God Encoded His ID in the Natural Forces | Otangelo - Brazil | Talk Heathen 03.06
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 02. 2019
- Talk Heathen 03.06 for February 10, 2019 with Eric Murphy & Jamie Boone.
Call the show on Sundays 1:00-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-686-0279
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
The podcast may be found at:
www.spreaker.com/show/talkhea...
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & 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.
NOTES
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:
Ethan Meixsell "Takeoff"
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2017 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
Eric ending with "I feel you are an honest interlocutor" I laughed out loud when he said that, mostly because we've seen his future calls and I've interacted with him. And, wow.
Sandcastles.
One would do well to take a step back right there. You do not see a "sandcastle", you see a pile of sand of a particular configuration. It would only be due to past experience that you might interpret what you see as a sandcastle as opposed to a pile of sand in an interesting shape.
What if you were the first person to see a beaver dam? Pile of logs or a home?
@@6chhelipilot Indeed. Or as they finally did get to; seeing anything entirely unfamiliar to you. This points the conversation towards getting to what properties imply intentional design, or at least how one infers design in what one sees.
We typically develop such capabilities or tendencies rather organically, and it is actually devilishly difficult to figure out how we go about such tasks, even though we make such judgments all the time!
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
//One cellular Iphone from Apple, and next to it, a device with gps and similar capabilities as the Cell phone, but no nameplate or any kind of information that would give a hint of how it was made. What would you conclude in regard to its origin? //
The same way for both. One would compare what one saw/experienced to ones past experiences.
Recognizing the Apple and iPhone logos would both bring up the similarity to those exact logos back home (and what they relate to - a specific human company that manufactures such devices) and the connection more generally to human-invention product markings.
One might then notice other things that compare to previously experienced signs to manufacture. Depending on ones particular skills sets one might recognize only generalities or up to exacting specifics down to minute details.
And one can easily make mistakes, making connections that are inaccurate.
Having similar functions might not be sufficient to warrant deeming both of similar origin (such as being designed and manufactured), not if the means by which that achieves those similar functions are vastly different. And we may need further data to further any tentative conclusions.
Eyes, like that of humans, work in many ways like a manufactured camera. But we have experience and evidence of how both develop, and they are VERY different.
It is actually quite a bit like how one distinguishes cases of shared evolution and convergent evolution. The traits may be similar (even extremely so), but the differing details as to how may reveal a lot more.
Imagine I lived on a desert island, having no knowledge of other humans or their works. Suppose a watch washed onto the shore. Would I have any means of knowing that that watch was a human-made artifact? Obviously not. I could not deduce the existance of other humans from the design of the watch. I know that a watch is a human-made artifact because I already know of humans and their works.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Again, we are seeing a certain equivocation with regard to the concept of "design". One usage of "design" is simply the way in which something is ordered. A cloud formation has a design, for example, but that doesn't mean it was designed. The second usage is the property of having been designed. You are mixing up the usages. Or are you claiming that every single thing we can discern some sort of order or pattern in necessarily has a designer? Is every snowflake individually designed?
I think a good example of our ability to 'intuit' design is the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland. People once reasoned these were intelligently created by giants, but now in the modern era we have discovered they are naturally created basalt formations.
Exactly, it may appeared designed but completely natural
Example of something intelligently designed: A sand castle.
Example of something not intelligently designed: Otangelo's brain.
Jamie! You had him cornered when you got him to admit we could differentiate between things designed by humans and things designed by god - too bogged down in the details there, should have pushed him in that!
In the end it still seems like he's making an argument from incredulity.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom I've told you before, I refuse to waste time on your copy/paste gish gallops. Have a conversation or don't respond. Your choice.
They all do.
"Look how grand the universe is. It Had to have been created by god"
Then they put up their god shield which blocks all logic and reason and especially CRITICAL THINKING
That his pretty much Otangelo's schtick. Arguments from Personal Incredulity and Special Pleading.
Matt Dillahunty can be rude, but far out we needed him on this show. Jamie and Eric really messed up here. At least they acknowledged it.
All Otangelo's evidence comes from blogs. Some sound sciencey, but at the end of the day they're all just blogs... no post-secondary institution articles, no science organization articles, no science magazine articles, not even a national newspaper article - just blog after blog after blog... specifically the blogs that reinforce his religious views...
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Plz find better sources, k? Any national newspaper in the world will do. Any book from the NONFICTION section of your local library or bookstore. For example, find a Geology book that shows evidence of a Biblical flood - spoiler alert: it's a myth
1) "The Genesis flood narrative is a flood myth" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative
(Just like all the other flood myths)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth
2) Noah's ark is a "Mesopotamian flood myth" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah%27s_Ark
3) Many cultures have their own flood myths, some older than the Bible:
time.com/44631/noah-christians-flood-aronofsky/
4) Encyclopedia article on flood myths:
www.britannica.com/topic/flood-myth
5) Just a list of flood myths
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
Conclusion: The flood is a myth, and that's why there's no geological evidence of a global flood. It's a fictional story.
Do you really think there's a global conspiracy where all the science magazines, science journals, science organizations, national newspapers, and academic institutions in the world are in cahoots to keep the evidence of the Biblical flood hush hush?
RE: "Reasonanscience is my personal virtual library." And I told you before, that's a BLOG. It's a damn blog! It's F-grade evidence. We have no idea who wrote the article, or who runs the site, or who funds the site - if any of the information in it is accurate. I mean, do these guys fact-check? Probably not. They have no journalistic standards... because they're a blog.
You like the blog because it tells you what you want to be true, but you need outside sources. Your blog is functionally useless. I bet I can find 50 blogs about alien abductions, moon-landing hoaxes, and all sorts of nonsense.
The blog 'Reasonanscience' is especially propaganda-y because it tries to piggy-back on science's good track record, and tries extra hard to sound "reasonable"
CONCLUSION: The blog websites you get your info from are the absolute worst. Like you should be ashamed of yourself, seriously. Find better evidence - not blogs. At least National Newspapers have fact-checkers and journalistic standards. Check out BBC News, Economist, Bloomberg, NY Times, something - anything except your F-grade blogs.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom if your sources are legit then why is it so hard for you to find the same words in a national newspaper, encyclopedia, or science organization website?
Your sources aren't legit - that's why you're dumpster diving in your blogs for F-grade evidence.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Bebbeth
Bebbeth
1 second ago
You are all over the place... but one thing I've heard you repeat over and over again is that something can't come from nothing... and that it's impossible to not agree with that... so therfore God.
Well, I do. It might be that nothing is possible but so unstable that it will allways leads to everything, in that local universe.
It's also a possibility that nothing really is impossible.... and it's impossible to create something from nothing... so God can not do it... so God is not he explanatiion... so instead of an eternal God we have an etarnal universe.
The point is sand castles and factories can't grow, repair themselves or reproduce. If you knock a sand castle down, it remains a formless shape. Living cells can do all those things so the analogy is false.
Keep it up. Great show.
Talk about riveting discussion😂😂😂 every statement having to be anallyzed and explained in detail sure makes for a a super interesting debate!!!
My God like Jamie said they never got of the beach!!!!!! At this pace that discussion will take about a decade.
