Alex-CA | Coincidences Prove Intelligent Design | The Atheist Experience 26.27
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- The Atheist Experience 26.27 for July 3, 2022 with Matt Dillahunty and Forrest Valkai.
Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use your computer to save on long-distance charges: tiny.cc/callthe...
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
► Become a RUclips member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tinyurl.com/Th...
► Chat room rules:
atheist-experie...
► The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting
atheist-experie...
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
► More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
www.atheist-exp...
► DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
www.atheist-com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1997 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
I’m constantly amazed that everything around me is in English, my natural language. Seems outlandishly improbable. What are the chances that I just happen to speak the right language for where I live? Statistically I ought to speak Mandarin. I’m so glad God gave me the right language. 🤪
"The universe is written in the language of mathematics" -Galileo
@Toughen Up, Fluffy 🤦🏻♂️ wow. Just, wow.
@Toughen Up, Fluffy your reading comprehension is very poor
nice....... i see what you did there😂😂
I'm not sure that Mandarin is really the mother tongue of most Chinese (whatever the Chinese government says) and I suspect that many are more likely to speak regional languages or dialects at home. I doubt if anyone really knows the real number of mother-tongue (native) speakers with any precision. Hindi would be quite appropriate as the majority of living persons who claim to have witnessed divine miracles are Hindus.
Yes, living on a rock that’s 70% covered with salt water that we can’t live in or even drink has intelligent design written all over it
In a solar system where only 1 planet is habitable..and where the sun can give you skin cancer if you're exposed to it too long
In a universe that is incredibly hostile to life and with the Andromeda galaxy on a collision course with our galaxy.
In a cosmos that most of which is rushing away from us so fast that it is unreachable and unobservable to us.
The sun is evaporating the puddle and the majority of the puddle is still wondering how the puddle fits the hole so well.
Yea I'm sure our oceans have nothing to do with life.
“Well then I guess I disagree with Douglas Adams.” This is a great example of an obsession with an idea that one has formulated by themselves. It becomes such a part of one’s personality that one will not let go no matter what the arguments are or evidence against it are from the other side.
"I don't have a real problem with ignorance. We are all ignorant about a variety of subjects we are not currently aware of. The real problem is when that ignorance is wilful, intentional and used as a weapon against anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who has the nerve to present facts you don't want to accept."
- anyone who actually cares about verifiable reality
In the coming years, Forrest will, deservedly, emerge as a Rock Star of science education.
"It is a huge coincidence that we discovered things work the way we discovered."
Lightbulbs are the most lightbulb-shaped things I've seen. So far..
> is aware of the puddle analogy
> thinks the hole world was created for his wet shape
Two flags to place at the top of his tower of idiocy.
A puddle's whole world is a hole world.
The Hole World? Which World has a hole in it?!
@@robertblakeman9978 The hole
This reminds me of when Aron Ra was talking about his relatives view of the bible. When they said "the bible does not say THAT!" And followed it up with: "Well, that is not what it MEANS!" And finaly storm if when they are questioned to explain what it says.
I’m still so shocked how people can have so little regard for the world they inhabit they’ll only ever listen to things that revolve around them and their desperate need for emotional validation.
Don't be shocked.
Stupidity is more abundant than hydrogen.
You're IGNORANT if you're "shocked," because no matter who you are or how firmly you believe in what you believe, we all struggle w/ our "faith." If God is real, but we're not worthy of his presence, then we can't ever be absolutely certain of all aspects of that reality. And since there is no RATIONAL/POSSIBLE, step-by-step atheist explanation for reality, you're not sane unless you have doubts about atheism.
@@neverendingparty1534 Could you possibly get new copy paste to bore us all with for next year?
@@neverendingparty1534 Do you get a kick out of making people think you're stupid?
@@ajclements4627 hahaha, when will you ever learn to spot a liar and a deceiver?
You should know by now that NeverEndingParty is nothing but a liar, unkind and a hateful person, a foolish worshipper of a cruel and foolish God, Satan the Devil, and a foolish preacher and spreader of the foolishness, lies, false claims and teachings of the liars and anti-Christs Pastors and Leaders of the JWs, Born Agains, SDAs, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, etc.
You can always tell that an argument is going to be weak when the first half of the call is all preamble.
Peculiar, isn't it? I wonder what underlies it. Some wild guesses:
1) Unconscious reluctance to begin exposing a weak or unsound argument to scrutiny. Similar in effect to "shy bladder" syndrome.
2) Strategic dilution of the central claim, so as to be able to record a kind of statistical victory if many irrelevant premises are accepted, even if the central one is not. Similar to "snowing" or "blowing smoke" and often acquired through high school essay writing.
