Can Science Find God? feat. Stephen Meyer and Michael Shermer
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Bryan hosts a discussion between Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Michael Shermer about the existence of God from a scientific perspective. They ask the question: can science prove the existence of God?
Want more Bryan Callen?
You can buy tickets to one of his stand-up shows near you by visiting www.bryancallen.com/live
Get Dr. Meyer's Return of the God Hypothesis here - rb.gy/lbmru
Subscribe to Skeptic Magazine here - shop.skeptic.com/
You can listen to the full episode here:
APPLE PODCASTS: apple.co/3eXvC9w
SPOTIFY: spoti.fi/3Lpqlnp
Support Bryan and get more content, plus special perks, here:
PATREON: / bryancallen
Want to look as good as The Kid? Get your merch here: bit.ly/bryancal...
is bryan gonna be the spot for deep theological debates? 😂 never saw it coming but i’m here for it
Agreed
Ditto! I quite enjoy Bryans way of communicating, he’s a well spoken person to talk to especially about theology.
BCS>TFATK
Abiogenesis fails
Yea 100%
Callen is so caustic and disorganized in this interview. Thankfully Meyer's articulate insights and the depth to his ideas are more than enough to sustain this conversation. We need more Meyer...
The entire interview he was interrupting to interject milktoast buzzwords you find on an intro to philosophy vocab study guide. He derailed highly polished points on both sides.
Agreed. I honestly believe when he has guests on his show, he should chill out and mostly allow them to speak amongst themselves. His interruptions were not even funny and his timing was horrible. Strange considering he's a comedian.
@@BuddyBudensteinwhile I agree. I think it works decent for bringing the conversation back to a place a layman or even novice can access.
@@BuddyBudensteinotherwise these conversations, the average listener will be so lost in jargon they might not even follow along. I typically enjoy unmoderated open dialogue though personally.
Called literally proved Stephen’s point as he tries to deny it
There’s no over arching mind in the economy???
No
There’s MANY
One or many the economy does NOT simply appear.
It’s a result of minds
Holy crap what a fool
I have immense respect towards Dr. Shermer. Always respectful, yet solid and humble in his arguments. Dr. Meyer, no words. Extremely important scholar and a trailblaizer in his field. Brian Callen, an intellectual man who happens to be a genius comedian. Thank you so much for this conversation. Truly remarcable!
God bless you, sir
Dishonest in his arguments. Although not as blatant as Hitchen's.
Shermer is a con man lol he went to jail for fraud
The intro song is one hell of an intro song.
lol Bryan an intellectual?
Stephen Meyer is truly the GOAT
A grand GOAT
No he is not...sorry to burst ya dumb bubble: ruclips.net/video/Akv0TZI985U/видео.html
He's certainly one of the Greatest Grifters of All Times 😉
@@APRENDERDESENHANDOCope harder
a whole lot of nothing and a lot of nonsense and a lot of false claims which he can't prove! is all nothing more than worthless!
I’m a Christian and I really enjoyed this. Excellent guests 👍
I'm a Christian and Michael Shermer is a relic with rocks for brains. Stephen Meyer has BTFO'd that prissy old man with these arguments before but Shermer's too dumb to either comprehend them or is so dishonest he keeps tossing out these tired old counterarguments even though he knows they're nonsense. Probably the former, to be honest.
Evolve
@@jasonm2506 **tips fedora**
At minute 6::30 Shermer literally debunks his own Philosophy about moral Objectivism...the whole Embodied Cognition movement is based on Heidegger and Dreyfuss, who are calling upon the recognition of Decartes Error in his infamous Subjective OBJECTIVE duality...and that error is not a mere woke thing... it's your problem Michael.
You don't have an Objective morality because objective is a false dichotomy. We are in and of the is world just as we are in and of our bodies....like the Christians and their incarnation preoccupation nailed explicitly btw.
Geez and he's a "smart guy"
@@jasonm2506 No
The more I hear Meyer the more I want to hear from Meyer!!!
The more I hear Meyer, the more my a**hole wants to chew tobacco, so I can s**t it out.
