguments explaining where they came from and the flaws in the arguments.
Dillahunty in some of his podcasts, acknowledged that the *appearance* of order and design exists in nature. Yet despite acknowledging such appearance of order and design, he simply brushes off the possibility that there is indeed intelligent design behind such appearance. Instead, without any justification and evidence, he smuggles-in (using his own words against Thomas Aquinas), the idea and the claim that there is actually no design behind such appearance of order and design in the universe.
Well, it is actually a lot more rational and logical to acknowledge that the appearance of order and design in nature is indeed due to the existence of Intelligent Design behind it than to speculate and pre-suppose that it is due to other than design.
What are the alternatives other than Design, anyway?
Just like many other atheists, Dillahunty keeps comparing and contrasting Design with Natural Occurence. There are glaring fallacies on this approach.
First, such comparison is irrelevant, erroneous and defective. Instead of comparing Design with Natural Occurance, he should compare and contrast Design ( which is planned with intent and purpose) with Chance (which is accidental, unplanned without intent and purpose). The opposite and alternate of Design is Chance, not Natural Occurance.
Now how reasonable is it to speculate and pre-suppose that the appearance of design and order in nature and the universe is due to chance? Not reasonable, not rational and not logical at all. Chances and accidents produce chaos and havoc, not order and harmony - not even their appearances. In a chaotic world due to accidents, we won't even exist to observe the appearance of order and design.
Second, to say that the appearance of order and *design in nature* is due to *natural occurence* is a kind of circular logic and argument. It is simply using the adjective form of the object (ie. *natural* ) for an explanation about the phenomena of the object itself (appearance of *design in nature* ).
Basically it is using a kind of weaselling language (using Dilahunty's own words against Thomas Aquinas) to reject the existence of design behind the appearance of order and design in the universe, without having to have any evidence and justifications.
That is somekind of a cheat and a dishonest apologetics ( again using his own words against Thomas Aquinas).
Ironically though, by saying "Natural Occurences" as the explanation for the appearance of design in nature, atheists actually accidently admit indirectly the existence of design as the reason for the appearance of order and design in the universe. Why? Because there are strong indications that natural occurances themselves are products of design - not of chance. There are underlying order and consistent parameters for those natural occurences in the form natural laws of physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Such natural laws can even be expressed in the form of mathematical equations. It is for this reason the universe is also called "Cosmos" - which means "Order" - and not "Chaos". Such is the prevalence of order and harmony in the Universe that Phytagoras suggested that the Universe is producing music. Consistency, order, harmony, music (if Phytagoras was right ) are signs of designs by Intelligence - not of chance.
Dillahunty also carelessly equates and associates Intelligent Design with Creationism. Hence Dillahunty basically denigrates Intelligent Design as a pseudoscience.
The Creationists have indeed hijacked the Intelligent Design concept in their rejection of evolution theory.
However, Dillahunty fails to differentiate the Creationists' version of "Intelligent Design" with the postulate that there must indeed be an Intelligent Design behind the appearance of Design and Order in nature. The latter postulate of Intelligent Design does not in anyway reject Evolution Theory; infact it considers evolution itself as a product of Intelligent Design. Evolution, as part of natural laws, also follows consistent and orderly parameters ie. random genetic mutation to optimise genetic variations followed by natural selection process ensuring that only those most adaptable to changes will survive. If evolution is a product of chance and accident, there will be no parameters at all as to who will survive in nature.
In fact, Charles Darwin himself, the pioneer of evolution theory, acknowledged the soundness and validity of the argument from intelligent design.
While he could no longer believe in the personal god of Christianity (especially after the death of his beloved daughter at young age), he could not accept atheism either (and settled as an agnostic) in view of the soundness of the argument from intelligent design.
He wrote in his autobiography, " Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an *intelligent mind* in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist."
While his conviction of the above fluctuated throughout his life, Darwin wrote to John Fordyce on 7 May 1879: “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.”
He died three years later and did not change his mind. He wrote to the author William Graham in one of his last letters “You have expressed my inward conviction, though far more vividly and clearly than I could have done, that the Universe is not the result of chance.”
I'm such a proud fan, Matt! Such a polished, clear narrative, and beautifully shot.
Great video. One of the reasons why Darwin, for example, was such a great and influential scientist, is that he looked at the 'same evidence' (as Ham et al always state) and stood the explanation totally on its head, thus opening up more and more opportunities for us to realise that we'd got everything backwards. The universe wasn't, after all, 'created' for me. Rather, humans have adapted to the existing environment. One of the great revolutions in thinking in the history of humankind,and, no, I don't deify Darwin, but I have great admiration for his ever-questioning mind, his courage, and his integrity. Contrast, if you will, with Messrs Crag and Comfort.
I agree with your sentiment, but just to add, Darwin wasn't alone in coming to his conclusion, many scientist of his day were having similar thoughts, and Alfred Russel Wallace came up with the same theory independently, so even without Darwin that particular revolution in science/thought would have happened.