3) Such a degree of wooly thinking that this preamble is thought to substantially BE the argument. Don't laugh. I swear, this is not only a real thing but a surprisingly common thing, at least among theists.
4) The "aw shucks" method of storytelling in place of reasoned argument, intended to lull the listener into uncritical acceptance while various unwarranted claims are introduced. Also known as "Charlie the Lonesome Cougar" after a particularly homespun example of the genre.
5) Something like a Gish Gallop but excruciatingly prolonged. Intended to bore the listener into a state of acceptance. Just stop already.
6) The "I just wandered in here by mistake" defense, a constructed state of plausible deniability in case things go sideways, which they will.
@@starfishsystems All of the above, plus looking out of the window in school.
As far as I can tell, nature as a whole is doing it’s damnest to annihilate any single species, humans included.
Every species are always working hard to not die. It’s a never ending struggle.
I don't think you're quite getting it either!
Basically, his argument is:
“The physical forces of nature can be understood and manipulated by conscious thinking agents, therefore they were intended to be understood and manipulated by conscious thinking agents.”
Yep, that sums it up, and highlights the built-in circular assumption.
"Stuff happens, therefore god." That wasn't A-game, Alex. Not at all.
If the universe is intelligently designed with us in mind who ever did it did a shit job
@James Henry Smith lmao are you trolling me thos are two vary different views on how the world got it start
Don’t put your ignorance on parade. God designed/created EVERYTHING PERFECT in “The Garden of Eden (Gen 1:31). Adam & Eve were immortal. But death/disease/bad things were brought into the world by sin:
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.” - Rom 5:12
Today, we have 3500 defects in our gene code, but there were none in the time of the “Garden” BEFORE God cursed Adam & what he ruled over (the universe). Try to learn.
@@neverendingparty1534 lmao nerd muh book says stuff
“Try to learn” says the multi account troll with a fake résumé.
@@neverendingparty1534 Get lost, kiddie diddler.
Forrest and Matt, the epitome of good cop, bad cop 😁
That was painful.
I can’t believe he asked “Who was he talking to?” At he end.
Totally clueless.
I get the feeling that many theists are subconsciously trying to convince themselves.
@Deerheart but wouldn't that be in a mental realm for example cuts will only harm you in the physical world, we know our actions have consequences in this physical realm. Or am I missing your whole idea ?
@Deerheart yes we all know people are not lying when they are convinced of their claims, but it's what they believe you are trying to put more importance on when there's no need to as it is in their head and of no use.
I still can’t understand how these people spend days and days thinking about what they’re going to say only to get on the air and very quickly start sounding stupid. Did this guy actually read and think through the quote before he called to talk about the quote? Lmao.
As a lifelong atheist and Douglas Adams fan I nearly face-palmed my forehead in with his ridiculous misundstanding.
There is no intelligent design...
More the opposite...
Using objective standards to disprove an idealistic universe- self refuting.
@Mental Sick Bigot that does not make any sense. Didn't you take your meds today?
In fairness, they don’t say *how* intelligent the designer is. It might be a f*ckin idiot, like my second cousin John. It can drive a truck but that’s about it.
@@freddan6fly How can you say a more perfect universe exists in theory? You don't see the contradiction.
Mental Sick Bigot: balderdash and gibberish. We got the universe we got, and it seems to contains no gods.
So basically Alex doesnt know what coincidence means, what natural means, how cause and effect work, and what the puddle analogy was trying to state.
Alex is the puddle trying desperatly to pretend there are magically coincidences (that actually aren’t coincidence), therefore there has to be a magic being that exists forever for no reason.
''I'm talking to you from a deeper basic understanding - quantum physics really begins to point to this discovery, it says that you can't have a universe without mind entering into it, the mind is actually shaping the very thing that is being perceived.”
-- Fred Alan Wolf PHD
@@ksdogg2629 Rather than copying and pasting a quote without any context, relate it to the OP.
@@twowardrobeswardrobes1536 they don't have that capability.
The fact that "cause and effect" proves unequivocally this creation is a product of intelligent design is a reality beyond the scope of what atheists are able to accept. Just like theists who need their faith because they have made an emotional attachment to their beliefs so the atheists also need to believe that their cannot be a God of any kind. The reason is because atheists, in general, previously believed in a God specifically tied to a particular religion and when that religion was revealed to be fallible or life experiences did not align with their personal concept of God the believer felt so horrified and betrayed and thus became the non believers aka the atheists.
Trying to have an objective conversation about the possibility of intelligent design with an atheist will be just as productive as a Christian trying to have a conversation with a Muslim about whether Jesus is also God.
