Joe Rogan Confronted With A Logical Case For GOD
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 08. 2023
- Stephen Meyer came onto the Joe Rogan Experience and it was pretty awesome. Total respect to Joe for giving him an ear, and to Stephen for laying things out in such a brilliantly clear way. You can find the full conversation on Spotify (JRE is no longer on youtube, unfortunately!)
Here is Stephen Myer's youtube: / @drstephenmeyer
Here is James Tour: / @drjamestour
Here is my documentary: vimeo.com/ondemand/miningforgod
Here is my story: • My Story & Why I Start...
I think it's worth acknowledging that Rogan is one of the few with a major platform today who will invite people he may not necessarily agree with and will respectfully engage with them and not shut them down. I disagree often with JR but I have great respect for his desire to seek truth wherever it may be found. I also have great respect for those who agree to be guests on his show to have these discussions.
Agreed. Personally, I don't understand these kinds of people though. If you are that open to the idea of God, but your waiting to be convinced ... Why not just give God a try and see for yourself? Salvation in Jesus is a personal experience, it's not a test you need to study for. Just pray to him with a genuine heart, with honest curiosity, with intention. Ask him to reveal himself to you, then start participating. Find a good church, pray and read the Bible. The bible is a spiritual book, tbh it's like magic. You need faith to unlock it's deeper insight and truth. Pray to God and ask him to speak to you through it. Then just pick a random page and start reading. Then contemplate how the words you just read apply to your life. Just try it for heavens sake, literally. All God is asking is for you to just acknowledge him.. and the sacrifice he made on the cross. Jesus loves all of us, no one is exempt from his mercy and forgiveness.
I absolutely disagree. None of what this guy said was a new argument, it's the same old mumbo jumbo that has been disproven countless times. Just because Rogan says "Woah man" to everything he says doesn't make it legitimate.
@@thejdazdisprove it then
@@cosita7479thejdaz can’t disprove it. He’s just being a troll.
@@thejdaz How is anything you said an argument for you position
?
100% is an example of what sets Joe's show apart from all other: the ability to listen to most anything without interrupting
You can learn a great deal about someones beliefs and where they stand by just letting them talk . You don't have to agree with them just acknowledge that you're hearing what they're saying . They'll either dig themselves a hole or rise and shine in elevate the both of you .
What the hell are you talking about. There are hundreds of podcasters who engage in friendly opposed dialog… ? 🤷♂️
It's Joe's job, so someone else speaking means he can sit back and think about renovating his bathroom. So your assumption is just that. 😮
@@matthewclark1006 Nah. Other podcasters have to constantly be talking and interrupting.
He interrupted plenty and pointed out the fallacies.
JR is a very good conversationist, always has a diverse group of guests on his shows and genuinely listens to what they’re saying without judgement and is genuinely trying to understand them and learn from them… he’s amazing for that.
He has described his interview style as understanding it is his job to make them shine
@@karlwithak. Never expected the expert fallacy here
@@karlwithak. I am embarrassed for you.
@@karlwithak. Well what you wrote is not smart
@karlwithak The idea that verbal fluency is the ultimate arbiter of understanding and intelligence is not borne out in reality. Incredibly intelligent people can have halting and hesitant verbal patterns. This gentleman is clearly intelligent with a wide breadth of knowledge, whether you agree with him or not.
Nor do you have an understanding of Rogan's guests. He has had on some of the most successful, credentialed, and intelligent individuals in many disciplines, many far above his "I.Q.", and surely your own.
Let me give you a bit of advice- you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.
The reason Joe Rogan is arguably the most popular man in alternative media today, I think at least, is because he is able to genuinely listen to his guests. He doesn't just let them speak, he actively listens to what they have to tell him, while keeping his personal biases to a minimum, and he asks relevant and productive followup questions.
I think we all can learn something from that. Listen to what his guest ACTUALLY says, don't place words in his mouth because you WANTED him to say something else, or YOU would have elaborated on something more.
🤔
What I like about Joe Rogan is that he's just honestly curious, with a healthy dose of rational thought. He's got his prejudices of course, like we all do, but it always seems to me he's trying to unpack what he's hearing and work through it, instead of just dismissing things because he's got an attitude.
Listen Joe reasonably smart guy, nothing special, and he’s got a podcast! If he was as smart as you assert he’d deconstruct this guy and his fantasies and bullshit in 5 minutes!!
@@dipdo7675 Shoo. /flaps hands in your direction.
@@dipdo7675 Where to even begin with your asinine reply..
For someone with the audacity to critique the original comment in such a condescending way, one would think you would actually know how to read. 0P never indicated his opinion on Joe’s intellect. You literally made that up. OP was commenting on Joe’s willingness to listen with an open mind/curiosity. To be so condescending by coming from the position of something OP *didn’t* even say is astounding.
