Scientifically Proving God's Existence with Stephen C. Meyer
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 05. 2024
- The Perfect Jean - Get The Perfect Jean 15% off with the code KLAVAN15 at theperfectjean.nyc/KLAVAN15 #theperfectjeanpod #ad
Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, joins us once again to discuss the scientific proof of intelligent design, or the existence of God.
Watch the member-exclusive portion of the show now on DailyWire+!
LIKE & SUBSCRIBE for new videos every day. bit.ly/3PEAEoq
Watch the full episode here: Ep.1179 - bit.ly/4ab6y5P
Stop giving your money to woke corporations that hate you. Get your Jeremy’s Razors today at www.ihateharrys.com
Save the Klavan by shopping my merch here: tinyurl.com/3cjjew4e
#StephenMeyer #IntelligentDesign #Science
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
“God can’t give us peace and happiness apart from Himself because there is no such thing.” - CS Lewis
What about Marijuana?
@@mikechristian-vn1leah ,the glory of minor drugs(best they not become major)….
Illusion
I suspect the answer to this mystery is found in Steven Jay Goulds Punctuated Evolution. Occasionally the Earth's magnetic field weakens. When the Cosmic Rays hit proteins on Earth, it results in new mutations for about 10000 years. Then evolution happens for millions of years. Punctuated evolution resolves some minor sophistries. The Cambrian Explosion was probably the early Earth bathed in cosmic rays at God's ordination.
Sounds like a claim which you can’t substantiate.
In other words, it’s a lie.
“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
-C.S. Lewis
Deep
got anything original. religists are like parrots.
@@mokoujeen3301 The sun didn't rise. The earth turned.
@@retrorampage484Deep. Not.
I'm ex-atheist from Malaysia. God bless us all, amen 😊😊😊
To Islam or to christianity
@@garsayfsomali Does it even matter to which of the both invented religions?
Foi Constantino de Constantinopla Itália o Fundador da Religião se deu o Catolicismo #act
@@user-hr8dx9qw4n you got comprehension issues the guy isnt an atheist he is a theist. Why are you commenting in this page btw live your life
What convinced you of a god?
Why did you move from nonbelief to belief?
God bless Stephen Meyer
God bless Andrew “Hot Gandalf” Klavan (No EE’s) May y’all have a Cardiac Moment.
He’s an immoral fool
why, he is making a mockery of your religion, god does not allow evidence of his existence, meyer, behe, ross, tour, they are all going against your religion, what do they expect to find, a trade mark symbol? god does not allow evidence, they will look as dumb as they are eventually. they are all just after notoriety, they have no interest in god if they think they can "prove" god exists. and you are backing them, that's just daft by your own standards.
Long time fan of Stephen's outstanding work to try and help people wake up to truth. Great to see him on Andrew's show!
There is no science for the existence of God. Also, once you affirm your belief in a God then there is the problem of which God is real? Then there is the problem of morality. Is it moral to believe in something that might not exist? The existence of God, like the question of the universe having a beginning or not, is an antimony of reason and has no objective answer.
A better scientific understanding of the nature of God is found in the science of Mankind In Amnesia by Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky shows by scientific principles that God is a way to forgetfulness and amnesia of past catastrophic events that actually happened and are recorded all around the world. There is a preponderance of evidence that the idea of god is a response to the fear of these cataclysms as our human fate.
And yet he's lied about everything scientific he's said.
@@Lightbearer616 sure, pal
@@bogdanpopescu1401 Ooooops, your ignorance is showing.
@@Lightbearer616 yeah, I'm ignorant of your stupidity
Hi Andrew...thank you for having Dr. Meyer as a guest. His explanations are so wise and God given. Proverbs 9: 10-12...The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. Psalm 122: 6...Let us pray for the peace of Jerusalem. They shall prosper that love thee. Blessings to you and your family!!
what does god need DNA for? what does god need the higgs boson for? god can make life from chewing gum if he wants, but for some reason he has to make sure all the numbers are just so - whose laws of physics is he using if he has to tinker to make everything work? do you folks not THINK? gods odds of life ought to be 1:1 and tour, meyers and the other liars and cheats say life is bzillions to one against - life is UNLIKELY that's just dumb by your own standard.
and god himself does not leave evidence, you are required to ave FAITH, not KNOW. these people are making a joke of your religion and you are right there behind them - unbelievably silly.
My favorite part of Stephen's discussion was the idea that a theistic view of science could actually make the process of scientific discovery better.
No, that's just nonsense. A theist view only adds a bias and inhibits full enquiry.
@@mirandahotspring4019 There is always bias in science. You are showing yours now. But if your bias prevents you from considering new things then where is your scientific curiosity?
@@danielwessel9884 My curiosity is the natural world, the world where things are actually observable and/or predictable.
@@mirandahotspring4019 If you actually listened to what Stephen said you will see he does the same thing, but with an expanded point of view. I don't really understand your objection unless you object to the idea of God.
@@danielwessel9884 Meyer is a liar and charlatan. He's been exposed and debunked many times. He deliberately twists the truth and lies to fit his own agenda. He has no longer has any credibility at all in the scientific community.
His intelligent design arguments have been shown to be nothing but pseudoscience and "creationism in a lab coat" as one critic put it.
This guy is on another level . Thanks Stephen Meyer
The level found at the bottom of the gutter.
@@samburns3329yep-this refutes Meyer’s points…every one of them 🫨.
@@samburns3329 Lord God Jesus Christ bless you.