@@ObjectiveEthics What caused god?
"atheists also need to believe that their cannot be a God of any kind" Wrong.
"because atheists, in general, previously believed in a God" I didn't believe in god. So again wrong.
"Trying to have an objective conversation about the possibility of intelligent design" There is no evidence for intelligent design whatsoever, conversation about it is meaningless.
Imagine arguing FOR intelligent Design and thinking its a good idea to *start* with the Puddle analogy....
The puddle analogy is applied thus -- if life on this planet _didn't_ have access to fire or antibiotics or any of the caller's other examples, it would just be a different hole in the ground with a different puddle in it, still marveling that it fits the hole exactly.
That reminds me of a time travel short story where the professor is demonstrating a time machine.
And explaining how the past is immutable and sending objects to the past doesn't change anything.
By the end of the story he is waving his green tentacles around or something like that. Everytime he did something with the machine there were changes but he didn't know it.
If there's intelligent life on other planets, it may exist in an environment that has no fire and nothing analogous to antibiotics. They might marvel at whatever strange things make their existence easier, like glorp and blubnitz, that we can't even imagine because we don't live there.
The Cosmological Anthropic Principle is a useful tool for inferring the perceived characteristics of the world and universe around us, because we need these things and we are here. It is not an explanation for why those characteristics exist. The universe would have these characteristics regardless of whether we exist to perceive them.
So sentient puddles are proof of intelligent design? That is amazingly funny.
@James Henry Smith Darling, don't tell me that the proof is in the puddle.
@@hendrikjanriesebos1293 And who had "sentience" to give to the "puddle" and by what means was it given? Atheists are such SHALLOW thinkers.
@@neverendingparty1534 why would you need sentience to give sentience? Thats a self defeating assertion.
Theists are such shallow thinkers.
@@neverendingparty1534 sentience isn't a thing. It's a description of a level of information processing. It's something that developed as our brains grew more complex.
@@bdpickett Developed from what and by what means? Please give me the RATIONAL/POSSIBLE, step-by-step atheist explanation of this concept you speak of?
A human woke up one morning and thought to itself that ”this is an interesting place I find myself in. In most environments on this planet I will die within hours, if not minutes, without the proper technology to aid me. It must have been made for me!”
That human was a creationist.
Matts comment about us being tool makers , brought to mind another Douglas Adams "ism" . "The secret is to bang the rocks together , guys"
It's even funnier given that humans can't hear that message because we haven't discovered the medium on which it's broadcast. Plus we've been blown up by that point.
Us using fire to cook meat isn't a sign of intelligent design. Intelligent design would be if animals had their meat pre-cooked for us.
just because a man has a smoking gun in hands next to a dead person as is doesn't mean necessary that he had killed him to begin with, he could also shot in the air to ward the now dead man off while a stray round hit him, he might have shot at the shooter that shot the now dead man etc, so yeah a ballistic test on the bullet if there is any in the dead body and the weapon is necessary to conclude that he had been shot with that weapon
i mean that dead body could also have become so due to an heart attack, was poisened or struck by lightning etc
Yeah? Who produced the person, the gun & the bullet? And by what means? Atheists are such SHALLOW THINKERS.
People pick up smoking guns, it may not be exactly smart but people will do it- without having fired then.
It could have been a suicide and it was the dead person themselves who fired it. Many, many options still remain which is why an investigation is needed.
It’s just a figure of speech, don’t overthink it. It’s the same thing as “being caught red-handed.”
How fitting that the caller doesn't even comprehend the analogy he's reffing to.
We can create antibiotics to cure our infections, therefore god. Except, that seems to be ignoring the fact that there are infections in the first place. Cherry-picking.
And in the Bible Jesus mocks the pharisees for washing their hands before eating.
Lots of people would have longer if the Bible explained soap making and told people to wash their hands.
There was a vaccine 50 years before a doctor realized that washing hands before medical procedures would save lives.
“I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Only tangentially related:
It just dawned on me that the sentient sea in "The dark side of the sun" by Terry Pratchett was probably a reference to Douglas Adams Intelligent Puddle.
IIRC (was years ago that I read it) in the book that ocean (puddle) itself explains it had figured out it evolved out of some serious unlikely circumstances.
10:30 "Yeah, no, I hear that for sure [so let me now ignore everything you have said and pretend as though we have never spoken before while I put my unconsidered point forward ... again]."
It irritates me when religious people use the argument that "The World is perfectly designed for us to live in" Yes! The world is extremely inhabitable for us because we evolved into it! If it was uninhabitable for us we wouldn't exist 🤦♂️ Just because we know that nothing on Earth could survive on any other planet does not mean that life in any other form cannot survive on other planets. For all we know there is some form of life on other planets that are adapted to the chemical elements within that planets atmosphere.