Interesting and valuable point. But I do think we should give Darwin the credit for his intellect, courage and influence. Yes, Wallace independently came to the same theory as Dawin, with some significant differences, and if Einstein had not come up with relativity then somebody else would have!
styot
Excellent points!
There's still another problem though, because we can't trace it back to the first beings, theists think that they can due to what they read in an ancient book lol
Matt, a sincere thanks for these videos. Excellent work.
Matt I would like to thank you for being an honest and graceful atheist when it comes to developing your arguements. For this I much appreciative.
Love the intro and setting, Matt! It's a pleasant change from all the designed, animated intros and plain sheet backgrounds.
Wow. A straight up video from Matt! Awesome. I guess this Patreon thing has some merit after all.
There's been a bit of hubbub among armchair misanthropes concerning Patreon and whether it's worth donating, but Matt's been putting out these videos and AronRa's starting an entirely new channel with great content, so it seems the money's being put to good use.
@@TheZooCrew it's entirely dependent on the content creator. A podcast I follow that tackles disinformation and conspiracy theories does one free weekly episode and a premium episode for Patrons, I couldn't imagine not being a Patreon sub for them. Some put free content on there early for patrons, some don't do anything special at all and just use it as a means for fans to contribute basically.
I suspect that most ID advocates have never designed anything in their lives. Designing something that has never existed before requires a lot of trial and error to get it right, even by experienced designers. When it comes to biology, nature is very good at trial and error, and has been doing it for a lot longer than we have.
Agree - life is a 3+ billion year old system of trial and error driven by natural selection. If all life was created by a perfect, all-powerful deity, surely 99.9% of all species that ever existed wouldn't now be extinct. Creationists just don't understand evolution.
I loved the tree argument at 6:44
And I wonder what's so special about tree when we even live in deserts.
I was waiting for that Adams bit the whole time. Thank you. It's one of my favorites as well.
Now this was helpful. Thank you Matt. I may be able to use this when speaking to creationist preachers.
Absolutely perfect. Would love one of these videos from Dillahunty for each and every fallacy.
I wish the show had this video quality! Thanks Matt for all you do!
That was the old shows
Mind blowing and amazing as usual Matt. This video series is fantastic! Keep'em comin' man. Take care.
Nicely done and I can't wait for Part 2.
I credit Matt and Jeff (and later, others from the show) for getting me to really examine what I believed and why which ultimately led to me becoming an atheist. Over the years I have noticed that Matt has become increasingly smug and I began to dislike that attitude. However, I don't think he is actually smug as it's likely extreme confidence from being successful at being able to get people to think skeptically about their religious beliefs and to think skeptically generally. So what looks like smugness is probably mostly confident sprinkled with a bit of smugness but I suppose I'd be a bit smug too in his position. He has a gift for consistently putting forth sound and valid arguments, particularly when explaining more common arguments for the existence of a deity. Many people can repeat a definition but Matt can explain it while demonstrating a deep understanding. And his greatest skill is listening and catching every fallacy however small and instantly providing a valid rebuttal. After watching hundreds of episodes, reading scores of books and hundreds of articles related to fallacies in arguments and then putting what I've learned into practice both in actual conversations with people and while watching debates or speeches, I've been able to sharpen the skill quite well. A lot of that has to do with what I learned by watching Matt on the show. What these videos have done is allow me to further refine my listening and thinking skills so that I can better respond to those who make fallacious arguments. This series adds another level to this learning process and is invaluable.
Ed Gloss Good stuff Ed. Imagine defeating the same bad arguments over and over again for decades, and if you've watched some of Matt's debates against guys like Sye... Matt has to put up with stuff like this... "Logic comes from God, you're using logic to argue, so therefore you should now instantly acknowledge that I win." Wouldn't that get tiresome? It's so hard not to feel superior when faced with arguments so poor. Do you see what I'm saying?
RealYRM Certainly. It also has to do with truly understanding a topic at level that most others simply do not and not because you're better than others but because you have vast experience in a particular field. When I was studying for my Master's in history I wrote my these on religion, the Founding Fathers and the separation of church and state and when I hear others commenting on the subject or a related subject, or if I'm debating the topic with someone in person or online, I often feel like my expertise completely destroys their ability to take an opposing and contrary position if it's not their field. I have to admit that I'm nowhere near the level of most professionals in the field and I'm often in awe of what other experts know and understand but relative to nearly everyone else I just know too much related to the subject and their top factoids are usually trivial concepts to me. That's what happens when one reads literally thousands upon thousands of primary source documents and dedicates several years to studying the minute details of a broad subject. So I am a considerable expert in a tiny piece of a huge subject and when I discuss it I definitely come across as smug but honestly, I'm really just proud of my hard work, especially since prior to college I had a seventh grade education and I now teach that grade. So when Matt appears smug it's likely a combination of frustration with the repetition of poorly thought out arguments coupled with his extremely high level of understanding of the topic. It's like leading physicist teaching second grade children and having those children challenge the facts the physicist is presenting. When a layman tells me, for example, that I don't understand something Jefferson was saying about a particular subject I get frustrated because I don't think a lot of people understand what it means to study in great detail several thousand letters written by Jefferson. So when someone repeats something from a secondary source (which can be and are quite often immensely valuable sources, especially when reading the work of top historians) while dismissing what I've learned from years of studying the sources used in the secondary source cited, I get frustrated. Reading a Wikipedia article on Jefferson is great but it doesn't make someone an expert. It makes them less ignorant of a subject.
