Hitchens: IC is an infinitely expanding tautology
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 жов 2008
- Q&A part VI of the Hitchens vs. Turek debate at VCU, VA. Full debate: www.vimeo.com/1904911
and (annotated)
• Video
Turek continues his self-ridiculing (singularity=miracle wtf?), Hitchens argues that the argument from irreducible complexity (IC) stating that because DNA is so complex or beautiful it must be created is an "infinitely expanding tautology".
Relevant:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifia...
I love how, at the end, Hitch realizes that arguing with Turek is like arguing with a cabbage. Rather than lower himself, Hitch simply ignores Turek and openly appeals to the audience's rationality.
You can't argue with stupid.
You can’t argue with stupid. And you shouldn’t.
@Xen hes a thoughtful idiot.
very true
Turek pretending to be a scientist is hilarious
@@arriuscalpurniuspisohe's a science denier, a very bad one at that, and a shame to the human race
It's always funny when people who believe in fairy tales start demanding we look at the evidence.
The Bible was a genius creation for controlling a population of people. Nothing more than that. The Men who made and added to it did not expect the origins of the story to be taken literally. The main aim was the messages within for creating some governance at a time when things were out of control. The fact that people today actually take the story of the Bible literally is laughable. Its a Metaphor.
If you get to believe in fairytales you have to let other people do it to.
@Jazzkeyboardist1 none the less, he still destroys god addicts with logic and reason....
WOW!!
Bravo👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
JUBILEE💥💥💥💥💥💥💥
A thread were every commenter makes profound elucidations or assertions.
"It seems that resurrections were something of a banality at the time."
Killer line 😅
Also hilarious.🤣
"Lazarus was raised ... never said a word about it"
haha Classic
This is one of my favourite Hitchens debates because it's one of the funniest. Turek is so hilariously out of his league, this is awesome.
Hitchens always inspires me. Turek is always a jerk.
This Guy(Hitchens) has to be the greatest debater to have walked on the earth.
+rahul raj I along with Dawkins think him to be the greatest orator of our times.
rahul raj he's dead, god lives
+Hosoi Archives Glad he killed his son then... -_-
OH SHUT IT!!!
All he did was badger the guy. Almost everything Hitchens said was a strawman
Turek is really frustrating to watch.
"He wouldn't believe in his birth because it only happened once."
Extraordinary stupidity.
He was explaining the concept of singularity and you didn't understand. Turek is orders of magnitude smarter than you
@@hosoiarchives4858 He is smarter as long as it is not about religion.
Look before he agreed that miracles are suspension of laws. Then he forgot that and started saying that miracle is the same as this debate, cause it happened once.
Everyone can be smart, but when it comes to religion, they forget logic, chooses faith and all answers become "god". And that is a big problem, because if your first answer is god, then you completely discard your critical thinking. We can see how his questions almost contradicts with what he said before.
Every person I met was like that. If you want someone public, then Ben shapiro would be great example.
Anyway, what religious people need to do is to ask question why, and not completely answer that with "god". Then most likely they will become atheists or agnostics.
@@dariusnoname12 No
@@hosoiarchives4858 short answer
@@hosoiarchives4858 Turek may be smart but he is also totally dishonest.
The name of the physicist was Gerges Lemaitre.
"Hume if he were alive today[...], would not believe in his birth" Thank you Christopher for giving us the only reply worth uttering to this statement.
Like Epicurus, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, and other like-minds, Christopher Hitchens has found the only possible form of immortality.
We know the Big Bang happened because the Universe expands ALL the time. It's a common occurrence. We know we were born because birth happens all the time and the results of it match entirely with our own experience. I'm getting pretty sick of the desperation and ridiculousness of Turek.
It's so great to see Turek getting frustrated because Hitch is so much better at this than he is.
"There's an obvious difference between the singularity and the miracle, and I think it would be embarrassing to try to explain it. It would be patronizing."
LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
You still have to explain it. Backflips won't work
@@hosoiarchives4858 Death of a person happens only once, but it isn’t a miracle.
Supernatural claims require supernatural evidence.
i have not once in my life ever heard the religious side get the better of the argument when debating freethinkers. if religion were _really_ true, wouldn't they at least score an occasional win?