So the only explanation for your embarrassing reply is you’ve had that teed up in your little mind for a while just waiting for an opportunity to whip that out in an attempt to seem smart.
Boy did that backfire😂😂😅
@@dipdo7675 if that was so easy then why don't you go ahead and do so yourself? The answer is simple; you're not nearly as clever or knowledgeable as you think you are.
The reality of God is undeniable since the rejection of God is the same as rejecting the reality of truth, since God is truth. The fact is that you presuppose that your intellect is realiable enough to make claims about objective reality. But you wouldn't be able to make that presupposition in an atheistic framework because in the atheistic worldview, there is no ultimate, objective purpose, meaning or truth behind anything - it's all just chance and co-incidences. These factors in the atheistic worldview does not produce a reliable intellect on which one can base one's reasoning on and make certain or even rational arguments to begin with.
To presuppose reason of the intellect and intelligibility of the universe, of reality, you must first accept the premise of the reality of God.
Joe knows what he’s doing, giving intelligent people a platform is necessary!
Joe played the skeptic here, and both men behaved like intelligent, logical people with zero yelling or animosity,
something you don't see much anymore. Very impressive interview, overall, more than 2 hours.
Joe is very good at that.
I don't think Joe is playing skeptic...
Not only was there no yelling, there was also no belittlinging or comedic mocking.
Yes they behaved like… adults!
And This is why broadcast and cable news shows are on their death bed . Why would someone waste two or three minutes of their precious time watching some empty headed newscaster pitched prepared questions and cutting off their guest when they don't received the expected answer that they want ?
I love that Joe actually listens and takes in info. Many people will derail the conversation if it does not go with their personal thoughts. However, he gives his platform to others to voice their points, and he just asks further questions on the topic of their choice.
I believe I've heard Rogan describe himself as a big lunkhead . And I see that as coming from a place of humility it's a good quality to have . He may not be the smartest person but what he has that may be even more valuable is curiosity and a willingness to listen to something in its entirety without injecting his own personal beliefs and biases . And he knows how to ask a good question . Plus he knows how to inject humor at just the right moment to keep things lively and fresh I think This is why he's the number one podcaster . Whether he knows it or not he is an educator and a spreader of wisdom everyone from a muscle bound dude bro to a highly educated physicist can enjoy Rogan I wish him well and a long continued success .
Joe want's to believe and he will be full on believer very soon... you herd it here first.
@@DrewHop325 I did here it here first Isaiah but I probably won't remember 😂Hope he does though
I’m so thankful I found this channel! There’s so many amazing gems in here. Many thanks and keep up the great work!
I don’t think Joe is that dumb, he’s asking “dumb” questions because he has the humility to as questions on behalf of millions of listeners rather than show off or act smart. There is a reason he’s the best, and it’s the opposite of stupidity.
He asks very dumb questions at the start, but then he’s able to iterate on them to get more specificity and narrow in on much better questions that get to better answers and conversation.
I honestly think it was his ego asking most of those questions. They were annoying at first, but I realized joes ignorance on the subject was beneficial to potentially millions of theists who now have a coherent and cohesive argument laid out by Joe’s guest. The answers were so intelligently relayed that I became happy with the questions.
Such double standards The guest spouted absolute nonsense especially his computer analogy. His argument can be dismantled by a five year old. You can’t see it because you are dearly trying to defend your belief.
@ThomasRosehands , well if it can be dismantled by a 5 year old, then you should have no issue. Go ahead. Dismantle it.
@@ThomasRosehandsI also found his reasoning as being not that great. For me I can still coming from primordial soup.
I learned in anatomy that the cell was the basic building block of life. But once we started studying the cell, we realized that the cell was anything but basic.
It is is irreducibly complex. It proves life cannot have arose from chemicals into life. All the components of a cell must be present at the same time. It could not have came from anything more simple.
I agree. Something must have created life on earth. But what and why and how. It's unclear.
@phoenixgamer1565 it doesn't prove it, it is just unfathomly unlikely that it could occur naturally. We don't really know either way
The basic question is where did we come from. If the answer given is a single cell. The following question is where did the cell come from? Evolutionist can't answer that.
@@josephmartin5483it's very clear
I used to not be a fan of Joe early on in his podcast career because of how defensive he would get over certain subjects, like marijuana and god/Christianity. But it's nice to see him finally open up to these questions and really thinking about them without feeling it's a threat to the way he lives. Because most of the time ppl just want to live how they live without burdening themselves with the question of if it's right or wrong.