The fact that the planet is 70% water that we can't drink, or the fact we have thousands of different diseases and ailments are two good examples of how the world ain't perfectly designed for us.
Alex won't think that fire's on his side if he ever gets trapped in a burning house with no means of escape.
Alex is a perfect example of not understanding how his brain works and everybody else's. Our brains trick us everyday into believing many things that aren't real. Or into faulty logical positions.
It doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you wrong. It's my belief that this needs to be taught in school to all children.
How our brains deceive us if we let it.
I can't think of the psychologists name but he concluded after some intensive research that the human brain has evolved to be more susceptible to religion. It's the main reason why more humans find it easier to believe in God's but not in trolls guarding bridges.
More research needs to be done but I also believe how our brains trick us into believing things that aren't real should be taught in school at an early age. Let's say, middle school. I can guarantee that if for the last hundred years this was taught in schools. We would have less religious minded people in the world.
So your comment is just chemical delusions is it.
I’m familiar with that. However I think in the callers case it’s just not wanting to accept the logical. He refuses to understand the puddle analogy for what it is. The puddle is us and the puddle thinks the space it’s sitting in was created because it fits so perfectly. It can’t be coincidence. It must have been created by the puddle designer. He needs to understand the analogy first.
That makes a lot of sense. The shift toward more humans accepting and applying secular thinking in flourishing societies is, on the scale of the entire existence of homo sapiens, a recent development.
We started out needing a simple reason for society in general, then for why the society they lived in was better than other societies and why those other assholes drinking all our water have to die. Religions and gods tied those together rather neatly to the first civilized humans, played on what they wanted and feared. And those peoples passed on their ways to their children, assuming they survived the wars over resources with the neighbors.
Well, there's certainly more evidence for trolls existing. But instead of guarding bridges, they show up on Atheist Experience videos.
@@rockysandman5489
And they're as fun to Slay as they ever were. Meaning like the literary foes, they are on the lowest rung of relevancy but offer great satisfaction regardless but often can be a absolute boring chore when they don't know when to stay down and out. 👹💫🥷🧙♂️🧛♂️🧝♂️
I find it hilarious that he said that he was using Adams’ analogy as a framework for his deism and then said he disagreed with it at the end. The man spent countless hours listing ‘perceived coincidences’ as well instead of investing time to truly understand the analogy itself. What a wasted existence.
Forrest is a great co-host
Based on what? Just like any lost & clueless atheist, he can't present a RATIONAL/POSSIBLE, step-by-step atheist explanation for existence. Atheism = a religious cult of the lost & clueless.
Yes. He is a great host, Matt has many great host from the past, Forrest, and some others, build from the wonderful past and continue the tradition.
If it's all intelligent design, why do I need glasses, why had I to go to the dentist today, why do I have half a dozen other health problems? Really? I would fire this designer immediatly.
I think he doesn't know what coincidence means... It's not like cooking with for was a thing before fire was tamed, and we went 'ouu, what a great planet, where fire happens, here we can finally cook!". If we hadn't had fire, we'd have had to figure out something else... That's not coincidence, that's causal, by construction... What a weird weird mind ...
Chances are cooking was a result of find dead animals after forest fire went through...
Matt and Forrest were the perfect bad cop, good cop combi
How is it intelligent that the eating hole and the breathing hole are the same hole, which can lead to choking to death? A grade school student could make a better design.
"too much of a coincidence" shows me that you just don't know what the word coincidence means.
coincidence= shit happens
Shame no one mentioned the Babel Fish ...
It never fails to amuse me and sometimes, frustrate me, that these theists/ deists/ whatever bang on about"intelligent design" and yet the basic evidence shows that it is absolutely the total opposite.
There is the illusion of "design" certainly, but even a cursory look at the reality will soon tear it apart.
We can only just live on a tiny percentage of the one planet in trillions that we KNOW has life on it, which is already then a MASSIVE waste of material and effort that so much else out there is totally dead and completely useless.
Then when we do look at us here, we can as I say, barely survive on a tiny bit of earth and even that tiny bit is full of animals,, plants insects and other things, constantly trying to kill us.
Then there are bacteria, diseases and viruses all trying to do the same and when you get past all of that crap somehow, there's humans trying to finish us off too, mostly cos their invisible , imaginary, fantasy, mafia boss, sky daddy is better than the other person's and we'll fly a plane or two into some buildings to "prove" it.
Then there's the fact that 99.7%of everything that ever existed is now extinct, so some genius that "designer" was eh?