You are clearly not informed about "the mystery of the faith". That's why you never hear educated Catholics debate at this level. They have long removed themselves from the debate circus and are selling the dope pure. ;-)
I think that's a trait I probably love most about Hitchens, as far as debate goes anyway. He has such charm yet such sting during discussion, he commands the stage and really makes the event entertaining lol.
The other person seems desperately afraid to let Hitchens finish a point without interruption. He belies his insecurity in his own beliefs.
Turek @ 3:45 "if he rose from the dead he was god"
Using Turek's argument, other gods in the Bible are:
The widow of Zarephath’s son (1 Kings 17:17-24).
The Shunammite woman’s son (2 Kings 4:18-37).
The man raised out of Elisha’s grave (2 Kings 13:20-21).
The widow of Nain’s son (Luke 7:11-17).
Jairus’ daughter (Luke 8:40-56).
Lazarus of Bethany (John 11).
Various saints in Jerusalem (Matthew 27:50-53).
Tabitha (Acts 9:36-43).
Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12).
To the poster: I love that you included the links you did. Highly relevant and a good background. Because Hitchens' is forced to be terse here I think people may miss the level of subtlety and complexity in HItchens argument.
I keep coming back to all of these videos. Hitchens is the best mentor I have ever had. The messages resonate so profoundly. Everything he says about religion just makes sense. Turek with his apologist bull just comes off as petty and ignorant.
That was utterly, utterly brutal.
Lewis Hancock hitchens was horribly wrong
Hosoi Archives About what exactly?
@@smallman7538 Irreducible complexity destroys Darwinism
@@hosoiarchives4858 you forget that 98% of DNA does nothing. Not very complex!
@@hosoiarchives4858 There Is a special chapter for "Irreducible Complexity" in God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.
I'm almost embarrassed for Turek. He is so severely outclassed by Hitchens. There's no contest here.
He really is. He's never off-balance or surprised, and always has a clear line of sight into the foggiest of territories regardless of the issue.
I've never seen Hume so misinterpreted in my life. turek should stick to theology.
So he should stick to nothing.
Man i love listening to Hitchens
Turek seems edgy. I guess that's what happens after you've been Hitchslapped for an hour straight.
Hitchens: Explains things logically (maintains acceptable voice level)
Other guy: Forms contradictions and incorrectly states what religion is (raises voice all the time)
Out of all of the Hitchens' debates, Turek is the most hilariously out of his league. Some first year philosophy students should use Turek's arguments as a nice, easy to follow introduction to the concept of logical fallacies.
The fact that some people can actually look at the Christian creation myth, compare it with the current scientific picture of how the universe was formed, and think that they bear ANY similarity to each other whatsoever, is one of the most hilarious things I've ever heard in my entire goddamn life.
ya gotta love Hitchens. I'm gonna remember his little talk about "the resurrection as banality" for situations like the one he used it in....
Turdek... utterly DESTROYED LOL🤣🤣🤣
The greatest thing that could have happened during this was the guy asking questions just said "Here is a question from ICP. 'Fuckin' magnet's, how do they work?'"
Agreed. You can see Hitchens just kind of rolling his eyes throughout the debate. The way he talks about not getting into the difference between a singularity and a miracle is a good example of this attitude. He thinks its embarrassing to listen to Tureks weak arguments and poor defenses.
This is becoming a pet peeve of mine; we actually don't know that the universe came into being out of nothing. The earliest time we know about is the Plank epoch, a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang occurred, and all indications are that there was exactly the same amount of total energy at that moment as there is now. Any physics majors out there who can tell me if I'm wrong on this?
A hostile crowd! I bet hitchens loved this challenge
Bravo Christopher
If we *would* want to patronize Mr. Turek, we could, for example, point out that it's not only possible that life on Earth had evolved from the components that make it possible more than once, but it's also plausible: at the time when the 1st simple life forms emerged they did so in an environment that would be extremely hostile to us, and while the planet was still under heavy bombardment, and they presumably did not so repeatedly in the same puddle. And with these components being rather abundant throughout the cosmos we can calculate another likelihood of life having evolved elsewhere, too.
We could further patronize Mr. Turek by stating that while this solar system had formed only once, star systems are pretty common within a given galaxy, one could say they're quite fashionable, to the extent that they *make* up a galaxy.
