The fine tuning argument does not necessitate us. Nor does it require the Biblical God. For example, the neoplatontic One would be provide a set of constraints. In fact Plotinus argues that mind is dependent on principles that make it possible. There is equivocation in the notion of information between the Shanon sense with is probabilistic relations between events and semantic information which what intelligence has. A lifeless universe has titanic amount of information in it in the first sense but none in the second. Shanon was repeatedly clear that he was not talking about meaning. The argument about information is very problematic and the fine tuning argument does not necessitate the emergence of mind. All of this is being run together. There is tremendous mindless information in a diamond. Are diamonds made by minds? If you don’t keep this distinction then computers are minds because they have extremely complex Information processing. Simply rolling some dice rules out alternatives and generates Shanon information. Using the language of choosing between alternatives is misleading. The dice are not choosing anything. The laws of nature rule out billions of alternatives but that does make them minds. Current evolutionary theory does not rely on just random change but also through processes of exaptation (tongue exalted for speech) niche construction, self-organization and emergence. Also if information only emerges from minds then how does it arises in brains? If information only arises from intelligence then how do neurons give rise to intelligence? Do they have minds? This position has many if not more than the questions being raised here against evolutionary theory. Nagel did not conclude theism. He concluded that we need to change our fundamental ontology. To see that developed well see The Blind Spot.
You have to read The Design Inference by William Dembski, he addresses most of these concerns. ID proponents aren’t speaking of just any information, but Specified Complexity. Furthermore, Dembskis elucidation of the Law of Conservation of Information disqualifies any stochastic process from explaining the emergence of specified complexity. Natural selection and other mechanisms solve nothing - they just push the problem back, usually to the environment. EDIT: I will expand this point below because John's comment has been pinned. Natural selection does not create information, it TRANSFERS information. Biological complexity cannot come from biological simplicity; it must come from pre-existing environmental complexity. The image of a man coming from a monkey is propagandistic nonsense - a blatant absurdity. "Natural selection" is just a different way of saying environmental to biological transference. The human does not come from the monkey, according to actual Darwinist logic, but the ENVIRONMENT. The question then arises, "Where did this environment come from?" You cant say its by chance, because then you might as well just say that the organism came about by chance: Insofar as you invoke natural selection to explain the "origin" of information, you are positing at least the SAME AMOUNT of information to be present in the environment itself, and thus you have accomplished absolutely nothing. Nothing has become more plausible at all. Dembski has proven this mathematically with his S4S "Search for Search" theorems and it is really quite straightforward... All of this is really just basic logic: X cannot come from Y unless X is in some way contained within Y. If X comes about and X is not contained within Y, it did not come from Y; it came from somewhere else. In evolutionism, that "somewhere else" has got to be the environment. The Darwinists have successfully swindled the population for over 100 years and I have to say it is actually impressive. Here is an example to help you understand the problem very simply: We have a target with a bullseye, and we can see that there are arrows consistently hitting the bullseye. We conclude, logically, that this is not due to chance and that there is a skilled archer involved here. The Darwinist, in a sense, would say, "No, no, no! There is no archer here! There is just an arrow shooting machine that is shooting the arrows! There is no mind involved, just a mechanism!" But they don't ask the obvious follow-up question: "What is this arrow shooting machine and where did it come from?" Could it be designed? Well the answer is yes, because the information necessary to hit the bullseye - specified complexity - is CONSERVED as you push the problem back. Evolution as it is conceived by moderns is impossible; true evolution is an unfolding - the word evolve comes from Latin evolvere, which means to roll out, yet an OUT always presupposes an IN from which it has rolled out FROM. It is like the petals of a flower which unfold from the center. Only two options remain: the entire human genome and the genome of every other animal (as well as other types of information) have been encoded from the beginning of the universe and have unfolded in some convoluted and mysterious way via different environments, OR the universe is not a closed clockwork system. The traditional perspective holds the latter, but neither of these are compatible with secularism, unless you wish to invoke multiverses. (which is just a cry for help) Personally, I don't subscribe to transformist evolution at all, but even if you do, you cannot escape the fact that natural selection is inherently teleological.
I will give my unsolicited opinion and most likely wrong interpretation. I believe that if I understood the arguments in the video correctly, the argument about information is that complex information that leads to function, like bits in a computer or ACGT nucleotide bases, point to a mind. The argument does not seem to be (at least what I interpreted) that the more information there is, the more likely a mind was involved. The fine tuning parameters for example, are important because they lead to life on earth, not because they generate massive amounts of complex information by existing. But having said that, even "mindless" information is only subjectively mindless, given different contexts, it could have meaningful interpretations, and the context comes from a mind. I don't see a way to escape the connection between mind and information. But that is just my opinion, and I am not a scientist, nor do I have a PhD. on anything.
There's something very materialistic about Stephen's argument. To explain away evolution, he's making everything mechanical in a Newtonian sense. I'm imagining God writing his programs in C that are later compiled into into machine code stored in carbon based lifeforms to be executed as written. Software updates come from above rather than the rich interconnection that life has with it's environment in it's attempt to traverse uncertain terrain. He unwittingly includes everything into the titanic amount of lifeless information with the exception of a programing engineer that is nowhere to be seen... in his mother's basement maybe.
Dembski points out that improbability itself is not sufficient to infer activity of mind. It must be improbable event confirming to an independently given pattern: getting any given number in a roulette rules out the same amount of alternatives, but when a given number is the winning number, then there is something more going on. He has an explanatory filter in his book, which I don't fully recall. Here is a wild thought: Is the world a covenant between form and flux, a semiotic/symbolic interface between the two? Implying, to me, that information comes on the scene after the covenental act?
How about a three-way discussion with Meyer? I am not a scientist, but I think that could be interesting if we did it in a way that is not too technical.
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny the truth of Christianity at this point. I was an ardent atheist for years, but with all the research I’ve done the last 6 years, I can’t hold that position any longer. Great conversation!
why specifically Christianity? if atheism is false that doesnt mean God is a mortal human being... there is a better and more coherent alternative for you out there..
Of all the interviews of Dr. Stephen Meyer I have seen, Jonathan, I have to say, in this interview he seemed most engaged. I think that is due to your ability to pick out and elucidate points throughout the discussion that were quite profound, and allowed Stephen to connect dots he doesn’t usually get prompted on in most interviews. This was truly one of the most enjoyable discussions I’ve seen with Stephen, and that is certainly due to you both being high in intelligence, but also looking at things from slightly different angles. Great interview! 👏
Arguments for Christianity as a true philosophical and phenomenological way of understanding the world are gaining prominence. Coupled with Meyer’s work on the scientific front, we may be on the brink of a return to an era in the West where goodness, beauty, and truth take center stage again.
We had to go through rough times to get there (and there may be more to come) but it truly is a Renaissance of thought now. All aspects of information are being questioned in a good way. It's exciting to be alive.
@@anon_genz nobody should make the error of confusing Christianity with the only source of goodness, beauty, and truth. There is so much more that has not yet been apprehended by even some of the greatest minds of our time. Christianity is a good starting point for goodness and beauty. But Truth is always beyond that. People prematurely latch on to the greatest thing they have seen or heard of and call that true. Always keep a watchful and unattached eye and you will see marvels that outclass everything even Jesus spoke about. Christianity is only a stage in a very short beginning.
@@Philibuster92 I actually agree. I know many people who find God through Christianity and feel that they've grasped all necessary knowledge. I don't only think this is wrong, but in many cases, it can be harmful because it impedes the desire to learn, engage with culture, and innovate technologically. I view Christianity as the necessary starting point to enable us to pursue knowledge in the material world, especially in an ethical manner.
@@anon_genz knowing God in Christianity and especially Orthodox Christianity is not a question of knowledge. The idolizing of knowledge is in some sense one of our biggest problems as described in the Garden of Eden story
@@harmonicproportions6588 Yeah, there can be a hyper-fixation of the acquisition of knowledge. The Enlightenment exposed the flaws of that. There is definitely a balance to strike.
I discovered Mr Meyer recently so this discussion came right on time! Would love to see a 4-way discussion with Jonathan Pageau, Stephen Meyer, Jordan Peterson and John Vervaeke!
Meyer is a grifter. Within two years of college bio I have personally seen and done enough in labs to know why he's full of it. He just wants more ignorant people to hear what he's saying
Jonathan, please discuss with your friend and frequent collaborator, Jordan Peterson, the idea of having Steven Meyer on his podcast. JP read Meyer's most recent book Return of the God Hypothesis and remarked that rarely had he read a book which contained so much information that he did not previously know. Pretty high praise from the hyper educated JP. I have been lobbying him in the comment section of his podcast to have Meyer on, but somehow I think you may be a bit more influential. Anyway, thanks for having SM on.
So glad to hear that Jordan Peterson has read some of Meyer's work. It has always seemed to me that JP basically just takes the Neo Darwinian synthesis as a given (as many with a modern, Western education do) and so I have wondered what it would do for him to call that into question by engaging with Meyer's work. I've actually contemplated trying to mail him a copy, though I'm sure people do that all the time and I'd imagine it might be somewhat annoying, so I never did XD
I’ve watched hundreds of hours of Stephen Meyer and his talks… And I’ve never seen him so anxious to enter into a conversation (to interrupt / in a good way). - This looks like to me that he is extremely engaged in this level of thinking… I’d say you’re definitely pulling the right strings to get this kind engagement from Meyer. By the way, I find all of this fascinating, and I find Myers work to be at the top of a very impressive list of scientific research. - great interview.
You: "I find Myers work to be at the top of a very impressive list of scientific research." Oh really, where are his peer reviewed scientific articles then? Did I miss them? Maybe you could help this ignoramus (me) out and give me the references to the scientific journals he published in? Let's see if he made a splash in the biology community. Here's a hint, they don't even know who Meyer is. He's a charlatan who excells at misrepresenting science to promote a view that is not even testable, let alone offering an explanation. (You guys should really look up the meaning of the term "explanation" because "an intelligent designer did it it" in no way explains a thing.)
Unfortunately Meyers' degree is in philosophy of science, and his knowledge of biological science is limited, and not accepted by actual scientists. Dave Farina completely debunks the claims of Meyers and other Discovery Institute apologists as pseudoscience.
Excellent to see these two conversing. Intelligent design vs randomness. All observation points to intelligent design. Especially in our human experience.
@@therick363 look around your own world. There is design everywhere. Even your thoughts and words you are conjuring up. That process is design - not random. Perhaps you have a different understanding of design. It looks like when you apply the idea of nature, that excludes or opposes design.
I know Steve well and he means this as a genuine compliment which I think Jonathan could appreciate. In Steve‘s world he is dealing with theoretical scientists and philosophers who dogmatically insist upon ideas that don’t actually work in the real embodied world that an engineer has to deal with.
Well actually engineers aren’t like scientists and mathematicians dealing with theories and abstractions but modern day artisans who construct things that are actually incarnated and embodied that people actually participate in like trains, roads etc.
What a blessing to millions that this man has devoted his life and research to intelligent design, which gives believers every where a viable theory opposing Darwinian evolution!
it really doesnt do that, though. this guy doesnt understand evolutionary theory. we have had responses to his problems for decades, but he doesnt even address them.
@@Gwyll_Arboghast Hah! Anytime _anyone_ examines the details, especially the problems, of evolutionary theory, some joker pipes up and claims he _"doesn't understand"_ it. What a joke!
@@KenJackson_US There are decades-old books that refute his arguments. if he knew his material, he would address those refutations and explain why they are wrong, but he demonstrates no awareness of them. so, yes. he doesn't understand it. you would notice this too, if you had read about it.
@@Gwyll_Arboghast Have you read any of Dr.Meyer's books? They're exhausting because he so thoroughly and exhaustively covers all aspects of the material. If he didn't appear to address something that you know about in this interview, it's likely because the interview wasn't six hours long. Read his books. Or at least flip through them and see if he didn't address EVERYTHING.
@@KenJackson_US I admit i have not read Meyers books. but it should have been absolutely simple for him to demonstrate knowledge of what i referred to; for a brief interview it is necessary to give the most condensed, strongest case for his side. it isnt just that he "didnt get to it". his arguments positively rely on the refutations not existing. to me, an interview's purpose is largely to convince the viewer that someone knows what they are talking about, such that it is worth reading their books. it would require some serious incompetence in the skill of interviewing to know the literature and somehow appear to not; and I dont think meyer is an incompetent interviewee.
I DEEPLY appreciate scientists like Meyer and others who provide strong evidence for intelligent design, HOWEVER, as Christians it’s important to understand that adopting theistic evolution undermines the Gospel and really the entirety of scripture (or at least most of the Old Testament).
Agreed. Does Meyers believe in theistic evolution though? I took it to mean we weren't evolved at all and were created each according to its kind by God. Not that God put the information into evolution. But into DNA. I could wrong about Meyers thoughts on this though.
@@tacsmith if I remember correctly, in other interviews he’s said he believes in theistic evolution. But to be fair, that was awhile ago. Whenever the Hoover institute interview was new
I have no problem with intelligent evolution and the Fall as they're both just descriptions of how we came to be, one is mechanistic and the other is philosophical. It's the same reason I don't have a problem with people calling Genesis "mythological", something being a myth doesn't make it untrue, it's just a higher form of description
@@soundsnags2001I read Return of the God Hypothesis, it is an incredible book that I reference often. It touches on aspects of his previous books, but with less detail on those specific topics.
He gets a lot wrong. It all stems from his misrepresentation of the Cambrian explosion. He knows enough to not be seriously making his arguments, so I think he must be intentionally full of it
It’s nice to see these two together today. Steven Meyers book Signature is n the cell started me down a long road that lead me to Christianity. Johnathan’s work has lead me down a long road that lead to Orthodoxy. I was baptized today in the Orthodox Church on Pentacost due to the help of many people like these men guided by the Holy Spirit. Glory to God, and God bless these men and everyone who’s helped me along the way!
Jonathan, it would be great to hear your conversation with biologist Michael Levin. He's already in conversation with Vervaeke and McGilchrist and, as I see it, kinda open for different ideas.
Girlfriend: I'm a Methodist and I'm not sure I want kids, the world is a cruel place. Me: I'm an Atheist, but I should learn enough about Christianity to hold a conversation with you. Kids? I don't know. GOD LAUGHS FOR 4 YEARS (GF) Wife: I'll take care of the baby girl, are the boys dressed for Mass? Me: Is your veil in the minivan? We better hurry if we're going to make Confession. It's amazing how things work out, I only wanted to know enough about Christianity to talk to some chick I was dating, but I ended up marrying that chick and converting both of us to the Catholic faith. I just wanted to know enough to talk to some girl, but I kept learning and kept researching and at some point, the truth of Christianity and the Catholic Church just got harder and harder to deny. At some point, it just became intellectually dishonest to deny it anymore. In fact, being an atheist gave me an advantage, I didn't have all the Protestant hangups. My wife and her mother would shriek, " they worship Mary" and because I was an atheist that just researched without bias, I had already learned that wasn't true and I didn't have to work through any Mary baggage. The only real issues I had to work through were the existence of God, the Resurrection and the divine establishment of a Church. Once I was convinced of that, church history led me the rest of the way. Moral of the story, when you see a couple get together and you're thinking, "Oh this won't end well," just cool your jets. God does amazing things with broken people. That's kind of His thing.
Hilarious.... I got mine because I Heard the gospel While I was high as a kite from a girl who was on acid. Go figure. Your story, totally understand.... (Ya,... the veil is in the mini van, now hurry up.)
Great conversation. I'm glad to hear Jonathan bring up Kastrup. While Bernardo has many good points, I was a bit frustrated in our conversations with him and have long thought that someone like Meyer could fill in the holes in his work. Stratford Caldecott goes back to Pythagoras, from a distinct Christian perspective, in his terrific book: Beauty for Truth's Sake.