Otangelos inability to argue or reason is fascinating to behold
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
I won't list every failure as my response would be far too long for you to able to compose a decent response, however to name a few points:
1. In your comments you commit the logical fallacy of "Gish Gallop" where you fail to answer a question directly and instead flood your opponent with tons of irrelevant information....despite numerous people explaining to you that this is a logical fallacy common amongst those with weak arguments and an inability to reason, you still continue to do this.
2. In the video you commit numerous fallacies, most notably the argument from ignorance "you can't explain this, therefore God"
3. You fail to explain how you can recognise design if everything is designed, if both the sand and the sandcastle are designed how can you tell them apart?
The only reason we can see a sandcastle is designed is because we know the sand is not, sand occurs naturally, sandcastles do not, if nature is designed then recognising design would be impossible.
4. You make the mistake of thinking just because something looks designed it must therefore be designed, this is again incorrect, you need to be able to demonstrate how it was designed and then demonstrate the designer.
You also claim complexity is a hall mark of design when this is wrong - simplicity is a hallmark of design, and if complex things must be designed then your God must be designed, or is God not complex?
5. You engage in special pleading to avoid explaining your God and have an incorrect understanding of what science says about the beginning of the universe
You failed many many more times in this video but let's just focus on these for now.
It would also be nice if you could actually just focus on and respond to my numbered points......I know you prefer to engage in the fallacy of copy/paste and links to your silly little blog but that is not how to hold a reasoned discussion and if you respond in that way.....well.....you'll only prove my original point to be correct
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
1. This is an assertion, you need to demonstrate this, I don't know for a fact that something cannot come from nothing....and of course where then does God come from?
2. Yes - the big bang
3. An infinite regress....which is not solved by God without special pleading
4. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, we don't know the universe is a closed system but even if it is, seeing as everything will eventually deteriorate into black holes then there is no breach of the 2nd law
5. Demonstrate this claim rather than just asserting it
6. This is nonsense, how do you know this? How can you test this?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom correct....we can assume based on current evidence that that is most likely the case, but we cannot state that as a fact because we have no way to demonstrate that because we cannot ever observe nothing, and depending on how you define "nothing" virtual particles do appear to come from nothing
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom the only honest answer is "I don't know" and we cannot assert either way.
It's likely that something cannot come from nothing as we have never observed this, but as we have no way to ever observe "nothing" we cannot state as fact that something cannot come from nothing until we have demonstrated this to be the case.
To claim to know either way would be intellectually dishonest
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
How can you say that something cannot come from nothing if we have never observed "nothing"?
I am not saying something CAN come from nothing, I am saying there is no way to know or demonstrate either way and to claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Can you demonstrate there was ever a point where "nothing" existed?
Does that even make sense?
If "nothing" existed or there was a point where there ever was "nothing" then nothing becomes something.
Can you demonstrate it is impossible for something to come from nothing?
No
Indeed, defining "nothing" even becomes problematic in itself:
The simple idea of nothing, a concept that even toddlers can understand, yet proved surprisingly difficult for the scientists to pin down, with some of them questioning whether such a thing as nothing exists at all.
The first, most basic idea of nothing - empty space with nothing in it - was quickly agreed not to benothing. In our universe, even a dark, empty void of space, absent of all particles, is still something.
"It has a topology, it has a shape, it's a physical object," philosopher Jim Holt said during the museum's annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate, which this year was focused on the topic of "The Existence of Nothing."
As moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum's Hayden Planetarium, said, "If laws of physics still apply, the laws of physics are not nothing." [Endless Void or Big Crunch: How Will the Universe End?]
Deeper nothing
But there is a deeper kind of nothing, argued theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University, which consists of no space at all, and no time, no particles, no fields, no laws of nature. "That to me is as close to nothing as you can get," Krauss said.
Holt disagreed.
"Is that really nothing?" he asked."There's no space and there's no time. But what about physical laws, what about mathematical entities? What about consciousness? All the things that are non-spatial and non-temporal."
Other speakers offered different ideas for nothing, such as a mathematical concept of nothing put forward by science journalist Charles Seife, author of "Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea" (Penguin Books, 2000). He proposed starting with a set of numbers that included only the number zero, and then removing zero, leaving what's called a null set. "It's almost a Platonic nothing," Seife said.
The theoretical physicist Eva Silverstein of Stanford University suggested a highly technical nothing based on quantum field theory that involved a quantum system lacking degrees of freedom (dimensions). "The ground state of a gapped quantum system is my best answer," she said.
Holt suggested another idea of nothing.
"The only even remotely persuasivedentition of nothing I've heard form a physicist came from Alex Vilenkin," a physicist at Tufts University, Holt said."Imagine the surface of a ball. It's a finite space but with no boundary. Then imagine it shrinking down to a point." That would create a closed space-timewith zero radius.
Absence of something
Neil deGrasse Tyson hosted a debate on the existence of nothing March 20 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Neil deGrasse Tyson hosted a debate on the existence of nothing March 20 at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.
Credit: Clara Moskowitz/LiveScience
Still, Holt said he wasn't won over by that definition either, and wasn't convinced that nothing actually exists.
"Analytic philosophers say nothing is a noun, it seems like a name for an entity, but it's not - it just means not anything," he said."What's so special about nothing? It's not a fruitful philosophical notion."
But just because nothing may be prohibitively difficult to conceptualize, doesn't mean it's not a real thing, Krauss countered.
"There are lots of things in science that are impossible to get any intuitive handle on, but that doesn't mean they don't exist," Krauss said.
This difficulty in understanding nothing dates back a long time. The ancient Greeks had no concept of zero and hated the idea so much they refused to incorporate zero into their number system, even when their astronomical calculations called for it.
"We humans have a real revulsion for nothing, for a void," Seife said. "For us nothingness represents something that we're afraid of, disorder, a breaking of the rules."
Ultimately, the definition of nothing may just be an ever-moving target, shifting with every scientific revolution as new insights show us what we thought was nothing is really something.
"Maybe nothing will never be resolved," Tyson said.
The difference between design and natural occurrence is something we learn to recognise. Not only do we not simply intuit design or purposeful construction, we can also be completely wrong by inferring design where there isn’t any - eg Giant’s Causeway/Mars face - or failing to recognise when it is there - eg ant hills, beaver dams.
Also, by implying that his god designed every aspect of reality from physics up (he mentioned the fine-tuning of quarks iirc), Otangelo has shielded his proposition from any meaningful investigation while simultaneously declaring the discussion closed. Launching your god into a mystical transcendent realm and declaring him emperor of the universe might be an easy sell on Sundays but back in the mundane material world, actual people exist, real events happen and there are questions and problems to address, and the tinker god in the far away cloud palace isn’t any apparent use in that regard.
There are lots of different hobbies, for all tastes: some people collect stamps, some people watch sports, some people do woodworking, gardening, etc.
Otangelo's hobby is to embarrass himself.
And who, or what, designed the designer?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom "1. Contingent or non-necessary beings depend on an external cause that made them come into existence - the physical universe - is also contingent.
2. Since that external cause has to be outside the whole aggregate of contingent things, it cannot itself be contingent. So it is necessary.
3. Hey presto, we’ve demonstrated that there is a necessarily existent, uncreated, non-contingent being which causes all other things! And this, of course, is God.