Meyer is such a great communicator of some difficult concepts. The return of the God hypothesis is more than a book title, but, as we know, science progresses one funeral at a time.
God is...
@@JevinTappero an inane fantasy
@@jackwatt8988So all the matter and energy that is the universe (or even multiverse) has no possible explanation?
@@jackwatt8988that inane fantasy is shared by most of your fellow homo Sapiens. Just deal with what biology gives you. Your fellow apes are religious and you are religiously devoted to team "atheist"
Like WLC he operates on a different level. His ability to relate these ideas to the layman is almost inspired. Qudos to Shermer for acting as the perfect foil in this debate while keeping it civil. There is nothing worse than listening to the likes of Krauss or Atkins who refuse to acknowledge that the sceptic is owed an explanation and not just opinions based on personal prejudice. This kind of intellectual laziness is all too common among atheists.
Apparently comedians are the last line of defense for having good faith debates and conversations. El Gato, this episode was just as uplifting as those eyelids…
Bryan has the enthusiasm of a 1st year philosophy student. It is fun to watch. I hope to see more of these kinds of discussion; and, for the most part, Bryan is on the right track!
Very true, but he definitely needs to learn how to get to a point and stay on topic 😂 he is a bit scatterbrained.
Meyer was instrumental in bringing me back to faith. His book "Signature in the Cell" is a great read.
Let the mockers mock Anthony. Once you read "return to the God hypothesis" you will be supported and affirmed. I am almost finished with it and there is really only one answer to "Where did it all come from?". The science is validating our Great Creator every year.
@@monk4258 Have you read "Signature in the Cell"?
Before any of us mocks someone or their views, we need to honestly assess. Yes Meyer is fantastic, a great debater, and an incredibly talented and brilliant man. God bless him
@@monk4258 Compared to "The Blind Watchmaker" and other New Atheist drivel that appeals to adolescents, yes, it was relatively easy for Meyer to dismantle their banal piffle.
@elikunkel4381 Of course he hasn't lol. Or, rather, he couldn't.
There was a time when religion was outdated and science showed up on the seen telling religion to do it's homework. Now we are living in a time where the script has flipped and both are better for it. Religion now has need of finishing it's reformation in our better understanding of genuine spiritual experience.
Bryan I love this new direction you are going in. Your intelletual interest combined with your humor is unmatched.
Callen has really surprised me with these interviews. He does a really good job asking questions and letting them discuss.
Joe rogan better take notes
Rogan would be proud
Totally agree.
All Rogan cares about anymore is trans debates and wokenesss. It’s boring.
@@plutoloco2378 cutting of the sexual organs of kids in a massive scale is pretty serious
This is such a great episode for those with an open mind to watch and just listen to two gentlemen discuss their many hours of life (work) on the question of, how did this all begin? Thank you for your discussion, fellas. Keep it up, Callen!
The video is titled "Can Science Find God? ". What is the scientific definition they provide for god?
@@cnault3244to me the definition would be, the driving force behind the creation of everything that can or cannot be experienced with the senses.
That force or energy is frequencies.
Everything in the universe is a frequency or combination of frequencies holding their shape like a whirlpool in a stream...
"God" is a fractal pattern endlessly expressing itself throughout the universe.
You are the word made flesh.
Science that backs this claim.
The amazing resonance experiment
&
Star in a Jar
I can listen to Stephen Meyer the whole day. The man is knowledgeable. A discussion with him is informative.
I feel the same way about Michael Shermer😂
As a Christian, I love the grace Meyer continually extends to the grumpy Shermer, who constantly exhibits that he is completely closed minded to theism regardless of how rational it seems. Meyer is constantly exhibiting love and I wish all Christians, especially those on the public stage of ideas, would exhibit. Myself included.
I'm most of the way through the video and I kinda like Shermer, he's polite, patient, and personable, but his arguments are very weak. But yeah, I also see the closed-mindedness, which is so common among atheistic scientists. They seem to assume as a given that God does not exist and therefore any evidence that points to His existence is explained away, but with very poor arguments and speculations.