Ed Gloss I love sitting there watching Pawn Stars when Rick, who knows a great deal about a great many subjects, brings in the guy from the Clark County Museum. Evidence takes on a whole new meaning when you've memorized the years a certain button company made a certain type of button and how they branded it.I'm nowhere near the expert in history that you are. I tend to rest my footing in, what I can tell, most experts agree.If I was making a statement about Thomas Jefferson, and didn't have time to do years of research, I might look at the opinions of people like yourself and see that it's a safe place to start.Most historians seem to agree that Jesus was probably a real living person. Most scientists are convinced of the truth of evolution. Most historians and scientists agree that no supernatural miracles have come with anywhere close to enough supporting evidence.Just being an expert on a topic doesn't automatically make someone right, but, since we can't all study 100% of everything, if most experts agree, and I can see how they're making their case, I feel confident. I'd have a much larger degree of trust in your accounts of Thomas Jefferson than some guy down the street spouting something about Jefferson to support his political agenda.
Ed Gloss - I think I became an atheist at the age of about 3 - but it took until I was about 35 for the penny to drop
These are very professional, Matt. I hope they continue.
great series Matt. I will get on the Patreon project as soon as I can
I enjoyed this video very much and was reminded of the cult film:
The bushman finds the coke bottle thrown from an airplane and ......*"The Gods Must be Crazy"* =]
awesome movie
The one thing that always bugged me about that movie is the bottle hitting him in the head when it fell. How the hell did that not kill him????
Great movie
stiimuli I can't say that ever bothered me, or that the bottle was indestructible, understanding that it is after all a comedy.
Never thought about that. Though that is Jonfrum
Another excellent video Matt!
"God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time goes on"
-- Neil deGrasse Tyson
That's assuming science is all there is to life. It's not. Morality is (or should be) a big part to life, and that's as non-scientific as it gets. Morality is so non-scientific we do not have standardized units for it.
Looking forward to meeting you next month Matt!!!
I can listen to this guy all day
Great video Matt
I've been a fan of the show for years
Oh and this was really professional. I wish more videos were structured in this way.
Dang Matt you really put effort into this. Good job! :)
I was closer than you can guess to posting the Douglas Adams quote, but to my credit, I watched all the way to the end and now do not look stupid. I have a feeling the videos yet to come from Matt will serve to make many people less stupid.
This is a wonderfully written video with a wealth of easy to understand information and Matt's performance of the piece is excellent, as is the quality of the production. It's good to see him explain this stuff without steam coming out of his ears :) I just wish it was a little more snappy in the editing and pacing department, with a heap more titles included off to his side. As Matt speaks I somehow expect to see bullet points appear next to him highlighting his statements.
When you watch Matt Dillahunty you can see what all preachers would look like if Christianity *really* loved and cared about truth over deception.
yet is Matt actually feeding anyone or doing charity work.
the only thing Matt does is preach against religion and thats what the atheist cause is about but not one person is being fed or housed.
your idea of love is misguided as you're brainwashed to believe that Matt is actually doing something to benefit society
@@kevinjohnson8016churches take in more money than food or wealth that they provide , or else they would not exist
Also this function of wealth distribution could easily be done by the state , and then wealth wouldn't discriminate based on moronic fake beliefs
"oh my God, kids we gotta get the hell outta here... EVERYTHING'S on-the-cob!"
Deep thoughts... With Matt D.... Good stuff!
Great vid Matt. Can't wait for part 2.
Hey Matt -- enjoying the series, but when you cut, dont change your location so often. It becomes a little distracting. Love the series though, glad I am a Patreon, so far so good!
Then god was designed by an intelligent being? And god must have a god then?
Yes, god was designed by an uber-god. And, she was designed by an uber-uber god... Ad infinitum.
It's turtles all the way down, man!
:)
Sarcasm...
Theists always conveniently ignore this obvious problem and double standard.
aforeffort747 When you pose these questions to an apologist, they will most likely say something like "My god is an uncaused god. He wasn't designed. He was always there and will always be there." without explaining how it's possible for him to always have been there and where he came from.
@Dalmaron The First First of all, there is no good reason to assume that the Universe had a cause in the first place. In fact, that's impossible by definition. The Universe is all there was, is and ever will be. It has no before and no outside. Nothing could have existed before it that could have been its cause. Thus the Universe is uncaused.
But let's assume that it's NOT impossible that the Universe had a cause, just for the sake of the argument.
"God" could only have caused the Universe if he caused time. But for "God" to have caused the beginning of time, the existence of time must already be presupposed.