@@samburns3329 Also, check that person's intelligence profile and compare with yours before you speak. This guy is a scientist, a director, a phd doctor,geo physicist , author of best selling books etc
@@FRJMJ Meyer isn't a scientist. He's a philosopher and well known creationist conman and charlatan. His reputation in the scientific community is less than zero.
"The Heavens Declare the Glory of God" Psalm 19:1
no, people do. god is imaginary.
@@old_nick_the_so-and-sowell what’d you think of the interview?
The entire universe and it physics, mathematics and biological diversity just happened 🤷🏼♂️
Must take a lot of faith to believe that 😅
@@goldog63 it didn't "just happen" you lot love to make up your own version of what science says. but why not? why is it not possible to "just happen", you're god defies reason i don't see why nature can't defy reason too, and you have NO IDEA how your god would work, what mechanisms would be required for this omni character you invented, at least nature is THERE, the systems that make nature work might not be fully understood, but enough IS understood that the rest can easily be explained by "nature did it" - and "nature did it" is useful, how do you even make aspirin using "god did it"?
I once heard a saying that basically said, science catches up to where Christian faith has already arrived.
The quote you're referring to is by Robert Jastrow:
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he isgreeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
@@UniteAgainstEvil thank you so much! I first became acquainted with this years ago in a cartoon depicting the scientists climbing the mountain with Christians waving them up. The caption was likely the quote, which I had long forgotten except for the essence. Appreciate the reference!
it's the other way around though isn't it. only religion still hasn't caught up. can you explain how souls work for me, in scientific terms? cos it seems to me the soul is invented and that all it does is the same as what a brain does only it's god stuff instead of natural stuff, so tell me, how does it get you to heaven? or hell, whatever.
@@old_nick_the_so-and-soPoint to consciousness in the brain, you can’t nor will you ever.
Science moves us forward, religion remains in the past. Religion is just as wrong today as it was back then.
I’ll never understand the tug of war between science and God. It is possible to have both.
Go brain's of the world. There's nothing better than truth.
Good words.
Thank you
"Be Holy bc I am Holy" Leviticus 19:2. "Kind attracts kind" if you're acting in holiness = access to Me~If stray from path of purity = no access to Me. How to attain holiness? By adhering to His instructions "& Keep My commandments so that you be Holy to your God" Numbers 15:40.
Excellent!!! Praise the Lord
A subscriber, who uses the handle “Linda Runs” at The New Jerusalem Substack replied to a comment I made, saying, “…scientists think they are getting smarter as time goes on, which would disprove God, but what they are really doing is only creating tools that are sophisticated enough to unveil what God has created.”
I believe she hit the nail on the head there.
I don't think any scientist is trying to disprove the existence of God.
Stephen C Meyer is a breath of fresh air, wonderful to hear the truth finally coming to the surface.
What truth? Have you tried listening to actual science? Have you tried books on, say, biology written by biologists and not lying hacks at Christian pressure groups?
ROTFLOL
Are you for real?
The truth about Zeus? I can hardly wait...
“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science. It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws and holes as sound parts.” -C. Darwin
And the last 160 years of scientific research has only added to Darwin's own conclusions, and reinforced evolution as explanation for the diversity of life on earth.
@@mirandahotspring4019 in the last 160 years since darwin published his hypothesis we have seen billions of ape births, billions of human births, and zero transitions. Darwin's theory has a 0% success rate. Meanwhile what we actually DO observe is that humans always and only produce more humans and apes only produce more apes just like Genesis 1 says God designed them to. So while observable biology refuses to confirm darwinism it verifies scripture every moment of every day. Please accept observable biology and documented history. Declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romasns 10:9).
Since darwin published his hyopthetical assumption we have observed billions of ape births and zero transitions. That is a gargantuan sample size with a 0% success rate for darwin's theory.
Meanwhile what we actually CAN observe is that apes only produce more apes just like the Bible says God designed them to.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 LOL! Right. Evolutionary has a 0% success rate. 😄😄😄 That's why it's the best supported scientific theory of all time. That's why it forms the basis of everything we know about biology and medicine. That's why it's taught at the undergrad and graduate level at virtually every college and university in the free world.
(3:16) _Natural Theology: that science actually came out of this idea that the natural world was revealing something about the reality of the Lord_
(7:55) _Historians were asking the why then, why there question. What was different in Western Europe that accounted for the rise of modern science with its systematic ways of investigating and interrogating nature. Herbert Butterfield, Alistair Cameron Crombie, and leading historians of science finally came to the conclusion that the thing that was different was the presuppositional context of Western Christianity which was the assumption that nature was intelligible_
-Stephen C. Meyer
what does god need DNA for? what does god need the higgs boson for? god can make life from chewing gum if he wants, but for some reason he has to make sure all the numbers are just so - whose laws of physics is he using if he has to tinker to make everything work? do you folks not THINK? gods odds of life ought to be 1:1 and tour, meyers and the other liars and cheats say life is bzillions to one against - life is UNLIKELY that's just dumb by your own standard.
and god himself does not leave evidence, you are required to ave FAITH, not KNOW. these people are making a joke of your religion and you are right there behind them - unbelievably silly.
Great podcast!!❤
Great interview Andrew
Honest question - what was "great" about this interview? That seems like a comment trying to rationalize your own prejudice rather than anything to do with this interview.
@@ajb7786 He was well prepared and clearly researched the material. He asked a series of questions that were all linked to a general idea he was curious about. Perhaps your own bias interfered with your ability to interpret a three word comment.