@@jamespenny9482i think anyone who truly believes, understands someone who is clearly fighting off the belief because it is outside of their ability to grasp. When I finally came to belief, I wasn't relieved or excited, I was terrified. The idea of actually coming before God in judgment is paralyzing. These materialists often cannot unpack the infinite series of implications that would follow them admitting to the existence of an all powerful creator. I have empathy for that, because in my life when I've been the most arrogant and dismissive, it is when I'm burying something that I'm afraid of.
This was an excellent episode, and a great example of the cordiality that there should be in discussions like these. Internet theists and atheists should take notes.
I love GOD..!
ref: as in..
● Gift
● Orientated
● Dividends
👇
The narrative about a all-seeing, revengeful, absent-minded, DEITY with A PENIS..?
NOT so much...!!!
I am a nonbeliever, and I assure you I felt no compulsion to "take notes".
Wow, a comedian just provided probably the best short discussion on these topics that I've ever heard. No joke. Well done, sir.
I wish Bryan would stop interrupting these two guys and let them interact more with each other. I am Theist but I really to wanted to hear more from Michael Shermer. I respect Shermer even if I don't always agree with him.
I agree. I don’t like it when people are talking over each other, making understanding them impossible.
Stephen Meyer has obviously done his homework. He’s also humble enough to know the limitations of human knowledge.
Is it humble or is it part of the scam. You can't understand this, so you need me to tell you what to think.
“You can’t understand this”.. 🤣 so tell me...?! 🤦♂️Lmao!
He's done enough to sound like he knows what he's saying. Unfortunately he still advocates for creationism, he just likes to call it intelligent design.
@@Thrawnmulus Not just creationism. young earth creationism!
Do your homework. Meyer does not advocate young earth creationism.
I’ve listened to tons of this sort of debate. Meyers, by far, makes more sense than all others combined.
@muneebiqbal5584 it's funny because modern atheism is more adherent to doctrine and dogma than the vatican church of old, to the point where they indoctrinate students with disinformation and lead to stifling of free thought for scientific ideas...
not to mention they worship the gods of randomness (newtonian dynamics), nothingness (big bang) and meaninglessness...... the next Einstein will most definitely not come from academia or the west...
you should consider Dr. James Tour on the origin of life.
he had a great podcast with Steven Meyer about 2 years ago...
@@franzpaul6244yes! Steven was a guest on Dr James tour's podcast... Absolutely enthralling discussion
@@jeffclark2675
Dr. Meyers has a 4 part discussion scheduled with Dr. Tour on the origin of life and the first 2 have been published so far.
those 2 together are an absolute must watch...
I don't find the con man more convincing
Shermer was completely out of his depth.
I don't understand why people bring him. He simply isn't a very deep thinker and pretty much limits himself to throwing out platitudes and worn-out slogans.
Also, sniping Rupert Sheldrake was in poor taste.
Shermer was the only one in reality though. Myer only had his Santa Clause for adults called God. It's hard to take anyone serious when they are talking about make-believe characters such as gods and demons and all such nonsense. These people should have let that garbage go with Santa years ago.
@@jerrylong6238 Your dismissive and arrogant posturing is pretty pointless.
Good Atheist philosophers like Oppy, Nagel, Russell, Sartre, and others have taken Theism seriously and answered in kind. If you don't do the same, then you're just putting forward an opinion without an argument.
Brendan might lose his mind when this channel surpasses Thicccboy in subscribers
Yep. And I'm here for it.
He'll start hating on bryan guaranteed
Meyer is the boss
This was an awesome discussion, Bryan, thanks for hosting it. Stephen Meyer is such a bright guy and a great scholar, and Michael Shermer is so bright and well spoken as well. I love getting to hear their takes on the big issues, and seeing them discuss these things together was so cool. Stephen had some great takes in this.
So dope you did this Bryan. Would love more of these. Also I’m a huge fan of Stephen. The guy is revolutionary in science
Meyer is a conman from Discovery Institute
Nobody in the DI is revolutionary in science, only radical creationists.