That was my immediate thought as well. It's astonishing that Turek would attempt such dreadful arguments, unless that's all he has.
Turek's amygdala has been totally hijacked by Hitchens. Turek is like a gazelle freaking out on the Savannah as Hitchens quietly stocks him like a lion.
What is "the only thing he said all night he is going to remember" at 2:45 is Hitchens referring to?
@talkstosocks Huh, I always thought accreditation depended on having a well rounded curriculum. What courses do they offer? Do they offer any class that does not have "apologetics" in the title? I'd be pissed if I attended Turek's school and when I graduated discovered that I could only get a job at a church.
Just in case anyone is interested, I listened to a recent interview with Frank Turek on an Athiest v. Christian podcast last month; and his arguments haven't gotten any stronger, albeit a bit more seasoned. Interesting to note that he still used the same old tired "forgetfulness" joke, and was quick to acknowledge at the beginning of the interview that he had his ass handed to him by HItchens in this debate. :-)
3:19 Turek embarrasing himself with logic that escentially took from his arse... "so, if the universe came from nothing then miracles are possible" huh ? wtf man !!
@babaluboo123 for some reason, I am unable to post three responses to your posts. Keep getting an error message. Will try later.
-
My deep sympathies. Have experienced the same thing NUMEROUS times and it's VERY frustrating. No htmls are allowed and sometimes youtube doesn't like letters next to periods. Also, sometimes if you copy other's words, it inserts a strange character that can't be reposted...copy it to MS word, delete the strange character and put it back into youtube.
What could Turek possibly be a doctor OF?
religion. think on that. feel free to giggle if you like.
Talking shit
Stupidity
@@thehellyousayIt's like being a doctor in a degree at Hogward's School of Magic
Turek throwing a tantrum is hilarious. He is a child angry at daddy.
I wish i understood what you meant by that. Could you dumb it down please?
@tielec01
Agreed. His response about events that occur only once was purely semantics.
George Lemaitre. You are welcome.. Regards from Belgium!
The level of arrogance it takes to believe that you have the right to assert things without evidence, never fails to shock me.
1) If you have two doctors to choose from to operate on you, which would you choose,
A) one which has been consistently accurate and know crucial facts long before anyone else or
B) One that has some correct concepts and some faulty concepts and is heavily influenced by politics, biases, establishments, etc. that may or may not be right.
The Bible is A. Science while valuable is indisputably B. Science teaches certainty and insists on it's brilliance EVERY bit as much as anything else.
A PhD and still Turek doesn't comprehend that no matter how loud he says something, the increased volume neither makes him right nor intelligent.
I think its always been and always will as long as we are here.
We owe all this technology to it.
@babaluboo123 Sorry for multi posting below by mistake. Don't know how to delete. When I have time will check out the Hitchens & Wolpe debate. But, I think I've got some solid arguments that no one I've heard has presented in defense of Christianity yet. You've only heard a couple of the many reasons there are to believe in God, some with MANY testable evidences. I'm just so swamped right now, but if I can get my presentation finished. Will try to send it to you through youtube.
The part about it being an infinitely expanding tautology is brilliant. Finally a new piece in the theological debate
Its just like my analogy of the fact that all life sharing 80% similar genetic sequence. They just take that fact and say "well they share so much in common because they have a common designer"
When you know DAMN well if we then suddenly found 1 specie that didnt have the traditional ATCG, theyd forego the first arguement and say "ha! proof against evo" they "win" either way
Turek reminds me of that guy Hammer from the Iron Man franchise.
I think 5:49 is one of my favourite Hitchens moment
a banality 😅
What about the so called resurrection that happened only once so it goes against his argument at the end.
Well, Jesus is said to have raised several people from the dead, they are just not being counted as resurrections because it is assumed that all of these people died, again... even though no evidence is being presented for that, either. What is more strange is that the actual resurrection is not being talked about. The bible only claims that he has shown himself to a great number of people (over 200, also without any evidence for who most of these people were supposed to be). Paul does not insist of a theology of bodily resurrection. To him resurrection of the soul is sufficient. The Evangelists are not so squeamish. They demand full resurrection in the flesh and more (like the ability to sit on a heavenly throne for eternity... ouch... now that's torture, right there!). The Catholic Church insists on bodily resurrection, which means that absolutely everybody who died is still dead and will be until Jesus returns. Heaven and hell are, as of now, completely empty in proper Catholic mythology. That, of course, has long been overridden by Hollywood imagery about heaven that was mostly invented by atheist Jewish scriptwriters with a great sense of humor. ;-)
totally part of his charm
You don't have the end of the debate?