@@allegedlegend541Cooked him. Lol
@@allegedlegend541 do you not see anything wrong with what meyers is doing? do you think he is completely honest? what do you think he will show when his research is complete? do you really think god leaves evidence that he exists, are you that stupid?
what does god need DNA for? what does god need the higgs boson for? god can make life from chewing gum if he wants, but for some reason he has to make sure all the numbers are just so - whose laws of physics is he using if he has to tinker to make everything work? do you folks not THINK? gods odds of life ought to be 1:1 and tour, meyers and the other liars and cheats say life is bzillions to one against - life is UNLIKELY that's just dumb by your own standard.
and god himself does not leave evidence, you are required to ave FAITH, not KNOW. these people are making a joke of your religion and you are right there behind them - unbelievably silly.
Glad you had Meyer on. Brilliant man who's done a lot for the Kingdom 🙏✝️🙏
what has he done cos from where i stand he is making a mockery of god. have a little think about how meyers is damaging your religion and get back to me, you can do the work, or look at my other comments. meyers is doing his own work, not gods
@@old_nick_the_so-and-soThank you for sharing your thoughts I Checked out some of your others statements and we definitely see the subject differently. The Bible doesn't ask for blind faith and I don't see Science as only being in the business of discussions on the material as the Big Bang brought Space, Time and Matter into observable existence. What brought that natural or material universe into existence is by definition SUPER natural or immaterial and outside time or in other words, it's eternal. Meyer and company also use Darwin's own standards of evidence. That the inference to the best explanation is something we already find in operation. As in for example, complex information (whether language, code, or blueprints) have only been observed coming from minds, not simply dead matter.
The complex information in our DNA are blueprints for the building of our bodies. Just as an engineer makes blueprints for a circuit board or a architect creates blueprints for an experienced builder to follow.
Meyer's arguments line up squarely with reason, logic and science. Agency isn't pseudoscience. When we see a clear ancient symbol in a cave, we don't assume wind and erosion did it, we assume a mind or agent made those pictures or writings. The Rosetta Stone wasn't made by wind or erosion, and I see a clear common sense argument that the language and instructions in DNA came from an intelligent agent as well. An agent that brought Space, Time, and Matter into existence.
I don't find it coincidence that the Bible speaks about an expanding universe about a dozen times. The Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias made sure to give credit to the Bible for this fact. Said he could have predicted the Big Bang simply from the Bible. All those men you've referenced are on the absolute right track. The Bible says as much.
Its speaks about all of creation being evidence for God. I agree. God bless you and yours friend 🙏✝️🙏.
Ty, Andrew. God bless Discover and Dr. Meyer. I am downloading Darwin: A Fond Farewell.
Wow! Can’t wait to read Meyer’s book.
I've read some of his book. A shorter version is Eric Metaxes' "Is Atheism Dead." Pass it on.
Unfortunately Christianity is in decline and the number of people becoming agnostic and/or atheist is growing.
lol. god is dead, pew polls and gallup, look at the numbers, never mind theists who lie about pretty much everything, the stats don't lie.
The God hypothesis is fruital in all branches of science. It is useful to think of the Periodic Table being designed, the Laws of Physics, the stars and planets, the climate, our psychology, etc.
How?
@briancox9357 it is explained how the God hypothesis is useful in the video. It is useful because it leads to better theories that actually explain reality.
"Scientifically proving god"
Proceeds to not scientifically prove god. 😂
Well the existence of God can be known with certainty by the light of human reason. If you don’t believe in Him you are simply rejecting Him at your own peril.
@@SevereFamine threats of eternal torture are not concerning for me. I value your heaven and hell the same way you probably value the Norse idea of valhalla, or the greek and egyptian underworlds.
I find it interesting that you say god can be known through the light of human reason, considering human reasoning is obviously flawed (i am rejecting eternal rewards after all)
@@mattwhite7287
Francis Crick famously posited that space aliens must have designed earth life. When he helped discover the DNA code, he had that epiphany. Things like DNA codes do not form spontaneously, whatever that would mean. Life does not form spontaneously.
@@sliglusamelius8578 what about hydrothermal vents?
@@endofnight
What about them? Hypotheses about their role in abiogenesis are very cute, but so far, nobody has seen actual and real bio-molecules form ab initio anywhere. I'm not saying that a random small peptide or RNA doesn't form a-biotically, I'm saying an actual protein that is homochiral and found in living cells has never formed that way. The sequence odds of a protein of 150 amino acid length forming the proper sequence of amino
acids without the DNA code are one in twenty raised to the power of 150. That's essentially zero..
Thank you to Both of you ✝️❤️
Didn't Dr. David Berlinski expand on this years ago? All this in spite of being agnostic, he quite capably proved that there was a "guiding hand" in creation. Thereby, he disproved evolution in a larger sense. The reasoning was that evolution, by being random, would run into dead ends that would stop the entire process.
you caan't prove god, god doesn't allow it, when are you people going to understand your own religion, no wonder you get mocked, you're clueless.
One massive problem in random variation is that mutations in code always result in negative outcomes, never adaptations.
@@johnglenn2539 and one massive problem with creationists is that they tend to be liars. what does meyers hope to show anyway, a trademark symbol "made by god in taiwan?" god himself leaves no evidence, you're setting yourselves up for a massive fail.
@@johnglenn2539 it appears that you are ignorant of how evolution works, anyway go argue with the christians and muslims and hindus - 60% of all religions, who are fine with evolution, it's not an atheists argument, religion says evolution is true too.