"Information presupposes intelligence": a paraphrase of Dr Meyer's observation early in the wonderful discussion that I find truly pivotal. Considering we don't really know what 'matter' is, or 'energy', but have a far better idea about information - data made meaningful by mind/intelligence, where mind/intelligence is, in part, a meaning-making process - we can start from this clear fact of existence - information - and not need a big leap to swap out our concept of matter/energy for data, data which mind then 'creates' or 'organises' into our universe of laws - who knows exactly how at this point - such that we have a functioning or feasible idealism in which there is only consciousness (there is only God), and can do away with the ugly over-complications of mind-matter dualism. That's my (ontological) sense of it, anyway.
Information is not data that's made meaningful by our minds. If that were true, either ribosomes couldn't read and then write mRNA into proteins, or DNA and RNA would have to be said to not be Information. In other words, since ribosomes are not mindful, either they are incapable of reading RNA (which is false), or RNA is not actually Information, or Information does not require a mind and you gave a bad definition of it
@@valtersjanevics65 Lol... how did a science denier get an h-index over 150? Outstanding synthetic chemistry research by the science denier - that's for sure
"Information is the capability of choosing between two or more possibilities in concrete" The decision process necessary to produce information implies or demands an intelligent mind. We all are in a physical universe without asking to come and be here. We can reason from effect to cause. Mathematics conceives infinite as a necessity for mathematics to function completely with full future potential: Therefore we are capable of accepting by demonstrating by reduction to the absurd, that forcibly we are born for a purpose already existent in the Creator's Mind before we came into existence. The opposite void or nothing can't choose between something that doesn't exist. Once, while looking up at the nocturnal sky, I was filled with an intense joy beholding such a vast wonderful beauty; I realized that I was not alone as if listening to a loud voice shouting; And Manuel you are part of this. I felt loved and happy with all intelligent beings like me forever and ever. Alleluia!
I'm so pleased to see Jonathan Pageau and Stephen Meyer in conversation. I had seen the Uncommon Knowledge video discussion with Mr. Meyer previously, and have read his book Return of the God Hypothesis. God bless you both and keep up the good work!
This is incredible. Jonathan I believe what you're saying when you talk about something preexisting is the question, "what makes it sensible?" That's also the responsibility of a higher mind.
Im glad to say ive been posting your darwins doubt video to fb, twitter (x) , on joe rogans saying he has to interview stephen etc. Hundreds of atheistic forums just placing the link. Hopefully ive helped open people's eyes.
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh I think there must be an uncaused cause but lets not pretend we understand. If I see a good portrate painting I know there is a painter even though I dont know where the artist came from..
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh If matter always existed then there must be infinite time. There must be infinite space to put infinite matter in. If random interactions of matter and energy explain all of reality, and matter and energy are infinite, then anything that is possible must necessarily exist regardless of how unlikely. Do you believe in small, red-headed, bearded men who speak with an Irish accent and grant wishes that coincidentally happen to come true? What makes that impossible?
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh Has logic been discovered? If matter is infinite, then anything possible must exist. Why believe nothing, if everything possible must exist? Makes me wonder how we got through an infinite amount of time to reach now, and how will time ever reach infinity if it has a starting point?
I think it just helps explain the mechanism of the physical world and appreciate God's excellence all the more. The main cut, I feel, is to hit back at Anti-theistic Atheists who've been dodging arguments made by Thomas Aquinas and perverting science to support their world view since Darwin. Shocker, material science doesn't support their world view.
@@sigurdholbarki8268 I have heard Anthony Bloom of Sourozh say something to the effect that the one does not have to be refuted by the other because they are two seperate means of acquiring knowledge. And I have heard it said its the limitations of our human minds to see beond some seemingly aparrent contradictions.
The one sentence summary: The functional sequences (of genetic code) are so rare that if you change the bit streams, you are inevitably after very few changes, going to destroy the function long before ever get to something new or functional. - Stephan Meyer
beautiful and revealing conversation. Loved the heady exploration of arguments for the presence of God. Inspiring, Sending to a bunch of my atheist friends.
Yes. I think it’s important to not simply let it rest on how an artisan relates to an artifact in a distant indirect way (pulling from Hart), but that it’s also “in and through” all things in how the world coheres and is intelligible… to realize that those intelligible forms permeate the world through and through, and are not simply the product of our “brain” creating these things in our heads to where we’re lonely islands of meaning and purpose
And I think that is another reason why the Triune God is the only One. Pageau doesn't have the molecular physics background of Meyer's, and Meyer doesn't have the rough hands of a carver. But, through their dialogos, we glimpse the "One".
There's plenty of design in a cat. Cats are fragile but resilient. If you could design a machine with half the agility of a cat, and the ability to suffer through to survive and thrive after catastrophic injuries that would literally kill any human being, they wouldn't be showing off ridiculous, clunky robots as if they think people will be impressed. You sound really undereducated. I feel sorry for you. I guess you went to public school. 😢
i was hoping this conversation would take place... looking forward to it. signature in the cell was one of the best books I've read from the last few years. i would say that the panpsychist perspective follows logically... we don't have an awareness of "Mind" capital M, or anything transcendent. We infer a transcendent mind in relation to our own, less transcendent mind. However, there's no reason to assume that line from more consciousness to less consciousness has to stop at us, or that it jumps arbitrarily from whatever nameless force or forces created the universe to our arbitrary level of awareness. Why would a table not be somewhere on the continuum from "most mind" to "least mind"
Hmm the metaphor that comes to mind is, this text you're reading, is it less or more of my mind than I am? I'd say it's a medium. No need to suppose continuities, but merely to note distinct givens. And these givens have their own continuities. Panpsychism is interesting; though it strikes me as just a plausible misapplication of that minding work that likes to characterize all the minder can as continuous, despite knowing distinctions experientially and categorically, and that these distinctions make different compositions. In metaphorical terms, the notation of letters recognized by us, and the medium of youtube etc, are distinct ways my mind can express itself--knowing that there are alternates and even novelties possible to mediate my mind. What is the case I don't know, but I'm instinctively examining of attempts to totalize and note continuity in a way that's easy for a mind to hold to as a placeholder for exploration.
@@notloki3377 I wrote it fast and somewhat dense, but my diction is precise. If you're interested I can unpack, but if you dismiss it as nonsense because you can't decrypt the sense and more important don't care to, then it'll just be for others. Take care, I'm not going to interact with condescending strangers behind text
@@dominicowusu3032 I think it's fully clear you halfway know what half the words you're using mean. some examples... Hmm the metaphor that comes to mind is, this text you're reading less or more of my mind than I am? aside from the horrible grammar and punctuation, this isn't a metaphor. it's a question. I'd say it's a medium. No need to suppose continuities, but merely to note distinct givens. And these givens have their own continuities. This makes no sense, and also doesn't relate to the first thing you said. Panpsychism is interesting though it strikes me as just a plausible misapplication of that minding work that likes to characterize all the minder can, as continuous, despite knowing distinctions, and that these distinctions make different compositions. This also makes no sense... yeah it's not just me bud. I'll bet a lot of people fail to understand you, and until you learn to take responsibility for your manic ramblings, you will continue to be misunderstood.
@@notloki3377 I just tuned up the grammar so you'd get the metaphor was the text I sent to you, a meta-text as a metaphor. The rest will flow from this. I'll most likely edit the rest given how you read it so that those who are charitable will get what I was exploring. It's pretty easy to understand once you decrypt the mapping I was doing given your spectrum schema with panpsychism. A way to put it is you're talking about a rainbow, while I'm saying it's more like a 🎨 palate of colors when it comes to how we understand, which is a type of painting, and this makes up the painting of what we note as conscious, not conscious etc. I hope this illustrates the idea better.
It makes sense that information, dna etc would take the form of language derived from mind when God spoke the world into being, whatever that means technically doesn’t really matter to me very much, but phenomenologically it would look like a language so that’s a fine analog to explain what’s happening there in a symbolic manner that we can actually understand.
I've talked about this for some time. If origin of life simulations were ever to model reality. The scientist who managed to pull it off would find intelligent organisms inside his simulation, arguing over whether or not he exists.
I love how someone else saw the clints reptiles video and is here 😂. I took two semesters of biology, but I genuinely struggled to make meaningful and understandable arguments before I saw that video. Clint was really helpful at showing me how to make understandable arguments
1:10:30 - Maxwell is how we understand light, electricity and magnetism. You get really mind-blown when you realize that this guy came up with the notion that light is in fact two perpendicular waves of electricity and magnetism. Like what? How does someone come up with that? Later on, quantum mechanics does experiments showing that there is a wave-particle duality of light with packets of light called photons coming into prominence but his theories of electricity and magnetism that he created in the 1860s are still used today and how we have many of the modern appliances we enjoy. Newton, Maxwell, Einstein. Maxwell is the physicist no one outside of physics has heard of. It's crazy too because everything we use in modernity relies on his equations.
Fantastic. Thank you Dr. Meyer for your endurance and courage! It was great hearing that the arguments are finally gaining some traction and momentum among the Big Thinkers. May YHWH bless your work!
salvation isn’t an issue about intelligence but the heart, Bible said that we were born blind in sin, we can’t see the truths even if it’s in front of us, such is the case with Alex O Conner, there’s enough evidence for faith, but only the one given the sight to see and ears to hear can recognize themselves as sinners and come to faith
@@leim100 Both d'souza and Alex o conner are intelligent, so the issue was not so much about intelligence but the ability to support one's position. In the Bible, it says believers should be ready to give reasons for their faith. The topic the 2 discussed was the old testament (not if God exists) and frankly d'souza struggled to answer those questions which I suspect many Christians would also struggle. The old testament poses difficult questions compared to the new testament. Do you think you could have fared better? I hope you watched the debate and considered the questions Alex asked and which d'souza couldn't answer
What I would like to see from the leading atheist in this era is well formulated and coherent arguments that only concerns their position. Instead, most of the time is trying to debunk all Christian arguments or ridiculing them to earn sympathy from their audience. Contrast is mother of clarity.
@@therick363to be fair Christians have been this for nearly 2000 years, whether in scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, St Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton, through to C.S. Lewis and more modern authors. On the other hand that courtesy has not been afforded by atheists from Rousseau and Voltaire to Hegel, Marx and Darwin. Even as recently as Richard Dawkins they've been arguing against an interpretation of Christianity of their own making. I've not met a single atheist who has properly understood Christianity, even when I was an atheist! I do know plenty who have been perfectly respectful though. On the flip side there are a lot of Christians who haven't been properly catechised and seem to have adopted positions that owe more to historic atheism than Christian thought (especially overly literal materialistic interpretations of Scripture) Edit: to be doubly sure to reiterate I'm not trying to be a confrontational bell-end, I'm adding that I'd put a "Like" on your comment! So I might be being a bell-end, but I'm at least trying hard not to!
I'd say it's because atheism can only come from Christianity. And because atheism refuses to acknowledge that its foundations are actually rooted in Christianity, it will always make arguments against Christianity to defend its position.
“The privileged planet” is an awesome film. I thought it was dedicated to explaining the Fine Tuning argument but that’s just half of it. The universe was not only finely tuned to have complex life. It was finely tuned to be scientifically discoverable!
*_The sheer impossibility of life is something which took me by surprise._* For most of my 74 years, I fully expected scientists to get closer and closer to building cells from scratch. But to expect life to spring forth from a primordial sludge is like expecting a magma red Mercedes Benz SL500, with a full gas tank to result from natural, random processes. While the Jennifer Blank experiment proved that more complex chemicals can result from collisions, that was a splatter-gun effect -- not one with usable, organized materials. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Actually, the probabilities of an RNA world are 5!4!...or 120 x 24 = 2880 Hardly astronomical as you suggest and practically guaranteed in terms of probability and the number of planets where similar conditions are available.
54:30 - Physics has this as a principle in quantum mechanics - the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You cannot know both the velocity and the position of an electron because the act of observing the electron will change its position and/or its velocity. And that's because for us to observe anything we require light (in any part of the spectrum) to bounce off of the electron which would mean the electron would absorb the energy from the light wave and thus change its position and/or velocity. There's a lot of weird things like this in physics where we can never fully extract ourselves to observe reality as an outsider. The theory of relativity also shows that as well. Einstein was quite ahead of everyone when he asked "what would reality look like if I were traveling at the speed of light?" Many examples of relativity will show how bouncing balls look different to people based on where they are and what frame of reference they are in, ex. a moving train vs being stationary. I think this is why physics in all its abstraction seems to always get people who are more faith-based than other sciences. When I was using complex calculus in my upper division physics courses, it always felt like I was sort of looking at the programming code of reality. It's hard to escape that it seems to have been written by God. I used to say I was looking at "the mind of God" when looking at upper division physics even though I was an agnostic at the time.
4:50 - One way to thin about apparent design is to think of an observer seeing design and inferring nothing, because they are outside that design. Another way to think about this is 'middle out' thinking, starting from where you are, instead of where things began. Both of these views require something I call Objective Material Reality (OMR) which is the scientific world view, where no responsibility exists. Also no intimacy, because you have removed yourself from participation (the cost of not being responsible) and live in an opponent processing world. Reality, however, is made up of and held together by cooperative processing where you participate with the world. 5:35 - Inference is not a problem, unless you try to do it from OMR. Then you've hid your assumptions (framing) about (of) the world. 14:45 - The problem is that Darwin wrote a book called 'The Origin of Species' - materialists have extended this to imagine he was writing about the origin of life. Those aren't the same thing at all. Technically, Darwin was talking about how the Ontology (proper science) of species comes about, life happens along before that. 17:30 - One confusion is this idea of 'evolutionary theory' - when people use this term, they seem to be referring to some theories, some hypothesis, some unprovable ideas and lots of inference. So it's a large set, most of things that aren't theories at all or things that cannot have science applied to them. 34:20 - One way to think about the claim that the universe is knowing itself is to realize that this is a bottom up (emergence) view. Where emergence is good. This means that when anything happens, it is good. Sounds like chaos to me. This one axiom explains the entirety of thought. The better axiom for understand is "being is good". Sure, you have a hole, but you have the same hole with emergence. Being requires structure, which requires intelligence, but it also requires care (agapic love or something) but once you put that in, everything else follows quite nicely. With emergence first or emergence is good, you get nothing for long and nothing that lasts as good. 34:50 - Good stuff, this is emergence as explanation (notice, science carves things up to reduce free variables, to make accurate, precise, consistent and reliable predictions) which causes a loss of relationship (and therefore reduces the qualities or potential qualities of that relationship - loss of Intimacy) and therefore causes use to see the world as emergent. This requires OMR (Objective Material Reality) to be the stance you take to do all this work. You've removed yourself from creation, as such, this is creation denial. Meaning crisis explained. Individualism explained. materialism (what else can emerge?) explained. 39:16 - Great phrase - in the past - yes, this is middle out thinking. Reasoning forwards and backwards from today. Rejecting the frame of creation (there was something here before you, bigger than you, that you were born into). I realize this sounds like an illogical, irrational, unreasonable way to think about the world, but if you listen, you'll hear that is how many scientists talk about the world. 54:00 - My issue is this is a well known phenomenon in physics called the observer effect. So if the most disciplined and least tied to material objects (because atoms and light are technically below materiality in some sense) and the issue is not only far more pronounced but well studied and taken for granted as irresolvable. I can see where other scientific disciplines are catching up, but also, why reinvent this wheel when another branch has the 'answer' (unscientific and unsatisfying as it may be). 1:04:00 - The assumption of new atheists is that philosophy resolves morality and therefore would lead you to a proper political view, scientific view, etc. This is really ignorant, it's a huge misunderstanding of how the Greeks thought of philosophy. Of course for them, morals resolve meaning, then when it doesn't, everything falls down. Meaning Crisis confirmed. Of course, this comes because when you remove persons by using Objective Material Reality, you remove the ability to create quality relationships, thus the Intimacy Crisis, which precludes meaning from even being able to be discussed. 1:08:00 - Emergence is good - flat world theology (without creation) which is caused by creation denial, not the story, the concept of a creation that existed before you were conscious. If you listen carefully, you'll hear Sam Harris types talk like this all the time. The larger issue is that they are ignoring the idea of Final Cause (which I'll argue is emanation) and combining the other Aristotelian causes together to form 'science' (which is a flattening of itself).