"
You are indeed the master of copy and paste. lol And congratulations, you have proved that a God exists! Except for it's not making it in any peer-reviewed scientific journals and it's certainly not making the news.
“The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms....” (Deuteronomy 33:27).
“...The everlasting God...will not grow tired or weary...he gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak” (Isaiah 40:28).
“Now we know that if the earthly tent [our bodies] we live in is destroyed, we have a building [celestial body] from God, an eternal house in heaven...” (2 Corinthians 5:1).
"
And also: "You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
" (Genesis 17)
Are you fucking kidding me?! Is that something you would expect to read with regard to a being that created the whole universe? Of course not. And why are you quoting Bible verses as opposed to verses from the Quran?
"2.B. *If the entire cosmos came from something*, that thing must transcend our cosmos, that is, it must exist beyond the limits of our space/time continuum. We may call it the First Cause."
The Cosmos and the universe are two separate things and I would take the word of a Cosmologist over a Theologist any day of the week when it comes to matters pertaining to such things. We only know that the universe began to exist, the whole Cosmos is another thing altogether. I also find it difficult to conceive of 'nothing'. What is 'nothing'? Could 'nothing' ever exist? Do you know of any examples of 'nothing' that we can investigate? What would there have been before there was 'something'? If there was always 'something', then the Cosmos has always existed in some form or another since there could never have been 'nothing' then existence itself is entirely necessary and therefore no 'first cause' is required.
The designer is a product of natural forces.
"and the universe?"
Necessitates a creator.
"your creator doesn't have a creator?
"none needed"
"so why do i need one for our reality?
"because X said so"
Authority fallacy
Idk man, it is obvious if you think about it from different perspectives - believers look at it from only one perspective: "it just is exactly like i believe it is"
How they determined that is simply "i was told so" or "i thought it up"
Tl:dr
They choose not to think about alternatives because they're emotionally invested in these beliefs.
Thinking about an alternative would lead to "reasoning" they don't want to take part of.
"my feelings mean more to me than reality because my feelings shape my reality" - how do you combat this???
Well, you haven't been drinking the koolaid then? God is eternal; has always existed and always will. Outside our universe, forever outside our reach but, simultaneously, within everyones grasp. A really limited mind is clearly always going to be an asset.
Religion does poison the mind . This guy is the poster child. Sad 😥
Otangelo, if everything physical was created by a creator, what created all the energy? And about the sandcastles, even if we know about them, couldn't the sandcastles still have been created by a creator during his lunch break as likely as having been created by people?
When you start off with "if we come upon a sand castle on the Beach and I ask you how this sand castle got here" you already beg the question it's a sand castle. That's the argument not "do sand castles come from sand castle makers?" How did you determine it's a sand castle?
The argument from complexity has two major flaws.
1) it compares apples and oranges. If you’re saying life could not be “natural” because it is complex and most complex things we see are intelligently created. Life reproduces with a spectrum of random mutations that can be naturally selected for and against leading to the appearance of complexity without an intelligent hand. This is also a kind of black swan fallacy.
2) if you apply the argument from complexity to the universe itself then there is nothing that is “random” and therefore we have no basis to determine what is or isn’t intelligently created
If you ask me how I determine what is or isn’t intelligently created: I assume everything is not unless it is something that I know from my own experience is in fact intelligently created. Occam’s razor: don’t multiply entities unnecessarily. Don’t assume there is a creator until you have evidence of the creator outside of the creation itself. I don’t assume houses have creators because they are complex. I assume that because I’ve seen people build houses
Otangelo Grasso “order and complexity are evidence of design”. You believe that the entire universe was created by a God who set universal laws in motion with full knowledge of the outcomes. By your worldview EVERYTHING is ordered. Because of that you have no basis to say what a disordered/random occurrence would even look like. We have no basis of comparison to allow us make evidentiary conclusions.
Also you’re confusing mathematical laws as proscriptions rather than descriptions. Yes we live in a universe that appears to function according to universal physical laws (although quantum theorists may take issue with that). But the existence of those constants are only evidence for their own existence. We do not know why the universe is the way it is or even if there is a why beyond “it just is”. Asserting “God did it” is lazy at best.
Otangelo Grasso The biological process of evolution that I described: reproduction with random mutation followed by natural selection, is an observed fact. Mutations happen, natural selection happens. Even Young Earth Creationists accept this they just believe there is some limit on how far adaptions can go and so it can’t account for all biodiversity. That is a separate issue apart from your irreducible complexity argument but I just wanted to address your (frankly insulting) question. Anyway...
I am not a sufficient expert in biology to break down every specific example of allegedly irreducibly complex biological structure/system. But I do know enough to say that not every system has to have functioned in the past as it does now.
For example the eye is very complex however you can actually observe examples of “eye” like structures in mollusks (each making only slight iterative improvements) ranging all the way from light sensitive patches of skin that are only good for determining day/night to eyes even more complex than our own.
Lungfish actually show us how the fishes’ swim bladders, which provide buoyancy, could have gradually adapted to be better and better at absorbing oxygen to the point that they become full lungs
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Thank you for demonstrating the logical fallacy of Elephant Hurling.
Otangelo Grasso Buddy we had this discussion last time. You can’t give a dozen essay length responses to my TWO refutations of a single argument and still call yourself an honest person. You gish galloped, elephant hurled, and made arguments that were irrelevant to your desired topic of irreducible complexity (the very thing you claimed in this video to have learned not to do). You are not arguing honestly. Would God be happy with your dishonest behavior?
The biggest flaw is that complexity isn't the hallmark of design, simplicity is. When someone designs something they design it to be as simple as possible, this reduces the chances of a breakdown, and makes it easier to make. When someone over designs something it is very apparent. So if we were designed, God is an incompetent designer.
Things that are designed are by a creator. Things that are chaotic, like the cosmos, are not designed. So if god made the cosmos to be chaotic, we can’t use order and chaos as an example.
Talk Heathen is y’alls fb still active? I went to it and it doesn’t seem to be up to date, that’s why I ask. Unless I’m missing something
I actually remember this caller.. damn.. I'm not on here enough.. LUL
I gave up too, but I have conversed with Otangelo before (and this came up in my feed like that unloved abandoned 'friend' from school) and in any other circumstance i would admire him (we might have been friends) but he has to take that extra step and invoke 'god'.
You broke his mind at 22 minutes
I'm in a FB group with this loon. He is real!
I had to block him after awhile.
LOL... if it's the same Otelango, me too! A couple of groups, actually.
he'd not talking about if you were born yesterday, he's talking about with the knowledge you have know
I know that is what it sounds like but Jamie is right to push him on that , Otangelo is being unclear. Otangelo is trying to establish that design is easy to recognise. He doesn't realise that this is only true if you have lifetime's experience of design. If you happen upon a thing you have never seen before, can you *know* if it was designed? The simple answer is no. The example at the top is a good one: "The Giant's Causeway" in Northern Ireland. It is the largest example of a rock formation that looks designed. Giant columns of hexagonal rocks. Look it up to see it. (There are many examples around the world usually called some variation of "organ pipes" but that one is particularly large.) The point is design is sometimes hard to recognise and so Otangelo's point does not stand. The bit the hosts could not get to, because Otangelo cannot see the error in his logic, is if simply looking at a thing is not enough to establish design then what other methods can we use? The point they are making is if you follow Otangelo's method and believe that everything is designed then there is no distinction at all. The usual example of the beach is not a sandcastle but a watch. If you see a watch on the beach you understand instantly that it was made by a watchmaker (this is why Eric called it *the watchmaker*). The problem with this for christians is if the watchmaker made everything (watchmaker == god) then you are standing on a beach made of watches in a world made of watches and trying to claim you can distinguish this particular watch from all the other watches.