That's like someone making cars for Ford and out of every 1000 they make, they can actually drive away three to potentially sell.
Not sure they'd get the "designer of the week" award too often, do you?
Oh yes, it's all SOOO. very intelligently designed isn't it?
NOT!!!
Yet you're here dressed in a suit, philosophizing on how poorly you were created.
@=_*([[ That's supppsed to be a rebuttal? 😆
@Transchubby SAUSAGE
@@amtlpaul Do you fantasize that the universe is not proven to be coherent and reasonable? Yes or no.
@=^**((( Yet another deflection merely demonstrates your inability to support your claims
Coincidences are when incidents coincide. Humans making fire or using radio waves are not examples of coincidence.
On behalf of all Alexs in California, I apologize
Great stuff. I enjoy this. The conversation included probabilities, smoking guns, perceived versus actual coincidences, penicillin, the invention of fire (or should I say discovery?) and puddles. The constituents of what an atom came up as well as also did the big bang.
No, they don't.
Sounds like a version of solipsism: I perceive this, this must be a coincidence, therefore my position on coincidences is correct.
Smoking gun story: how about it's a warzone, with 2000 other soldiers and snipers.
Or there is a crazy person shooting from a rooftop and the person next to the victim was shooting back?
This analogy is just bad. And his interpretation of the puddle was even worse!
It all sounds like desperation and not Wanting to accept that the design claim is simply wrong. This will never work.
LOL! NO INTELLIGENT DESIGN?!?!? Are you really this stupid? Did star dust or a mud puddle or nothing DESIGN your mouth? How about your teeth? Your tongue and taste buds? Saliva? How about your epiglottis to close off your lungs to food? How about the throat? Stomach and stomach acid? How about the small intestine and large intestine? The anus for elimination? ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT CO-DEPENDANT STRUCTURES WERE NOT DESIGNED for the specific reason of nourishment and elimination of waste!!!! Yeah, rite LOL! A MUD PUDDLE DID IT! LOL! .........Oh wait! STAR DUST DID IT! LOL!!!!!!
Which of these stupid atheist ideas (e.g. Star dust, mud puddles, moist rocks, nothing, & non-existent aliens w/ no divine power to create/design anything) were the cause of the human being and 10 million plants and animals? WHICH ONE had the INTELLIGENCE, POWER, PURPOSE, RESOURCES & MEANS to produce the human being and 10 million plants and animals? LOL!!
@Ronnie Alexander ah, but you will delete your comment, thus disproving you posted and are free to do so.
@@freakyzed8467 ahh did he do a runnie again?
I didn't even get his post lol.
@@freakyzed8467 no surprise, he just uploaded a conspiracy video message 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@CyberBeep_kenshi Is it still up?
When Matt is listing things like ‘air to breathe’ and levers being ‘coincidences’ I bet Alex is like ‘WRITE THAT DOWN! WRITE THAT DOWN!’ 😂
So I am, we are the earth around the puddles. We are subjected to the inanimate, wet nature of the theistic puddle trying to convince us it has all the answers whilst having no ability to offer anything other than stagnant watery incoherent ripples should the breeze blow over it. A believer is the synonym for a puddle. Whilst my words are deep, the puddle is shallow.
hahaha, when will you ever learn to spot a liar and a deceiver?
You should know by now that all theists and fanatics of all religions are nothing but liars, unkind and hateful persons, foolish worshippers of a cruel and foolish God, Satan the Devil, and foolish preachers and spreaders of the foolishness, lies, false claims and teachings of the liars and anti-Christs Pastors and Leaders of the JWs, Born Agains, SDAs, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, etc.
Douglas Adams had this to say: "Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”
The analogy goes like this: The puddle is born and shaped by the circumstances of the hole it exists within. The puddle concludes that the whole was created for it, or that it was created for the hole.
Adams's analogy demonstrates that the Fine-Tuning Argument is the result of an interverted conception of the universe. In the same way that, in actuality, it is the molecules of water in the puddle that conform to the dimensions of the pothole, it is our kind of life that conforms to the parameters of the universe.
The best argument against intelligent design is artificial intelligence (AI): Using AI, we are now capable of "designing" algorithms for a lot of problems that we were not able to develop an analytical solution for (e.g. self-driving cars or prediction of protein structures). However, AI is not designed at all, quite the opposite. You take an "arbitrary" network and only define the type of connections. Then, the network is "trained", i.e. you take a lot of data and try out, which of the parameters in the infinite parameter space give the best results. This is exactly what DNA and evolution does. Thus, by accepting AI as the best way to compute complex problems, we conceded that intelligent (i.e. our intelligence) design is not capable of doing the same but that trial-and-error (evolution) is superior.