The argument he made for quite some time that because DNA works like a code just like computers interpret ones and zeros isn’t a good one. Computers only interpret ones and zeroes because of the physics of semiconductors when a voltage is applied. You could make computers based off of binary code out of pneumatic, macroscopic tubes that perform the same functions. From a one and zero to typing a comment on this video is a traceable line of physics. While I’m not a biologist, I can’t imagine there isn’t a similar line of physics that go from DNA encodings to how it instructs proteins to be built. It’s all analog in the end. So essentially his argument boils down to, “there are laws of physics so there has to be a law maker,” but that has nothing to do with intelligent design.
It's closer to 1) Information comes from a mind 2) Computer code contains information 3) Computer code comes from a mind 1) information comes from a mind 2) DNA contains information 3) DNA comes from a mind The laws of physics are insufficient for explaining the phenomenon of seeing these pixels in the screen and interpreting them into language. You can take it for granted as "just happening" but without being able to justify it it becomes an arbitrary "just is" And if that can just be arbitrarily assumed everything else can also be with equal validity.
@@SuperJohnmusic premise "all mammals live on land" is false because we have found marine mammals In order for that analogy to not be faulty you would need to be able to prove "all information comes from minds" is a false statement without begging the question
It seems that you don't understand the relationship between a DNA codon and the choice of amino acid for each point in the sequence of amino acids of a protein. There are 20 amino acids to choose from, each choice depends on the DNA code, a thing that has no known provenance. And you don't understand the importance of each amino acid in a protein to its function; single point mutations cause many diseases.
Form follows function! ALWAYS! Stones don't accidentally arrange themselves into a well-placed wall, and then humans discover its utility. Organization follows purpose just as effect follows cause. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Thank you, thank you, thank you Dr. Meyer for pronouncing "processes" correctly. (Most Darwinians say "process-ease", and that's my favorite reason for not taking them seriously.)
If intelligent design is not a factor, then tell the software programmers that are designing artificial intelligence to just let it be and all will come together on its own.
@@sh0k0nesIf we are walking though a forest and come across an old helicopter, must we first know how the designer came up with the idea, the factory in which it was assembled and the airfield in which it was tested in order to safely assume it had a creator? Me: “look at this beautiful wristwatch, the craftsmanship that went into it is outstanding” You: “I refuse to believe it was designed and built by intelligent beings, as far as I’m concerned it came to be through random chemical processes until you can tell me who designed it, where it was built and how it was tested”
00:15 Humans are the confluence of intelligence in the Universe, And even though the universe is ultimately governed by Laws of nature from an intelligent creator, humans are the image of the Creator within his own creation..
Ok so let’s imagine there was an intelligent designer - what’s the mechanism by which god starts off life, and then moulds it to make each new species? The universe is already going for billions of years and then suddenly he’s manually sticking together the right chemicals in the right way so that they can later replicate all on their own without continued intervention? So it’s just a short time thing where he’s meddling with the physical world? Or he sets it all off at the start of the universe knowing that everything will collide in such and such a way? Or maybe it’s just a few times that he does the meddling? Why did god start with unicellular life, then multicellular, then chordates, then fish, then primitive (not modern) amphibians then lizards etc. why make that gradual increase in physiological complexity? I don’t see how this idea is actually useful scientifically, there’s no actually mechanism being posited here, no set of constraints of when we might expect there to be a bit of godly meddling and when it’s ‘business as usual’ and the biological processes are doing their self replication thing on their own.
Do you have to know the intention behind every stroke of an artists brush in order to accept that it was painted by an intelligent sentient being? Or do you believe the painting came to be through completely natural chemical processes without any intelligent input? I find this line of reasoning incredibly odd. I guess it makes the purely materialistic worldview easier to swallow because you can omit any “why” questions.
@@dirtyharold7164 I’m not a materialist, I just don’t think this line of thought is fruitful or useful or convincing. I’m not talking about the intention, that’s not the contention here. I’m saying this is offering a quasi rational/scientific argument that actually offers no greater explanatory power. In addition, it’s not a fruitful line of thinking for the spiritual life, and coming to theosis. The question of whether god exists is not something to tie yourself to one scientific proposition or another. What if they suddenly did find the RNA that could replicate itself. Would you stop believing in God? It’s the same trap as before with the materialists. God is something to aim to apprehend in each moment.
Stephen and Jonathan, thank you for chaseth our OWN. As WHO chaseth ye! From Who am I? Time liken unto a messenger sent forth. Is like Jonathan and Stephen, who are you? Our names don't exist! Without thy shared "i" AM Jonathan and Stephen! Gratitude and Honor! Share
The information system (DNA) is in the cell...and the cell is the only place that it is manufactured...by the instructions of the info system (DNA). So which comes first? The Programmer.
@@stevepaige7557 I agree. I guess I shouldve said the idea that life evolves from the poressures of survival seems to me to be right. How the instructions got into DNA and how they actually do change becuase of outside forces, to me, is where a programmer would come into play.
I highly recommend listening to the Hoover Institute discussion he mentioned. They have an ID biologist on the panel that will go into deeper discussion on the pitfalls of evolution. It is a very stimulating discussion.
I don't find the fine tuning argument convincing. It's just looking at phenomena backwards, from the point of a foregone conclusion. From a certain perspective, my toast crumbs have a one in a trillion chance of landing on my plate in the particular pattern that they do -- but we don't wax that they were designed that way. Likewise, if the universe was "set up" another way with different parameters, there might well be a different type of intelligence that thought itself lucky that gravity or radiation or what have you was "just right" for it to exist. It seems to be the same type of physicalist analysis that Pageau critiques when it comes from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc. We can still talk about God establishing the pattern to which things tend, for example, without insinuating that "complexity as such" (much less the complexity of physical processes) is somehow indicative of his activity.
What functionality are your toast crumbs engaged in? That might be the key difference here. The rarity of living organisms includes their FUNCTIONALITY. You can claim your random toast crumbs ARE serving a function. But let's see those same crumbs, eminate from themselves a new generation of crumbs which perform a similar function. It's not the odds that are "important", it's the functionality nested within those odds.
My understanding is that there simply aren’t enough possible combinations of physical parameters that would lead to chemistry (let alone life) to make random chance a reasonable conclusion. Of course it’s not impossible, but so unfathomably unlikely that it’s laughable. So we owe existence itself either to an unfathomably unlikely chance or a mind.
@@blairholmgren9748This seems fallacious. You are analyzing a phenomena from the privileged position of it having already occurred. The likelihood of any given phenomena occurring is 100%, provided you analyze it in the present. You are also comparing our reality vs "our reality, changed" - not our reality vs some wholly different reality. So all you are really saying is, "things would be different if things had been different". Sure, and provided there was still time and cause and effect, those "different things" would seem just as "fine tuned" as our own - reliant as they would be on the whole history of the universe before them. There's also no saying that there couldn't be consciousness in your alternate reality, either. We are on Jonathan's channel after all, and it seems like having your cake and eating it too to suggest that consciousness is reliant on a particular configuration of chemistry, but also immaterial/miraculous. I'm sure Jonathan would find it silly to speculate on how chemistry determined the consciousness of Man before the Fall, for example.
@@easymentalityI did separate phenomena from their function - I said we can talk about God's establishment of a pattern to which things tend (a pattern of being or function, if you like) without fine tuning. I really just find the topic to be a red herring that needlessly muddies the waters with a kind of physicalism. On the one hand we disparage the notion of "balls bouncing into each other" - on the other we suggest that God's work is in one way or another reducible to arranging or upholding a particular configuration of balls. You yourself say here that "functionality is nested within the odds", which is deterministic and totally at odds with Jonathan's notion of vertical causality, for example. Life and consciousness is not sacred because it has a self-perpetuating function (so does a cloud or a crystal, if you really want another example) or because it is apparently "rare".
You kind of dodged the physical constraint challenge. This is a series of events that have to happen in the order they did because they have low tolerance. Any change in any of the steps would cause the stable structure to collapse. Many of these also happen in a timed sequence, where any other order would cause the stable structure to collapse.
If I understand the math, it’s unlikely that evolution through random mutation occurred in our time line, it’s also unlikely to have occurred at any time in the history of the universe.
@@therick363 it’s dead. Nothing about it is defendable. The fossil record is absent, the math for random mutation doesn’t work, epiGenetics blasts Darwinism out of the water. It failed at every level
The physical laws are not only tuned to generate an environment where life, as we know it, can occur, but also to the possibility that it survives and replicates. These laws should be totally indifferent to whether an organism survives or not, and whether it replicates or not. However, the theologians of evolution, want us to believe that the principle of survival and replication is sacrosanct, there is something in an organism that wants to make it survive, because that's how it has to be, and there is something that wants to make it replicate, also because that's how it has to be. Let's imagine that potential first organism, formed by some chemical miracle, well, that's not the only miracle, it also, miraculously, has the "will" to search, passively or actively, for the resources it needs for its survival. Now, in a totally random environment, and devoid of all consciousness, where would that need for survival arise from? To survive or not to survive is the same from non-consciousness perspective, and not to survive is the simplest thing from the point of view of purely random change, and we are not talking about replication yet. But for the theologians of evolution, those miracles are simply possible due to the great God of chance, who can do everything with enough time, although they really never seriously began to calculate how much that enough time would be. They also don't want us to think much about it, it's rather, the magic potions are poured, they let them to be mixed for "enough" time, they say abracadabra, and what we see now happens ..
*_Wow!_* Intelligence is the "ability to choose between." Sixty years ago, I learned a definition of intelligence as the ability to recognize *_identities, differences and similarities._* In today's political environment, the forces of "Evil" (darkness, randomness, chaos, entropy) don't want people to be capable of recognizing differences and similarities, but *_only identities._* This is identity politics. This is mindless *_control_* by tyrants. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
This is all fine, but unfalsifiable hypotheses do not avail themselves of scientific methodology. You are talking about philosophical questions, not scientific ones. Fine tuning is not really evidence, for example. In what universe would you expect to be in in order to be able to even ask such a question? And arguing things are “too complex” could just mean we simply don’t understand what’s going on yet. The problem is using these philosophical ideas to somehow justify belief in any one particular religion or even type of spiritual practice.
I agree, using this reasoning to back up your religious beliefs is disingenuous. However, materialistic methodology doesn’t prove or disprove the origin of the universe or life. People who think they know for sure the answer to the origin of the universe and life, whether through design or pure materialism, religion or atheism are both as ignorant as each other. It’s an age old mystery that I don’t believe will ever be answered.
The defeater against abiogenesis: 1. DNA replication requires several proteins, and multi-protein machines that read, collect, assemble nucleotides together. 2. Those very same replication protein machines REQUIRE pre-existing DNA to code them, which means the protein machines can only arise from DNA-coded protein assembly in another mechanism. It is impossible to start "from 0" without the initial code already existing, you cannot make DNA without using DNA code. And the DNA code and coding mechanism are co-dependent. You cannot spontaneously generate a complex multi-component co-dependent system, from random chemical soup. It really is irreducible complexity. Software never writes itself from 0.
@@dirtyharold7164name one thing I’ve said that was nonsense…. I haven’t spammed. I’ve responded to what people say. That’s opposite f spamming. Try again
Potholes are created, and water fits them perfectly, which is really annoying because you can't always tell how deep they are before driving through it.
Trying hard to keep listening, but so far it's sophistry, pseudo-science, cobbled together misunderstandings of many different fields, and lots of god of the gaps arguments. Seems like both speakers have studied these fields only deeply enough to find any place that allows them to sow doubt, and immediately insert god. I try to listen to all sides in order to be informed, but this seems like childish uninformed/underinformed wishful thinking. Anyone with any expertise in biological evolution, information theory or software development could clear up most of these misunderstandings, so they cant be run away with and turned into this kind of techno/psycho-babble.
yes indeed ... his use of "highly improbably" gives the game away. Pageau's contributions concerning "mind" were better, but neither seemed to see that they were on different pages.
Not going to happen...since the argument for which they have no evidence...has devolved into, "If you can't explain THIS, then you cannot DISPROVE, what I have NO PROOF of." As the empirical understanding of the universe has advanced and challenged the declared truths of metaphysics, the only available strategy left to it is its continual attempts to shift the burden of proof to that of the negative assertion that is entirely semantical...resulting in circular nonsense and self-contradiction based on "definitional avoidance," rendering the words meaningless. i.e. Lack of belief becomes belief. The is no god...becomes a positive assertion when its accurate meaning is "There is no evidence for god or any other metaphysical belief system." Agnosticism which is again a "lack of belief" or knowing...is presented as doubt open to possibilities, rather than its actual components that are 1.) lack of evidence for. and 2.) the unknowability of certain concepts such as "the absolute", eternity, etc.
*_Observations of Connectedness:_* * Mice in New York are shown a maze and eventually learn it. Mice of the same species in Tokyo learn the same maze in a faster time. * A vine will change its direction of growth when a pesky human moves the rake toward which it had intended to climb. * Fossil record shows that evolution of species occurs in fits and starts -- "punctuated equilibrium" -- which destroys the random mutation model. These facts suggest that one of the dimensions above the 4th might link individuals of a species so that once one of its members solves an environmental problem, others of the same species will also solve the same problem, leading to the entire species moving in a new genetic direction en masse. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Darwinism seems at least limited, but there can also be intelligent design without a designer. Consider the set of all possible multiverses and pick a multiverse with intelligent design, and our universe as a member of that multiverse. No designer needed! Because the set of all possible multiverses exists timelessly. Similar to how Pi = 3.14159... doesn't need a designer.
Correct. Intelligent designers are assuming that DNA was encoded by someone, claiming that the “information” is there as an intelligible instruction purposefully designed by an intelligent being. To the contrary, we have seen for instance; how viruses and bacteria are changing its DNA to adapt to their new host, mutating themselves to survive. These mutations are carrying new information to their DNA, without the intervention of an intelligent mind doing the change, or are we assuming viruses have a mind themselves?. Why such variants happen without the intervention of intelligent beings? And if it is an intelligent designer, who is going to design such a viruses in the first place? I really want to ask some serious questions to the designer, especially for the deseases, natural disasters and the mind of killers and pedos.
Where life came from very much matters if one is after living a meaningful life. Ignorance is also bliss, but unfortunately is devoid of meaning. Not everybody is after the same thing in life. But I believe the highest satisfies the most, even more than anything that is blisfull or most meaningful!
@@wangxiaoming8989 I guess no one has a meaningful life then. Because no one has any clue where we came from. You can believe what you want but no one actually knows anything. So it’s a waste of time to think about. Life is meant to be enjoyed. That’s all.
@@wangxiaoming8989 - that's not true. You don't need to know where life came from to have a meaningful life. You just need to know that life itself is important. I think it helps people to feel less despair if they know that there's a why life is important. The why is usually important when everything has been taken from you and you are literally at your lowest low. Otherwise, most people don't need to know why. I think what's more important is living intentionally. Being aware of the consequences of the choices that you make no matter how big or small they might be. People can have a belief in the why and still have no meaning in life because they don't live intentionally.