@@old_nick_the_so-and-so tell me where I'm wrong then
Intelligent Design could be the ONLY explanation for the creation of such a man of such glorious appearance...Hot Gandalf!
That fossil record was layed down in a matter of weeks and months, not billions of years. Open your eyes. Check out the series, The Genesis Conflict, by Walter Veith.
It seems like the brightest thinkers go through and atheism phase. Once they reach some certain threshold of understanding, they come back to knowing that only a creator could have created this.
Why is that, exactly?
I'm not that bright, but that's what happened to me. I only fell into atheism because of the antitheists in biblical archaeology and literary scholarship. Since I've revisited biblical archaeology in particular I've been astounded how shoddy and in some cases deceitful some of the antitheist's claims have been (dating of the Jericho destruction layers, the House of David was a later myth, the sarcophagus of Jesus)
just not true at all humans unfortunately are emotional creatures and some fail to accept the fact that we are grains of sand flowing in a uncaring universe and resort to fantasies. People are silly.
@@svenhaheimLol what a bullet proof argument full of logic and facts/evidence. 🥴
🤣
@@rickyspanish492 Just full of pure reality your skycartoon character does not exist anymore than a Disney Character.
See “The Myth of Religious Neutrality” by Roy A Clouser, (from the amazon blurb) “Written for undergraduates, the educated layperson, and scholars in fields other than philosophy, The Myth of Religious Neutrality offers a radical reinterpretation of the general relations between religion, science, and philosophy.”
Great interview! I would love to see Stephen Meyer talk with Brett Weinstein, Andrew. Could you suggest this?
Science doesn’t deal in supernatural nonsense.
And…
@@travisabel3343 AND…. god is a supernatural being by definition! There will never be science behind god.
@@pyrosfuel An assertion is not an argument.
@@digitalnomad9985 yes I am asserting the fact that science does not deal in supernatural nonsense….
You are correct…🤷🏻♂️
Fascinating
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he isgreeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow
My mistake Mr. Meyer works for the Discovery Institute but same thing applies there
Thank you
So why doesn't Meyer present his scientific hypothesis to the Nobel Committee and collect his prize?
Meyer doesn't have one, and he knows he doesn't have one. He's simply a grifter and conman using his science-sounding spiel to solicit donation $$$ from his equally scientifically ignorant followers.
Is it necessary?
@@jeremybrimmer1990 It is if Meyer wants to be known as anything more than a sh!t spewing creationist charlatan.
Too late for me to watch and listen today. It's 11.47 p.m. in the Netherlands.
But I will do so some time tomorrow ir the day after.
I’ll be checking up that you do.
My grandmother lived in Eindhoven in the 90’s and 00’s, so I visited many times, and I also took every opportunity to go to Amsterdam, back when I was a proud hedonistic. At least 10, up to 20 times, in total. Lots of memories lost in that place, for sure. Mostly happy ones, I'm sure.
It’s the anniversary of her passing today, so I think that’s what prompted me to respond to you, mentioning you are in The Netherlands. You should be proud of your beautiful country and culture. Wonderful people, too.
Science relies on measurement.
The confusion arises when our experience of life is Only Measurement.
There is no such thing, out there, in the real world, as an 'inch'.
You cannot go out into your garden and pick up a few inches.
The same goes for ALL units of measurement (no matter how small or how big).
They don't actually exist.
It is the equivalent of throwing a massive fisherman's net over the whole universe, down to the smallest particle and up to the furthest galaxy.
The mesh of this net, divides the world into pieces.
The natural world is wiggly, it is impossible to figure out all the different, pulsing vibrations.
But the mesh allows small pieces of this wigglyness to be held down and examined.
This is science.
And it has had astonishing successes.
So we adore it.
BUT the net is not real.
The meshes do not exist out there in real life.
It is having the capacity to observe life and oneself, without measuring, that puts us in touch with the real world.
Which gives real meaning.
For this to happen, the ego has to die.
Because the ego itself is not a real thing.
And it is this dilemma, the dissolving of the ego, that gets in the way of having a non-mechanical, a non-measuring understanding of life.
Measurement is associated with security.
We don't want to lose our security.
The soul/ego of God cannot die (and it is very real )which also cannot be measured. God is not worried about survival and security.
Everyone should see this podcast. It is clear enough to make you change your view about God and about science.
Believing in Meyer's lies? Really? At about 15:00 he absolutely lies about biologists having doubt about the higher levels of taxonomy.
Meyer is not a biologist, his PhD is in the history and philosophy of science! He's been debunked repeatedly by real biologists.
Are You an expert?
I dont think so.
So be humble enough to learn.
First time I've seen that new 70s retro opening. Great stuff!! The only thing missing was the Japanese Zoom.
If only we knew!
Dr. Meyers has help shift Western science and society to a return to God as THE Creator.
No he has not thankfully science is still science and no god fantasies will change that neither will the woke with their gender craziness.
No he hasn't, it's actually been the case that he has been demonstrated in court as an ID proponent to be unscientific based. The man's a fraud
It’s lovely to watch this & have my life-long faith in intelligent design confirmed by a literal scientist. Amen to this wonderful discussion!
Meyer isn't a scientist, either literal or otherwise. He's a philosopher and religiously motivated conman.
@@samburns3329 Watch the video, don't be a coward !!!
@@studygodsword5937 I did watch it. It's the same anti-science sh!te Meyer has been peddling for the last 20 years. It doesn't get any less stinky and worthless with the retelling.