@@Celtic_Thylacine you will know something is designed, because you have a brain that says this is designed, just like a building or an airplane.
your brain will see a certain order that says this is designed vs randomly put together, if it requires knowledge to figure out or explain then it is designed, even a rock can be studied. and that's just based on what we know as humans.
We have no other examples of universes so we cannot tell the difference from one being designed from one that wasn't designed.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom the stability of the proton comes from gravity
...and still zero evidence for a designer who also has an extreme interest in your sex life, whether or not you should eat shellfish, or whether or not you should have part of your penis removed. Also, a tube for breathing that was separate from a tube for eating wouldn't have been a big ask, particularly as some mammals already have them. And you still haven't answered the question as to what a non-designed universe would look like in comparison to a designed universe, particularly as we have only one universe to examine. It's entirely possible that this universe is the way that it is because it is the way that it is and is not in some other configuration that might still exist but not in the same way that this universe does. If the mass of a neutron, for example, were slightly different, that in no way suggests that some other universe, possibly a superior one, could not exist. If you're suggesting that no other universe could exist in some other configuration, then you have the burden of proof on that one.
“This is rather as if you 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!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.” - Douglas Adams
The universe was doing just fine for the 10 billion years that we were not part of it. And what was the designer doing with Dinosaurs for 200 million years...practicing?! Any super-intelligent designer would not have to fuck around with inferior products before coming up with what is currently alive on this Earth, which, as I have already pointed out, is still not without its faults. It manages to create the DNA strand and consciousness but then totally fucks up the implementation of these things. lol
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Protons are stable. Would they still be stable in a universe that wasn't designed? In a universe which had a designer, it wouldn't matter what the difference in mass was between a neutron and a proton because they are a designer and these things can be anything that they want them to be and the universe that they want to exist would still exist. If the difference in mass between a neutron and a proton were 17% and this universe existed, would it still have been 'designed'?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Ah yes, this is all good and well, except for ONE LITTLE PROBLEM... gravity is no longer a constant.... how does that effect your method?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom and strength of gravity is irrelevant... how do you know gravity doesn't keep everything including atoms in place? These calculations are now irrelevant... see my previous post. Gravity is no longer a constant... you can't claim anything regarding gravity as set in concrete, not any more... if you do, you deny Science as a method
Eric should have let Jamie finish his line of questioning and not interject.
Whenever the guest is Otangelo I leave immediately. It is rare to find such a pile of crap online.
There are many examples of structures and habitats and other purpose-built objects which are built by animals, and which were, at first, indistinguishable to us from a "natural feature," as well.
1. The origin of blueprints containing the instructional complex information, and the fabrication of complex machines and interlinked factories based on these instructions, which produce goods for specific purposes, are both always the result of intelligent setup.
2. Living Cells store very complex genetic and epigenetic information through the genetic code, and over twenty epigenetic languages, translation systems, and signaling networks. These information systems instruct the making and operation of cells and multicellular organisms. The operation of cells is close to thermodynamic perfection, and its operation occurs analogously to computers. Cells ARE computers in a literal sense, using boolean logic. Each cell hosts millions of interconnected molecular machines, production lines and factories analogous to factories made by man. They are of unparalleled gigantic complexity, able to process constantly a stream of data from the outside world through signaling networks. Cells operate robot-like, autonomously. They adapt the production and recycle molecules on demand. The process of self-replication is the epitome of manufacturing advance and sophistication.
3. Therefore, the origin of biological information and self-replicating cell factories is best explained by the action of an intelligent designer, who created life for his own purposes.
Herschel 1830 1987, p. 148:
“If the analogy of two phenomena be very close and striking, while, at the same time, the cause of one is very obvious, it becomes scarcely possible to refuse to admit the action of an analogous cause in the other, though not so obvious in itself.”
A metaphor (“A biological cell is like a production system”) demonstrates that similar behaviors are driven by similar causal mechanisms.
DNA Is Called The Blueprint Of Life: Here’s Why
OCTOBER 26, 2017
DNA is called the blueprint of life because it is the instruction manual to create, grow, function and reproduce life on Earth similar to a blueprint of a house. 10
The Molecular Fabric of Cells BIOTOL, B.C. Currell and R C.E Dam-Mieras (Auth.)
Cells are, indeed, outstanding factories. Each cell type takes in its own set of chemicals and making its own collection of products. The range of products is quite remarkable and encompass chemically simple compounds such as ethanol and carbon dioxide as well as the extremely complex proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and secondary products. Furthermore: Self-replication is the epitome of manufacturing advance and achievement, far from being realized by man-made factories.
Self-replication had to emerge and be implemented first, which raises the unbridgeable problem that DNA replication is irreducibly complex. Evolution is not a capable driving force to make the DNA replicating complex, because evolution depends on cell replication through the very own mechanism we try to explain. It takes proteins to make DNA replication happen. But it takes the DNA replication process to make proteins. That’s a catch 22 situation.
Chance of intelligence to set up life:
100% We KNOW by repeated experience that intelligence does elaborate blueprints, instructional information and constructs complex machines, production lines, transistors and computers and factories with specific purposes.
Chance of unguided random natural events doing it:
Chance of random chemical reactions to setup amino-acid polypeptide chains to produce functional proteins, a minimal proteome on early earth external to cellular biosynthesis:
1 in 10^350.000 That's virtually the same as 0%. There are 10^80 atoms in the universe.
@@otangelograsso1179 You are not directly respondong to the content of my comment. My comment was a response to the topic of whether or not we, as humans, can distinguish between something having been created, versus having come into existance based on natural laws. We can generally distinguish things that humans have created fairly easily because of our personal acquired knowledge from our lives. If we do not have a way of testing empirically that something was, in fact, created by a thinking entity - we can not identify that thing as a "creation" until that time.
The fact that we can identify thinking entities that create things (humans, animals) - lends no relevance to whether everything was created in such a way - not until you have demonstrated this.
We cannot simply jump to having a definite answer, without adequate evidence to substantiate the claims - and we have no way to compare the universe you say was created to anything that wasn't created, because everything we experience - you say was created. My example of certain at-first-unidentifyable animal structures, shows that we, in fact, need verifiable evidence to distinguish between so-called "naturally formed" things, and things that have been created by a thinking entity.
@@boastagon When you see a blueprint of a factory, with the precise instructions to make all machines, subparts, how to assemble each machine, interconnect them into production lines, organized production compartments, gates to permit the right materials to get in, and the end products go through error check and repair, and export, and then see the functional factory-build precisely upon the blueprint which you saw previously, and the operation of the factory close to perfection, controlled and directed by computers, directing thousands of processes simultaneously and adapting the production output by its demands, but have no clue of how both, the blueprint, and the factory, came to be: What is the obvious answer:
a) That an intelligent team of engineers, machine designers, etc. made the project, and skilled, intelligent labor workers, carpenters, masons, electricians, machine builders, etc. constructed the factory, or
b) that natural forces somehow made the blueprint, and random unguided forces brought the building materials together, and by luck, the factory was assembled precisely based on the blueprint instructions and started its production ? or
c) you have no way to conclude anything meaningful and feel justified to say: " I don't know"?