@@keithmurf426 How can anybody enjoy anything in life when you claim that no one actually knows anything and that we can all believe whatever we want? Is that really a joyous life? That is chaos! Under no circumstance can a chaotic life be enjoyed. What joy is there to life in the presence of such a depressing claim, in the presence of not knowing anything for sure and being so confused about it all ? Joy, if there is any, is short lived like that. There is no true and long lasting joy to such a life, I don't think there can be anything more depressing than not knowing where we really stand regarding these matters. And it's a waste of time to think about such important matters that would make a world of difference if one would get them right? Really? We do have a clue (and more) about where we came from, we just don't have complete understanding. We came from a source, as everything that exists must have been sourced from somewhere. At the very bottom of it, there must be a primary source that has not been sourced by anything else. If we always say that there is yet another source behind it, then we can go like this forever and never get to the bottom of it. There has got to be a bottom, otherwise nothing would hold. The tendency of somebody holding this never-ending sourcing view is to say that it doesn't matter where life came from, as a defense mechanism to preserve sanity and maintain the ignorant bliss. To solve this infinite regression, a source without beginning must be accepted (surely, by faith, as knowing can only get us so far). That primary source people have called God, so we do have a clue, but we cannot completely understand how something can exist without having a beginning. God cannot be understood fully, precisely because he is not like us, but what we can say is that a primary source exists, just that this source is very peculiar. If you don't accept this primary source, then you accept infinite regression, which again the mind has trouble understanding and coping with. Humans need a foundation (both psychologically, as well as in everything that we do physically), as only in the presence of a foundation things begin to have meaning and one can start building anything (eg. a coherent understanding), regardless of us fully comprehending that foundation, we just need a foundation to be. Without a firm/solid foundation somewhere, nothing has the capacity to be. In absence or denial of such a foundation, there is no meaning, just random mindless processes supporting each other ad infinitum, floating in thin air without any solid grounding to sit on. This is nonsense according to human thinking, but this human thinking is all that we have, we don't know of any other kind of thinking. This solid, firm, foundation must exist for anything else to be built atop it, and this foundation was not created by anything else, it just IS, otherwise we have infinite regression and we're back to square one. This is the human logical conclusion that one reaches when accepting an uncreated first source, the source just IS. Not accepting this, then all meaning in life is lost, it is all random, it is all foundationless. Which one is the lesser evils? Accepting God in his incomprehensible uncreated way of being? Or not accepting him, but instead accepting infinite regression and a model of life where everything ultimately floats in thin air without anything clear or solid to sit upon? Accepting infinite regression means accepting nothing, you have no foundation to your life, or to your thinking, no coherence to any argument you want to make. But accepting a primary source as the most basic foundation, a source that cannot be comprehended in the way that it just IS without being created, is accepting meaning into one's life, and being able to build upon this. Without a foundation everything crumbles, nothing can really stand, even one's psychology and mental sanity crumbles if given enough time living with a foundationless worldview. Even your statement is random in this case, "Life is meant to be enjoyed" cannot apply but to you, somebody else might say the opposite and that will be equally true in a random mindless world without a foundation or purpose. Atheism is really a self defeating incoherent worldview, it just doesn't have any foundation (and thus cannot stand) when the basis for everything to exist needs a foundation to be there. When there is a foundation (as nothing could exist without it), then that implies the existence of mindful processes and the existence of a universal truth that stays true no matter what we wish to believe. Such a world is more meaningful than an atheistic worldview in which nobody has a clue where we come from, inadvertently accepting this way the debilitating infinite regression model that ultimately collapses your life. Clues we have plenty that point to a prime source, just full knowledge of this source we lack, and forever will lack as finite humans that we are with little capacity to understand things far greater than us. If one begins with no foundation, and thus meaninglessness, from the very bottom, then one cannot even say that "life is meant to be enjoyed", because this sentence is the result of a random mindless, foundationless and meaningless process that just happened to emerge outside of any purposefully created order. Since I also believe (and many others do) that your sentence is true, that implies a universal/general truth, which further implies a universal general source, and that source was labeled God. God is not a human invention, it is humans having no choice but to accept such a source needing to exist by looking at how orderly and consistent everything around us is, and understanding that creation needs a foundation for anything else to be built upon. No structure can be built on thin air. It is the same with the universe, it cannot exist on its own, there must be a firm prime source somewhere that upholds it, and that source cannot have another source underlying it because then it cannot be called the prime source. So the source is uncreated, it just IS. We have no choice but to accept this source as existing, however we will never be able to prove this source to exist because this source is not like any of us. We (barely) only understand ourselves, we cannot even understand what happens in the head of our pet dog, or pet cat, much less understand the source of everything or how exactly everything came to be. So we do have a clue where we came from, just not full understanding. And that is because we can not comprehend what is larger than us. It is for the same reason why each one of us stands on the shoulders of giants, but the giant on which ourselves stand, is just far too large for any one of us to comprehend it, or see it fully. So we just have clues that we must stand on a very big giant/source. That source, for better understanding it, though not fully understanding it, has been regarded to be a "father" figure. Why a father you may ask? Because it is the idea that creation/life, at the very beginning, was seeded by a source. In human understanding, a man is what seeds life into the next generation. So then, with our limited human understanding, we labeled this source as being a Father. We don't know fully what this source really is, but it is "like" a Father, and that name stuck. Nobody else came with a better description of the source, one that feels closer to how humans operate, one that humans can relate to somehow and derive meaning in life. It may all be false, but choosing to go down this road of rejecting such a personal God, the end destination is madness because one will go mad before fully understanding what God really is. It is just not possible to fully comprehend the giant/source that one is sitting on, or owns its life to. But there are clues everywhere you look about the nature of this giant. So we accept that God is "something" like us, but at the same time he is much more than we will ever be able to comprehend. So we have clues that God exists. There are all clues, and based on these clues one can derive meaning in life. In absence of these clues, true meaning is impossible. Preferring to remain ignorant to these matters, or saying that it doesn't matter where life came from, is just a symptom of living a meaningless, foundationless, sourceless, atheistic, Godless life. I don't think there is anything more important in anyone's life than getting these things straight, getting clear about where has everything originated from and why. Why would there be anything rather than nothing? Why would anybody/anything (the source) who has everything give there where there was nothing to begin with (as the world was made from nothing, or the world was made when there was nothing around)? For the same reason why a rich man that has money gives to the poor man that has nothing. Out of compassion perhaps? The universe exists out of compassion, or out of love, but "love" is a term overly used to explain the "why" anything exists. But the reason why everything exists, you, me, and everything else around us is because of the compassion of that mighty source labeled Father, out of which everything came into being in a way impossible to fully grasp because we are just not at the mighty level of the source. We only stand on his shoulders, much less have the capacity to encompass this giant with our mind, thoughts, imagination or deeds. But we do have clues about the Source, we have plenty of them. That's the only thing that we have, clues, proportional to our human feeble and limited capacity to understand them, never the full and whole knowledge or the full evidence due to all of the reasons mentioned above.
@@francestaylor9156 Based on what are you saying that "life itself is important"? We all need to have a base, a foundation upon which we say what we say. In absence of a base/foundation nobody can say "life is important" as it is just one's opinion. Personal opinions don't matter so much. The truth is far greater, and that is what should be sought, talked about and prioritized in anyone's life. It is important to have a clue on what one bases their claims, whatever their claims are. Not basing your claims on anything, and just saying what "feels right" is a meaningless way to engage with life, regardless of how much benefit one derives from such an engagement. Such an engagement with life will only lead to depression further down the road, despite perhaps working short term. We need to have a clue as to where life came from, we need to have a foundation to our utterances. In answering the "why" one finds meaning. Life is important not because any of us says so, but because the source, the base proved it is important because it is basing it/supporting it, and you and me can live. For a source to support life, something that is so dear to every one of us, I can only say that this "base" gives a damn about us considering our life to be important and not terminate it on the spot. Who else today gives a damn about what really matters to you? Very few and far between people do that, however the base of life (call it source, creator, or God) seems to give a damn about you and me considering our lives to be important and worth living. If the base wouldn't care, everything would cease to exist at once. Why uphold life, there is very little return on investment for somebody like God, everyone has turned their back to this mighty prime giant. What benefit does the Source derive from upholding our lives? Why base/support life anymore unless there is a willingness on the part of the base to support something that I happen to hold as most dear to me? So we do have a clue about the nature of this incomprehensible base/source/God. He has a "giving a damn" nature. On such a base, I find you statement "life is important" meaningful. The source "said" that first, before you said it, by allowing life to be and continuing to uphold it. But without this source saying it first, your words are meaningless, random and baseless. The base considers this statement meaningful by his continuing of basing life, therefore I derive great meaning from this sentence because it is the truth, not something that just happens to rock my boat, or a sentence that I hide behind because I am afraid to go get answers to the big questions of life, like why do we exist, or where has everything come from? In absence of this base/foundation, it is all meaningless and devoid of any long term standing. It is good for any one of us to know our origin, to know where we come from. It is not that important to understand every step of how we got here. Getting lost in the details of how everything works is fascinating (eg. science), but if one does only that all their life, then one is deprived of seeing the bigger picture. Seeing the bigger picture we all can, but trying to understand the details of how everything works we simply can't. We can try, and we will discover more, but we will never know everything that there is to know, nor have a full and complete picture of everything that there is. A lifetime of devotion to scientific discovery will not be enough to comprehend it all. But at least we can know where we came from, and why, despite not being able (or needing) to fully comprehend the process and/or the details. I'd say we never will be able to fully comprehend the process of how us and everything came to be as that would entail having the mind of God, and such a mind we have not. But we can enjoy knowing that our life is supported, it is based by something mighty and incomprehensible that we will forever be in awe about. Without a base, everything is meaningless, no matter what one says. Touch base people! There is nothing else more worthwhile in doing while in this life. Gather the crumbs/clues that fall from high places, and piece them together to realize what a great sacrifice we have all, and everything around us, been sourced/made with. Great works are always made with great sacrifices. Who sacrifices anything these days for you or for me? They would rather sacrifice you and me for their benefit instead. The source of it all is just not like that! So yeah, life is important, but not because you, I, or anybody else says it. It is because the source considers it important to have bothered sourcing it and continuing to uphold it. If life matters for the source, then you also matter for the source, regardless of if every human on the planet tells you that you don't matter or that you have no value. Abiding in this realization and understanding gives you meaning in life at every step of the way, helps you overcome any obstacle, helps you live with intentionality and chases away depression (or any low you may be in) better than any prescribed medicine. All thanks to being a bit clued in about the nature of the source of it all. So most people DO need to know the "why", everyone needs to. Why wouldn't anybody want to know where life came from? One has got to be mad not to wish to be in the clear about one's origin, as much as it is possible for humankind to know. Complete knowledge nobody will ever have, that is only the Source's exclusive privilege.
If we grant the existence of life, we do know how life can get more information. Sometimes, certain sections of DNA are duplicated, which gives more information.
The fine tuning argument does not necessitate us. Nor does it require the Biblical God. For example, the neoplatontic One would be provide a set of constraints. In fact Plotinus argues that mind is dependent on principles that make it possible.
There is equivocation in the notion of information between the Shanon sense with is probabilistic relations between events and semantic information which what intelligence has. A lifeless universe has titanic amount of information in it in the first sense but none in the second. Shanon was repeatedly clear that he was not talking about meaning. The argument about information is very problematic and the fine tuning argument does not necessitate the emergence of mind. All of this is being run together. There is tremendous mindless information in a diamond. Are diamonds made by minds? If you don’t keep this distinction then computers are minds because they have extremely complex Information processing. Simply rolling some dice rules out alternatives and generates Shanon information. Using the language of choosing between alternatives is misleading. The dice are not choosing anything. The laws of nature rule out billions of alternatives but that does make them minds.
Current evolutionary theory does not rely on just random change but also through processes of exaptation (tongue exalted for speech) niche construction, self-organization and emergence. Also if information only emerges from minds then how does it arises in brains? If information only arises from intelligence then how do neurons give rise to intelligence? Do they have minds? This position has many if not more than the questions being raised here against evolutionary theory.
Nagel did not conclude theism. He concluded that we need to change our fundamental ontology. To see that developed well see The Blind Spot.
You have to read The Design Inference by William Dembski, he addresses most of these concerns. ID proponents aren’t speaking of just any information, but Specified Complexity. Furthermore, Dembskis elucidation of the Law of Conservation of Information disqualifies any stochastic process from explaining the emergence of specified complexity. Natural selection and other mechanisms solve nothing - they just push the problem back, usually to the environment.
EDIT: I will expand this point below because John's comment has been pinned.
Natural selection does not create information, it TRANSFERS information. Biological complexity cannot come from biological simplicity; it must come from pre-existing environmental complexity. The image of a man coming from a monkey is propagandistic nonsense - a blatant absurdity. "Natural selection" is just a different way of saying environmental to biological transference. The human does not come from the monkey, according to actual Darwinist logic, but the ENVIRONMENT. The question then arises, "Where did this environment come from?" You cant say its by chance, because then you might as well just say that the organism came about by chance:
Insofar as you invoke natural selection to explain the "origin" of information, you are positing at least the SAME AMOUNT of information to be present in the environment itself, and thus you have accomplished absolutely nothing. Nothing has become more plausible at all. Dembski has proven this mathematically with his S4S "Search for Search" theorems and it is really quite straightforward... All of this is really just basic logic: X cannot come from Y unless X is in some way contained within Y. If X comes about and X is not contained within Y, it did not come from Y; it came from somewhere else. In evolutionism, that "somewhere else" has got to be the environment. The Darwinists have successfully swindled the population for over 100 years and I have to say it is actually impressive.
Here is an example to help you understand the problem very simply: We have a target with a bullseye, and we can see that there are arrows consistently hitting the bullseye. We conclude, logically, that this is not due to chance and that there is a skilled archer involved here. The Darwinist, in a sense, would say, "No, no, no! There is no archer here! There is just an arrow shooting machine that is shooting the arrows! There is no mind involved, just a mechanism!" But they don't ask the obvious follow-up question: "What is this arrow shooting machine and where did it come from?" Could it be designed? Well the answer is yes, because the information necessary to hit the bullseye - specified complexity - is CONSERVED as you push the problem back.
Evolution as it is conceived by moderns is impossible; true evolution is an unfolding - the word evolve comes from Latin evolvere, which means to roll out, yet an OUT always presupposes an IN from which it has rolled out FROM. It is like the petals of a flower which unfold from the center. Only two options remain: the entire human genome and the genome of every other animal (as well as other types of information) have been encoded from the beginning of the universe and have unfolded in some convoluted and mysterious way via different environments, OR the universe is not a closed clockwork system. The traditional perspective holds the latter, but neither of these are compatible with secularism, unless you wish to invoke multiverses. (which is just a cry for help)
Personally, I don't subscribe to transformist evolution at all, but even if you do, you cannot escape the fact that natural selection is inherently teleological.
I will give my unsolicited opinion and most likely wrong interpretation.
I believe that if I understood the arguments in the video correctly, the argument about information is that complex information that leads to function, like bits in a computer or ACGT nucleotide bases, point to a mind.
The argument does not seem to be (at least what I interpreted) that the more information there is, the more likely a mind was involved. The fine tuning parameters for example, are important because they lead to life on earth, not because they generate massive amounts of complex information by existing. But having said that, even "mindless" information is only subjectively mindless, given different contexts, it could have meaningful interpretations, and the context comes from a mind.
I don't see a way to escape the connection between mind and information.
But that is just my opinion, and I am not a scientist, nor do I have a PhD. on anything.