Time is a property of space; without space there's no time, and without time there's no space. In Einstein's theory of relativity one speaks of spacetime. It's like the two sides of a coin: the front of the coin can't exist if there's no backside of the coin. Space in turn requires matter or energy. Matter and energy are equivalent. Without matter no energy, without energy no matter. Without matter no space, without space no matter. We either have all four (space, time, matter and energy), or none of them. Since there is something - that is undeniable - that means that there has always been matter. In other words, there never was a time when there was no matter. This means that matter has existed forever. For "God" to have created matter, he would have had to exist "before time". That's impossible, because that implies that time passed before time. This is self-contradictory, wrong. If we were to claim that time has arisen (with matter, space, etc.), no time has passed. "God" had no time to create time (or matter, space, etc.). This is Draygomb's paradox.
@Dalmaron The First First of all, yes, that's my argument.
Second, concerning your objection to Draygomb's paradox: You imply that there was a time when there was no time, then something changed and then there was time. That's like saying that there's something north of the north pole, as Stephen Hawking said. It's logically impossible. There logically was no time before time, or in other words, no time when time didn't exist. Do you understand this?
And third, science doesn't say that the Universe had a beginning. This is a common misconception. Science just says that the expansion of our universe began about 13.77 billion years ago. If there had been nothing before the Big Bang, logically nothing could have expanded. And no matter how small the Universe might have been, it was still the Universe.
In fact, when we ask about the cause or purpose of an all-embracing whole, we are over-extending concepts and abusing language. As David Hume said: "If we stop [at the alleged personal creator of the Universe], and go no further, why go so far? Why not stop at the material world?"
@dalmaronthefirst2237The only task left is to prove that the universe was created, or that any plausible alternative to the known universe is possible and offer one scrap of proof for said cremation or alternative to all known existence
Nice production, Matt.
Matt, if you're ever in the Olympia, WA area and want to hang out and jam a bit let me know. It'll be refreshing as I don't have even a drop of "fanboy" or "idol" worship in me. Thanks for all of your hard work, you rascal!
Humans are 'programmed' (not involving a deity) to look for patterns. We convince ourselves that there is a designable order in things when there is obviously not. It comes from our ability to predict an outcome (ironic), and it happens to make an excellent tactic for survival; unfortunately, the 'built' pattern assumption makes a poor attempt at describing reality.
"I'm special" - haha. In my life it's the same people who claim to feel special - because God made the world seem older than 6000yrs and they 'know' it isn't - will still use the term 'special' as an insult for anyone they don't like; "gays think they're special", "scientists think they're special"...
The unstated assumption is "You're not special-but-I-am!"
On a technical perspective, there's a lot of wind in the mic. A simple foam microphone cover does not suffice in wind, there are dedicated mic covers for wind muffing. They look like large squirrel tails, very fluffy. They're not expensive either.
Looking forward to part 2 :)
Matt, thanks a lot for this bank of agruments, it helps a lot
Theists claim the banana is the atheists' nightmare. I claim that the theists' nightmare are vestigial organs.
I sleep soundly at night, by the way.
Bananas are man made so the whole argument is stupid to begin with.
Wrackune This might wake you. From Darwin's Undertaker on the Internet. Anyone can research these things by using a search engine like Google.
It appears there are no "vestigial organs".
"While Robert Wiedersheim listed 180 alleged vestigial or rudimentary organs in 1895, today the list is down to a handful..l Vestigial organs were considered passé because of ignorance, but now we have discovered important biological functions and necessity for every one of them. At an ICR summer institute, Dr. Richard Lumsden stated emphatically that there are no vestigial organs. Creationists would do well to ask, "What was this made for?" when looking at a seemingly useless body part. Since God made the whole body, He had a reason for including every part."
Sincere truth seekers might also check out: truthseekers.ws Obviously "Wrackune) is not a sincere one yet. This could have been easily researched by any sincere seeker.
Even if there were absolutely no vestigial organs, (e.g. male nipples), that would not disprove evolution or provide any evidence of a god
wrackune this is an argument from ignorance fallacy!
@@Truthseekersws got to truthseekers - WHAM! straight into bible quotations - so much for integrity and truth seeking.....
You can always argue that the watch in the woods is a product of 3.5 billion years of evolution.
As if watches could reproduce with variation. :P
antiHUMANDesigns
The watch is a tool made by a species that evolved tool making capacity... an evolutionary process. I can see where a Creationists would read into this comment that watches evolved by natural selection, but that would be silly.
Deep Ashtray Yeah, I wasn't sure if you were being serious.
The main difference between man-made things (design) and nature is that we learn through observation and then abstractly post-simulate stuff with our so-called imagination, all that besides from social itimitation, means another kind of evolution (memetic). So, it's quite fair to class classify human-mind-inventions as design.
If were walking in the woods and you saw a book would you conclude it was authored by a man or by a god?
oh, man looking forward to this! Thanks Matt!
I like this style of video my brother... very informative and put together in a nice calm manner... I hope it gets through to people.... take care
I think the argument from design is a pretty strong one, other wise you wouldn't need 60 minutes to attack it.