This seems like an older video. Based on the studio set up
There's no expiration date on wisdom .@@nathanielace7534
Anyone with a degree of self-awareness will become more open in their later years . I think when you become more conscious of your own mortality you become more open to the possibility of something beyond this physical and temporal realm of existence . As a 67 year old man I find myself in the midst of a spiritual awakening .
I feel all the times he got up in arms on those subjects he was drunk lmao. Especially the crowder episode lol.
Joe is an involving man, As we all should be.
After my mother died, I struggled with my faith in the Creator - but as I have gotten older, I have felt the Creator come back into my life (almost as if the Creator was waiting on me to stop throwing my hissy fit). We are here for a little while, then we aren't, and THAT is why LIFE IS PRECIOUS.
Your mother is always with you and I know you know that!
One of the absolute best reasons for Joe Rogan being a great interviewer is how respectful he is and how he tries to actually understand what the other person is saying by actively listening. Sometimes he calls out people's crap, but it's rare and he does it rather respectfully.
He would be a wonderful presidential debate moderator.
He definitely wasn’t always this understanding and open to different views. He’s definitely improved in this area
What I don't like is the guy that's reviewing this clip is making this incredible leap in logic, stating that life is is complex therefore there must be a higher intelligence that designed life.
1. If a God exists, what created God?
2. What is this God made of? (Does it have DNA?)
3. If there is a higher power, why do you think its exactly the God you believe it to be? What if it's just advanced extraterrestrial being that seeded life on the planet?
These questions are literally unanswerable therefore it's much more rational to take the stance of "I don't know" just like most rational intelligent scientists do when they don't have the evidence. Just because we don't know, doesn't mean there is no rational, logical explanation for our questions, we just lack the technology or knowledge to answer these questions. A couple centuries ago everyone thought the world was flat; this topic is akin to that.
You can believe whatever you want to believe but don't say there is proof of God, don't try to rationalize it because that is just not true. The whole premise of any religion is that what you believe is based on faith, or in other words, lack of evidence.
@@johnj3027 nobody’s stopping you from thinking/believing whatever you like. Nor should you or anyone else try to stop others from doing the same.
@@johnj3027 I wouldn’t say lack of evidence, but lack of proof. One can say certain evidence points me to believe in a higher power, but doesn’t actually prove anything. Same goes for scientists’ best guess as to what was before the Big Bang..
This is the podcast that solidified just how intelligent joe is for me. His ability to listen and deconstruct abstract concepts laid out by the guest, as well as introduce analogous topics to further the discussion can only be done by a very intelligent person.
Sorry but Joe is a regular guy! Possessing a decent level of intelligence! He’s got a podcast and not a pedigree of academic achievement! Don’t make him out to be something he isn’t! A guy like Dawkins, now there is an intelligent guy, brilliant actually, who would deconstruct (yes destroy) the lightweight guests pseudo- intellectual statements!! As he said himself, he studied philosophy in college, not biology, chemistry, genetics, physics, so his scientific pronouncements are facile at best and lies at worst!
@dipdo7675 I hate saying this but I think you're unlikely to be a good judge of intelligence. I'm basing this on your excessive use of exclamation marks, your non-ironic use of the word 'destroy' to describe someone winning a debate and lastly because you said: "Not a pedigree of academic achievement". 😉
Seriously though, academic achievement is a fairly poor indicator of intelligence. Academic achievement is generally only proof that you can intellectually paraphrase other people's ideas. If Joe Rogan was the same person in every way except he had a masters in molecular biology I think you would view him completely differently. This in itself is stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@dipdo7675 Dawkins is a bloody shill, his true colors were revealed over the past couple years just like his buddy Neil Defart Tyson
@@dipdo7675Dawkins has said some pretty stupid things recently. If you want to put him on a pedestal and call him a heavyweight by all means. But he has looked like a chump in some debates.
@@dipdo7675 I believe he said, maybe in a different clip, he has a degree in geo physics and maybe evolution too. Philosophy was his side interest. Not to say I think all his ideas are correct.
Love this channel! Keep up the great info!
This is only my 2nd vid I've seen from your channel. (I subbed on the first) You sir, will not only be fun to watch but I already have the impression that you will provide some serious faith strengthening info. Not that I necessarily need it but... You get it!
Both Gentlemen did a fantastic job here. Such a credit to Free Speech and our way of Life.
You have every right to be wrong.
@guitarszen Agreed. There is no logical case for god. Only people who *believe* things to be logical about their religious *believe.*
@@kevinkerr9310 Prove me wring, pumpkin. Or better yet, prove that you have any humility at all.
@guitarszen A renowned scientist with an IQ 3 times yours, and you have the arrogance to question his logic? LOL. Liberals are like dogs who can't tell the difference between a bone and a sewage pipe.
@guitarszen God dies when you realize that there is no. Absolutley no reason whatsoever fo god to not tell ever man, women and child in the universe that he exists.