There's something very materialistic about Stephen's argument. To explain away evolution, he's making everything mechanical in a Newtonian sense. I'm imagining God writing his programs in C that are later compiled into into machine code stored in carbon based lifeforms to be executed as written. Software updates come from above rather than the rich interconnection that life has with it's environment in it's attempt to traverse uncertain terrain. He unwittingly includes everything into the titanic amount of lifeless information with the exception of a programing engineer that is nowhere to be seen... in his mother's basement maybe.
Dembski points out that improbability itself is not sufficient to infer activity of mind. It must be improbable event confirming to an independently given pattern: getting any given number in a roulette rules out the same amount of alternatives, but when a given number is the winning number, then there is something more going on. He has an explanatory filter in his book, which I don't fully recall.
Here is a wild thought: Is the world a covenant between form and flux, a semiotic/symbolic interface between the two? Implying, to me, that information comes on the scene after the covenental act?
How about a three-way discussion with Meyer? I am not a scientist, but I think that could be interesting if we did it in a way that is not too technical.
It’s becoming increasingly difficult to deny the truth of Christianity at this point. I was an ardent atheist for years, but with all the research I’ve done the last 6 years, I can’t hold that position any longer. Great conversation!
no its not. Even if there was proof of intelligent design, that in no way gets you to the christian god.
"Every knee will bow, every tongue confess that He is Lord". We aren't going to accomplish that - He will. Welcome aboard! :)
@@neilknowsnuthinyour intelligence coming from a Nonintelligence source makes perfect sense!!! 😂
why specifically Christianity?
if atheism is false that doesnt mean God is a mortal human being...
there is a better and more coherent alternative for you out there..
Thats a poor strawman of the Christian position@@Harris19941
Of all the interviews of Dr. Stephen Meyer I have seen, Jonathan, I have to say, in this interview he seemed most engaged. I think that is due to your ability to pick out and elucidate points throughout the discussion that were quite profound, and allowed Stephen to connect dots he doesn’t usually get prompted on in most interviews.
This was truly one of the most enjoyable discussions I’ve seen with Stephen, and that is certainly due to you both being high in intelligence, but also looking at things from slightly different angles.
Great interview! 👏
Great conversation, gentlemen!
Awesome to see you watch symbolic world! Love your channel brother!
Great to see you here
Arguments for Christianity as a true philosophical and phenomenological way of understanding the world are gaining prominence. Coupled with Meyer’s work on the scientific front, we may be on the brink of a return to an era in the West where goodness, beauty, and truth take center stage again.
We had to go through rough times to get there (and there may be more to come) but it truly is a Renaissance of thought now. All aspects of information are being questioned in a good way. It's exciting to be alive.
@@anon_genz nobody should make the error of confusing Christianity with the only source of goodness, beauty, and truth. There is so much more that has not yet been apprehended by even some of the greatest minds of our time. Christianity is a good starting point for goodness and beauty. But Truth is always beyond that. People prematurely latch on to the greatest thing they have seen or heard of and call that true. Always keep a watchful and unattached eye and you will see marvels that outclass everything even Jesus spoke about. Christianity is only a stage in a very short beginning.
@@Philibuster92 I actually agree. I know many people who find God through Christianity and feel that they've grasped all necessary knowledge. I don't only think this is wrong, but in many cases, it can be harmful because it impedes the desire to learn, engage with culture, and innovate technologically. I view Christianity as the necessary starting point to enable us to pursue knowledge in the material world, especially in an ethical manner.
@@anon_genz knowing God in Christianity and especially Orthodox Christianity is not a question of knowledge. The idolizing of knowledge is in some sense one of our biggest problems as described in the Garden of Eden story
@@harmonicproportions6588 Yeah, there can be a hyper-fixation of the acquisition of knowledge. The Enlightenment exposed the flaws of that. There is definitely a balance to strike.
I discovered Mr Meyer recently so this discussion came right on time! Would love to see a 4-way discussion with Jonathan Pageau, Stephen Meyer, Jordan Peterson and John Vervaeke!
Make this happen, Jordan Peterson needs to hear what Stephen Meyer has to say about biology.
Meyer is a grifter. Within two years of college bio I have personally seen and done enough in labs to know why he's full of it. He just wants more ignorant people to hear what he's saying
And Bret Weinstein
@@michaelstapleton9128 Bret Weinstein is a complete idiot. John Vervaeke is not far from that.
John Vervaeke is a broken man
Jonathan, please discuss with your friend and frequent collaborator, Jordan Peterson, the idea of having Steven Meyer on his podcast. JP read Meyer's most recent book Return of the God Hypothesis and remarked that rarely had he read a book which contained so much information that he did not previously know. Pretty high praise from the hyper educated JP. I have been lobbying him in the comment section of his podcast to have Meyer on, but somehow I think you may be a bit more influential. Anyway, thanks for having SM on.
So glad to hear that Jordan Peterson has read some of Meyer's work. It has always seemed to me that JP basically just takes the Neo Darwinian synthesis as a given (as many with a modern, Western education do) and so I have wondered what it would do for him to call that into question by engaging with Meyer's work.
I've actually contemplated trying to mail him a copy, though I'm sure people do that all the time and I'd imagine it might be somewhat annoying, so I never did XD
Great idea!
I'm sure it's in the works, he is a perfect fit for JBP's channel
Jordan Peterson, the Trump supporter?
@@petermclaren4933Yes.
I’ve watched hundreds of hours of Stephen Meyer and his talks… And I’ve never seen him so anxious to enter into a conversation (to interrupt / in a good way). - This looks like to me that he is extremely engaged in this level of thinking… I’d say you’re definitely pulling the right strings to get this kind engagement from Meyer. By the way, I find all of this fascinating, and I find Myers work to be at the top of a very impressive list of scientific research. - great interview.
You: "I find Myers work to be at the top of a very impressive list of scientific research."
Oh really, where are his peer reviewed scientific articles then? Did I miss them? Maybe you could help this ignoramus (me) out and give me the references to the scientific journals he published in?
Let's see if he made a splash in the biology community.
Here's a hint, they don't even know who Meyer is. He's a charlatan who excells at misrepresenting science to promote a view that is not even testable, let alone offering an explanation. (You guys should really look up the meaning of the term "explanation" because "an intelligent designer did it it" in no way explains a thing.)
Unfortunately Meyers' degree is in philosophy of science, and his knowledge of biological science is limited, and not accepted by actual scientists. Dave Farina completely debunks the claims of Meyers and other Discovery Institute apologists as pseudoscience.
Dr. Stephen Meyer is a brilliant man who explains everything so lodgically and vlearly . I love listening to him and Dr. James Tour .
Excellent to see these two conversing. Intelligent design vs randomness. All observation points to intelligent design. Especially in our human experience.
All observation points to natural explanations
@@therick363 look around your own world. There is design everywhere. Even your thoughts and words you are conjuring up. That process is design - not random. Perhaps you have a different understanding of design. It looks like when you apply the idea of nature, that excludes or opposes design.
@@therick363 no, no it doesn’t.
@@antbrown9066I have looked around. I’ve investigated and studied. All I see is natural.
Give some good evidence of supernatural causes
@@dirtyharold7164sure it does. What are the supernatural explanations I’m ignoring?
I don't know if anyone has insulted Jonathan so thoroughly by accident as Stephen did when he said Jonathan was thinking like an engineer. 🤣
YES!!!!! I love it! This is Sooooo Good
I know Steve well and he means this as a genuine compliment which I think Jonathan could appreciate. In Steve‘s world he is dealing with theoretical scientists and philosophers who dogmatically insist upon ideas that don’t actually work in the real embodied world that an engineer has to deal with.
Well actually engineers aren’t like scientists and mathematicians dealing with theories and abstractions but modern day artisans who construct things that are actually incarnated and embodied that people actually participate in like trains, roads etc.
HAHAHA, i think he saved himself by adding "Design Engineer".
It ties up nicely with the icons of Christ as the Divine Architect.
@@anniecrawford2500 to be clear I don't think there's animus. It was a joke.
What a blessing to millions that this man has devoted his life and research to intelligent design, which gives believers every where a viable theory opposing Darwinian evolution!
it really doesnt do that, though.
this guy doesnt understand evolutionary theory. we have had responses to his problems for decades, but he doesnt even address them.
@@Gwyll_Arboghast Hah! Anytime _anyone_ examines the details, especially the problems, of evolutionary theory, some joker pipes up and claims he _"doesn't understand"_ it. What a joke!
@@KenJackson_US There are decades-old books that refute his arguments. if he knew his material, he would address those refutations and explain why they are wrong, but he demonstrates no awareness of them. so, yes. he doesn't understand it. you would notice this too, if you had read about it.
@@Gwyll_Arboghast Have you read any of Dr.Meyer's books? They're exhausting because he so thoroughly and exhaustively covers all aspects of the material. If he didn't appear to address something that you know about in this interview, it's likely because the interview wasn't six hours long. Read his books. Or at least flip through them and see if he didn't address EVERYTHING.
@@KenJackson_US I admit i have not read Meyers books. but it should have been absolutely simple for him to demonstrate knowledge of what i referred to; for a brief interview it is necessary to give the most condensed, strongest case for his side. it isnt just that he "didnt get to it". his arguments positively rely on the refutations not existing.
to me, an interview's purpose is largely to convince the viewer that someone knows what they are talking about, such that it is worth reading their books. it would require some serious incompetence in the skill of interviewing to know the literature and somehow appear to not; and I dont think meyer is an incompetent interviewee.
I DEEPLY appreciate scientists like Meyer and others who provide strong evidence for intelligent design, HOWEVER, as Christians it’s important to understand that adopting theistic evolution undermines the Gospel and really the entirety of scripture (or at least most of the Old Testament).
Is that because of original sin?
@@nathanbell6962 because it assumes death before the fall which undermines the Gospel.
Agreed. Does Meyers believe in theistic evolution though? I took it to mean we weren't evolved at all and were created each according to its kind by God.
Not that God put the information into evolution. But into DNA.
I could wrong about Meyers thoughts on this though.
@@tacsmith if I remember correctly, in other interviews he’s said he believes in theistic evolution.
But to be fair, that was awhile ago. Whenever the Hoover institute interview was new
I have no problem with intelligent evolution and the Fall as they're both just descriptions of how we came to be, one is mechanistic and the other is philosophical.
It's the same reason I don't have a problem with people calling Genesis "mythological", something being a myth doesn't make it untrue, it's just a higher form of description
Been looking forward to this episode of Better call Saul
😂
😂
I would love to see a conversation between Stephen and John Verveake
John Vervaeke is a broken man. A lot of mumbo jumbo and no value. He is a broken man. He is Bret Weinstein part 2
Never heard of this fella. Ordering some of his books now.
Darwin’s Doubt
Signature In The Cell
The Return Of The God Hypothesis
Three important books.
@@brando3342 Recommend reading in that order?
@@soundsnags2001I read Return of the God Hypothesis, it is an incredible book that I reference often. It touches on aspects of his previous books, but with less detail on those specific topics.
He gets a lot wrong. It all stems from his misrepresentation of the Cambrian explosion. He knows enough to not be seriously making his arguments, so I think he must be intentionally full of it
It’s nice to see these two together today. Steven Meyers book Signature is n the cell started me down a long road that lead me to Christianity. Johnathan’s work has lead me down a long road that lead to Orthodoxy. I was baptized today in the Orthodox Church on Pentacost due to the help of many people like these men guided by the Holy Spirit. Glory to God, and God bless these men and everyone who’s helped me along the way!
Jonathan, it would be great to hear your conversation with biologist Michael Levin. He's already in conversation with Vervaeke and McGilchrist and, as I see it, kinda open for different ideas.
Oh yea, that would be fantastic.
In the past, Dr. Levin was not interested in speaking with anyone who believes in God.
Something’s happening and I like it
Yeh!
Something is coming - LA Marzulli
WOW!! 👍👍
I have to admit: at 14:30, I had to hit PAUSE and just hold my head in my hands for a few minutes.
Amazing interview. Stephen is a genius and living legend! The tide is turning, toward God
Absolutely brilliant stuff guys! - "information.... it's right THERE!" 😄 Your enthusiasm is contageous.
Girlfriend: I'm a Methodist and I'm not sure I want kids, the world is a cruel place.
Me: I'm an Atheist, but I should learn enough about Christianity to hold a conversation with you. Kids? I don't know.
GOD LAUGHS FOR 4 YEARS
(GF) Wife: I'll take care of the baby girl, are the boys dressed for Mass?
Me: Is your veil in the minivan? We better hurry if we're going to make Confession.
It's amazing how things work out, I only wanted to know enough about Christianity to talk to some chick I was dating, but I ended up marrying that chick and converting both of us to the Catholic faith.
I just wanted to know enough to talk to some girl, but I kept learning and kept researching and at some point, the truth of Christianity and the Catholic Church just got harder and harder to deny. At some point, it just became intellectually dishonest to deny it anymore.
In fact, being an atheist gave me an advantage, I didn't have all the Protestant hangups. My wife and her mother would shriek, " they worship Mary" and because I was an atheist that just researched without bias, I had already learned that wasn't true and I didn't have to work through any Mary baggage.
The only real issues I had to work through were the existence of God, the Resurrection and the divine establishment of a Church. Once I was convinced of that, church history led me the rest of the way.
Moral of the story, when you see a couple get together and you're thinking, "Oh this won't end well," just cool your jets. God does amazing things with broken people.
That's kind of His thing.
Hilarious.... I got mine because I Heard the gospel While I was high as a kite from a girl who was on acid.
Go figure.
Your story, totally understand....
(Ya,... the veil is in the mini van, now hurry up.)
What a beautiful story! God bless you and your family, my sibling in Christ 😊
Ah, that truly is His thing. God bless!
Awesome interview, Dr. Stephen Meyer!!!
Great conversation. I'm glad to hear Jonathan bring up Kastrup. While Bernardo has many good points, I was a bit frustrated in our conversations with him and have long thought that someone like Meyer could fill in the holes in his work. Stratford Caldecott goes back to Pythagoras, from a distinct Christian perspective, in his terrific book: Beauty for Truth's Sake.
Good talk, thank you! ❤
"Information presupposes intelligence": a paraphrase of Dr Meyer's observation early in the wonderful discussion that I find truly pivotal. Considering we don't really know what 'matter' is, or 'energy', but have a far better idea about information - data made meaningful by mind/intelligence, where mind/intelligence is, in part, a meaning-making process - we can start from this clear fact of existence - information - and not need a big leap to swap out our concept of matter/energy for data, data which mind then 'creates' or 'organises' into our universe of laws - who knows exactly how at this point - such that we have a functioning or feasible idealism in which there is only consciousness (there is only God), and can do away with the ugly over-complications of mind-matter dualism.
That's my (ontological) sense of it, anyway.
Information is not data that's made meaningful by our minds. If that were true, either ribosomes couldn't read and then write mRNA into proteins, or DNA and RNA would have to be said to not be Information.
In other words, since ribosomes are not mindful, either they are incapable of reading RNA (which is false), or RNA is not actually Information, or Information does not require a mind and you gave a bad definition of it
My Hosts Stephen and Jonathan. Here, I'm just listening and attending unto my OWN! Watching!
Bring on James tour next please
You mean the crazy science denier?
@@valtersjanevics65 Science is gay and should be denied.
@@valtersjanevics65 Lol... how did a science denier get an h-index over 150? Outstanding synthetic chemistry research by the science denier - that's for sure
"Information is the capability of choosing between two or more possibilities in concrete" The decision process necessary to produce information implies or demands an intelligent mind. We all are in a physical universe without asking to come and be here. We can reason from effect to cause.