This is one of the main concepts I think creates a disconnect between different people. What you're describing could be succinctly called "emergence", or as I like to define it: complexity that which results from simple rules applied to a chaotic system.
Pretty much everything in reality can be seen this way. Atoms are the emergent result of subatomic particles and quantum physics. Chemistry and molecules are the emergent result of interactions between atoms. Life and cells emerge from interactions between molecules. Biology emerges from interactions between cells. Groups/societies/etc emerge from interactions between biological organisms. And that's just one particular/arbitrary chain of emergent phenomena. We can create our own with a simple computer program, or by using the stock market, and so forth.
It's actually really beautiful, because at its core emergence is so simple and elegant, yet it can produce infinite complexity. IMO, if there is a deity, all it would have had to do is create whatever simplest rule exists at the most fundamental layer of physics, and let it do its thing. In a way that would be an argument for deism, but based on how this caller was hung up on "coincidences for humans", I think their idea of a deistic god is much less refined and probably more akin to reality being like The Sims or something, as opposed to an ultimate physics sandbox simulator. But I'm not a deist, because I don't think such a thing requires one, because it's just one simple thing or rule that we have to presuppose exists, instead of an entire deity to "create it".
The difference between those two things is what I think a lot of people also get hung up on. Reality being a "simulation" can mean a lot of different things. Some people think it means The Matrix, but to me that's absolutely silly compared to something like a physics sandbox. Making the Matrix means explicitly designing a complex system, whereas the latter would, in essence, just be that simple rule applied ad infinitum, producing everything from quarks to entire galaxies and everything in between, including us.
Not to contradict Matt (sacrilege I know), but the use of fire was most likely “invented” by certain species of bird and merely adopted and improved by humans (homo erectus). Which I think actually limits Alex’s argument further.
I love how the stick is still the banging tool.
Also, could the caller screw up Douglas Adams' analogy any more?!
The stick being the first,will be the last.
It sounds like Ray Comforts "God's Banana" to me. Although I am only at 7.07. Maybe he will get to his argument before the temporal trap door falls.
And many trolls.
Yeah think about the poisons, the things that are super super inconvenient to humans. Deserts. Space itself. Black holes, stars etc.
Hello, my name is Alex and I am the caller in this video clip. First off, I apologize for the performance. I could have definitely done a better job. I was pretty nervous as I’ve never spoken in front of a live audience of over a thousand people. That said, I do think that what I said was logical and sound, but I wanted to give some clarification and responses to the hosts' objections to my ideas.
After I talked about "radio waves, fire for cooking and antibiotics from nature" Forrest said that I was claiming that "everything is so perfect" which proves a God.
I am not arguing that anything is perfectly aligned with anything else. Reality is full of chaos and sometimes that chaos overlaps which sometimes results in a net benefit to something else.
I was trying to say that some coincidences are not extraordinary and some are. The reason I brought up the smoking gun analogy was to show that we, as a society, acknowledge that we can have beliefs that are not completely factual, but rely on inference which is OK.
Forrest also said that I was putting humans in the forefront of my narrative, but I was not saying humans were the reason for the universe, but that many things are there for intelligence to take advantage of. I guess I’m claiming that intelligence is one of the main reasons for the universe. That’s why I think the simulation theory is a good example of deism because it’s a precreated environment that is fine tuned for intelligence to take advantage of it. How that intelligence proceeds, however, is up to the intelligence which means you may get a wide range of results.
Matt said "We are tool makers" and then compared our tool making (like a stick for digging) to having enough food to eat and air to breathe.
There is a fundamental difference between making tools like calculus or a Turing machine and having air to breathe. If there was no air to breathe then we wouldn’t be having this discussion so it’s a necessary occurrence and therefore isn’t an extraordinary coincidence. However, it is extraordinarily coincidental to be able to use radio waves to communicate, invent calculus and create a Turing machine.
Matt said I was misunderstanding the puddle analogy which was correct, but only partially. I didn’t realize that Adams included utility in his description of the boundary of the puddle (so I thank Matt for pointing out that flaw). So, I disagree with that part of the analogy but, save for that, the illustration is still compelling for my point.
Basically, I am claiming that there’s a certain amount of utility in reality that could reasonably be used as an argument for the existence of a creator. I don’t see how one could say that no amount of utility can be used to support the idea of deism. Because that ignores the distinction between ordinary coincidence (like having air to breath and food to eat) and extraordinary coincidences like someone being able to create the first Turing machine.
That said, I don’t think that such extraordinary coincidences should merit a “smoking gun” level confidence in a deistic claim, but surely it’s a reasonable belief to hold. I believe deism can live alongside atheism and both can disagree but still be reasonable in their positions.