@SMTsquidge
The model suggests that at the moment of the big bang time and space came into existence. So in that model there can not be a moment prior to the big bang as there is no time in which it could happen, as well as no space. So as that is what the model implies and there is sufficient evidence to support the model, it is reasonable to say it.
omg rofl. I've seen countless Hitchens debates, read his books, and even some of his articles. I have never seen a smack down this intense. The ultimate insult to a person's stance is to concede ground solely for the fun of it.
"I don't him time to support it!" Turek is clearly getting frustrating and flailing a bit towards the end. I love the bit about even the miracles don't prove anything else. The religious really need to not try to mix scientific arguments with religious arguments. Stay in your lane, please.
@templarart Amen to that, truer words were never spoken
@JackKangaroo1 And just to clarify my last point here, if your God is all-knowing and has a plan then it stands to reason that he must have already factored into that plan whether or not you were going to pray to him to ask a favor, in which case if you don't pray that's already part of his plan and if you do pray, that was too; so no matter whether you pray or not it's already factored into the equation, so why bother praying?
can someone please explain to me this thing, I can't understand it. Does Hitchens talk about a logical, mathematical or rethorical Tautology?
The tautology is "god did it, or not" and they have defined god to include infinite power and knowledge so they just get to say every time we learn something new it is evidence that "god is even cleverer than we thought".
So I guess a logical tautology?? If you can call it that.
Why don't we see these type of debates anymore? I know Hitchen's died, but what about Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, etc?
mmzen Good...
As he should be.
Maybe the apologists figured out they have nothing to debate? Too many Hitchslaps etc. made them realize that they have nothing at all of quality to say and when they get on stage they end up looking dumber that politicians. Neither one can tell the truth.
I am always amazed at the obtuse mindset of the Creationists. They simultaneously insist that the universe could not have come out of nothing with no designer while also claiming that a designer with no known origin, who apparently spontaneously sprung into being from nothing, created everything in the universe. So in essence they insist that the universe is too complex to have happened all by itself and then offer the even more improbable explanation that a more complex designer built it.
I am at least reassured by the fact that some people seem unable to really believe in nonsense.
Even back when you could be killed for being an unbeliever some people stood strong.
The problem with all this is that, if you insist that it is necessary to posit some sort of 'prime mover' to magic up the Big Bang, then there has to be some other enitity to magic up the entity that magicked up the Big Bang. I just don't think you can have it both ways on that one -- unless, of course, you choose to BELIEVE in a sort of immortal, cosmic Gandalf who says something vaguely Elvishy and goes whiff-bang! with a wand whenever convenient.
@JackKangaroo1 Brilliant comment. Very well put.
@jimbob1969 I've often wondered that, and also why in these sorts of debates they come across more like used car salesmen than serious, genuine people.
Ah Christopher you are so sadly missed!
3rd, on DNA, God designed people with brains to function, not waste. He gave principles for the best life (which helps people in my church live 10 years longer than other Americans according to both National Geographic and Blue Zones research centers. But, he left the thrill of discovery for us to figure out with the minds he gave us to USE,not waste. Teachers routinely design activities so students can discover facts instead of telling them all answers. Our brain is to be used, not wasted.
(1/2)
I like your line of thought here, paralegal. Just going by the type of 70s mainstream cinema you get a sense of anti-authoritarianism and all round disenchantment at the institutions. Apocalypse Now, The Conversation, Three Days at the Condor, Serpico - they paint a picture of a more questioning time with more dangerous ideas and more scepticism at the 'men in charge' entering into the public sphere. I'd say that general feeling has had a small resurgence in light of the post-9/11 era.
Big bang?! they were still arguing for steady state in the 1990s
"If the universe exploded into being out of nothing, then miracles are possible because the greatest miracle of all has already occurred."