He could send everyone a hand written letter of pure gold. He could talk to everybody in the same time without losing anything. Neither time or anything else. There is and there will never be a real reason why he is not doing so if he exists, but people will always make up the craziest stories about why he does not choose to do so.
If they cannot explain their bs, they just say: God works in mysterious ways.
Nitzsche tried to and this childishness, but their ignorance was stongter than his intellect.
Seen this. JR looked very uncomfortable weighing this, and withdrew behind a bunch of philosophical priorum so as not to agree where that weight goes. At least he's on the scale, thinking about it.
Yes! Let’s pray for Joe today!
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom🙏 Agreed
there was 0 discomfort recorded... you guys will really just make up whatever and run with it... isn't it tiring?
If he became Christian his show goes about preaching the "word" - no disrespect but it would drop to the same amount subscribers that this CZcams channel has , Christianity has edge to it.
@@notimportant3686 this is a snapshot, not the whole interview. I'll leave it there.
What I like about Joe Rogan is that he's just honestly curious, with a healthy dose of rational thought. MRT spot on!
It's about time Joe brought on Christians who can properly articulate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and also have a strong background in apologetics to defend the rationality of there being a creator aka God
Which God? There have been thousands.
Dont forget he only make supposition... He's far from a 100% There a God...
@@sachalg5720 Jason Lie is a young Earth creationist masquerading as a scientist. He’s a 1000% sure there is a God; he knows his name and what he wants.
@@horridhenry9920 to start with, I am guessing, any god, that can create....and maybe later on narrowing that down, a bit...so loosen up and listen to the presentation......that is the beginning of knowledge.....knowing, if not believing ones argument....
@@horridhenry9920 First of all is name is Jason Lisle. He Said There a God whit some "THEORY" but Nothing really New. Funny part he discredit all the bible so you still like him??
Yes, Dr. Meyer! Loved his design argument books. I’m a molecular biologist and very religious, so it very much tickled my fancy. Can’t believe he’s on with Rogan already.
Do you accept or deny evolution?
@@derekallen4568
Do you?
Does Meyer?
You are missing the necessary first step. Define what you mean by your terms.
If I ask you, “Are you gay?”, it behooves you to know what I mean by the word gay. I could well be using the word in the common sense of usage in the 1960s and before, or, conversely, I could be using the word in the common usage of today. Your answer to the question expressed using the same words may vary considerably with a different meaning attached to the word “gay”.
Does Meyer believe in evolution? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in chemical evolution?
@@samdg1234 word salad! Evolution is a fact of life. You can call it what you like. It can be called micro evolution or macro evolution, it's the same thing, over a longer time period over a longer period of time. Abiogenesis is a different question.
Atheists are also very religious with their many beliefs that are not backed by material evidence.
No one has seen something created from nothing.
No trillions of pre, mid, and post-transistions of plants and animals over 'billions of years' to show macroevolution.
Many other atheistic beliefs that don't have material evidence.
@@derekallen4568 calling something a fact of life when there isn't a shred of actual evidence for macro evolution, but there is of adaption
Amazing video bro! Just what I needed today, thank you1
Joe, thank you for having Stephen Meyer on your show! He is brilliant and articulate. I appreciate your wide variety of guests.
Elizabeth Chappelle.
As long as we get away from the concept of “settled science,” I enjoy these debates and discussions. There have been multiple scientific ideas over time that have changed as more discoveries have been made. The arrogance that some people have about the mysteries of the universe is astounding. We don’t know as much as some of us think we know.
@@FloresTrumpet - they're not manufactured explanations, they only appear manufactured to people who've been suckered into blindly believing the Bible isn't true.
@@FloresTrumpet - we have miles and miles of old and defunct science textbooks, would you see a doctor trained from medical books in the 1800's? I'm sure you wouldn't, yet somehow you're wiling to let science "fill" prior gaps w/o question, yet the Bible is unchanged since it's beginning - and considered the most printed/sold book in human history... and yet you're guarded about "manufactured" spiritual explanations. It will always look manufactured to people who are relying on other people's claims rather than looking into it for themselves.
The doctors today are specifically trained not to ever cure anyone. They treat symptoms without identifying or eliminating the root cause whenever possible. So it's not like modern medical practices are sooo great in comparison to the past.
@@alanncsu3243what's true about the Bible. I can show how it was created by the Piso family in Rome during the 1st century. How flavius josephus was a made up character. It was created to try to stem a revolt by the jews as their religion was growing and was against almost everything the Roman empire pressed upon people, such as slavery, which was the economic basis of the empire. The Roman aristocracy was afraid of a slave revolt. Choose to believe in historical fact or a sky fairy. The choice is yours.