John T. Smith It's kind of like the 50-foot string of christmas lights that are all tangled up. You need lots of time to untangle it because it is *so wrong*.
Science is fantastic if you want to know what gauge wire is compatible with a 20 amp electric charge, how agriculture works, what causes disease and how to cure it, and a million other things. But where the physical sciences are completely lacking is in those issues most important to human beings-the truly existential issues: what does it mean to be human, why are we here, what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed, is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God? etc, ad infinitum.
Source: www.pravmir.com/top-10-common-atheist-arguments-fail/#ixzz3fk7ySGKm
John T. Smith
*what does it mean to be human*
Self-defined.
*why are we here*
A boring, ill-formed question. Who cares? Is there even a "why?" That implies teleology, which is unevidenced.
*what is valuable, what does it mean to love, to hate, what am I to do with guilt, grief, sorrow, what does it mean to succeed*
Also self-defined. Your theology doesn't answer these questions. It merely lies about them. Furthermore, I don't find these questions particularly important because the answers are all self-defined. Acting as if there is a "correct" answer makes you a narcissist.
*is there any meaning and what does ‘meaning’ mean, and, of course, is there a God?*
Why can't science answer that last one?
So you want to turn science into scientism: It has been defined as "the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they ALONE can yield true knowledge about man and society." Talk about being narcissistic. You sound like , and I hope I am wrong, you are infatuated and obsessed with science to the exclusion of all other ideas.
Doesn't everyone out there know instinctively that science has nothing to do with what makes life worth living. That's the reason science can't answer there is or is not a God. The next thing you will probably say is that science tells us that love is "nothing but" an increase in hormones. And another thing: you don't know a damn thing about my theology. My beliefs do answer these questions but sociopaths are far from interested.
If you answer this, just give me your definition of love and I think we will all know where you are coming from.
John T. Smith
*So you want to turn science into scientism:*
No, liar. I've never made those overblown statements.
*Doesn't everyone out there know instinctively that science has nothing to do with what makes life worth living*
No. We make some subjective choices, but we can use science to both improve our lives and determine what's actually better for us. Science is about discovery. LOADS of people find discovery to be the greatest thing about life.
*That's the reason science can't answer there is or is not a God*
What the fucking fuck? How many head injuries have you sustained? Whether or not something exists isn't subjective and isn't a matter of opinion.
*The next thing you will probably say is that science tells us that love is "nothing but" an increase in hormones*
Okay, shut the fuck up. This is an appeal to consequences fallacy. "The world not being magical and pretty makes me feel sad, therefore god."
When we're talking about _actual facts_, then love is an electrochemical brain state. But does this change how love makes us feel or reduce our affinity for it? Of course not.
*And another thing: you don't know a damn thing about my theology. My beliefs do answer these questions but sociopaths are far from interested*
Get help before you fucking kill someone. I'm not the sociopath here.
I can destroy atheism with one question. I've been asking to challenge you, but you've not. I wonder why, Matt.
I dare you to challenge me on this video. You know you made it because of my posts on your other videos.
Face me here or are you afraid to get clobbered by a girl, lol! :/
Second thread.
"So, where did that life get it's life from billions of years earlier? Didn't you say the big bang set everything in motion? Therefore, all life initially started with the big bang. What are people not getting or are you trying to avoid getting that so you can cling to the there's no God theory?"
No, I am not clinging to "No God theory" - I actually never assumed there was no God. But you are connecting two disparate events. Answer this for me - if I plant a tree, then die and hundred years after my death someone comes, cuts down the tree and make the chair out of it - am I the maker of the chair? The same it is with Big Bang - it happened, started some processes and then a long time after life emerged. Is then Big Bang the maker of life?
Yes, that is actually possible as far as I know.
I mean it is extremely unlikely, It violates every single thing that we know about logic, it violates Occam's razor and I can't see any reason why someone would believe that but I can't deny it as a (very low chance though) possibility.
As I answered your question please answer mine: why do you think it is the case thought? Why would God do it this way - creating billions of lifeless bodies, vast space that is extremely deadly to us, laws of physics that probably forever condemn us to one tiny place in an endless universe full of dangers that could wipe us out? Why would he bother with hiding himself behind evolution, natural selection, DNA and seemingly random chance? Why would he hide like this? (not mocking you, BTW. I am curious how you evaluate his motives)
"God has never hidden Himself. Man has tried to hide God. The first thing they did was change BC and AD to BCE and CE. To remove God? Maybe." Considering that we have no written record (or any other) of Christ even existing it is reasonable in my opinion.
Evolution is tactic to attack God? Is then astronomy and physics attack on God as well? Furthermore Darwin wrote a book that has overwhelming amount of evidence - so much in fact it is almost impossible to ignore it. The very DNA you spoke about in the beginning is proof of evolution. What exactly is the evidence in the bible?
It is impossible to gain order from chaos - what? I mean seriously - what? Have you never cleaned your room?
What exactly is "heaven" for you?