@@otangelograsso1179 You say "obvious" because of your abundance of life experience and knowledge of humans creating factories. You are relying on the ability to compare and contrast what you are seeing with other examples that you have already verified to have been made by human beings. You do not have any other example of a world/universe/reality to compare our current world/universe/reality to - so your supposition that our world/universe/reality must have been created is simply an unsupported statement with no mechanism for testing or verification. You are simply making a unsubstantiated claim and attempting to make an analogy between our knowledge of human creations and the universe itself. The analogy just doesn't actually connect in the way you seem to think it does, for the reasons I have already elaborated on.
@@boastagon Scientism, verificationism and the quest of a sound epistemological approach to find truth in regards of origins
The problem of many atheists is that they have not developed a epistemological framework which is consistent. Very frequently, they ask God to prove himself to them, in order to believe. Or they claim that science provides all relevant answers.
We need to endorse a worldview that makes sense, and is a consequence of a carefully chosen and elaborated methodology of an epistemological framework, and applied to do a consistent, correct to the case research, and coming to meaningful, and the most accurate possible conclusions in regards of origins and reality. There are several ways, like rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, authority, and revelation. Empiricism is a cornerstone of the scientific
method. Empiricism, in philosophy, is the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. Can or should we use the scientific method and empiricism alone where the scientific method is the primary epistemology for truth claims? This approach is based on observations
of the world, but philosophy and theology are a priori rejected outhand. That is one of the wrong approaches that many unbelievers in God adopt.
W.L.Craig: Positivists championed a Verification Principle of meaning, according to which an informative sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified. 5
Under criticism, the Verification Principle underwent a number of changes, including its permutation into the Falsification Principle, which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically falsified.
The statement “In order to be meaningful, an informative sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically verified/falsified” is itself incapable of being verified or falsified.
The inadequacies of the positivistic theory of meaning led to the complete collapse of Logical Positivism during the second half of the twentieth century, helping to spark not only a revival of interest in Metaphysics but in Philosophy of Religion as well. Today’s Flew’s sort of challenge, which loomed so large in mid-century discussions, is scarcely a blip on the philosophical radar screen.
If someone is asking for 100 per cent, to truly know that God exists, we need to remind them this is unrealistic. We believe lots of things with confidence even though we do not have absolute certainty. 2
'"It is up to logic and the factors of different perspectives to determine if God exists or not." The marriage of science to naturalism during the mid-to-late 19th century ministered most famously by the Scottish enlightenment philosopher; David Hume, symbolized the brokering of a union which was nothing short of a shotgun wedding of academia to ideology.
Can you use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the primary epistemology for truth claims?
The very greatest scientists, those from whom new perspectives finally come, those from whom paradigm shifts in human thought come, are open-minded on fundamental questions and begin to see the value of philosophy as a torchlight on the discoveries of science.
Why apologize about dominating the conversation? You’re breaking down his lousy argument. That’s the whole point, how bad his argument was.
@MTB-Fritz You're presuming a lot here with that statement.
His name is Robert Paulson
Otangelo the Atheist Show Caller :)))
i love how u let the callers absolutely trample all over u
u need to learn to interrupt them, instead of letting them interrupt your interrupting
Y'all apologize WAY too much. I think this went really well. You actually got him to admit some of the flaws, and I'm sure he'll be thinking about it later.
Lol... It's Otangelo. I highly doubt he'll think about it at all.
That's what happens when you mess with philosophical ideas when you're not smart enough to fully understand them.
before a theist asserts what its god can do shouldnt they prove the god!
Generally yes. In theory at least, the other approach is to claim that there are a range of phenomena that can only be explained by the existance of agent X.
The problem is establishing that this alleged agent X is the only possible explanation. That is almost impossible. If we knew enough to rule out every possible explanation but one, we would most likely have enough evidence for agent X without having to rule out every other possibility. Once you start positing causes that are empirically unverifiable and unfalsifiable, the possibilites become almost endless.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Again, once we accept that any unfalsifiable proposition whatsoever that can be conceived by the human mind can serve as an explanation for something, it is IMPOSSIBLE to eliminate them, due to their being UNFALSIFIABLE. That's literally what "unfalsifiable" means!
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom
How do people know about gods if not through observation? If the existence of gods became known to man by observation then gods can be observed to actually exist, thereby making their existence demonstrable and provable. If the existence of gods did not become known to man by observation then gods were made up - this is why theistic apologists use arguments, assertions and speculations instead of actual existing gods as proof. It is a fact that gods are not observed nor proved to be real - this fact is still a fact even after all of your apologetic ramblings. You need to realize that theists' claim that gods exist is not a claim against atheists, it is a claim against our observable universe. If you claim gods cannot be proved to be real because they cannot be observed, then our knowledge of what gods supposedly are became known to us through the fabrication of gods, not by observing actual existing gods.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom If God exists he knows what it would take to convince me. For every scientist who believes in a God, there are many more who do not. Google "project Steve".
Oiu!
Why did they repeatedly apologize to Otangelo? This whole conversation they were having is a necessary, important foundation for where Otangelo wanted to go with the conversation. Otangelo wants to talk about irreducible complexity, but he's claiming here that EVERYTHING is designed, not just complex things.
How is the conversation ever going to go anywhere if Otangelo just comes to the conversation up front with the assumption that everything was designed, and refuses to even consider that something like sand was not?
Jamie reeeeally likes the beach
They spent too much time on the castle and not enough on the sand. A person could have brought sand from a different beach and spread it out deliberately in the arrangement that Otangelo calls "random." So *he* can't distinguish between what is designed and what isn't designed either.
The cell is a factory - adios materialism.
1. Computer hard-drives with high capacity of digital data storage, software programs based on languages using statistics, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and apobetics, and the elaboration of complex instructional blueprints through those software programs, and data transmission systems (encoding, sending, decoding), all operated through computers and interlinked computer networks, which prescribe, drive, direct, operate and control interlinked compartmentalized factory parks making products for specific purposes, full of autonomous, robotlike high-tech production lines, high-efficiency power plants, complex high-tech robots with autoregulation and feedback loops, producing products with minimal error rates, that are transported through GPS driven transport carriers to their destination, all driven through energy made by high rotative turbines and power plants, are always set up by intelligent agents designing those things for purposeful goals.