Mathematics conceives infinite as a necessity for mathematics to function completely with full future potential: Therefore we are capable of accepting by demonstrating by reduction to the absurd, that forcibly we are born for a purpose already existent in the Creator's Mind before we came into existence. The opposite void or nothing can't choose between something that doesn't exist.
Once, while looking up at the nocturnal sky, I was filled with an intense joy beholding such a vast wonderful beauty; I realized that I was not alone as if listening to a loud voice shouting; And Manuel you are part of this. I felt loved and happy with all intelligent beings like me forever and ever. Alleluia!
This is the most rational scientific discussion I think I've ever seen.
I'm so pleased to see Jonathan Pageau and Stephen Meyer in conversation. I had seen the Uncommon Knowledge video discussion with Mr. Meyer previously, and have read his book Return of the God Hypothesis. God bless you both and keep up the good work!
This is incredible. Jonathan I believe what you're saying when you talk about something preexisting is the question, "what makes it sensible?" That's also the responsibility of a higher mind.
Im glad to say ive been posting your darwins doubt video to fb, twitter (x) , on joe rogans saying he has to interview stephen etc. Hundreds of atheistic forums just placing the link. Hopefully ive helped open people's eyes.
The best explanation for the appearance of design is design
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh I think there must be an uncaused cause but lets not pretend we understand.
If I see a good portrate painting I know there is a painter even though I dont know where the artist came from..
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh If matter always existed then there must be infinite time. There must be infinite space to put infinite matter in. If random interactions of matter and energy explain all of reality, and matter and energy are infinite, then anything that is possible must necessarily exist regardless of how unlikely.
Do you believe in small, red-headed, bearded men who speak with an Irish accent and grant wishes that coincidentally happen to come true? What makes that impossible?
@@attackhelicopter-up3dh Has logic been discovered? If matter is infinite, then anything possible must exist. Why believe nothing, if everything possible must exist?
Makes me wonder how we got through an infinite amount of time to reach now, and how will time ever reach infinity if it has a starting point?
@@Huckabilly-w7ginfinity is never " reached", if it was reached, it would an ending and hence, wouldn't be infinite.
@@michellejohnsen912 If infinity is never reached, then the universe can not have existed infinitely, or we would never reach now.
Jonathan, how does this fit with the spiritual understanding of life?
I think it just helps explain the mechanism of the physical world and appreciate God's excellence all the more.
The main cut, I feel, is to hit back at Anti-theistic Atheists who've been dodging arguments made by Thomas Aquinas and perverting science to support their world view since Darwin. Shocker, material science doesn't support their world view.
@@sigurdholbarki8268 I have heard Anthony Bloom of Sourozh say something to the effect that the one does not have to be refuted by the other because they are two seperate means of acquiring knowledge. And I have heard it said its the limitations of our human minds to see beond some seemingly aparrent contradictions.
A cookie is the universe being delicious, therefore the universe is delicious.
you wouldn't say that a man is hard just because his bones are hard either. But we do say that a man is intelligent
Although many may not realize it, this is one of the most important UA-cam channels of the time.
The one sentence summary:
The functional sequences (of genetic code) are so rare that if you change the bit streams, you are inevitably after very few changes, going to destroy the function long before ever get to something new or functional. - Stephan Meyer
so what? Stephen knows nothing about evolution.
beautiful and revealing conversation. Loved the heady exploration of arguments for the presence of God. Inspiring, Sending to a bunch of my atheist friends.
Meyer see sign of designing mind in a cat. Pageau see a sign of mind in the fact that we see a cat.
Yes. I think it’s important to not simply let it rest on how an artisan relates to an artifact in a distant indirect way (pulling from Hart), but that it’s also “in and through” all things in how the world coheres and is intelligible… to realize that those intelligible forms permeate the world through and through, and are not simply the product of our “brain” creating these things in our heads to where we’re lonely islands of meaning and purpose
And I think that is another reason why the Triune God is the only One. Pageau doesn't have the molecular physics background of Meyer's, and Meyer doesn't have the rough hands of a carver. But, through their dialogos, we glimpse the "One".
Are you saying Pageau is a solipsist?
@@Michaelfrikkie No. I think he thinks that mind lump objects into categories. That sorting process give rise to identities.
There's plenty of design in a cat. Cats are fragile but resilient. If you could design a machine with half the agility of a cat, and the ability to suffer through to survive and thrive after catastrophic injuries that would literally kill any human being, they wouldn't be showing off ridiculous, clunky robots as if they think people will be impressed. You sound really undereducated. I feel sorry for you. I guess you went to public school. 😢
i was hoping this conversation would take place... looking forward to it. signature in the cell was one of the best books I've read from the last few years.
i would say that the panpsychist perspective follows logically... we don't have an awareness of "Mind" capital M, or anything transcendent. We infer a transcendent mind in relation to our own, less transcendent mind. However, there's no reason to assume that line from more consciousness to less consciousness has to stop at us, or that it jumps arbitrarily from whatever nameless force or forces created the universe to our arbitrary level of awareness. Why would a table not be somewhere on the continuum from "most mind" to "least mind"
Hmm the metaphor that comes to mind is, this text you're reading, is it less or more of my mind than I am? I'd say it's a medium. No need to suppose continuities, but merely to note distinct givens. And these givens have their own continuities. Panpsychism is interesting; though it strikes me as just a plausible misapplication of that minding work that likes to characterize all the minder can as continuous, despite knowing distinctions experientially and categorically, and that these distinctions make different compositions. In metaphorical terms, the notation of letters recognized by us, and the medium of youtube etc, are distinct ways my mind can express itself--knowing that there are alternates and even novelties possible to mediate my mind. What is the case I don't know, but I'm instinctively examining of attempts to totalize and note continuity in a way that's easy for a mind to hold to as a placeholder for exploration.
@@dominicowusu3032 grade A circumrambulation.
@@notloki3377 I wrote it fast and somewhat dense, but my diction is precise. If you're interested I can unpack, but if you dismiss it as nonsense because you can't decrypt the sense and more important don't care to, then it'll just be for others. Take care, I'm not going to interact with condescending strangers behind text
@@dominicowusu3032 I think it's fully clear you halfway know what half the words you're using mean.
some examples...
Hmm the metaphor that comes to mind is, this text you're reading less or more of my mind than I am?
aside from the horrible grammar and punctuation, this isn't a metaphor. it's a question.
I'd say it's a medium. No need to suppose continuities, but merely to note distinct givens. And these givens have their own continuities.
This makes no sense, and also doesn't relate to the first thing you said.
Panpsychism is interesting though it strikes me as just a plausible misapplication of that minding work that likes to characterize all the minder can, as continuous, despite knowing distinctions, and that these distinctions make different compositions.
This also makes no sense... yeah it's not just me bud. I'll bet a lot of people fail to understand you, and until you learn to take responsibility for your manic ramblings, you will continue to be misunderstood.
@@notloki3377 I just tuned up the grammar so you'd get the metaphor was the text I sent to you, a meta-text as a metaphor. The rest will flow from this. I'll most likely edit the rest given how you read it so that those who are charitable will get what I was exploring. It's pretty easy to understand once you decrypt the mapping I was doing given your spectrum schema with panpsychism. A way to put it is you're talking about a rainbow, while I'm saying it's more like a 🎨 palate of colors when it comes to how we understand, which is a type of painting, and this makes up the painting of what we note as conscious, not conscious etc. I hope this illustrates the idea better.
Meyer should talk to Vervaeke, they have significant disagreements regarding darwinism and naturalism.
It makes sense that information, dna etc would take the form of language derived from mind when God spoke the world into being, whatever that means technically doesn’t really matter to me very much, but phenomenologically it would look like a language so that’s a fine analog to explain what’s happening there in a symbolic manner that we can actually understand.
Nice comment, I wish I'd written it but I at least thought that even if I couldn't articulate it!
Yes! Great combo!
I would love to hear Michael Levin opinions on this episode
I’ve been wanting this conversation to happen for at least a year!!
Thank you!! 🙏🙏
5:12 the wine at the wedding at Cana would also have had the appearance of being ‘old’. It wasn’t.
I've talked about this for some time. If origin of life simulations were ever to model reality. The scientist who managed to pull it off would find intelligent organisms inside his simulation, arguing over whether or not he exists.
And some would use their knowledge of how the simulation works to "prove" the simulation had no creator.
Pageau should talk to someone who actually understands natural selection.
I'd recommend Clint from Clint's Reptiles. He's actively religious and very good at explaining things.
Do tell. Natural selection creates nothing. It has zero creative power.
People who make these comments should bother to explain themselves.
Natural selection creates nothing. It selects for things that already exist. So maybe the lack of understanding is on you, just saying..
I love how someone else saw the clints reptiles video and is here 😂. I took two semesters of biology, but I genuinely struggled to make meaningful and understandable arguments before I saw that video. Clint was really helpful at showing me how to make understandable arguments
Wonderful host!
Wonderful guest!
1:10:30 - Maxwell is how we understand light, electricity and magnetism. You get really mind-blown when you realize that this guy came up with the notion that light is in fact two perpendicular waves of electricity and magnetism. Like what? How does someone come up with that? Later on, quantum mechanics does experiments showing that there is a wave-particle duality of light with packets of light called photons coming into prominence but his theories of electricity and magnetism that he created in the 1860s are still used today and how we have many of the modern appliances we enjoy.
Newton, Maxwell, Einstein. Maxwell is the physicist no one outside of physics has heard of. It's crazy too because everything we use in modernity relies on his equations.
you should have Rupert Sheldrake on to talk about Morphic Resonance
Fantastic. Thank you Dr. Meyer for your endurance and courage! It was great hearing that the arguments are finally gaining some traction and momentum among the Big Thinkers. May YHWH bless your work!
Meyer needs to debate Alex O'conner. O'Conner did a thorough demolition job of Dinesh D'Souza, it was embarrassing. Can Meyer salvage it?
salvation isn’t an issue about intelligence but the heart, Bible said that we were born blind in sin, we can’t see the truths even if it’s in front of us, such is the case with Alex O Conner, there’s enough evidence for faith, but only the one given the sight to see and ears to hear can recognize themselves as sinners and come to faith
@@leim100 Both d'souza and Alex o conner are intelligent, so the issue was not so much about intelligence but the ability to support one's position. In the Bible, it says believers should be ready to give reasons for their faith. The topic the 2 discussed was the old testament (not if God exists) and frankly d'souza struggled to answer those questions which I suspect many Christians would also struggle. The old testament poses difficult questions compared to the new testament. Do you think you could have fared better? I hope you watched the debate and considered the questions Alex asked and which d'souza couldn't answer
What I would like to see from the leading atheist in this era is well formulated and coherent arguments that only concerns their position. Instead, most of the time is trying to debunk all Christian arguments or ridiculing them to earn sympathy from their audience. Contrast is mother of clarity.
That’s a fair ask. But I would also say it should go both ways yes?
@@therick363to be fair Christians have been this for nearly 2000 years, whether in scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, St Thomas Aquinas, Isaac Newton, through to C.S. Lewis and more modern authors.
On the other hand that courtesy has not been afforded by atheists from Rousseau and Voltaire to Hegel, Marx and Darwin. Even as recently as Richard Dawkins they've been arguing against an interpretation of Christianity of their own making.
I've not met a single atheist who has properly understood Christianity, even when I was an atheist! I do know plenty who have been perfectly respectful though.
On the flip side there are a lot of Christians who haven't been properly catechised and seem to have adopted positions that owe more to historic atheism than Christian thought (especially overly literal materialistic interpretations of Scripture)
Edit: to be doubly sure to reiterate I'm not trying to be a confrontational bell-end, I'm adding that I'd put a "Like" on your comment!
So I might be being a bell-end, but I'm at least trying hard not to!
I'd say it's because atheism can only come from Christianity. And because atheism refuses to acknowledge that its foundations are actually rooted in Christianity, it will always make arguments against Christianity to defend its position.
@@francestaylor9156what is atheism?
What is theism?
What are my foundations that I took from Christianity?
"We live in a simulation."
How do these people think a simulation works?
Simulation Theory is deism-lite
I loved this! Next question - what is this intelligence driving us towards? Or is that a matter of faith?
“The privileged planet” is an awesome film. I thought it was dedicated to explaining the Fine Tuning argument but that’s just half of it. The universe was not only finely tuned to have complex life. It was finely tuned to be scientifically discoverable!
*_The sheer impossibility of life is something which took me by surprise._* For most of my 74 years, I fully expected scientists to get closer and closer to building cells from scratch. But to expect life to spring forth from a primordial sludge is like expecting a magma red Mercedes Benz SL500, with a full gas tank to result from natural, random processes. While the Jennifer Blank experiment proved that more complex chemicals can result from collisions, that was a splatter-gun effect -- not one with usable, organized materials.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Actually, the probabilities of an RNA world are 5!4!...or 120 x 24 = 2880
Hardly astronomical as you suggest and practically guaranteed in terms of
probability and the number of planets where similar conditions are available.
Now this will be good!
Great discussion guys, thanks
54:30 - Physics has this as a principle in quantum mechanics - the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. You cannot know both the velocity and the position of an electron because the act of observing the electron will change its position and/or its velocity. And that's because for us to observe anything we require light (in any part of the spectrum) to bounce off of the electron which would mean the electron would absorb the energy from the light wave and thus change its position and/or velocity.
There's a lot of weird things like this in physics where we can never fully extract ourselves to observe reality as an outsider. The theory of relativity also shows that as well. Einstein was quite ahead of everyone when he asked "what would reality look like if I were traveling at the speed of light?" Many examples of relativity will show how bouncing balls look different to people based on where they are and what frame of reference they are in, ex. a moving train vs being stationary.
I think this is why physics in all its abstraction seems to always get people who are more faith-based than other sciences. When I was using complex calculus in my upper division physics courses, it always felt like I was sort of looking at the programming code of reality. It's hard to escape that it seems to have been written by God. I used to say I was looking at "the mind of God" when looking at upper division physics even though I was an agnostic at the time.
Glad you guys got together for an honest discussion.
4:50 - One way to thin about apparent design is to think of an observer seeing design and inferring nothing, because they are outside that design. Another way to think about this is 'middle out' thinking, starting from where you are, instead of where things began. Both of these views require something I call Objective Material Reality (OMR) which is the scientific world view, where no responsibility exists. Also no intimacy, because you have removed yourself from participation (the cost of not being responsible) and live in an opponent processing world. Reality, however, is made up of and held together by cooperative processing where you participate with the world.
5:35 - Inference is not a problem, unless you try to do it from OMR. Then you've hid your assumptions (framing) about (of) the world.
14:45 - The problem is that Darwin wrote a book called 'The Origin of Species' - materialists have extended this to imagine he was writing about the origin of life. Those aren't the same thing at all. Technically, Darwin was talking about how the Ontology (proper science) of species comes about, life happens along before that.
17:30 - One confusion is this idea of 'evolutionary theory' - when people use this term, they seem to be referring to some theories, some hypothesis, some unprovable ideas and lots of inference. So it's a large set, most of things that aren't theories at all or things that cannot have science applied to them.
34:20 - One way to think about the claim that the universe is knowing itself is to realize that this is a bottom up (emergence) view. Where emergence is good. This means that when anything happens, it is good. Sounds like chaos to me. This one axiom explains the entirety of thought. The better axiom for understand is "being is good". Sure, you have a hole, but you have the same hole with emergence. Being requires structure, which requires intelligence, but it also requires care (agapic love or something) but once you put that in, everything else follows quite nicely. With emergence first or emergence is good, you get nothing for long and nothing that lasts as good.