Alfapiomega Proof of Christ's existence:
Historians:
"Historians for Jesus's existence: Robert E. Van Voorst, Christopher Tuckett, Graham Stanton, Jewish & Greco-Roman sources, Louis H. Feldman, Bart D. Ehrman, The Mishnah(c. 200) Talmud, Amy-Jill Levine, Andreas Kostenberger, Craig S. Keener, Gerd Theissen, The Pilate Stone from Caesarea Maritima now at the Israel Museum, James Dunn, E.P. Sanders, Craig A. Evans, N. T. Wright, John Dominic, Crossan Bart Ehrman, John P. Meier, Paula Fredriksen, Geza Vermes, Josephus & Roman historian Tacitus in The Annals(c. AD 116)."
And, DNA is proof of God, not evolution.
Let me check those books and get to you, OK?
Regarding the DNA - how is it not proof of evolution? We share 96% of our DNA with Chimps, 60% with oaks and rest of the life on Earth. That shows a lot about our ancestry.
What about my other questions?
Thank you for making this video Matt
"My main problem with "Intelligent Design" pretending to be science is that science is not a desperate attempt to justify a cherished belief; science doesn't start by arguing for a predetermined conclusion. You can't have an honest search for truth if you've already decided what the truth is."
You're right, it shouldn't pretend to be a science. Science isn't ALL truth, it's just all verifiable and reliable truth.
As the recently-late Victor Stenger said, "The
universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe." (www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/FineTune.pdf).
Great video, Matt.
Matt is brilliant, intelligent and convincing.
I disagree with the "contrasting with what naturally occurs" recognition of design, for the exact reason explained at ~12:14.
A design proponent would happily agree that everything is designed, despite having no not-designed things to contrast against, making this way of discerning design, worthless for the purpose of explaining why assuming design is wrong.
An example I'm fond of is one I've seen on tv years ago, where a weapons collector purchased an old Russian rifle and received it covered in brown grime.
Thinking it was poor maintenance that caused the firearm to be covered by the stuff, he cleaned it off, only later learning it was a specially produced substance that was intentionally applied by soldiers in the field to prevent the metal from reflecting light, of which there are very few samples left.
Since the stuff itself is valuable and having a rifle applied with it even more so, contrasting the weapon's condition against other old firearms he purchased, the collector assumed the stuff was a natural product of poor maintenance, and unwittingly cleaned off tens of thousands of dollars off the items value.
I say we recognise design by prior knowledge of design or purpose of the object or parts of it, which works with the above example (having no prior knowledge of the stuff made the collector think the brown layer was natural, not designed) and all hypotheticals I could think of.
I like the watch analogy because it's so obviously designed that it doesn't match with nature: if you pick up the watch you'll immediately see who designed it and when, it's written all over it. where in nature do you see a trademark and/or a date?
I stand corrected Matt, that letter to you which I had suspected of being erarsed, was merely moved Way Down the scroll. No Worries..
Keep up the solid work !!
Something I recently pointed out myself is ruins of a building. Building is designed but its ruins aren't. Yet in war ruins can make better cover than an intact building. This was especially evident during the battle of Monte Cassino, when German paratroopers managed to hold against several Allied assaults because the freshly created ruins were so well suited for defense. Does this mean the ruins were designed?
This video is super helpful.
Have you heard this version?
1. Specified, complex information comes from minds….our uniform experience supports this. Whenever we see elements of design (watches, houses, paintings, etc, we infer the presence of a mind to explain it). We use this concept in forensic (crime scene) investigation. The initial question at any death scene is was the cause natural or agent (mind) induced. This idea is also used in the Search for Extra Terrestrial Iife (SETI). I mention this because it speaks to criteria we have to deduce the presence of agency.
2. DNA carries specified, complex information.
3. Therefore DNA is evidence of a transcendent mind.
I don't like the "Specified, complex information" part ... there seems something sneaky about that phrasing. And I think the conclusion is a leap. Doesn't this have to presuppose a transcendent mind for this to work?
Argument from design was my last domino to fall in my move from Christianity to non belief in God. I don't currently use the term atheist, but that's the direction I'm moving.
People sometimes forget that the design argument is a coin with two potential sides, and although there's certainly no evidence for one side vs the other or even no sides at all, I find it odd that nobody seems to ever talk about that other "design potential".
What if the entire universe is in fact actually, as theists assert, an act of great intention, importance, and unbelievable jaw dropping power? What if there really is some sort of ultimate plan involving beings or forces that are indistinguishable from a deity or deities to us? But what if it has nothing to do with us at all? What if we aren't "part" of the plan?
Perhaps biogenesis on our planet was neither an act of intentional creation nor the product of purely unguided natural processes? What if it was just.. .an accident? A bit of goo got slopped around a few billion years ago and here we are today. Perhaps it wasn't cleaned up because, well, what or whoever spilled it has *actually really* universally important things to worry about and won't be able to catch a break for a few hundred million years yet. If such a "designer" does get around to doing some housekeeping once time permits perhaps they'll come back to clean up the mess. Like getting rid of that unsightly mold on the grout of bathroom tile -- with never a thought wasted to considering how the organisms who live in such colonies might object on the basis of being "intelligent rational and moral beings".