2. Science has unraveled, that cells, strikingly, contain, and operate through all those things. Cells are cybernetic, ingeniously crafted cities full of factories. Cells contain information, which is stored in genes (books), and libraries (chromosomes). Cells have superb, fully automated information classification, storage, and retrieval programs ( gene regulatory networks ) which orchestrate strikingly precise and regulated gene expression. Cells also contain hardware - a masterful information-storage molecule ( DNA ) - and software, more efficient than millions of alternatives ( the genetic code ) - ingenious information encoding, transmission, and decoding machinery ( RNA polymerase, mRNA, the Ribosome ) - and highly robust signaling networks ( hormones and signaling pathways ) - awe-inspiring error check and repair systems of data ( for example mind-boggling Endonuclease III which error checks and repairs DNA through electric scanning ). Information systems, which prescribe, drive, direct, operate, and control interlinked compartmentalized self-replicating cell factory parks that perpetuate and thrive life. Large high-tech multimolecular robotlike machines ( proteins ) and factory assembly lines of striking complexity ( fatty acid synthase, non-ribosomal peptide synthase ) are interconnected into functional large metabolic networks. In order to be employed at the right place, once synthesized, each protein is tagged with an amino acid sequence, and clever molecular taxis ( motor proteins dynein, kinesin, transport vesicles ) load and transport them to the right destination on awe-inspiring molecular highways ( tubulins, actin filaments ). All this, of course, requires energy. Responsible for energy generation are high-efficiency power turbines ( ATP synthase )- superb power generating plants ( mitochondria ) and electric circuits ( highly intricate metabolic networks ). When something goes havoc, fantastic repair mechanisms are ready in place. There are protein folding error check and repair machines ( chaperones), and if molecules become non-functional, advanced recycling methods take care ( endocytic recycling ) - waste grinders and management ( Proteasome Garbage Grinders )
3. Chemist Wilhelm Huck, professor at Radboud University, Netherlands: A working cell is more than the sum of its parts. "A functioning cell must be entirely correct at once, in all its complexity. Cells, containing all those things are irreducibly complex. Without energy, information, or the basic building blocks fully synthesized, there would be no life. All this is best explained as a product of a super-intellect, an agency equipped with unfathomable intelligence - through the direct intervention, creative force, and activity of an intelligent cognitive agency, a powerful creator.
Tough combination with the unhinged lunacy plus heavy accent on top of that.
ID, the materialistic aspect of our development. Saklas, Sammael, Yaldabaoth.
Sometimes we see ripples in the sand. They are "obviously" created by natural forces.
Suppose I make some paving stones with exactly the same ripples.
Would the ripples on the paving stones be designed or the product of natural forces ?
I would have pointed out that although I have built sandcastles myself and seen other people do it, can Otangelo show us a god designing a universe ?
So did the designer have to go to designer school? How does it know how to design.
Where is Matt when you need him?
If his god wanted to design a beach there, why didn't it just pop a fully formed beach there instead of having tides moving it there gradually and make it seem as though it occurred naturally?
wow he's a simpleton
This guy doesn't understand his own argument lol.
The word "abomination" appears 142 times in my Bible.
Why did the god of Israel create abominations ?
If I was a creator, there would be no abominations.
I would like everything that I created.
Gentlemen, let me help you out. Everything that exists is due to natural causes. Unless, a creator can be linked to an event.
Also, this is the way. I lie to see you treat theist! This is a vast improvement of episodes past.
I want to be able to share your work. As you tech both theist and atheist how to act.
This is a show I can support :)
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom I do not take your position. Because history is on my side.
Never, as far as I know. Has the supernatural been proven to be the cause of any known event. Please prove me wrong. You are providing no evidence only analogies, and metaphors. Which gets us nowhere.
Imagine if we found something totally alien to us. That it was not easily discernible if it was created or due to natural causes.
The only valid tools we have to make that discernment. Is science. .
It makes absolutely no difference. How fantastical our world or universe is. We can not just use existence or the fantastical wonders we see as evidence of a God.
Just because we do not understand how something came into existence. Does not mean we default to it must be the hand of a God. Because, no where in history. Has that proven to be the correct answer.
So yes, a default of existence being caused by natural forces is the answer. Until proven otherwise. Is the best answer.
If a God can come from nothing. So can the universe. Unless, you have real evidence. Your assumptions will get you nothing but heartache.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom The best and most truthful answer one can give. Is also the three wisest words on can speak. " I DON"T KNOW " and I will not pretend to know.
To use existence as evidence, or that there is no better answer. Is exactly how religions have been created all through out history.
If we believe in science's estimation of the age of the universe. Being billions of years old. We as a species can not even wrap our heads around such a number.
Worlds and civilizations. Could have risen and fallen several times over in that time frame.
People want to believe that they are something more! That and old stories around camp fires account for our super natural nature.
We make moral judgement through social memes and Mores.
From what I can tell. The bible has half truths to it. Just enough to give it some credibility. But the supernatural content. People just made it up. Just as people have done for all the other Gods. that have been created through time.
Religion is a societies coping mechanism. But we do not need it for anything. Any longer. We have out grown it.
Maybe you need to read or watch some of Graham Hancock videos on older civilizations.
Or Joseph Campbell and the power of myth.
The mind body connection is still a mystery.
Free will is still up to debate.
The meaning of life? Give Life Meaning.
I could go on point by point.
With just a little bit of effort. I can shoot holes through every argument you have.
You want and expect answers to everything. When at this time in our history. The best answer and most truthful. Is to say I don't know. And not pretend you do know.
Your God seems to require humans to prove that he exists. And of course religious people create the perfect circular argument around that. But I can also shoot holes in that belief too.
But have to run errands. You can post a reply. But will not be in a position to answer for awhile.
If you want to be a truth seeker. You are going to have to accept the fact. That some things are just not known now.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom So I just listened to you on today's episode. Your argument is flawed. And you do not understand why.
Let me help you by using modern day example.
We all look at the pyramids of Giza. And everyone acknowledges. That they are intelligenting designed.
What is argumented over is how this was this done. And the only truthful answer anyone can give. Is that we do not know.
To pronounce that is was built by a certain people or a certain way. Requires real evidence and demonstration.
To just profess that it could only be done by a certain people or only in a certain way. Is a,conclusion that requires evidence.
Now when you say something can not come from nothing. You are professing a conclusion with no supporting evidence
As I said before. NO one can even wrap there head around a billions of years.
Much less 13 billion years.
We have no idea how the universe was created.
And you can not use your conclusion as evidence. This is obvious to everyone that listened to your rationale. It is fundamentally flawed.
The universe is still a mystery. And most people are ok with that, why aren't you?
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom I for one do not say. That something came from nothing. I say I do not know. Instead of pretending that I do.
The belief in the so called nothing. That matter that made the universe is something. The physicists only use the term loosely and not literally.
But also in your way of thinking.
You can not distinguish between a God.
and an advanced alien race.
And again you can not use your conclusion as your evidence.
Nor can you use existence as your evidence.
You are not using critical thinking IMHO
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom So let me just take the time to point just a few of the many errors in your thinking and rationale.
To me honesty is better than lying.
There is no evidence of a God. Outside of religious creationist stories.
All you have to do is look up the failed prophesies of the bible.Like I and many others have done. And see there are no fulfilled prophecies other than those that have been self fulfilled. Or have been post dated. Written down after the events have happened.
There is no evidence for a God.
But here is a shit ton of evidence of people deceiving themselves. which is what people do. Especially when it comes to religion.
Testimony is the worst kind of evidence. Take the recent Cavanough hearings here in America. Two opposite sides. Both with good arguments with multiple testimony from witnesses. The only that can be said of the event is that one of these two people where lying.
This is why it is absolutely essential. That whoever makes a claim. provide real evidence.
I understand this is an old video; however in 2021 Otangelo _still_ isn’t permanently banned. Why not? He’s _never_ going to learn. Is he on just literally for shits ‘n’ giggles? He’s so frustrating. 🤬
Edited to say: maddening how he was allowed to control the conversation here!! Don’t let him do it!!