Please have Dr. James Tour on your program
That would be good.
Ugh, what a moron, when he talks about abiogenesis. It's despicable to see educated chemists lying to people that magic or alchemy is real in this day in age when he knows damn well he's misleading people.
I’m a Christian and i have a really hard time with Tour. Has a really hard time with difficult questions. Always seems to have his points built on sand.
@@ianhastie5785 you didnt say anything specific, James Tour is world-renown and he simplystates what common says says in most of his stuff, like that life always comes from life (the law of biogenesis), and that abiogenesis is impossible, which is obviously true and what we see in reality
@@Relies-t5vhe’s a petulant man who has more pride than sense.
Abiogenesis has more scientific backing than god. It may not be a proven theory yet, but there is strong evidence for it.
Stephen Meyer’s testimony resonates with me
Bryan, I’ve been a fan since the TMP days. I’m an ICU Travel Nurse with 10+ years in the job. I would be honored to be a guest on your pod for even a quick chat. Keep up the good work!
Meyer is phenomenally intelligent & learned individual I have ever listened
His logic is based on fallacies. Hes starting off with morals not being objective, fine tuning of the universe, intelligent design etc. Even Bryan is on a higher intellectual level.
We don’t need to have problems with how other people think.
That is the whole problem with society today. Stop caring to control what people think, let them have their lessons. It’s NOT FOR YOU TO KNOW HOW OTHERS SHOULD BE.
🤷♂️🤦♂️
One love.
@@seraph6758 People are allowed to have opinions. However, when those opinions are harmful to others it is absolutely a problem. On behalf of all the abused children who are forced into religion by their parents, and taught that they are broken and will be tortured for eternity if they dont worship an imaginary being, you are wrong. You are demonstrably wrong. Furthermore, moral standards are pretty important in society. While laws should never be the moral guideline since slavery was once legal etc its imperative that some line be drawn. We dont let serial killers do what they do because who are you to tell them they cant be who they want to be.
@@raginglunatik8979 Now you need to be real, and not ephemeral, opinions don't hurt. No, I'm not religious by the way, NOT that you have established a grasp on the subject, at all.
@@raginglunatik8979 You complain of the parents who brow beat their children due to the parents faith, what of the children who are coerced into sex changes and hormone therapy because of their spiritually dead parents?
The understanding that life is designed and design is an absolute like Stephen Myers argues for, does not require a religious God. It does however offer a level of understanding (about life) that in the case of the trans issue would show the way to have a life of peace happiness and joy is to fit into the design of life and encourage the children to do that rather than the trauma misery and pain that the trans community eventually land in.
Ideas have consequences, religious as well as non religious. Lets not pretend that doing away with God as a concept does not come with some pretty serious issues.
Return of the God Hypothesis is a great read.
Great to see Stephen here, I’ve followed all his stuff and when I first discovered ID over a decade ago I was totally blown away it completely made sense. If more people could look at this more closely instead of going on auto believe with neo evolution theory they would find meaning
Aron Ra... Truth teacher!
Incredible interview. Myers really is a true scientist and incredible witness for the truth in the Bible and Jesus from a solid scientific perspective. Him and John lennox are leading the world into a new enlightenment period.
Is it just me or are the arguments for Christianity and religion way stronger nowadays than they were 10 years ago?
I love the point Brian made about what Jesus did and who he was.
That’s what made me say I’m a Christian; not the bible thumping stuff.
Actually what made me go all the way was the fact that I realized I was embarrassed to say that I was Christian. When I realized how petty that inclination was, I felt obliged to call myself Christian just as a matter of principle.
If other people hear me say I’m Christian, and assume a bunch of different beliefs on my behalf, that’s on them and not me. People will always misunderstand, often deliberately, what you mean.
And in a sense is it true that I’m Christian? Yes; I think Jesus was the greatest man to ever live by far, and he didn’t even have a job or a wife or a house or a business and he wasn’t a politician. The guy was a phenom the likes of which the earth has not known before or since.
You can see that clearly without any miracles or supernatural stuff.