Great channel Matt. I follow nearly all your stuff and I often say that you are hands down the best way to learn why people should be non-theist. "Matt Dillahunty- Your passport to Rational thought" :-)
I am, therefore I think. Thoughts can be imagined or perceived and remain just as emptily overflowing. Dream on, and play nice with the others that share the dreams.
Thank you, I've always been bothered immensely about the perception of fine tuning; we have absolutely no conceivable idea of a universe presented in a different fashion. It is exceedingly easy to see a world in which we have adapted to over millions of years and assign fine tuning preceding the fact that we did not observe the millions of earth cycles in the making of the gorgeous creatures we are. If things had happened any other way, beings would provide a similar argument in the same fashion, that is if the concept of "being" is similar to the broad schemata we give it.
Some further words of comfort and wisdom from Saint Thomas Aquinas "With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. "
Great video, great footage! Love it! Question: With all this separation between natural and artificial, natural and design, etc., is this a terminological/semantics problem and a limitation linguistically? And aren't what's artificial and design products of natural processes? If so, isn't separation of these concepts illusionary in some respect? -always wondering.
The universe is 10^18 seconds old, and there are 10^82 atoms in the universe. If you multiply these two numbers together, it's still FAR smaller than the denominator of the probability of typing Hamlet randomly, which is over 10^130,000 possibilities. I don't know if the universe can make a watch randomly, but it DARN sure isn't able to make Hamlet randomly, unless it gets many, many orders of magnitude older.
this was great. looking forward to part 2. thanks
The waterfall and surroundings make me feel like I'm watching a meditation video. Can you help me align my Chakras, Matt?
12:32 I'm not sure the proponents of the argument are contrasting with "lack of design" in the first place. This point confused me alot. It sounds irrelevant to the argument but I can't quite pin down why.
I think they are saying that the cell shows the halmarks of intent to perform a function and irriducable complexity with the watch, and since we know that the watch was designed it must mean the cell was also designed. I don't see why not having something to contrast with matters here. Is it conceivable that you could be in a universe where everything is designed? Yes, a multitude of ways. So, why do we need a contrast? In the (simulated for example) universe where this was the case how would anyone be able to point to anything that wasn't designed and be right about giving it that label? The main way to get out of the need for a contrast is to make the distinction of _potence IE this thing that we made with our limited capabilities vs this thing that was made by another with far greater capabilties share apparent intent for a function.
I dunno maybe I'm getting more confused than I need to be.
Great Job Matt
Interesting! These videos are helping me think sharper, and I really appreciate that. Sharper meaning more questioning, curious, and logical in this sentence. I’ve always thought a lot about these concepts, but from a more intuitive perspective. So, I have found my own thoughts leading me to the teleological or cosmological argument just naturally by virtue of the human experience. But I was like, holy f*ck at 8:08 , thinking, why must this all have been created? We are basing our conclusions on a unverified presupposition. It makes no sense.
I believe this stems naturally from observing the natural world around us, like “I came from my parents, so the trees must have come from somewhere/someone/something.”
Hi Matt. At 9:09 I believe a better term would be efficiency, not simplicity. Simplicity still works, though.
A general car designed today is more complex then a car form 50 years ago(having more parts, more buttons/features etc) , but is more efficient(more powerful, more mpg). Lets say today that an electric car is more simple then a gas car, but is incredibly more efficient, I believe this would be better.
I hope this made sense.
it didnt.
How do you determine, intent? Was the flat stone designed to skip? I think it should be "obvious" that an eye was intended to see or that a feather was intended to fly or float. However, the feathers of a bird can be turned into things like, ink pens, or fishing lures. Was the feather designed to be an ink pen or a fishing lure? Was the eye designed to be used in transplants for blind people? Of course these things were not designed for other purposes besides what they were intended for. Minerals were developed to give foundations to everything on the surface. They may erode or break, to give way so that streams, lakes, rivers, or new land formations.
I could most certainly use a feather and throw it through the air so that it imitates a similar action to what it would in nature, but we wouldn't say it was designed for us to throw. So here is where Matt and his fellow atheists have a perception issue and try to use bad examples to convince us all that the universe is dead and boring.
I really like this new series!
When presented with Paley's Watchmaker, the only question you need to ask is
"Why is the watch found ON A BEACH?"
The fine-tuning argument defeats itself - to say that the universe NEEDED tuning means that life has requirements that are beyond the god's control.
I love the way your work is evolving. Looking forward to many years of enjoyment. Thanks Matt.
Your diminishing perfection proves both that there is perfection and that you are losing it and will eventually die without the perfection that made your existence to be in the limitations of limited time and limited space.
What dressings do you have?
@@tulpas93 I have a covering, absolutely.
It may be worth your while to pay close attention to your video editing. There is often a full-second delay between a camera cut and you beginning to speak. I recommend cutting the beginning of the clip to 0.2s before you take breath, maybe.
Nice viewing for me to chill to.