I rarely leave comments, but Otangelo seems like a very intelligent and nice guy. Every rare to have both qualities at the same time in someone that bases their whole life view, on nothing more than a fairy tale.
I hope he calls back soon and there is another one of these exchanges posted.
TY
:)
"Intelligent."
"Nice."
Seems like you forgot that the original point was how to tell that a natural thing is god created as opposed to the result or purely natural forces and not how to tell the difference between human creations and god creations.
It's very easy to tell the difference. Something that does not exist can not create anything. So it makes no sense in talking about something that isn't even a question.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Thank you. I am a Christian and I am truly grateful for the witness this comment represents to so many. May you reach many in ways I cannot (for lack of scientific knowledge that is seemingly required for some) for the Lord Jesus and our Father in these, the End Times. I hope many who truly want to 'know' read your comment to the end, including the links at the bottom! Have a great day.
@iHost
He evidently doesn't. He didn't in 2017, and he still doesn't. Read Professor Moran's evaluation of him.
This might get me banned from this channel because if doesn't "help further the conversation" but ...
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/02/trying-to-educate-creationist-otangelo.html
@@wwlib5390 He repeated those apologist claims the last time I tried to debate him too. They all say: "therefore god". He finally gave up with dishonesty and implied that philosophy alone was his path to absolute truth and that empirical science was irrelevant to his worldview. Otangelo sadly lacks scientific understanding but gives the illusion of understanding by simply dumping the same facts repeatedly and asserting god did it. Reading through an apologist christian forum is simply saddeningly depressing. His arguments are not so much arguments as they are self affirmations. There is no reason to take someone seriously when they try to make observations fit a pre existing theory while ignoring all that contradicts his beliefs directly.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom Sub atomic particles are not solely mathematical, they are physical, testable, measurable and observable and mathematics is not the construct of intelligence it is progressively discovered and used as a tool by intelligence.
before you can claim any god creates anything you must first prove that that god can exist otherwise its a pointless argument especially when you can prove how our planet and solar system were formed. I urge all believers to take an in depth study of science to see how nature works.
This is it: the argument from design purports to prove God by eliminating all the other possibilities, but that either ends up being an argument from ignorance, or it runs into the problem that once we start positing possible explanations for how the universe is as it is that are neither falsifiable nor verifiable, the possibilities are limited only by the limits of the human imagination.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom All "fine tuning" means in practice is that things are as they are and not otherwise. If things were otherwise, we would not exist. Does that mean that things are as they are precisely to permit us to exist? As flattering as it may be for us humans to think so, that does not follow at all.
As for why things are as they are: we don't know. I know you don't like that answer, but claims to know in the absence of adequate justification is just confident ignorance.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom I know. We have been telling you lot that for decades. That's why I no more believe in your God than I believe in the elephant God Ganesh or Hanuman the monkey God. Which is a shame because Ganesh is way cooler than your despotic deity..
Hynek Science is a method. Nothing more. It doesn't "work" any more than an idea works...
@@cliftonmanley3882 where did you get that idea from? science is the best understanding of what is around us , it certainly is not a method .
There are uncontested tribes still, we should test this hypothesis of intuitive design by showing them a pearl or bismuth and a plastic fruit or something. Then ask them which one was manmade.
He is now a Darth minion in 2021 He can not learn.
It's a given that the Blind Watchmaker argument has been debunked. We need to learn about examples of human design, and can only recognise something that is designed by humans if we have seen previously examples labeled that way. But is isn't always that simple. Suppose I were walking in the hills and came across a patch of rocks with various plants, flowers and ferns in it. I could conclude that it was just natural forces that put it together, if I missed the subtle signs of nearby foundations of a long gone house, to which this was a designed rockery. We do sometimes design in imitation of nature, so even with human designed objects, it isn't always possible to tell the difference.
The problem with the universe and its natural laws, however, is that it's the *only* example of a universe we've ever seen, and that we've never seen a universe designer. We cannot even imagine - convincingly at any rate - what the properties of such a designer would have to be, or even what caused that designer. Are we then stuck with an infinite regression of designers, each more complicated than the one before? That's why the Argument from Design fails. It cannot convincingly result in a single uncaused cause. That cause always has to be assumed, then decorated with divine attributes.
I defy anyone to get that through Otangelo's head without fluent Portuguese.
Nothing from nothing lanes nothing. You gotta have something … if you wanna be with me.
Sand is structure of order, it is by natural forces.
Gish gallop, assertion, repeat.
Is this Jamie the sidekick of Joe Rogan?
No.
You guys should have stayed with the alien object discussion. Otangelo did not fully get the point of the scenario.
We see the faces on Mount Rushmore and know that they were designed by intelligent agents. But here's a bit of food for thought - what if Mt Rushmore was carved by humans to look like a normal mountain?
When his castle is about to crumble he never answer correctly and misdirect or blame that the hosts are dumb.
Why does his ban is lifted in calling.
This guy is like talking to a brick wall .
Atangilo the sand and the castle are both designed ? Yet you are saying we can tell the difference .
WTF !
How to recognize the signature of (past) intelligent actions
Besides special revelation, the teleological argument provides a foremost rational justification for belief in God. If successful, then theists can justify supernatural creation, Ex-nihilo.
We must know what we are looking for before we can know we have found it. We cannot discover what cannot be defined. Before the action of ( past ) intelligent design in nature can be inferred, it must be defined how the signature of intelligent agents can be recognized. As long as the existence of a pre-existing intelligent conscious mind beyond the universe is not logically impossible, special acts of God (miracles and creation) are possible and should/could eventually be identifiable.
What do we mean when we say “design? The word “design” is intimately entangled with the ideas of intention, creativity, mind, and intelligence. To create is to produce through imaginative skill, or to bring into existence through a course of action. A design is usually thought of as the product of goal-directed intelligent, creative effort.
A mental plan or scheme for accomplishing a goal
An underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding pattern and motif
A plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something
The arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art
To create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan: devise, contrive
To conceive and plan out in the mind
To have as a purpose: intend
To devise for a specific function or end
To make a drawing, pattern, or sketch of
To draw the plans for
Creation is evidence of a Creator. But not everybody ( is willing ) to see it.
Romans 1.19 - 23 What may be known about God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we see :
- an object in nature very similar to human-made things
- something made based on mathematical principles
- systems and networks functioning based on logic gates
- something purposefully made for specific goals
- specified complexity, the instructional blueprint or a codified message
- irreducible complex and interdependent systems or artifacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
- order or orderly patterns
- hierarchically arranged systems of parts
- intelligence can create artifacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes )
- Fine-tuning
Adapting,
choreographing,
communicating,
controlling product quality,
coordinating,
constructing,
cutting,
duplicating,
elaborating strategies,
engineering,
error checking and detecting, and minimizing,
expressing,
fabricating,
fine-tuning,
foolproof,
governing,
guiding,
implementing,
information processing,
interpreting,
interconnecting,
intermediating,
instructing,
logistics organizing,
managing,
monitoring,
optimizing,
orchestrating,
organizing,
positioning,
quality monitoring and managing,
regulating,
recruiting,
recognizing,
recycling,
repairing,
retrieving,
shuttling,
separating,
self-destructing,
selecting,
signaling,
stabilizing,
storing,
translating,
transcribing,
transmitting,
transporting,
waste managing,
are all actions either pre-programmed by intelligence in order to be performed or done so directly by intelligence. Self-replicating Cell factories perform all tasks described above on a molecular level with exquisite precision in a fully autonomous preprogrammed robot-like manner with high-performance, high ability of adaptation to the environment.