Nothing you stated was logical. You can convince yourself of whatever want but it doesn't make it valid.
The main problem is that none of this "coincidence" stuff actually points toward anything. How do you get from that to a god? You are just pointing at everything, being so amazed that everything is the way it is, and positing a god. It's essentially an argument from ignorance. You can't think of how things can be the way they are, so you posit a solution with no evidence to support it.
@@ThouArtOfWar0724 Your think God deniers want logic do you?
@@WattyRev Prove your claim that coherency is nature is a brain delusion.
@@WattyRev you said, " You are just pointing at everything, being so amazed that everything is the way it is, and positing a god."
I am not arguing that something being amazing to a human proves a god. I made a distinction between ordinary coincidences (what I called "not a coincidence" in the clip, sorry for the confusion) and extraordinary coincidences.
A few good rules of thumb;
If someone asks; "Is that a coincidence?", you can generally answer; "Yes, it most likely is".
If a head line or video title contains a question mark, the question posed can generally be answered with; "No".
Christ sake Alex. You couldn’t misunderstand the puddle analogy any more. Puddles understand it better than you do.
Caller ignoring the infinite list of things that are bad for us.
I think one thing that could have been brought up in this discussion is the difference between natural science and technology. Fire is a part of natural science, cooking with fire is a technology developed by intelligent beings.
My counter to "it was designed for us" is "by a shitty designer, I can do better in seconds."
"don't u have to have evidence for that?" how ironic.🤣🤦🏿♂️
We shouldn't be surprised that things appear to be "made" for us. They appear that way because we are the result of what worked in the random and chaotic environment throughout the planet's history. Which is funny, because that's exactly what Douglas Adam's puddle analogy means. We're the water and the environment is the shape of the puddle.
It's a remarkable coincidence that there are diseases that we can cure. They must have been designed specifically for us.
How is fire, and cooked food so special? All creatures that eat, must break down the food source, before it is of use to them. There are plenty of ways food and be reduced for absorption: Fire is just one good, and fast way to break down food for absorption. Even after breakdown and absorption, there is waste, so no system is absolutely perfect. Life is still a struggle against barriers, and difficulties.
“And god created willful stupidity, and called it Alex”
😂
I notice you can never defend your stance so you must resort to ad hominem attacks, oh wait, that’s what all atheists do😊
When someone needs to spend 5 minutes to define an analogy down to specific details that usually means they have an extremely weak argument.
Forrest is sharp as heck.
I was having trouble paying attention because I kept think how much Forrest looks like Ruth from Ozark in this clip. 😄
On the contrary, Alex, if everything was intelligently designed, you wouldn’t have come up with such a clearly unintelligent response
Man sees fire feels the heat and thinks this would be great by my cave. Man probably found an animal burned in a fire and ate it and thought this tastes better then before. Amazing what millions of years can change
Finding a way to keep naturally occurring fires burning was clever, but the really amazingly intelligent step was figuring out that if things get hot when they rub together, and fire is hot, maybe rubbing things together fast enough can make a fire.
Convincing yourself of a lie doesn’t make it the truth
"My god created everything. So now you have to listen to every stupid thing I say, believe everything I say, no matter how stupid, and never ask me any questions. You have to do what I tell you to do and you have to give me money because my god says so."
This seems like a convoluted way of saying that humans are intelligent therefore whatever made the universe is intelligent. Without realising that that’s the argument he’s making.
A coincidence is subjective pov.
"Who is he [Douglas Adams] talking to?" ... You, matey. People like you. People who needs to stop thinking there's a "Plan" in creation and whatever we do with our world will be OK.
Just an example of the mental gymnastics a person of faith will go through to try and make their perceptions of reality match their beliefs. Neil Degrasse Tyson the Astrophysicist addresses this when he stated that "The time to believe you are actually in the Matrix, is when you have evidence you are in the matrix". What I have
similarly noticed is, organized religion goes through huge efforts to undermine our perceptions of reality, of ourselves, and our place within reality, so it can then make itself the sole authority on these things. A good example of Buddha who after being raised in the walled city was overwhelmed when presented with the realities of poverty, inequality, of hardship and death. Rather than face these truths Buddha instead chose to not only deny these truths but to undermine our perceptions and reality itself. If it's all an illusion, dream, or delusion, I remove myself from having to take responsibility for myself and others, and for making the situation better. I met a Christian who divorced himself from morality through a similar process; as he claimed it could be God's Will these things happen, and who is he to judge God's Will. This is my issue with Christianity as, it demanded the followers of Moses go out and kill every man, woman, and child minus the young Virgin girls who were given to the men. This would be a very easy and convenient way from an Army of Moses' followers to go out and commit all manner of atrocities and then justify it as being God's Will. There are even descriptions of armor and using it as symbolism for God and his attributes. A modern take on this hypocrisy is the love the sinner hate the sin diatribe coming from many Christians. This mentality has been used to justify denying LGBT people equality and freedom, and even church members disowning or even beating LGTB individuals. I mean, priests can't even universally follow their oath to celibacy, yet the faith demands LGTB people do the same in order to be accepted by the church and its members. If acceptance comes with such ligation, it's not acceptance it's a bribe at a minimum and a threat in actual practice.