Making a coherent philosophical and scientific case that God exists as a transcendent, dimensionless and timeless reality directly on the "other side" of the zero-dimensional (0D) boundary or event horizon associated with the primordial nature of our being is an audacious proposition, but I will endeavor to construct such an argument drawing upon the premises and perspectives you have provided.
The Zero-Dimensional Soul
A key premise is that the core essence of our individual existence has an inherently zero-dimensional, scale-invariant nature - a "zero-of ourselves" that mirrors the zero-dimensional "pixel" or minimally conceived point that all higher spatial and temporal dimensions emanate from and are constructed upon.
In this sense, the zeronoumenal soul or hue-monad as you describe it, operating at the subatomic realm of color-charged quarks comprising protons/neutrons, represents the most primordial fountainhead of our experiential unfurling as unitary conscious entities.
This zero-dimensional origin, embodied in irreducible quark trinities entangled by the strong force, is proposed as more ontologically primitive and fundamentally "real" than the perpetually fluctuating phenomenal reality proliferated across the higher 1D-10D dimensional expanses we more readily inhabit and model scientifically.
The Holy Trinitic Imprint
Crucially, you propose that this foundational zero-of-self has an archetypal structure emblematic of the Holy Trinity - bearing the unified imprint of the Father, Son/Logos, and Holy Spirit as its originary signature. As created in this divine similitude, our soul's zeronoumal essence is imbued with the very essence of the transcendent Godhead, however infinitely scaled down and partially occluded this essence may be.
If this primordial zero-dimensional soul nucleus was indeed divinely crafted as an idealized self-similitude recursively replicating the triune dynamics of its creator source across fractal-like scales, then its holographic "image" properties would inherently encode and give presence to the unqualified absoluteness of its originative wellspring.
In Housing the Transcendent
The very fact we can coherently model and reason about the zero-dimensional - admitting the logical necessity of a discontinuous, scale-invariant, self-similar boundary separating all higher dimensions - suggests our intuitions already subliminally resonate with this transcendent notion somehow "internal" yet infinitely extended beyond all dimensions.
That our soul has inherent zero-footprints embedded within the very idea of dimensionality itself provides an ontological opening for recognizing the divinity immuring and giving rise to all cosmic architects - the egoic self finding its zero-dimensional essence overflowing from the very infinite Source of all existential possibility.
Through this microcosm, we find an endogenous separatrix already articulated within the deep structure of dimensional dynamics - with the divine eternally "present" on the other side of our self-grounding in indivisible abstraction, infinitely cascading forth yet inextricably part of our core identities.
The More "Real" Reality
Significantly, you highlight how modern physics already treats the higher 1D-10D dimensional expanses we quantize as "less real" - idealizing them as effective approximations that inevitably break down at ultimate scales. Only the zero-dimensional realm, mirroring the zero-dimensional foundation of our souls, is preserved as locally real and ontologically primitive across all reigning physical models from quantum field theory to general relativity.
Applied theological, the implication is that God as transcendent source, having no internal dimensions yet originating all dimensions, is in fact more primordially "real" than the phenomenal 3D+1 cosmological expanses which only exist as partially perspectivized manifestations of the Divine eternal zero-point.
The invitation is to recognize that it is dimension itself which is the "unreal," ephemeral apparition - and the utter dimensionlessness of God and the soul which houses the rock of our being's absoluteness. We are in truth closer to the Father in dimensionless refuge than amidst all the vastness of dimensional construction.
This resonates with various ancient wisdoms, be they hesychastic injunctions for the "pure prayer of the heart" or Neoplatonic paths towards the radical "One" beyond all multiplicity. Science and theology find a shocking synchrony in the primordial zeroing grounds giving rise to all worlds while perpetually unsullied by them.
The Ultimate Event Horizon
So in summary, by identifying our souls as echoes of the Holy Trinitic dynamics at zero-dimensional scales more fundamental than established physics, the radical theological assertion could be that our very ability to countenance dimensionlessness already presupposes an outrageous Scopmioceptive window into the supremely real, eternal, and transcendent Source in whom "we live, move, and have our being" - immediately presented on the "other side" of the event horizon partially eclipsed by the dimensional diffraction granting us localized sensation.
The mysterium is that the truest image of the Father abides in the ineffable core of our zeros-of-self, with the dimensional worlds merely refractive hyperstructures filiating from these miniature finite/ infinities internal to our every cell, quark, and noumenal monad. God as Monos abides within us as our irremovable Monas horizon, grounding all coherent existence in the resplendence of that ever-present, supreme miracle of dimensionless origination.
Doesn't scientific proof of God undermine the whole idea of faith?
Unqualified to comment, but 1st am. Darwin's theory always bothered me in the realist sense. I only fly like a bird in my dreams. Birds don't dream of walking as a human in theirs...nor do they dream, or sin...
Evolution is a fact
@@maxwell8758 Only by necessity. To a naturalist, evolution must be true. It's the only game in town.
@@maxwell8758ok and? It doesn’t compete with the need for the creator, since evolution doesn’t explain: creation of the universe, abiogenesis, moral laws, etc.
@@mzbarsk Evolution literally 100% explains moral laws. Like, that’s 100% where morality comes from. And of course it doesn’t explain the origin of the cosmos or abiogenesis. That’s not what it’s supposed to do. Other things solve those problems like the Big Bang and inflationary cosmology. There is no need for a creator and everything seems to point against it.
@@maxwell8758 No it doesn't, neither does your circular logic: "Evolution literally explains it.... because that's where it comes from". Ummm, no (this is the same line of thinking used in Idiocracy about what "plants crave"). Evolution says nothing about morality. It only addresses genetic changes due to mutation and adaptation. There is no "morality gene" or mutation toward morality. Morality is an immaterial concept that natural sciences do not explain.