Every pseudo scientist is peddling that same trash.
There is a reason that science is consensus based- because if it was not we would have bricks like you claiming your emotions are science.
Lots and lots of respect for Joe Rogan to sit there respectfully and give Stephen Meyer a good listen. Good for you, Joe, and praise God!
Kudos to Joe for not being afraid of not having a response to everything, and willingness to learn.
Nobody has ever learned anything from the garbage Meyer spills out for his employer, the very ill-named Discovery Institute.
thank you for all your efforts...its brilliant content
This is the type of open discussion that many of us are hungry for. No ideology just speaking freely. Rogan appears to be making the effort to truly listen and understand. Good for Rogan for having this scientist on.
The scientist made no scientific point in this discussion. His computer analogy against macro evolution can be dismantled easily.
Stephen Meyer is NOT a scientist. He is a philosopher and historian. And to say his views on this topic fringe science is an understatement of Biblical proportions.
ITT: Two people who don't know what science is
This was pure and utter ideology
Then make the argument.
James Tour is incredible to listen to. It's truly amazing how complex even the most basic carbohydrate is. Modern science tries to bridge the gap of the origin of life, but the more they discover, the bigger the chasm becomes to solving it.
God is a God of wonders. Amen
James Tour’s debate with Dave Farina on the cluelessness of abiogenesis is hilarious.
we may never know hoy it happened however it doesn´t mean there was a god needed.
@@roddydelipsa1769how impossible does abiogenesis has to be for you personally to admit that this is impossible without intervention?
@@horridhenry9920no, it wasn't lol, it wasn't kek, it was pure cringe.
@@horridhenry9920 James gets so worked up during the debate. Dave was his normal condescending self...
Dr. Meyer is an absolute legend. God bless him
Awesome video. Appreicate the work you put in here.
So glad to see your response to this. Was an awesome conversation to listen to. I loved this section of it.
This was an absolutely amazing podcast. Rogan still impressing
Love your content, brother, keep it coming.... thanks
I love Joe's intellectual curiosity and willingness to humbly learn from these great minds. He is a very strong powerful man, and yet places these aside to understand the things of the mind. He's a very meaningful person. Respect. Australia
Joe was not stumped or left speechless, he can learn more by listening than by silencing.
Learn what? This guy is a standard apologist. He’s intellectually dishonest and has an agenda. Christians are bogus people
I was watching EFAP, Mauler and his crew about react content. You have highlight to me, at least, a Joe Rogan experience with stephen Meyer that I have not seen before. Thank you for that. I love the way you propose your content with all the refernce to the original work. Thank you very much. I have seen all the Joe Rogan Experience interview on spotify now, and that 's amazing, all that because of your work! Thank you again.
The theory of evolution does not negate the idea of creation: Evolution is how Creation looks.
When you give up on trying to find a solution, or when you start by saying that it's probably not possible, you kill your chance of finding the truth.
I grew up in the Catholic Church and their authoritarian dictates without reason taught me to become an atheist by the time I was twelve. Most of my friends did, too, though some continue to go to church to this day. Some became Christian. I consider myself very fortunate that God put people in my path, friends, teachers, and authors, that helped to lead me to Christ. I started believing in God again at 17 and accepted Christ as my Savior at 29. Since then, I’ve studied religions in depth and their histories and have a good understanding of all of them.
Great to see you coming back to Christ! But are you sure the authoritarian dictates came from the church? Or maybe just someone representing it? You can disagree with the church but it has a very long intelectual tradition (see thomistic theology as an example) it really has a reason for everything it teaches.
@@mateoarmas3585 I wouldn’t smear all Catholics with the same brush. I do condemn those leftists in the Church for their crimes and corruption. Like those who committed the Spanish Inquisition which had nothing to do with Christianity but everything to do with copying the Jihad. There have been evil Popes and priests and self-righteous attendees. But I also many good and great Christians that are Catholics. Contrary to what the leftists say I find their false assertions that the only way to Christ is through the Catholic Church. Every church is about fifty/fifty percent Christians and others seeking Christ, some far more and some far less, plus some pretenders. Church leaders vary as much. It’s like any profession. There are incompetent doctors and dentists just out for money scamming patients. It’s just the way of things.
What took you so long between finding god and finding christ?
@@jackhogan6639 It is as just two years. I found God reading Felix Salten’s book and learning to understand the world. I found Christ through a college friend two years later. What came harder was finding faith and understanding Christ not just knowing about Him. I spent ten years trying to be good enough without realizing I could never be until a Southern Baptist preacher led me through the last steps. I spent ten years trying to be good enough till he explained that I could never be, that salvation is God’s gift who will love Him enough to accept His Son as their Savior.