Like Myers said naturalism is itself a metaphysical outlook
@@Dulc3B00kbyBrant0n not so. Meta means beyond. Natural is what is the base reality. There is no beyong reality. Wake up
10 years ago, Intelligent Design was very active in their debates and new ways to explain their viewpoints. All the great arguments were alive and well 10 years ago, and prior. I think many ppl didn't recognize this because the new atheism was very fashionable at the time. But now we live in a world in which traditional religion declined and now we are subjected to completely irrational social justice type ideologies, which has made people recognize the failures and limitations of atheism and are therefore more open to God again.
@PraiseTheLord777-nb3il this isn’t helping anyone.
Anybody who would read a quote read off by wrote is a fool.
@@King_Conan That is excellently explained. I think you’re right. I actually got caught up in the whole “new atheism” movement for a while but then ended up coming back to Christianity. It’s not the only reason, but the insanity that has ensued by removing God from modern society has contributed to my feeling of having made the right decision.
Dr. Meyer and Dr. Lennox are my favorites.
There are others, too, but these two are my to-go-to for proving creation and God.
And no, one does not need to be a Dr., or PHD, not even a college grad or associate D., reason and evidence is all that's needed, which is why "Dr." Hovind makes many great points.
Stoked to see more and more people do this stuff. ❤️
1:27:27 was my main takeaway from this episode. Asking these big questions and debating them is what makes life worth living (at least in the Socratic sense). Skeptics and atheists need guys like Stephen Meyer to pique their brains and help them stay open-minded, while theists and religious folks need guys like Michael Shermer to help them think critically about their beliefs. That's why I'm grateful to both men for agreeing to this talk. This, my friends, is how we get closer to Truth.
I'd love to see Stephen Meyer on Rogan.
Agreed
Loved it, indeed. Props to Bryan for probably being the push to get Dr. Meyer on JRE
you are an oracle...
Good news. Latest Rogan podcast is with Meyer
@@heidiooohs
yup- hopefully he soon follows with James Tour...
Hold on a second! People talking about great questions without yelling and name calling? What year is this?
These are men from a different generation.
I’m so glad to see this finally hit more mainstream platforms. Super interesting discussion!
I recently had a really really wild spiritual experience and now I am perplexed as to why God would show some people these things, but not all?
Perhaps some people wouldn't talk about their experiences like I am about to?
Basically a few months ago I was laying in bed, my back hurt, I was thinking about rolling over to get in a less painful position..
Out of nowhere I felt a hand come over my left shoulder and set down on my chest.
(where did it come from? How did I know it was there, when I couldn't see it?? DONT KNOW)
When this hand layed down on me it was like my entire body and soul was absolutely loaded with pure joy. It was so unbelievably intense and so completely overwhelming that I almost couldn't handle it and I was beyond intimidated within the 3 seconds that this hand was on me.
So after 3 seconds or so, the hand lifted and the moment it lifted, as a knee jerk reaction I just blurted, "thankyou!" like a reversed gasp, mumbling thankyou. Idk how that came out of my mouth when I didn't even have time to put together why this was happening.
So, it turns out I'm not the only person that has experienced something like this, I yesterday, met a man from South Africa who is also a Christian and had an experience where he felt that wild/ intense joy.. It is so unearthly, and alien a feeling to have any emotion as strong as this.. and to have it be injected into your being faster than a drug, faster than electricity, it was like light. It was like breathing for the first time ever without ever knowing that you could breathe.
I spent decades being a Christian and never experiencing anything to that magnitude and the only reason I think God doesn't do this,, is because it has an effect of depressing you. You want what you cannot have, something that satisfying should be as available to me as the air I breathe. So for me, going from just 3 seconds of whatever that was, being near God? Going from that, back to work/ everyday life is depressing, it is spiritually suffocating, it makes me realize our world is much closer to hell than heaven.
I could listen to Meyer and Shermer all day long!
Science can’t find God, but those who seek God will surely find Him.
Tried. Didn’t find him.
Love Meyer! Brilliant mind. I really like his friendly approach and grasp of everything.