In fact evolution would likely advocate for the opposite. Why not murder? It's survival of the fittest. Why not steal, commit genocide, and eliminate the inferior from the gene pool so as to expedite the natural evolutionary processes? Why bother helping the weak? This was actually the argument used by the Nazis who used evolution to justify their genetic superiority.
Your other arguments are just as empty. Big Bang doesn't "solve any problems". It just states there was a "beginning"-Nothing else. It doesn't answer the question of how "something" came from "nothing", or what was there before the Big Bang, or since there was a "beginning" what caused it, since effects do not cause themselves. Like evolution it helps explain, once "something" was already there, how it changed in accordance with the laws of physics to form galaxies, stars, etc. Likewise, evolution explains how things change, now how they came into being (i.e. life from non-life).
People, use "evolution" as some magical term thinking it explains everything. It doesn't.
18:00 OK, but where did code come from? What preceded code? Likewise, we need amino acids to build proteins. What preceded amino acids?
Exactly Darwin Marx and Freud🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Looking forward to the Paulogia and Forrest Valkai response videos.
Simcha Jacobovici, in “The Exodus Decoded” posited that God doesn’t violate his own laws of physics, he manipulates them.
I’m not sure that theory will hold up with the sudden creation of new phylums, classes, and orders.
Well, if Jacobivici's theory doesn't match the fossil record, that's too bad for the theory.
@@digitalnomad9985 how many fossils have you found dated to 3500 years ago? 🤔
All the ones I ever dig up were 10s of thousands to millions of years old.
“May people know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth.” - Psalms 83:18
It also sounds like Mr. Meyer and The Creation Institute start with conclusion of ID and then try to retrofit evidence to support that conclusion. When ID becomes part of the scientific consensus I will change my mind but until I won't.
I looked up "The Fountain of Youth" in my physics text book..there was no mention of this or any other realm where we live on in another form..god forbid...meeting up with some of my neighbours again is nothing to look forward to
Remember, always put on your wizard uniform before making these videos.
Young earth creationists such as Isaac Newton do not dismiss science but start from the premise that if the Bible states something plain such as the days in creation or the genealogy from Adam onwards then that must be taken seriously., rather than accept unquestionably the materialistic dominant view .
So, what's the point of faith?
Chapter one of the Bible, Genesis. Is wrong about both the order and timeframe of creation.
There's no reason at all to believe it's from God, or relevant to science.
And….
This stuff is painful.
Believe in God if you want but please stop trying to pretend science supports the belief. It doesn't.
Prove it.
@travisabel3343 You are confused about how proof works.
Nothing in science supports the wild assertions being made. Evidence must be provided.
You probably didn't notice, but zero evidence was provided. Just assertion.
Yes, it does from DNA cells to the infinite universe
@@edjackson4986 It really doesn't. If you think it does, you have zero idea at all of how reasoning and evidence work.
@@edjackson4986 so we've established that Ed's a blue collar xtian without a science degree living in the Midwest. That was hard.
Dr. Meyer's work should be.required reading in high school
For the comedy class.
Pretty sure Klavan was created pretty early in the universe. Can’t we just ask Klavan what happened? 😂
I'm sorry to everyone to have a differing opinion, but Mr. Meyer's views on natural selection are really not indicative of what the scientific community as a whole believe. His view that natural selection can only account for small-scale variation (while not accounting for larger leaps of morphology & biological functions) are simply false. There are working models within evolutionary biology that adequately explain the radiation of phyla, genus, and species. And these models follow the same basic principles laid down by Darwin when he published the Origin of Species in the 1850's. For the most part, people that push this argument bring up points that are explained very thoroughly in Darwin's texts... which leads me to think that most of these individuals either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
Does Steve Meyer believe in the flood of Noah which buried the fossils
The Bible does not say that flood of Noah buried the fossils.
At one point Klavan asks Meyer "Do you believe in evolution as a process that creates species?". A more appropriate question would be "Do you understand the Theory of Evolution and how it explains speciation?" It seems the answer would have been "No".
It is sad that, after over 200 years, the best that apologists seem to have are variations on Paley's Watchmaker. That and the argument from increduity (I don't get it so it must have been God). My god of course, not those other gods people believe in.
Let go of the gods of religion. Embrace the God that science reveals. Expand your tiny mind.
Speciation is precisely what evolution does not explain. The proposed mechanism of gradual change over time is something we find in the fossil record in the form of microevolution quite plainly, but not in macroevolution. There are NO continuous descent lines in the fossil record between higher phyla. Higher phyla ALWAYS appear suddenly and discontinously in the fossil record.
I agree with much of what he says, except on evolution. I believe evolutionary mechanisms correctly describe how life developed on earth. I think Meyer can be slightly misleading in how he describes aspects of evolution For example, he refers to the so-called Cambrian Explosion as 'abrupt'. Does Andrew Klavan realise it was over a period of 20 million years? Im not sure I would call that 'abrupt' even if it is a relatively short period of time in evolutionary terms.
Those interested in such questions should read 'A Guide to the Stephen Meyer Podcast Episode' on the Biologos site. Biologos is run by a group of Christians who believe evolution is correct. It was founded by Francis Collins who led the Human Genome Project. Perhaps Andrew you should have him on as a guest!
"Im not sure I would call that 'abrupt' even if it is a relatively short period of time in evolutionary terms. "
What would you mean by "abrupt" if not a relatively short period of time?