Thank you Daily Dose of Wisdom! As a newcomer to Christianity from an agnostic liberal upbringing, I'm so grateful for this channel which is truly helping me articulate my beliefs to the many non-believers in my life.
This video is utter nonsense ….no real scientist takes this guy seriousley😂😂😂😂😂
@@chrisrendon461 You seem like a decent chap
@@chrisrendon461 Wow, you've met all the real scientists. I'm impressed.
Thanks for the kind words and welcome to the family of God brother!
@@onedirection2301 dude why would you get your information from this man why not a person with a phd in biology they can easily explain everything he states… you think thousands and thousands of scientist are wrong they spend there whole life looking into these things and studying and looking at the data there all wrong but this guy is right that has an agenda …. Thats delusional
This was great. Articulating exactly what most of the world feels about a Creator.
I am new believer. I was an athiest. I also happen to be a senior level software engineer. And and much of what he said really resonated with me. But I also feel software is probably not the best analogy. All it is, is mathematics, algorithms. But the idea that a computer program can't accidentally become something new, even given time, by randomly changing the 1's and 0's is pretty spot on.
Though I'm sure many ignorant people will argue "what about A.I.". A.I. cannot create anything new, it can only assemble what it was given in new ways. And it must be given a lot to do so. Given by what some may even label a creator. 😂 (programmer).
Just like cells and DNA, a new program cannot just pop out of nowhere randomly. In computer science, necessity is the mother of invention.
Invention is not the same as creation. And people often fail to make that distinction. Creativity is just assembly. Creation is something from nothing.
Watching this, I realized that _entropy_, what scientists say is common in literally everything and a fact of nature, is an excellent argument against the inter-species evolution theory, especially the weak and lazy "given enough time" argument.
Scientists and philosophers alike agree, entropy is embeded in "nature" in all things. Yet somehow they have a "suspension of disbelief" in order to prove there is no creator, and argue "given enough time".
I often wonder, what motivates people to suspend disbelief in order to deny a creator. Why is it so bad that a creator created everything, and loves us, and gives us rules (patterns) to follow that we all know will make all of our lives, our society, better. Like "do not steal", "do not murder", "do not covet", "do not lie", etc. Why do people resist these?
Once you see, once the veil is lifted, you just get it. But there is some other force out there keeping many of us blind. Causing us to suspend disbelief of facts we already know and see, like entropy.
Thank you for sharing this!
Absolutely.
The resistance to belief of God's existence/character/authority/intent is not lack of evidence, but a delusion intentionally orchestrated by Satan in his determination to destroy us.
I used to think it was basically the inability of Christians to articulate their position/evidence, or the hypocrisy of fallible human nature of Christ's people. I now see that empirical scientific evidence of the Biblical narrative is dismissed & ridiculed by people determined their superstitious faith in evolution/atheism is TRUTH, even if it contradicts their own observations/experience. Their blindness is irrational.
To say that DNA stacked itself is complete denial, sadly many today believe that, it’s a combination of genetics and structural engineering that no one can accomplish, with direct and immediate applications and deficits depending on how it’s intertwined. If it was random why aren’t people being born other creatures or puddles of gelatin?
Do you understand entropy? Who says it’s embedded in something?
Risking falling into your strawman fallacy argument, I will respond anyhow.
I believe everyone reading this understands the meaning that was conveyed. Of course the exact definition of entropy means different things in different sciences and contexts. It is one of those words that has too many definitions.
To make it simple for you to understnad, think of it as degredation.
All living things degrade over time.
All living organisms eventually die.
Love when men can have a calm, respectful debate. Speak clearly, actually listen and come away with a greater understanding.
Subscribed. Top tier content. Well done.
“Divine fingerprint that exists at the heart of creation”…I love the way you expressed this.
Been doing a deep dive with Dr. James Tour’s videos. He’s incredible! Glad you mentioned his work!
God bless you brother for the work you are doing
Thank you for your channel and bringing these discussions to all of us. It is important to know the limitation of science before starting to believe in it as the be all, end all of everything. Science has huge limitations and our modern education is extremely limited (mostly an utter waste of time and energy).
Should people, instead of science, more rely on irrational beliefs in some ill-defined metaphysical entity/force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science?
That is what the professinal liar Meyer promotes. Given that he works for a propaganda mill.
The ill-named Discovery Institute, where no research at all is done, none. They employ several demonstrable liars with a degree and no scientific integrity to misrepresent scientific research. Not to mention that one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy.
They specialise in intellectual vandalism, which is predominantly based on the deceptive lie that discrediting scientific research would add credibility to their ancient mythology. Nothing about debunking any scientific hypothesis or theory automatically equals or even remotely alludes to “God did it”.
As if an appeal so some random deity constitutes an explanation, as if “divine powers did it” is the default position for anything.