Shermer seems like one of the better skeptics. Also, friendly in manner.
Shermer described the atheists' position perfectly around the 37min mark - "I don't want to believe in things that have to be believed in to be true"
If he's married I hope his wife doesn't see this interview 😂 otherwise he better have a good answer prepared for the next time she asks him if he loves her
Not only that, but he literally has to believe what he is saying.
@@rcmysm9123I like Schermer but he’s not a strong debater
I loved it kkkkkkkkkk
He also has to believe in the accuracy of all knowledge taught to him that formed his worldview. Point being / no one escapes belief
He has to believe his own senses and mind are accurately perceiving the world at all times.
Bryan has a very philosophical and deeply probing mind!
I’m a Christian so I am aware of my bias. I’ve read three of Myer’s books and I don’t think most responses to his arguments are fair nor are they adequate. But again, I realize my bias. I very-much doubt however that anyone truly is without bias. One of the things I find frustrating is that many of the skeptic types act as if they are objective and have no deeper reasoning behind their beliefs than reason itself. Religious people are always encouraged to examine their assumptions and this is not something practiced most times by the other side. I have listened to Michael on several occasions and I will say that he is at least respectful towards those he disagrees with which is a rare find with many in this conversation. Great discussion.
Aware of your bias. How is that possible if you believe something completely; you're convinced of something and biased towards any information that could disprove your belief. You're not aware of the bias that when loosened would dissolve your belief. That's what a bias does, blinds you. Religious people are in no way ever encouraged to doubt their beliefs. Prove it, let's hear one religious person telling people to be skeptical. Nuts!
@@pjaworek6793 "Religious people are in no way ever encouraged to doubt their beliefs. Prove it, let's hear one religious person telling people to be skeptical." As a former militant atheist of 20 years and now an Orthodox Christian, I have to say you have no idea what you're talking about. There are countless examples in the New Testament describing the Apostles as being doubtful of Christ and Christ telling them that it is natural to doubt. Moreover, most of the people on the interwebs encouraging people to be skeptical of the government or mainstream media are conservative Christians. To argue that "religious" people don't tell people to be skeptical is intellectually dishonest and demonstrably incorrect.
@@pjaworek6793we are all biased. But if you become aware of your bias you are no longer blinded. Your eyes are open and you will be less likely to let your bias dominate your ability to critically think and be able to entertain other views in good faith and even be open to good arguments that may change your views.
Bryan, thank you for providing this content. In a culture that seems to be moving in a more atheistic direction this has introduced both excitement and hope into the conversation. I left this discussion impressed by all three of you. We are now entering an age of technology in which these types of free expressions of thought are less censored. The previous guardians of truth imposing one version of scientific theory on an unsuspecting public may be over. Stephen Meyer deserves a seat at the most prestigious tables of debate and discussion. He has the potential to be highly influential. I eagerly anticipate the day when he will be welcomed.
Love Stephen Meyer!
Dr Meyer is a next level debater on this topic.
HALLELUJAH!!!!!! STEPHEN KILLED IT!!!! ALL PRAISE BE TO OUR GOD IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME. AMEN.
Twit
Duh. No point, just like Stephen
Fist time on your channel Bryan and I gotta say, you are a great interviewer: direct, lay it all on the table, no agenda, just searching for truth!
Interestingly…Shermer was seemingly out of his league here.
Not seemingly, actually.
No, marketing BS is a skill and just because a Christian does it well is not evidence of anything of the sort.
@@veridicusmaximus6010Show me the evidence that you evolved from protoplasmic goo. You are truly a Neantherdal if you think that's true. The only people blowing smoke thinking they have all the answers are the Godless atheists. I can't believe I'm responding to a clump of cells. 🙉
Stephen Meyer is a GENIUS
I,'ve got all his 3 books
Darwin's Doubt, Signature in Cell and Return of the God Hypothesis. Must read books
Let your guest get one in bro 👍🏼🇺🇸
The algorithms did me a solid recommendation on this, fan of Bryan since TMP. Exceptional podcast, i thank you. Familiar with Shermer and thought he was great here, and Meyer is someone I am very happy to be introduced to.