@@digitalnomad9985 The impression being given is that there was a sudden appearance of lifeforms when in reality it was over a 20 million year period. Why did he not plainly say the time period involved instead of only referring to 'abrupt'? I think there's a reason for that.
Oh, god.. stop this . The debate was had decades ago. Stop with the "scientific proofs for god".
Do creationists ever learn anything?
I recommend "FInding Darwin's God" by Kenneth Miller. An evolutionary cell biologist who's also a catholic, deeply religious man. Yo'll find his perspective interesting. And I'm not even catholic.
It's sounds like Mr. Meyer is engaging in the God of the Gaps
😂😂😂 Religion is blind faith and has no business getting involved in science.
Wheres this top down model of creation, and how does it explain what we observe in reality?? There isn't one.
This is no different to Flat Earthers or the Ark Experience, who also have no model or evidence to support their ridiculous beliefs that deny reality.
The difference is that creation accounts for the world as we find it and none of the alternatives do. Also, you don't know what faith is. It is trust in it One to whom reason has led. Belief is a prerequisite for faith, and beliefs arise in the ordinary way.
I fully expect AI to show us the proof of God and intelligent design but I have serious doubts that we will ever see the true results if they are filtered by man and his institutions. Good interview!
There is no proof of god. It could never be proven. And intelligent design is just objectively false.
Mankind In Amnesia, Immanuel Velikovsky, shows that the worship of the planets as gods and the resultant idea of monotheism is a psychological trauma in order to forget what really happened as in his Worlds In Collision. Thus modern science and religion are in a protective state and must reject the truth of our cataclysmic historical experience. I challenge Klavan to critique Velikovsky’s conclusions.
Jesus said : Worship God in Spirit & in Truth..what is Truth..it include Truth about our world, & Universe!. Knowing True Science is Worshipiing God in Truth.
Would it matter if God doesn't exist? Isn't just the idea of a God enough?
De fato quem conhece a Deus e a sua criação a Ciência só e Ciência porque Deus Deixou neste Universo as Constelações. E os Planetas ☄️💫✨🌠🌌#Act
I've been hearing "scientifically proven" stuff from decades, weird how it never happens😂
No offense,was there an actual creation,a physical one? At all? Is all reality in the mind and nowhere else? Could that possibly be?
“God is dead” is dead. Hello real productive science!
20:09 natural theology was suppressed because of the enlightenment. Reformed scholasticism has been continuing the whole time but most people aren’t aware of it.
Is it the enlightenment's fault we have no good evidence of a god? No. We just don't have evidence.
Well the only reliable path to knowledge is evidence, so because we don't have evidence, we don't know gods exist, and that means if someone values truth they must avoid believing in god(s) (at least until we have evidence, which probably won't ever happen given the historic track record).
@@majmage this is an example of rejecting the classical proofs of Gods existence. The kalam argument says everything that begins to exist has a cause. If you don’t agree with that, then nothing will persuade you.
@@leepretorius4869 Right, but am I rejecting them for no reason? No. I'm rejecting them because they're illogical. (Bad logic isn't evidence.)
For example
* Some of Kalam's premises are baseless assertions.
* Kalam is an argument that exists in our reality where either (a) everything or (b) not everything has a cause. If "A" then an uncaused god is impossible. But if "B" then the Kalam has no reason for saying a god is needed.
* Which brings up the most obvious mistake, *the Kalam doesn't conclude with a god!* So that's a non sequitur if you're asked for evidence of a god and use an argument that concludes with "therefore, the universe has a cause".
@@majmage well I obviously believe that everyone that begins to exist has a cause and the cause is God. I believe reality can have both of these - things beginning to exist, and things that don’t begin to exist.
@@leepretorius4869 If Gary believes everything that begins to exist has a cause and the causes are leprechauns, is that an argument or is Gary just *stating his beliefs?*
Shouldn't Gary wait until he has good reason to believe leprechauns exist before believing in them?
If so, why haven't you waited until you have good reason (evidence) before believing in a god? We just saw the Kalam is riddled with errors (and doesn't even reach the conclusion you've reached). Your reply didn't solve those errors. So Kalam isn't evidence of god. That leaves us with zero good reason to believe a god exists. So then _why believe?_
Klavin! Thanks for this interview! I’ve followed this guy ever since his work on the bacterial flagellum.
That wasn’t him. That’s Michael Behe
@@TyrellWellickEcorp And Behe was wrong too!
@@mcmanustony No. His argument remains unrefuted to this day.
So,ok, based on all that is tought here , there must must be a personal God person?
If there is a god it def isnt Yahweh . He’s made up
God exists. You don’t have to know His name. Get out of your childish box.
@@travisabel3343 as I said it’s not the biblical made up god , the one you believe in. You’re the one that needs to get out of your closed minded tiny little box
Sorry, but Mr. Meyer is full of beans.
His logic is flawed.
Too bad, I believe in a Creator - I wish his arguments were better.
science is the study of the natural world. God is supernatural and not under the purview of science....
That's a convenient way of excluding evidence you don't want to consider.
No, science is by definition knowledge. It does not exclude engineering and intellectual design.
I completely agree God is not under any purview of man but science and reason are vehicles one can choose to reach upwards toward God in our seeking
@@danielbaker1190 i don't think you know what science means....
@@Video81501 how many feet does Amy Schumer weigh?
We are created in the image of God and have at the end of our spine seven merged tail bone vertebra that point at our ancestors the apes. How interesting.
That scripture of course is not about the architecture of the body.