Tucas acai
all this to infer , an argument from ignorance .
Minds without brains , have not been shown to exist .
Like Russels tea pot .
Don't say "hold on hold on" and then let him speak for 5 minutes...
Otangelo has been doing the rounds:
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/04/fun-and-games-with-otangelo-grasso.html?m=1
Does this guy realise that he's never seen another universe to compare this one to. All his examples involve comparison between two things one with the appearance of design the other without the appearance of design. What characteristics does a designed universe have compared to a non designed universe?
Poor Otangelo humiliated again
haha, really?
@@challengingatheism7118 yes
maaaario is that u?!
Get this man a job.......😴😴
I think you missed the easy fix and went extra rounds. Otangelo's example contrasted nature with human design. When you nailed him on all of it being design you were so close. He was trying to declare that we could see God's design in those things that were unmistakably designed but used human design as what could not be mistaken. When you pinned him down on his belief that everything was designed by God then anything designed by humans is irrelevant. You had it when you agreed that you all recognize human design. I also don't know why you let him pose variations on the watchmaker fallacy twice in a row. Yeah, yeah, the watchmaker. Here's 600 video links to that being debunked.
They meaning this show are using trick questions!
For example;
A truck driver is going down a one way street the wrong way, and passes at least ten cops. Why is he not caught?
This is either cognitive dissonance or dishonesty
WTF this guy is out of his mind! 😜
OK, man takes basic elements, and over time creates complex structures. The elements were not smart enough to create houses cars computers etc, all by themselves. The houses cars computers etc, were the result of man's intelligent design. Meanwhile, if you go way back in time, the Earth was basically nothing but a collection of basic elements, organized in nothing much other than the form of rock and molten rock. Many people believe that these basic elements some how had the smarts to over time create complex structures, including man, rather than remain in the form of simple rock and molten rock. So it is interesting. Some feel that a massive massive intelligence would be needed to create the Earth that we see now, while others think that even a collection of rocks and molten rock are smart enough to do it all by themselves. Thus these rocks must be even smarter than is man. ROCK ON !
Your fallacy is that you are assuming intelligence _and will_ is required in both instances: "a collection of rocks and molten rock are smart enough to do it all by themselves."
That is false.
@@DeathsHood I simply disagree with the idea that effect can occur without a cause.
@@new-knowledge8040 Irrelevant. You applied both will and intelligence where there need be none.
Your sarcastic insinuation that 'rocks and molten rock' are responsible for life (even outside a conscious effort) is equally fallacious, by the way.
@@DeathsHood I can see truth. I find it annoying that many others can not. As an example, I had noticed that there was something odd about "Motion", something that no one else had seemed to have noticed. So I spent my spare time thinking about it and what exactly motion is, and did so by figuring out what the requirements are to make motion possible. Without knowing it at the time, I had independently discovered the phenomena that are described via Einstein's Special Relativity(SR) theory. After now understanding motion properly, using simple geometry that combines motion vectors and length scalars stacked on top of each other, I converted my understanding of motion into equations. Again, without knowing it at the time, I had independently derived all of the SR mathematical equations, including the Lorentz Transformation equations. The next step was to see if my equations were found in the world of physics. They were. However, I also found that no one else seemed to have derived the equations in the same way. Despite having no physics background education what so ever, this was an easy breezy task to accomplish. The key was to look in the direction of truth, and not in the directions of mere beliefs and dis-beliefs.
@@new-knowledge8040 Ah, so you're a liar, then.
Got it.
Otangelo, for your Sky daddy's sake, don't try to fit a square peg in a round hole. Just be honest and admit like most theists that you believe in your Sky Wizard just by faith and quit trying to inject "science" in your magical beliefs.
Ok but your examples,are of man made structures...cells are not designed, they are the product of evolution. They are not factories.
It's rare that an atheist says to you that they can change their views is because you don't actually present any actual scientific evidence Otangelo. You make assertions without evidence.
He also keeps using the false analogies. Which is ironic since he won't change his mind.
1. Waste management (or waste disposal) includes the activities and actions required to manage waste from its inception to its final disposal. This includes the collection, transport, treatment, and disposal of waste, together with monitoring and regulation of the waste management process, and is always preceded by careful planning and foresight of the entire process by waste management engineers, and implemented virtually simultaneously.
2. Biological cells have cleverly engineered mechanisms that grind molecular protein garbage ( Proteasome Garbage Grinders ), coordinate loading and translocation of the waste products ( by superb Multisubunit peptide-loading complexes (PLC) ) to the waste disposal site, where the waste products are processed and sorted out (Histocompatibility complex class I (MHC-I) with 1,6 million atoms that to work with atomic precision ), and the final products are transported to the surface of the cell through the exquisite secretory pathway. There, T-Cells scan the MHC-I with receptors, and recognize when the cell was infected by foreign invaders, and induce their apoptosis ( cell suicide)
At least 9 macromolecular complexes need to work together in a joint venture, which communicate with each other to orchestrate this masterfully information-based process through signaling languages. If one of the complexes in the pathway is missing, no deal, the immune system cannot do its job, and the organism cannot survive and dies. Of course, all this incredible marvel of molecular engineering had to be born fully set up. No stepwise evolutionary process would lead to such a system.
3. Therefore, the intelligent design theorist is justified to posit an unfathomably clever intelligent designer with foresight, who knew how to implement such a masterfully crafted waste management system on a molecular scale.
Just let the guy get his point across. Please. I want to hear his argument. We can grant that sand castles and factories are designed without a 20 minute conversation.
@Otangelo Grasso. Oh dear. I was sort of onboard with your opinion until you brought up organic chemistry as proof of a creator (i have communicated with you before now and you were inflexible then too). You realise that apart from DNA and RNA, which most of us recognise, that there are another 1.6 million+ potentially self replicating organic molecules based on the basic CHON design/recipe that both exist or are possible but failed to achieve lasting complexity ON OUR PLANET? Why would a designer design a thing that only achieved the result (required by that result i.e. us) just once in 1.6 million times but leave in parts of all the unnecessary stuff that produce adverse results some of the time (other than mitochondrial DNA extra nuclear protein chains), just not in a time frame that affects us (as a whole) in totally natural evolutionary terms? Evolution is the only mechanism beyond basic organic chemistry that anything needs to invoke. What is the 'designer' actually doing here except taking credit for a natural process?
Otangelo is extremely ignorant.
360p? gtfo!
these guys are just trying to confuse this caller, as a human being we can look at a sand castle and know it was created, why are you (host) talking About if you were from another planet you wouldn't know the sand castle was designed?, you are human from earth so stop reaching to discount the callers argument.
....and then trying again by talking about the sand vs the sand castle, the caller is trying to show that humans can distinguish between a created thing (human creation) the castle in contrast to the sand.
This Darth Dawkins gang is so stupid