I wish i could like it twice, i can't... so instead, i'll say this. Bryan, you have all the gifts to stand out in this field. Your whole life has led to this (imo) please keep your ADHD ass with it coz its a real gold mine of influence that will grow with consistency, a change i selfishly want, is to see you take on the best of your "peers" in this genre.. i hope you consider that comments are your community without a forum. Most mean well and want you to succeed. Haters gon hate, but even some of those have to admit, this is great conversation. More please. Great questions, respectful, no interrupting. I just think its too fascinating to exist at all, that its so bizzare, there has to be a reason for it all... A God of some kind, or we are in the "Matrix" that we wake out of when we die, only to discover that, just 5 minutes have passed, in the place where we are ACTUALLY from... In a future world where you can live a whole life while waiting for your spouse to shop, lol.
The fraze I've heard time and time again, since the covid days....
"Trust the science man !"
I find Mike to be a truly intelligent and likable guy and I have a lot of respect for him, but Steve is far more convincing.
My sentiments exactly!
Gullibility
What a beatdown...wow
Whoa. Didn’t expect this! Good job Callen! Keep it up!
Oh wow. Thanks for having this conversation.
Meyer did great here
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
In other words, emergence is a purely conceptual idea that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
This is not the proper methodology to get your ideas in play. Don;t be afraid - do it right.
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." - Sir Francis Bacon
Damn this Stephen guy came prepared
Nobody has more faith than idea that sophisticated, complex, prescriptive and directive information comes from star dust....nobody!
Bryan you're dominating this space right now. Epic discussion!
It is very interesting Dr. Meyer's position that the existence of God is a question of science.
Everything is a question of science. That's just common sense, not very interesting or revolutionary.
There's a clear delineation between what people define today as "science" and what actual science is. Knowledge of absolute laws is absolutely a thing despite what is spoken of here and needs to be taken seriously, as the abandonment of such understanding leads to entire fields of "science" for lack of a better term that are predicated on false axioms thereby invalidating the field of study.
There is always an information system at work, and that's why we look for the mind and its effects that information has!
46:53 to 47:39 is about the clearest formulation of the issue from one who beholds a Christian perspective who is also deeply concerned with science
Huh? No one says that postulating a designer is ridiculous - there just is not any evidence for such a disembodied one to even get of the ground with science.
@@veridicusmaximus6010I’m confused by your response. He is using the exact same methodology as Darwin used in his origin of species. But when the conclusion yields intelligence - moving from observation to inference - you call it unscientific. Sounds like a precondition you’re sticking with rather than scientific deduction
While I found the interview deeply interesting and entertaining, and while I definitely agreed with Dr. Stephen Meyer more, I felt kind of bad for Shermer. I felt bad for him because it seemed like most of the video he had to debate both Meyer AND Callen. That must've felt frustrating for him. What patience and grace! Really interesting interview!
Poor Michael Shermer! I think he's a very intelligent, articulate guy and a fine interview subject. Unfortunately for his skeptic's faith, it simply gets CRUSHED under the weight of the scarily-brilliant Dr. Stephen Meyer. I heard fast-balls thrown apparently as hard as Shermer could throw them to Meyer, only to see Dr. Meyer catch them as 'snow flakes', and hurl them back at poor Shermer as fiery fast-balls! Great work, Bryan in refereeing two big personalities around the table.
Yeah, Meyer didn't stand a chance. He's lost so many times now it's crazy he still tries.
Callen's best move
Michael is a very likable sceptic, and very respectfull and knowledgeable.
Stephen is incredible and knowledgeable beyond comprehension😃 Very intelligent man. Host: "have you heard of it?", talking about one random book he has read from Newton, Stephen: "Yeah, ive studied this stuff."😂🤩 He has read most of the stuff there is on the matters at hands, at least all the big names. Scholar with capital S.
@Muneeb Iqbal And? What are you trying to express?
Mind blown starting @ 1:18:30. I can't even articulate why. Thank you for making these types of videos.