34:50 - Good stuff, this is emergence as explanation (notice, science carves things up to reduce free variables, to make accurate, precise, consistent and reliable predictions) which causes a loss of relationship (and therefore reduces the qualities or potential qualities of that relationship - loss of Intimacy) and therefore causes use to see the world as emergent. This requires OMR (Objective Material Reality) to be the stance you take to do all this work. You've removed yourself from creation, as such, this is creation denial. Meaning crisis explained. Individualism explained. materialism (what else can emerge?) explained.
39:16 - Great phrase - in the past - yes, this is middle out thinking. Reasoning forwards and backwards from today. Rejecting the frame of creation (there was something here before you, bigger than you, that you were born into). I realize this sounds like an illogical, irrational, unreasonable way to think about the world, but if you listen, you'll hear that is how many scientists talk about the world.
54:00 - My issue is this is a well known phenomenon in physics called the observer effect. So if the most disciplined and least tied to material objects (because atoms and light are technically below materiality in some sense) and the issue is not only far more pronounced but well studied and taken for granted as irresolvable. I can see where other scientific disciplines are catching up, but also, why reinvent this wheel when another branch has the 'answer' (unscientific and unsatisfying as it may be).
1:04:00 - The assumption of new atheists is that philosophy resolves morality and therefore would lead you to a proper political view, scientific view, etc. This is really ignorant, it's a huge misunderstanding of how the Greeks thought of philosophy. Of course for them, morals resolve meaning, then when it doesn't, everything falls down. Meaning Crisis confirmed. Of course, this comes because when you remove persons by using Objective Material Reality, you remove the ability to create quality relationships, thus the Intimacy Crisis, which precludes meaning from even being able to be discussed.
1:08:00 - Emergence is good - flat world theology (without creation) which is caused by creation denial, not the story, the concept of a creation that existed before you were conscious. If you listen carefully, you'll hear Sam Harris types talk like this all the time. The larger issue is that they are ignoring the idea of Final Cause (which I'll argue is emanation) and combining the other Aristotelian causes together to form 'science' (which is a flattening of itself).
The argument he made for quite some time that because DNA works like a code just like computers interpret ones and zeros isn’t a good one. Computers only interpret ones and zeroes because of the physics of semiconductors when a voltage is applied. You could make computers based off of binary code out of pneumatic, macroscopic tubes that perform the same functions.
From a one and zero to typing a comment on this video is a traceable line of physics. While I’m not a biologist, I can’t imagine there isn’t a similar line of physics that go from DNA encodings to how it instructs proteins to be built. It’s all analog in the end.
So essentially his argument boils down to, “there are laws of physics so there has to be a law maker,” but that has nothing to do with intelligent design.
It's closer to
1) Information comes from a mind
2) Computer code contains information
3) Computer code comes from a mind
1) information comes from a mind
2) DNA contains information
3) DNA comes from a mind
The laws of physics are insufficient for explaining the phenomenon of seeing these pixels in the screen and interpreting them into language.
You can take it for granted as "just happening" but without being able to justify it it becomes an arbitrary "just is"
And if that can just be arbitrarily assumed everything else can also be with equal validity.
@@isaacclarkefanread his book for a better understanding
Ali G would say:
1)All mammals live on land.
2)Whales are mammals.
3)Therefore, whales live on land.
And Terrence Howard :
1x1=2
@@SuperJohnmusic premise "all mammals live on land" is false because we have found marine mammals
In order for that analogy to not be faulty you would need to be able to prove "all information comes from minds" is a false statement without begging the question
It seems that you don't understand the relationship between a DNA codon and the choice of amino acid for each point in the sequence of amino acids of a protein. There are 20 amino acids to choose from, each choice depends on the DNA code, a thing that has no known provenance. And you don't understand the importance of each amino acid in a protein to its function; single point mutations cause many diseases.
Finally talking about something that isn't AI
In the beginning was the Logos…
Form follows function! ALWAYS! Stones don't accidentally arrange themselves into a well-placed wall, and then humans discover its utility. Organization follows purpose just as effect follows cause.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Thank you, thank you, thank you Dr. Meyer for pronouncing "processes" correctly. (Most Darwinians say "process-ease", and that's my favorite reason for not taking them seriously.)
It’s almost as if materialism and idealism are two polarities of reality & we are only constrained by our perception of their apparent exclusivity.
If intelligent design is not a factor, then tell the software programmers that are designing artificial intelligence to just let it be and all will come together on its own.
😂😂
So how did the designer come up with it? Where did they do it and how was it tested?
@@sh0k0nesIf we are walking though a forest and come across an old helicopter, must we first know how the designer came up with the idea, the factory in which it was assembled and the airfield in which it was tested in order to safely assume it had a creator?
Me: “look at this beautiful wristwatch, the craftsmanship that went into it is outstanding”
You: “I refuse to believe it was designed and built by intelligent beings, as far as I’m concerned it came to be through random chemical processes until you can tell me who designed it, where it was built and how it was tested”
@@dirtyharold7164 Stop being an NPC repeating tropes from last century. Have an original thought for once. Fux sake🙄
@@dirtyharold7164 1000 years ago u'd be one of the people that thought the gods sent lighting to smite people. I mean, lightning is complicated right?
00:15 Humans are the confluence of intelligence in the Universe, And even though the universe is ultimately governed by Laws of nature from an intelligent creator, humans are the image of the Creator within his own creation..
Ok so let’s imagine there was an intelligent designer - what’s the mechanism by which god starts off life, and then moulds it to make each new species? The universe is already going for billions of years and then suddenly he’s manually sticking together the right chemicals in the right way so that they can later replicate all on their own without continued intervention? So it’s just a short time thing where he’s meddling with the physical world? Or he sets it all off at the start of the universe knowing that everything will collide in such and such a way? Or maybe it’s just a few times that he does the meddling? Why did god start with unicellular life, then multicellular, then chordates, then fish, then primitive (not modern) amphibians then lizards etc. why make that gradual increase in physiological complexity?
I don’t see how this idea is actually useful scientifically, there’s no actually mechanism being posited here, no set of constraints of when we might expect there to be a bit of godly meddling and when it’s ‘business as usual’ and the biological processes are doing their self replication thing on their own.
Do you have to know the intention behind every stroke of an artists brush in order to accept that it was painted by an intelligent sentient being? Or do you believe the painting came to be through completely natural chemical processes without any intelligent input?
I find this line of reasoning incredibly odd. I guess it makes the purely materialistic worldview easier to swallow because you can omit any “why” questions.
@@dirtyharold7164 I’m not a materialist, I just don’t think this line of thought is fruitful or useful or convincing. I’m not talking about the intention, that’s not the contention here. I’m saying this is offering a quasi rational/scientific argument that actually offers no greater explanatory power.
In addition, it’s not a fruitful line of thinking for the spiritual life, and coming to theosis. The question of whether god exists is not something to tie yourself to one scientific proposition or another. What if they suddenly did find the RNA that could replicate itself. Would you stop believing in God? It’s the same trap as before with the materialists. God is something to aim to apprehend in each moment.
46:55 isn’t this a description of the fall?
The Natural Selection part of Darwin's theory doesn't break down. The evolving part does break down, and he knew nothing about DNA back in his time.
How does natural selection not break down? If it can’t account for evolution?
Stephen and Jonathan, thank you for chaseth our OWN. As WHO chaseth ye! From Who am I? Time liken unto a messenger sent forth. Is like Jonathan and Stephen, who are you? Our names don't exist! Without thy shared "i" AM Jonathan and Stephen! Gratitude and Honor! Share
Buddhism is more compelling to me than any religion which states I need to have faith in some benevolent or malevolent exterior entity.
Boomer detected
@johnjackson9767 I'm far too young to be a boomer lad.
@@johnjackson9767so instead of responding to what the person said and engaging about it…you pull disrespect? Tells us a lot about your character
@@rustymcrae7739 The Boomer Spirit knows no age
@@therick363 I engaged with his content - Westerners practicing Buddhism is Boomer rebellion finding New Ageism.
Really good talk. Thank you.
I think evolution is the an information system that we do not fully understand but seems to be sound.
The information system (DNA) is in the cell...and the cell is the only place that it is manufactured...by the instructions of the info system (DNA). So which comes first?
The Programmer.
@@stevepaige7557 I agree. I guess I shouldve said the idea that life evolves from the poressures of survival seems to me to be right. How the instructions got into DNA and how they actually do change becuase of outside forces, to me, is where a programmer would come into play.
I highly recommend listening to the Hoover Institute discussion he mentioned. They have an ID biologist on the panel that will go into deeper discussion on the pitfalls of evolution. It is a very stimulating discussion.
I don't find the fine tuning argument convincing. It's just looking at phenomena backwards, from the point of a foregone conclusion. From a certain perspective, my toast crumbs have a one in a trillion chance of landing on my plate in the particular pattern that they do -- but we don't wax that they were designed that way. Likewise, if the universe was "set up" another way with different parameters, there might well be a different type of intelligence that thought itself lucky that gravity or radiation or what have you was "just right" for it to exist.
It seems to be the same type of physicalist analysis that Pageau critiques when it comes from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc. We can still talk about God establishing the pattern to which things tend, for example, without insinuating that "complexity as such" (much less the complexity of physical processes) is somehow indicative of his activity.
What functionality are your toast crumbs engaged in?
That might be the key difference here.
The rarity of living organisms includes their FUNCTIONALITY.
You can claim your random toast crumbs ARE serving a function. But let's see those same crumbs, eminate from themselves a new generation of crumbs which perform a similar function.
It's not the odds that are "important", it's the functionality nested within those odds.
My understanding is that there simply aren’t enough possible combinations of physical parameters that would lead to chemistry (let alone life) to make random chance a reasonable conclusion. Of course it’s not impossible, but so unfathomably unlikely that it’s laughable. So we owe existence itself either to an unfathomably unlikely chance or a mind.
@@blairholmgren9748This seems fallacious. You are analyzing a phenomena from the privileged position of it having already occurred. The likelihood of any given phenomena occurring is 100%, provided you analyze it in the present.
You are also comparing our reality vs "our reality, changed" - not our reality vs some wholly different reality. So all you are really saying is, "things would be different if things had been different". Sure, and provided there was still time and cause and effect, those "different things" would seem just as "fine tuned" as our own - reliant as they would be on the whole history of the universe before them.
There's also no saying that there couldn't be consciousness in your alternate reality, either. We are on Jonathan's channel after all, and it seems like having your cake and eating it too to suggest that consciousness is reliant on a particular configuration of chemistry, but also immaterial/miraculous. I'm sure Jonathan would find it silly to speculate on how chemistry determined the consciousness of Man before the Fall, for example.
@@easymentalityI did separate phenomena from their function - I said we can talk about God's establishment of a pattern to which things tend (a pattern of being or function, if you like) without fine tuning.
I really just find the topic to be a red herring that needlessly muddies the waters with a kind of physicalism. On the one hand we disparage the notion of "balls bouncing into each other" - on the other we suggest that God's work is in one way or another reducible to arranging or upholding a particular configuration of balls. You yourself say here that "functionality is nested within the odds", which is deterministic and totally at odds with Jonathan's notion of vertical causality, for example.
Life and consciousness is not sacred because it has a self-perpetuating function (so does a cloud or a crystal, if you really want another example) or because it is apparently "rare".
You kind of dodged the physical constraint challenge. This is a series of events that have to happen in the order they did because they have low tolerance. Any change in any of the steps would cause the stable structure to collapse. Many of these also happen in a timed sequence, where any other order would cause the stable structure to collapse.
thank you both very much
this guy has some serious ignorance of basic evolutionary theory.
If I understand the math, it’s unlikely that evolution through random mutation occurred in our time line, it’s also unlikely to have occurred at any time in the history of the universe.
Evolution is a scientific theory
@@therick363 it’s dead. Nothing about it is defendable. The fossil record is absent, the math for random mutation doesn’t work, epiGenetics blasts Darwinism out of the water. It failed at every level
@@Bigdaddy231well that’s all a lie. Why do creationists lie? Such disrespect
@@therick363 nuh uh is not an argument but an ignorant denial of unfounded belief. Wanna try again?
@@Bigdaddy231_its dead_
If that were true then why is it a scientific theory?
_the fossil record is absent_
Lie.
You need to try again
The physical laws are not only tuned to generate an environment where life, as we know it, can occur, but also to the possibility that it survives and replicates. These laws should be totally indifferent to whether an organism survives or not, and whether it replicates or not.
However, the theologians of evolution, want us to believe that the principle of survival and replication is sacrosanct, there is something in an organism that wants to make it survive, because that's how it has to be, and there is something that wants to make it replicate, also because that's how it has to be.
Let's imagine that potential first organism, formed by some chemical miracle, well, that's not the only miracle, it also, miraculously, has the "will" to search, passively or actively, for the resources it needs for its survival. Now, in a totally random environment, and devoid of all consciousness, where would that need for survival arise from?
To survive or not to survive is the same from non-consciousness perspective, and not to survive is the simplest thing from the point of view of purely random change, and we are not talking about replication yet.
But for the theologians of evolution, those miracles are simply possible due to the great God of chance, who can do everything with enough time, although they really never seriously began to calculate how much that enough time would be. They also don't want us to think much about it, it's rather, the magic potions are poured, they let them to be mixed for "enough" time, they say abracadabra, and what we see now happens ..
consciousness imagines the type of world that would be necessary for it to maintain its desired form
Johnny Paggy pookie bear deluxe
Lol! Please make this a meme. It is endearing and will totally confuse JP.
😂 New Merch Drop
Thanks for the conversation!
If you are no more than looped goop in a contained brain,
There is no basis for me to heed your retort or refrain.
Perfection! 😂
*_Wow!_* Intelligence is the "ability to choose between." Sixty years ago, I learned a definition of intelligence as the ability to recognize *_identities, differences and similarities._*
In today's political environment, the forces of "Evil" (darkness, randomness, chaos, entropy) don't want people to be capable of recognizing differences and similarities, but *_only identities._* This is identity politics. This is mindless *_control_* by tyrants.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
This is all fine, but unfalsifiable hypotheses do not avail themselves of scientific methodology. You are talking about philosophical questions, not scientific ones. Fine tuning is not really evidence, for example. In what universe would you expect to be in in order to be able to even ask such a question? And arguing things are “too complex” could just mean we simply don’t understand what’s going on yet. The problem is using these philosophical ideas to somehow justify belief in any one particular religion or even type of spiritual practice.
I agree, using this reasoning to back up your religious beliefs is disingenuous. However, materialistic methodology doesn’t prove or disprove the origin of the universe or life. People who think they know for sure the answer to the origin of the universe and life, whether through design or pure materialism, religion or atheism are both as ignorant as each other. It’s an age old mystery that I don’t believe will ever be answered.
@@dirtyharold7164
Nope
They know for sure it’s NOT a supernatural explanation because the supernatural has NEVER been demonstrated
Did Darwin provide a way to falsify his concepts? If so, has it been done? If his concepts can't be falsified, then are they scientific statements?
@captaingaza2389 Is it that the supernatural hasn't been seen, OR is it that many people refuse to see it?
@@roblangsdorf8758
It’s never been DEMONSTRATED
The defeater against abiogenesis:
1. DNA replication requires several proteins, and multi-protein machines that read, collect, assemble nucleotides together.
2. Those very same replication protein machines REQUIRE pre-existing DNA to code them, which means the protein machines can only arise from DNA-coded protein assembly in another mechanism.
It is impossible to start "from 0" without the initial code already existing, you cannot make DNA without using DNA code. And the DNA code and coding mechanism are co-dependent.
You cannot spontaneously generate a complex multi-component co-dependent system, from random chemical soup.
It really is irreducible complexity. Software never writes itself from 0.
Unfortunately atheist neglect the truth
@@killerbee6484you mean theists.
And tell me what truth I’m neglecting….
Your post is god of the gaps
@@therick363no, the post is the god of design and intelligence. You are spamming this same nonsense on multiple threads.