Even if scientists someday manage to create a self-containing living organism out of non-living material entirely (they won't)? What is that ever gonna prove? That it takes intelligence to create life
So true. The only way to disprove the necessity of intelligent design is if they made a big soup and waited until life formed in it
@@ShadowQuik Even then it would be intelligent design. Soup needs to "evolve" by itself. If you make the soup it is still intelligent design.
even if they never manage to do it... that doesn´t prove an intelligence was needed.
So you people are saying that the earth is flat and sits atop of stone pillars situated at the very centre of creation with the sun revolving around the earth?
Cause that's gods creation and if he's wrong then what does that mean for creation itself...or your belief in it
Your clearly just dont want to know... because There already a lot of theory/study Goin on when we get There we Will tell you dont worrie ...loll
So good. I've always appreciated Steven and it's good to see him becoming more presuppositional in his apologetics. Christians should continue to pray for Joe because the Holy Spirit just might be drawing him in. Hope so. Thanks for this video.
The truth is, Joe knows the very God of Christians that he mocks. We all do. We just suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
@@tx2jbh81 You mean Allah?
@@horridhenry9920 Negative: Romans 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
@@horridhenry9920just arabic word for God. Christians in Arabic say Allah
@@tx2jbh81 Yep and keep reading Romans 1 on thru verse 32 and you'll see a description of exactly what's going on around us.
This is why Rogan is the master, letting the guest speak regardless of the beliefs of the host. Simple....Logical....but not popular in so called "journalistic" circles.
First watch of your channel .. huge JRE fan love to see him engage with quality, intelligent Theists.. nice commentary and easy earned subscription.. looking forward to browsing your library and learning more how better to support and defend my faith in this increasingly atheistic world that rejects Christ.. already seen a recent Frank Turek upload that’ll be next 👊🏻🙏🏻👍🏻💖
Stephen Meyer is a rather amazing human being. Nice to see Rogan paying close attention.
The guy is a conman. Member of Discovery Institute who peddles pseudoscience like intelligent design. The scientific community has been fighting against them.
@@imanilim6632 just because someone doesn’t agree with you ideologically doesn’t mean they are pseudo scientists. Doubt you have a PHD in biology from Oxford. Or have the Oesper Award (2021), Centenary Prize (2020), Trotter Prize (2014), and Feynman Prize (2008) like James Tour
A scientific argument can be developed for intelligent design based on the information bearing properties of DNA. Discovery in modern molecular biology tells us that even the smallest and simplest units of life, the living cell, have within them sophisticated information storing molecules and a complex information storage/transmission/processing systems such that if you want to explain the origin of life, you’ve got to explain where that information processing system came from. The inability to explain that system as a result of spontaneous interaction of simpler non living chemicals is the reason that there is a complete impasse in origin of life research and studies of chemical abiogenesis. That was the reason Ben Stein was able to extract that concession from Richard Dawkins. No one does have a clue how such a system of information and information processing could have arisen from interactions of simple non living chemicals on a prebiotic earth. What we know from our experience is that information, especially when found in a digital or alphabetic form, always arises from an intelligent source. Even Richard Dawkins has recognized that DNA is like a machine code. The argument for intelligent design is not an argument from ignorance or based on what we don’t know they are arguments based on what we do know not only about what undirected processes of evolution can and can’t produce but also about what we know from our uniform and repeated experience about another type of cause, that cause being agency/mind. At the foundation of life there is information in a digital form. The DNA molecule store’s information in a 4 character digital code and this discovery has overtime created an impasse in both chemical evolutionary theory, which are the theories of the origin of first life, and a biological evolutionary theory, which are theories about how you get new forms of life from preexisting forms. To build anything in biology you have got to have code/information. This information is an indicator of a mind/intelligence. Darwin developed a rigorous method of scientific study of events in the remote past and he had a key principle of reasoning which is if you are trying to explain an event in the remote past you should be looking for causes that are known to produce the effect in question. The key effects in question for scientists studying the origin of first life was the origin of information (the digital codes stored along the spine of the DNA molecule...where did it come from?). What we know from our uniform and repeat experience, which is the basis of all scientific reasoning, is that information comes from an intelligent source. Whether Its a hyroglific inscription, a paragraph in a book, a headline In a newspaper, or a section of code in a software program...whenever we trace information back to its source we always come back to a mind not a material process. Therefore the discovery of digital code found along the spine of the DNA molecule and the whole conflux processing system that surrounds it is decisive evidence of intelligent design. That is concluded on the basis of Darwin’s own method of scientific reasoning which credits our knowledge of cause and effect as the key criteria by which to decide what constitutes the best scientific explanation for any phenomena. If you wanna give your computer program a new function you have to give it digital code. To get life going you need digital information in the DNA molecule and probably a lot of other information as well. This is the reason that professor Dawkins and others recognize that there is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first life and it is because scientist in that field have been unable to account for the origin of the information necessary to get life going in the first place. Once you have life you may be able to generate some modest amounts of new information by some kind of mutation but getting the vast amounts that are necessary for major macro evolutionary transitions is also problematic. So the discovery of information in the foundation of life in even the simplest cells suggests the activity of a designing intelligence. Even Peter Atkins, an outspoken atheist scientist, is quoted saying “I concede that intelligent design theory does present some very interesting questions”