Stephen Meyer is the man
enjoyed this, thanks. Bryan's enthusiasm is contagious.
It's nice to see Bryan making an attempt. And his guests showed good patience.
Thank you gentlemen for sitting down together!!
Thank you Bryan Callen, im so happy you went back to this more intelletual and funny podcast, up & running better than ever. I was one of the tens, if not hundreds of listeners to the o.g audio podcast haha, and am also a die hard tmp guy. You are killin it!, the numbers are growing with these fantastic guests. Michael Shermer's podcast is the sh*t too.
That was brilliant. Meyer is my intellectual hero but hats off to Mr Shermer, I disagree but what a a good man. Bryan Callan is excellent, first time I have seen him, great mediator. Well done all of you.
Meyer is amazing. He makes me believe!
The real question for anyone really searching for the truth is, if the universe is solely the product of a mindless unguided material process, how is it able to produce species with intelligent minds that are able to scientifically and mathematically study and understand this universe that is itself intelligible because it innately contains these laws and properties?
Why are you under any impression that a mindless, unguided material process could *not* produce such a thing?
Literally God of the gaps at every turn 😭😂
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one
I will watch THIS podcast with GREAT interest
John Lennox is another great communicator from the Christian perspective for those interested. A heavy hitter.
LMAO!
Shermer asking what is the origin of eternal timeless being. Shermer just will never get it. Like asking what is the cause of the first cause.
So the materialist atheists believe we randomly evolved form primordial ooze from a single cell organism and crawled out onto land and then eventually become humans. And here we are about to destroy ourselves with either nuclear weapons or AI.
Lol that question has been answered by Aristotle 2300 years ago and this shermer dude still doesn't know the logical contradiction of an infinite regress.
Yes, because the question why is there something rather than nothing should be answered.
The idea is that we begin with this universe, and we say "how can this thing just exist, things don't just exist, it must have started at some point", but if the solution is inserting a character that one defines as eternal and timeless, then the problem of something just existing isn't solved.
The problem of something just existing without cause has merely been moved over to the character that was inserted, thus, the problem still exists.
@@sj205 No, not really, the question isnt why the universe exists, the question is why does anything at all exists. If even one particle existed or, we would ask why does that particle exist. Now that particle either existed eternally and is a necessary thing, or it has a cause outside itself, and must have come from something else. The particle must have some sort of explanation why it iexists. We cant have an infinite regress of causes that goes back forever, therefore we must land at a first cause. We must land at an ultimate foundation of reality, something which just exists. As I always say, for many its about running from God, the arguments become superflous in the end to most atheists, because they just dont want God to exist.
You have to give it to Bryan, a comedian, to be able to stir such a philosophical theological debate this way. Amazing discussion guys!
This was fantastic! Keep doing episodes like this!
Mic drop for God 🎤
Stephan Meyers is always the smartest man in the room.
I’m sorry but I have to disagree there
Man, this was such a good listen. I wish it were longer. I think we are thirsty for not only truth, but also intellectual dialog. Damn our mainstream media.
Dang Bry broke out the Rogan table and chair lfg
Looks great. Major upgrade.
I prefer it to a line of chairs. Just watched a nameless pod with a couple million subscribers, the camera constantly switching between 3 people made me naseous.
This circular reasoning pointed out by the host is what invokes the proverb "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.”
Proverbs 1:7a
My first brush with Bryan and I'm appreciating him.
I love finding new books to read. I just bought Signature in the Cell and Return of The God Hypothesis.
Try: Life-How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?
It's a bit older but you probably haven't read it yet (because of propaganda against the source and the phenomena described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4).
You're in for challenge! Those books are massive and meticulous.
Have you read Michael Behe's books? If not, you're in for a treat. I recommend reading them in order if you have time.
We got Michael-Meyer on the show, no?
To acknowledge conscience, living intelligence is moral, Michael! Its to be truthful with oneself! You know, as opposed to lying! =)
Dr Steven is an intellectual savage.
Yes, compared to, um, L Ron Hubbard, I suppose.