The fact God's love is conditional by requiring us to accept Jesus; least we face God's wrath, and comes with the bribe of salvation shows it to be a coersive and thus immoral proposition for God to demand.
Life fits the environment.
That is what the puddle analogy is saying.
So it is not a coincidence but it is the opposite of the environment was created for life.
This guy completely misunderstood the Douglas Adams puddle analogy… its an argument based on irony to point out how ridiculous the idea of « intelligent design » is.
I’m very appreciative of the help in my deconversion that this show gave me, but idk how much more of Matt being objectively rude to people approaching genuinely like this person I can take.
He is only rude after someone demonstrates they are not listening
@@stevenswitzer5154 Even then, it's less fair to call him rude rather than irritated, and since it happens when a caller isn't listening then the irritation is entirely justified.
I notice that you're arguing for and against Heisenberg and Schrodinger at the same time.
"Fact is that you are both right and wrong at the same time,it's not rocket science it's Quantum physics" -Aaron Kuntze
My initial problem with the analogy of the person caught holding a smoking gun is that there IS a person holding the smoking gun.
Where is this "god" holding the analogous smoking gun?
Also Alex doesn't understand coincidence.
The puddle analogy is about the universe and humans in it. The puddle is people and the pothole it's in is the universe, the pothole just happens to be and the water in it fits just right because the water fit to the hole just as hijabs evolved to fit earth/universe/whatever.
There must be a God.
How else do you explain some typos and spell correct.
Why does an all powerful all knowing God depend on analogies and hypotheticals to insinuate his existence? God knows damn well what could convince the whole planet yet chooses these wierd brain games.
Alex, if I pick up a rock and use it to smash a piece of bamboo so I can use the slivers as tools, does that meant the rock and the bamboo were supplied specifically for me, or does it mean I found a way to use the rock to my benefit?
Matt .. forest... I commend your ability to stay sane..
You can fire and miss with a gun, and another person with a gun shoot and kill the person. You walk in and see the smoking gun and it not be the one who murdered the person. So that's why a ballistics test and a whole lot of other tests are done to eliminate mistakes that you can test for.
Thousands of animals have eyes that make human eyes so utterly pathetic, & that's our strongest sense.
"IF I COULD FINICK MY FUCKING SENTENCE?" Gotta love Matt.
All well and good and quite fascinating how does it pay my mortgage or any other bills for that matter?
Even after he was proven wrong by reading THE CREATORS OWN ANALOGY. He still STUCK with his own narrative only to serve his ego…. 🤦🏻♂️
Its always very interesting to watch the co-host's face while matt gets angry when people speak over him. I wonder if they wish he had more emathy and less disdain for people who have not been on this topic as long as he (matt) has
I think his point was that, as the analogy is about us adapting to the world rather than the other way around, it illustrates how evolution is a better explanation than intelligent design; however, there are tons of things in the world that are useful for us that had nothing to do with our millions of years of evolution, such as fire, antibiotics and everything we use to create technology.
Still though, that's not enough to conclude it was put there by a designer, it's just the fact that stuff does stuff, and we've been smart enough to know how to use that particular stuff to our advantage. It might seem intuitive that fire was put there for us so that we can cook food, but the reality is that, had it been cold instead or had any other behavior, we would be using it for something else instead. So, as this caller failed to realize, this *can* be taken back to the puddle analogy as well.
The puddle analogy is about the water fitting the hole.
The caller thinks that the hole fits the puddle.
Other than his misunderstanding the puddle analogy, I'm not sure what the caller was trying to say
It's a coincidence that we can cook our food to make it better for us?
If we couldn't make food better for us with cooking then we wouldn't do it. There's a ton of things that we don't cook because it doesn't make it better for us. Cooking food is still the puddle thinking the container fits it perfectly
Definitions of "intelligent" are necessary.
If mass and energy would have been created would it contradict first law of thermodynamics?
@Toughen Up, Fluffy
And if it was contradicted then it would still not prove the existence of God. Only that we got the law wrong.