That beard definitively has been designed. But turning it gray must have been an act of god :)
I don't understand why we all can't come to an agreement on these matters. If we can clearly point out the problem with an argument like the "Argument from Design", why can't people who believe in a God concede that it is a better logical argument? If pointing out flaws in beliefs doesn't change a person's belief, where will? I want to see results, not endless debate if it doesn't actually change minds. Where is the intellectual honesty and why do theists fear the truth?
Thanx alot Matt. Always informative.
I love seeing Matt in a lecture format. He actually sounds like an intelligent presenter, instead of somebody who must drop an F-bomb in every other sentence. Having been a sailor, like Matt, I have no problem with rough language, but there is an appropriate usage. If you use rough language constantly, then it suggests that the speaker cannot make their argument with normal language. More importantly, if "fuck" becomes commonplace in spoken language, then what word do we use to express extreme emotion or agitation? Irresponsible use of rough langue removes it from our lexicon for it's proper application. What other word can I use where I would have used "fuck" 20 years ago? I would like to ask Matt why none of his "lectures" include the F-word, yet he cannot get through a single call on his numerous call-in shows without using it?
Depends on how far back you want to deal with your ancestors. Our ancestors alive during the last global ice age, the homo sapien hunter-gatherers certainly didn't think that this planet was designed for them. Half the group starving and freezing to death in minus 50 degree temps for 10 months out of the year. Groups going out to hunt food, half coming back, the other half either gored or trampled to death by their food, or becoming food to other predators stalking the human prey as the human prey stalked their prey. None of these people said "look at the trees! Certainly this paradise was designed for us!" Because it obviously wasn't! Only when agriculture allowed us to begin to shape the landscape, and the climate warmed, did that notion begin to creep into the collective conscience, but I'm betting not at all before. They were all too damn busy trying to stay alive on this 'perfect for them Earth'.
3:05 - Yes... it is an arrogant presumption on our part.
I am digging the new vids Matt. Thanks.
a) Genetic information (genetic code) in DNA is encoded by the four bases. It is a set of instructions, very much like a programming language.
b) All languages, codes, and messages come from a mind (designer)
c) Therefore, DNA was designed by a mind.
DNA is chemistry. Nothing else
Great video, Matt! Keep it up!
Matt you are actually incredible !!!!!
Funny how Aquinas talks in the abstract about design when he was all about integrating Aristotelian philosophy, (which is mostly practical, especially compared to Plato) with Christian theology.
Matt, genuine question if you so happen to read this. I agree creation from a creator smuggles in the intent from the beginning, but so doesn't saying the only way to tell design is to compare it to nature? You have excluded design in nature before you start and then set up a framework that doesn't allow it to ever be classified as design. Isn't this begging the question?
Is there any way to falsify your premise? I mean is there any way to epistemologicaly determine that nature itself is or is not designed. If not both the theist and non theist will never be able to know. It could therefore be the case that we are in a universe full of only designed watches but never be able to know it as that is all we have to compare.
+Anthony C Sure, you can falsify the premise that all things in nature are not designed. Just introduce us to the designer and have him demonstrate how he designed and created things in nature.
So do you have to be introduced to the architect/designer of a building in order to understand it is designed? Surely not. Matt's not even advocating that.
Anthony C You asked if a premise could be falsified, and I gave you a way that it could.
In the case of a building, no, you do not need to meet the designer. You are justified in inferring a building is designed because it matches a pattern stored in your brain of other buildings that you know were designed. That is cultural knowledge. Nothing about natural things (birds, trees, rocks) matches a pattern in your head of something that you *know* was designed, so you are not justified in inferring design. You can hypothesize it, but then you must look for confirming evidence. Hence the need to meet the designer.
Fair enough . You gave an example of falsification, but the example provided is taken for granted by theist and non theist alike and therefore not really worthy of discussion.
The justification for design you put forward is interesting. If we know something is designed and can match that pattern in something else it's reasonable to infer design to that also. You then make an assertion without evidence "Nothing about natural things matches a pattern.....of something you know was designed". This is simply false. In fact it's the reverse. Engineers and scientists study nature to replicate their "design". Velcro was designed after studying a seed which stuck to dog hair, the study of iridescent morpho butterflies led to advances in thermal imaging for things like night vision googles. How about sonnar? Bats have had a similar system long before men designed it?
Nature is replete with identifiable patterns that we know are linked back to something that is designed.
+Anthony C Now you are just equivocating on the word "design" . I only use the word designed to mean "that which was intentionally conceived and executed by a conscious entity". The things you are referencing (seeds, bat's sonar, etc) are examples of *form* and *function*, which you are then calling design. You need to be careful to not let language smuggle inferences into your head. Of course we study nature and copy form and function, which we then design into man-made things. That does not mean that those things had to be originally designed by a conscious being. We are also trying to build fusion reactors based on processes that occur deep in the Sun. But we know that simple gravity acting on hydrogen gas forms stars and leads to fusion reactions within them - no designer needed. This is why useful form and function are not necessarily good indicators of conscious design.