@@dirtyharold7164name one thing I’ve said that was nonsense….
I haven’t spammed. I’ve responded to what people say. That’s opposite f spamming.
Try again
The puddle insists the pothole has been designed for it.
Cope and seethe.
@@linusloth4145yes. They did the whole time.
@@Pllatinum1 you wouldn't recognize a deathblow to naturalism even if it would hit you in the face.
Potholes are created, and water fits them perfectly, which is really annoying because you can't always tell how deep they are before driving through it.
@@Huckabilly-w7g They begin as cracks and change over time. Not "created."
I really enjoyed this talk and hope to see him back sometime
Trying hard to keep listening, but so far it's sophistry, pseudo-science, cobbled together misunderstandings of many different fields, and lots of god of the gaps arguments.
Seems like both speakers have studied these fields only deeply enough to find any place that allows them to sow doubt, and immediately insert god.
I try to listen to all sides in order to be informed, but this seems like childish uninformed/underinformed wishful thinking.
Anyone with any expertise in biological evolution, information theory or software development could clear up most of these misunderstandings, so they cant be run away with and turned into this kind of techno/psycho-babble.
yes indeed ... his use of "highly improbably" gives the game away. Pageau's contributions concerning "mind" were better, but neither seemed to see that they were on different pages.
Nice idea. Please prove it. I’d love to see the evidence.
Not going to happen...since the argument for which they have no evidence...has
devolved into, "If you can't explain THIS, then you cannot DISPROVE, what I have NO PROOF of."
As the empirical understanding of the universe has advanced and challenged the declared truths
of metaphysics, the only available strategy left to it is its continual attempts to shift the
burden of proof to that of the negative assertion that is entirely semantical...resulting in
circular nonsense and self-contradiction based on "definitional avoidance," rendering the words meaningless.
i.e. Lack of belief becomes belief.
The is no god...becomes a positive assertion when its accurate meaning is
"There is no evidence for god or any other metaphysical belief system."
Agnosticism which is again a "lack of belief" or knowing...is presented as doubt open to
possibilities, rather than its actual components that are 1.) lack of evidence for. and
2.) the unknowability of certain concepts such as "the absolute", eternity, etc.
Guess they didn't like my reply...
No. Not THAT.
*_Observations of Connectedness:_*
* Mice in New York are shown a maze and eventually learn it. Mice of the same species in Tokyo learn the same maze in a faster time.
* A vine will change its direction of growth when a pesky human moves the rake toward which it had intended to climb.
* Fossil record shows that evolution of species occurs in fits and starts -- "punctuated equilibrium" -- which destroys the random mutation model.
These facts suggest that one of the dimensions above the 4th might link individuals of a species so that once one of its members solves an environmental problem, others of the same species will also solve the same problem, leading to the entire species moving in a new genetic direction en masse.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Darwinism seems at least limited, but there can also be intelligent design without a designer. Consider the set of all possible multiverses and pick a multiverse with intelligent design, and our universe as a member of that multiverse. No designer needed! Because the set of all possible multiverses exists timelessly. Similar to how Pi = 3.14159... doesn't need a designer.
Correct.
Intelligent designers are assuming that DNA was encoded by someone, claiming that the “information” is there as an intelligible instruction purposefully designed by an intelligent being.
To the contrary, we have seen for instance; how viruses and bacteria are changing its DNA to adapt to their new host, mutating themselves to survive. These mutations are carrying new information to their DNA, without the intervention of an intelligent mind doing the change, or are we assuming viruses have a mind themselves?. Why such variants happen without the intervention of intelligent beings?
And if it is an intelligent designer, who is going to design such a viruses in the first place?
I really want to ask some serious questions to the designer, especially for the deseases, natural disasters and the mind of killers and pedos.
I’m referring to the viruses and bacteria found naturally, not the ones created in labs. 😀
Life is not supped to be figured out. It’s just supposed to be experienced. Where it can from does not really matter. It’s here and that’s all.
Where life came from very much matters if one is after living a meaningful life. Ignorance is also bliss, but unfortunately is devoid of meaning.
Not everybody is after the same thing in life. But I believe the highest satisfies the most, even more than anything that is blisfull or most meaningful!
@@wangxiaoming8989 I guess no one has a meaningful life then. Because no one has any clue where we came from. You can believe what you want but no one actually knows anything. So it’s a waste of time to think about. Life is meant to be enjoyed. That’s all.
@@wangxiaoming8989 - that's not true. You don't need to know where life came from to have a meaningful life. You just need to know that life itself is important. I think it helps people to feel less despair if they know that there's a why life is important. The why is usually important when everything has been taken from you and you are literally at your lowest low. Otherwise, most people don't need to know why.
I think what's more important is living intentionally. Being aware of the consequences of the choices that you make no matter how big or small they might be. People can have a belief in the why and still have no meaning in life because they don't live intentionally.
@@keithmurf426 How can anybody enjoy anything in life when you claim that no one actually knows anything and that we can all believe whatever we want? Is that really a joyous life? That is chaos! Under no circumstance can a chaotic life be enjoyed. What joy is there to life in the presence of such a depressing claim, in the presence of not knowing anything for sure and being so confused about it all ? Joy, if there is any, is short lived like that. There is no true and long lasting joy to such a life, I don't think there can be anything more depressing than not knowing where we really stand regarding these matters. And it's a waste of time to think about such important matters that would make a world of difference if one would get them right? Really?
We do have a clue (and more) about where we came from, we just don't have complete understanding. We came from a source, as everything that exists must have been sourced from somewhere. At the very bottom of it, there must be a primary source that has not been sourced by anything else. If we always say that there is yet another source behind it, then we can go like this forever and never get to the bottom of it. There has got to be a bottom, otherwise nothing would hold. The tendency of somebody holding this never-ending sourcing view is to say that it doesn't matter where life came from, as a defense mechanism to preserve sanity and maintain the ignorant bliss. To solve this infinite regression, a source without beginning must be accepted (surely, by faith, as knowing can only get us so far). That primary source people have called God, so we do have a clue, but we cannot completely understand how something can exist without having a beginning. God cannot be understood fully, precisely because he is not like us, but what we can say is that a primary source exists, just that this source is very peculiar. If you don't accept this primary source, then you accept infinite regression, which again the mind has trouble understanding and coping with. Humans need a foundation (both psychologically, as well as in everything that we do physically), as only in the presence of a foundation things begin to have meaning and one can start building anything (eg. a coherent understanding), regardless of us fully comprehending that foundation, we just need a foundation to be. Without a firm/solid foundation somewhere, nothing has the capacity to be. In absence or denial of such a foundation, there is no meaning, just random mindless processes supporting each other ad infinitum, floating in thin air without any solid grounding to sit on. This is nonsense according to human thinking, but this human thinking is all that we have, we don't know of any other kind of thinking. This solid, firm, foundation must exist for anything else to be built atop it, and this foundation was not created by anything else, it just IS, otherwise we have infinite regression and we're back to square one. This is the human logical conclusion that one reaches when accepting an uncreated first source, the source just IS. Not accepting this, then all meaning in life is lost, it is all random, it is all foundationless. Which one is the lesser evils? Accepting God in his incomprehensible uncreated way of being? Or not accepting him, but instead accepting infinite regression and a model of life where everything ultimately floats in thin air without anything clear or solid to sit upon? Accepting infinite regression means accepting nothing, you have no foundation to your life, or to your thinking, no coherence to any argument you want to make. But accepting a primary source as the most basic foundation, a source that cannot be comprehended in the way that it just IS without being created, is accepting meaning into one's life, and being able to build upon this. Without a foundation everything crumbles, nothing can really stand, even one's psychology and mental sanity crumbles if given enough time living with a foundationless worldview. Even your statement is random in this case, "Life is meant to be enjoyed" cannot apply but to you, somebody else might say the opposite and that will be equally true in a random mindless world without a foundation or purpose. Atheism is really a self defeating incoherent worldview, it just doesn't have any foundation (and thus cannot stand) when the basis for everything to exist needs a foundation to be there. When there is a foundation (as nothing could exist without it), then that implies the existence of mindful processes and the existence of a universal truth that stays true no matter what we wish to believe. Such a world is more meaningful than an atheistic worldview in which nobody has a clue where we come from, inadvertently accepting this way the debilitating infinite regression model that ultimately collapses your life. Clues we have plenty that point to a prime source, just full knowledge of this source we lack, and forever will lack as finite humans that we are with little capacity to understand things far greater than us.
If one begins with no foundation, and thus meaninglessness, from the very bottom, then one cannot even say that "life is meant to be enjoyed", because this sentence is the result of a random mindless, foundationless and meaningless process that just happened to emerge outside of any purposefully created order. Since I also believe (and many others do) that your sentence is true, that implies a universal/general truth, which further implies a universal general source, and that source was labeled God. God is not a human invention, it is humans having no choice but to accept such a source needing to exist by looking at how orderly and consistent everything around us is, and understanding that creation needs a foundation for anything else to be built upon. No structure can be built on thin air. It is the same with the universe, it cannot exist on its own, there must be a firm prime source somewhere that upholds it, and that source cannot have another source underlying it because then it cannot be called the prime source. So the source is uncreated, it just IS. We have no choice but to accept this source as existing, however we will never be able to prove this source to exist because this source is not like any of us. We (barely) only understand ourselves, we cannot even understand what happens in the head of our pet dog, or pet cat, much less understand the source of everything or how exactly everything came to be.
So we do have a clue where we came from, just not full understanding. And that is because we can not comprehend what is larger than us. It is for the same reason why each one of us stands on the shoulders of giants, but the giant on which ourselves stand, is just far too large for any one of us to comprehend it, or see it fully. So we just have clues that we must stand on a very big giant/source.
That source, for better understanding it, though not fully understanding it, has been regarded to be a "father" figure. Why a father you may ask? Because it is the idea that creation/life, at the very beginning, was seeded by a source. In human understanding, a man is what seeds life into the next generation. So then, with our limited human understanding, we labeled this source as being a Father. We don't know fully what this source really is, but it is "like" a Father, and that name stuck. Nobody else came with a better description of the source, one that feels closer to how humans operate, one that humans can relate to somehow and derive meaning in life. It may all be false, but choosing to go down this road of rejecting such a personal God, the end destination is madness because one will go mad before fully understanding what God really is. It is just not possible to fully comprehend the giant/source that one is sitting on, or owns its life to. But there are clues everywhere you look about the nature of this giant. So we accept that God is "something" like us, but at the same time he is much more than we will ever be able to comprehend.
So we have clues that God exists. There are all clues, and based on these clues one can derive meaning in life. In absence of these clues, true meaning is impossible. Preferring to remain ignorant to these matters, or saying that it doesn't matter where life came from, is just a symptom of living a meaningless, foundationless, sourceless, atheistic, Godless life. I don't think there is anything more important in anyone's life than getting these things straight, getting clear about where has everything originated from and why. Why would there be anything rather than nothing? Why would anybody/anything (the source) who has everything give there where there was nothing to begin with (as the world was made from nothing, or the world was made when there was nothing around)? For the same reason why a rich man that has money gives to the poor man that has nothing. Out of compassion perhaps? The universe exists out of compassion, or out of love, but "love" is a term overly used to explain the "why" anything exists. But the reason why everything exists, you, me, and everything else around us is because of the compassion of that mighty source labeled Father, out of which everything came into being in a way impossible to fully grasp because we are just not at the mighty level of the source. We only stand on his shoulders, much less have the capacity to encompass this giant with our mind, thoughts, imagination or deeds.
But we do have clues about the Source, we have plenty of them. That's the only thing that we have, clues, proportional to our human feeble and limited capacity to understand them, never the full and whole knowledge or the full evidence due to all of the reasons mentioned above.
@@francestaylor9156 Based on what are you saying that "life itself is important"? We all need to have a base, a foundation upon which we say what we say. In absence of a base/foundation nobody can say "life is important" as it is just one's opinion. Personal opinions don't matter so much. The truth is far greater, and that is what should be sought, talked about and prioritized in anyone's life.
It is important to have a clue on what one bases their claims, whatever their claims are. Not basing your claims on anything, and just saying what "feels right" is a meaningless way to engage with life, regardless of how much benefit one derives from such an engagement. Such an engagement with life will only lead to depression further down the road, despite perhaps working short term. We need to have a clue as to where life came from, we need to have a foundation to our utterances. In answering the "why" one finds meaning.
Life is important not because any of us says so, but because the source, the base proved it is important because it is basing it/supporting it, and you and me can live. For a source to support life, something that is so dear to every one of us, I can only say that this "base" gives a damn about us considering our life to be important and not terminate it on the spot. Who else today gives a damn about what really matters to you? Very few and far between people do that, however the base of life (call it source, creator, or God) seems to give a damn about you and me considering our lives to be important and worth living. If the base wouldn't care, everything would cease to exist at once. Why uphold life, there is very little return on investment for somebody like God, everyone has turned their back to this mighty prime giant. What benefit does the Source derive from upholding our lives? Why base/support life anymore unless there is a willingness on the part of the base to support something that I happen to hold as most dear to me? So we do have a clue about the nature of this incomprehensible base/source/God. He has a "giving a damn" nature. On such a base, I find you statement "life is important" meaningful. The source "said" that first, before you said it, by allowing life to be and continuing to uphold it. But without this source saying it first, your words are meaningless, random and baseless. The base considers this statement meaningful by his continuing of basing life, therefore I derive great meaning from this sentence because it is the truth, not something that just happens to rock my boat, or a sentence that I hide behind because I am afraid to go get answers to the big questions of life, like why do we exist, or where has everything come from? In absence of this base/foundation, it is all meaningless and devoid of any long term standing.
It is good for any one of us to know our origin, to know where we come from. It is not that important to understand every step of how we got here. Getting lost in the details of how everything works is fascinating (eg. science), but if one does only that all their life, then one is deprived of seeing the bigger picture. Seeing the bigger picture we all can, but trying to understand the details of how everything works we simply can't. We can try, and we will discover more, but we will never know everything that there is to know, nor have a full and complete picture of everything that there is. A lifetime of devotion to scientific discovery will not be enough to comprehend it all. But at least we can know where we came from, and why, despite not being able (or needing) to fully comprehend the process and/or the details. I'd say we never will be able to fully comprehend the process of how us and everything came to be as that would entail having the mind of God, and such a mind we have not. But we can enjoy knowing that our life is supported, it is based by something mighty and incomprehensible that we will forever be in awe about.
Without a base, everything is meaningless, no matter what one says. Touch base people! There is nothing else more worthwhile in doing while in this life. Gather the crumbs/clues that fall from high places, and piece them together to realize what a great sacrifice we have all, and everything around us, been sourced/made with. Great works are always made with great sacrifices. Who sacrifices anything these days for you or for me? They would rather sacrifice you and me for their benefit instead. The source of it all is just not like that!
So yeah, life is important, but not because you, I, or anybody else says it. It is because the source considers it important to have bothered sourcing it and continuing to uphold it. If life matters for the source, then you also matter for the source, regardless of if every human on the planet tells you that you don't matter or that you have no value. Abiding in this realization and understanding gives you meaning in life at every step of the way, helps you overcome any obstacle, helps you live with intentionality and chases away depression (or any low you may be in) better than any prescribed medicine. All thanks to being a bit clued in about the nature of the source of it all. So most people DO need to know the "why", everyone needs to.
Why wouldn't anybody want to know where life came from? One has got to be mad not to wish to be in the clear about one's origin, as much as it is possible for humankind to know. Complete knowledge nobody will ever have, that is only the Source's exclusive privilege.
If we grant the existence of life, we do know how life can get more information. Sometimes, certain sections of DNA are duplicated, which gives more information.