Turek's argument fails from the beginning because of that statement. Thanks to symmetries in nature we know that the universe has a total energy of zero, and only a universe with total energy zero can begin from nothing. We know that quantum mechanics allows particles to pop in and out of existence, which we've measured indirectly. It makes the BB plausible.
Melkor That's assuming those quantum particles came from a nothing that was real. They do not. They come into being in an already existing universe. The Big bang defies all laws of physics we know today. Therefore it is a miracle.
Wow, the difference in body language is stunning.
@FightingFitKravMaga I DID say that. We do get our morals from one another since there IS NO OTHER SOURCE. Unless and until you can prove there's another source for morality, you've got no other argument for the source.
BTW, if *I* say "this is wrong", that IS merely stating it.
Hitchens FTW as usual. YOU CAN'T STOP THE TRUTH OR SCIENCE !!!
@tanfouk
I was hoping that Hitchens point out that the process of evolution is a fantastically entropically wasteful information encoding process, perhaps requiring the passage of 100 generations before seeing meaningful changes in maybe only one or two enzymes. It's not entropically difficult. And it flows directly from reproducing life with a selection process (the other evolutionary processes are just bonuses; it would still happen without them).
But no, we didn't get that.
@teenw0lf1971 did you see the part where turek started speaking real fast and ended with "thats the argument and i dont have more time to go into detail." well he uses that "excuse" multiple times throughout the debate anytime he is asked a question that undermines his religious beliefs and that actually deserve to be answered. oh and he had plenty of time.. its over a 2 hour debate
Aren't fractal patterns an example of "irreducible complexity"? Just asking.
6:50 yes, spontaneous generation. Except that's what Theists believe, rather then Materialists. Materialists understand Montmorillonite synthesization of RNA, a self-replicating molecule, which started the chain reaction known as Life.
Becoming angry in a debate...first sign of defeat.
There is only so much you can do when you're trying to argue against reason.
Did he just say say someone wouldn't believe their own birth just because it happened once... Eh?
Life has been created only once? It could be happening all the time on our Earth. We don't know that it has happened only once. I would suspect that it happens all the time but new life would not be much of a match for the life on our Earth today that has survived over billions of years.
I suppose examples are forthcoming?
@califoniania
Lust is either going to inhibit you in your head, or is going to harm someone in action, especially these days. But choosing to do good, which is choosing to love, will never harm another. That's why marriage is such an important institution. It involves sacrifice and not simply pleasure. Sure, if sex felt bad then we probably wouldn't do it, but are families simply built on primal feelings? It's too flimsy a thing to count on when the chips are down.
I think they may have been intimidated by the rhetorical thunder. If I had to sit on his lapel and take that beating, I'd probably try to slide away too.
Georges Lemaitre (1894-1966), a Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest who developed the theory of the Big Bang.
15th December 2011 - the day the world became a much dumber place.
Wow, i'm feeling such conflicting emotions. Hitchen's is so good that I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Turok. (Or maybe the only explanation is divine intervention. Yep, that must be it!)
This guy Turek is such a chowderhead
I don't agree that love is a choice. It is the result of social bonding and trust which is emotional and not a conscious choice. However, I do agree with you that the act of sex is valuable for its ability to create life. I'll give the Theology of the Body a read. thanks for the recommendation.
LOL! You mean Sam Rockwell, I see it too!
that last line is pretty awesome tho... Id answer but I dont wanna patronize xD
brilliant
I could only WISH that this had come out BEFORE I had to spend 64 YEARS, wondering! RELIGION IS SUCH A USELESS AND TOTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE THING TO LAY ONTO A YOUNG CHILD! I WILL NEVER BELIEVE IN IT AGAIN, EVEN IF I SAW THEM WALKING ON H2 0H!! NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER AGAIN!!! THANK YOU CHRISTOPHER!
Ouch! Hitchens has stumbled, when he implies that Mary could have given birth to Jesus parthenogenetically (5:28). I believe that is not possible. Female birds, repltiles etc that have a ZW-sex determination system, CAN give virgin births to males, for males are ZZ and females are ZW. Virgin-birth sons are therefore viable. For humans who have XY system, where will the female get the Y chromosome without a male (males are XY, females XX)? If Mary is Virgin Mother, Jesus had a fake beard.
I think he was just pointing out that a virgin birth doesn't get you to divinity. But yes.