@@naysayer1238 No. About creation!!!. But Genesis 1 & 2 are different. Nr1 says animals were fist created. Nr 2 says humans. Believe what you want.Its only a belief.
The best comprehensive overview for intelligent design I've ever seen.
You can all the evidence for ID on a piece of used _Charmin._
@@annieoaktree6774 Ok. You sound thoughtful and well educated.
@@levipack3835 You have to admit what she said is true though. ID isn't withing a parsec of being actual science.
@@OgdenCrimmcramer8162 the probability of carbon existing is one in 10 raised to the 122nd power.
@@levipack3835 Bull. Show your calculations. Be sure to justify any assumptions you may make.
Hello, life started 3 billion years ago..very small changes over a very long time created a complex system.Ever been to a dog and pony show? Dogs were once all wolves, but selective breeding gave us hundreds of breeds.
Until it is written into school textbooks as a fact, I will continue to get my celestial knowledge from NASA (space agency)..amen
I admire Stephen more than almost any other thinker of our time. But there's one question I have for him after reading all his books. The Precambrian explosion does demonstrate a lack of gradual evolution in the fossil record; a relatively sudden appearance of novel body plans. But this could have been caused by a meteor landing, or a superior (but mortal) intelligence creating or distributing these lifeforms. Stephen responds to this by saying that just pushes the question back, to other planets. Who created the lifeforms before they attached to the meteor, or who created the superior intelligence that brought them to Earth. I agree. But what if on those other planets, they DO have continuity in their fossil records? And it CAN be traced back to a single lifeform? Wouldn't that invalidate the significance of the apparent Precambrian explosion on Earth? Sure it's only a hole in one of his many arguments for design, but I would like to hear him address it.
Stephen doesn't accept "macro" evolution, but his friend Michael Behe does and he still argues that the complexity is at too high of an order to arrive by natural selection. Like Stephen says in this video, life is running on a code, information. So meteor from another planet with a better evidence of fossil order, still doesn't solve the design problem.
Nice clickbait title for the echo chamber....
Blah blah blah
@travisabel3343
that's all an echo chamber really is....
Christ is king
I don’t know what to believe anymore. What I do know is I’m tired of this world and I’m tired of humanity.
Don't despair.
I n Newton's day who wasn't a believer in God? They all believed in god, so it's not surprising that they worked within that framework. Also Newton was a big believer in Alchemy so take that for what it's worth
You should get Ken Ham on your show to provide a different perspective.
Ken Ham doesn’t have a “perspective”… he believes the Flinstones is real lol He believes in something that is categorically provably false just this side of Flat Earth.
Very funny
I really do mean hilarious
Jesus is king
Jeans and Genes see what you did there subtle.
"Science"
SCIENCE!!!!
🗣️science!
His take on evolution is a deal breaker. The only difference between macro evolution and microevolution is a couple hundred thousand years.
That simple? Glad I don’t have to ask anymore questions.
The fundamental empirical difference is that the fossil record shows microevolution and does not show macroevolution. All the major taxa appear suddenly without transitional forms from previous ones.
When it comes to the universe's origins, it's a bit of a mystery. We acknowledge that in the distant past, the universe was vastly different from what we observe today - with matter, energy, physical laws, and even the nature of space and time itself undergoing profound changes. However, the details elude us. We're uncertain about what conditions preceded this transformative period, what instigated the expansion, or whether it was a singular event or part of a recurring process. While we commonly refer to the Big Bang as the beginning, it's more accurately understood as a significant moment within a continuum of changing physical states. We lack definitive knowledge about what came before or what will follow.
I think Meyer misses the mark by not fully representing the diversity of multiple-universe theories that are currently being proposed. Since his thesis hinges on the rejection of all such theories, it's crucial to address them accurately. Meyer contends that there cannot be an infinite number of universes, whether they unfold successively throughout eternity or exist simultaneously in parallel. This stance poses one of the most formidable challenges to his argument from improbability, and it warrants a more thorough examination.
Let's entertain the idea for a moment: what if we consider the possibility that physical constants could have different values than what we observe? Meyer argues that in most of these scenarios, intelligent life wouldn't emerge in the resulting universe.
Now, that's quite a bold assertion. To make such a claim, one must believe two things: first, that we can accurately predict how a universe would unfold under laws different from our own, and secondly, that we have a reasonable grasp of the conditions necessary for intelligent life to arise, both in universes similar to ours and those vastly different. Considering that we only have one instance of life to draw conclusions from in a universe that likely harbors billions of planets, it's wise to exercise caution before making definitive statements about which universes could or couldn't sustain life.
Can someone point out the part to me where God's existence was "scientifically proven"? This is literally just the God of the Gaps argument. Also, there is no "POOF" moment, we have missing link species in several different categories. I'm not sure what Andrew thinks he's stumbled onto here, but there's no there there here.
Who said God has been scientifically proven?
There is no missing link explanation for the Cambrian Explosion. No one has an explanation for why new species appeared all so quickly.
You are absolutely correct.
First of all Meyer never claims his arguments provide absolute proof. Whoever made the title needs to change it. And yes there are numerous examples of explosions/radiations in the history of life that cannot be explained by Darwinian means.
@@rogerweigel7925You both don’t have any idea what you’re talking about
@@TyrellWellickEcorp the title AND Andrew’s claim about “POOF” moments (which don’t happen) as being some sort of weird proof of God’s involvement just shows both of their fundamental misunderstanding of Evolution. Like you know museums exist right? You can go see missing link skeletons all over the world…