Methodological naturalists who believe only a natural process could make things is like someone looking at a hyroglific on a wall and saying “it was the wind”
And the fine tuning of the universe points to an intelligent designer as well. It’s not only been discovered that there is evidence of design in life, but the universe itself from its very foundation has been finely tuned in its basic physical parameters to allow for the possibility of life. The universe appears to be a setup job, some physicists describe it as a “Goldilocks universe”. The basic parameters of physics, for example, the strength of gravitational attraction...it could be stronger it could be weaker but instead in falls into a very narrow window with a very narrow tolerance where in the production of carbon is possible and many other features that are necessary for life to exist. The strength of electro magnetic attraction and the other fundamental forces of physics all fall within very narrow limits that allow life to exist in the universe. The masses of the elementary particles, not too heavy not too light. The force that causes the expansion of the universe outward from the beginning, something called the cosmological constant, is exquisitely fine tuned at 1 part in 10^90 power (is an accepted value by many physicists, some hold that the fine tuning is even more exquisite). The fine tuning of the initial arrangement of matter and energy at the very beginning of the universe which is called the initial entropy fine tuning. This fine tuning is almost begging computation, it’s been calculated to be 1 part in 10^10 power raised again to the 123rd power. It’s called a hyper-exponential number. A life friendly universe is beyond improbable. Many physicists, including Sir Fred Hoyle, an astrophysicist who was initially an atheist who opposed the Big Bang theory on the grounds that he thought it supported a theistic view of creation. He ended up changing his world view after discovering some of these key fine tuning parameters himself and later said that “a common sense of interpretation of the data suggests that a super intelligent intellect has monkied with physics and chemistry in order to make life possible.
Your precious “scientific community” has been highjacked by ideologs. High Ross steamrolled Peter Atkins in their debate. Meyer, Ross, And Tour have schooled so many atheists I’ve lost count.
@@imanilim6632 You mean like the scientific community fought against all things COVID that didn't follow the narrative? I just simplified that with such a comparison, but there are huge questions within the theory of evolution. Science has historically shown us that they are far from above reproach, and can be very unscientific at times as it relates to letting their ideas be challenged.
@@imanilim6632 Pathetically fighting against a far superior factually logical framework of reasoning.
@@imanilim6632 good arguments stand on their own merit no?
Whenever a god of the gaps argument is presented, "I don't know" is a better and more honest answer than "I know, its god."
randomness and chaos doesnt create information and complex laws that govern the universe...a car would not come by after billion of years
Sounds kinda rash and weird if the person has evidence that leans more towards one being more probable or less
@@swabrianwar1020except it has, because rare but possible conditions were met.
@swabrianwar1020 - a car isn't biology. 1/64 of all mutations creates information
@@edgaraf9411 there was an intelligent being being that assembled those system and parts together
This is why Rogan still has the best show/podcast. One week, he has discussions like this, and the next week, he's talking about MMA, which is then followed by the search for aliens.
Very interesting topic and well commented sir !
This was a wonderful podcast. I watched it. Glad to see others did too!
Great conversation to be had! I think more of this needs to be happening on large platforms and podcasts.
I'm curious what any of you may think about Meyer's initial argument possibly having similar faults of the same one he disproves in the beginning. Specifically, the idea that the basis for our sense data being accurate as an unjustifiable axiom for any epistemic framework due to circularity (Which I would agree with entirely). But assuming we're on this level of analysis of the sort of ultimate skepticism concepts, I think his argument holds a similar problem. While his argument is valid, (as in, it logically follows from the premises), when we're on the level of questioning the axioms of sense data itself, I feel like you are necesarilly questioning the axioms of logic as well since it seems like the laws of rationality are derived from our sense data. For example, the understanding of the law of non-contradiction is only obtained through our senses, (say for ex. it's impossible to perceive a tree as simultaneously taller and shorter than another tree), or at least it seems this rule of logic could not be formed if not for the experience of some kind of sense data, which is why to me, taking a position on the skepticism of sense data accuracy is necessarily to be skeptical of any concept of 100% KNOWABLE objective truth among humans.
SORRY for the long effort post but I want to know what y'all think!!
Can you summarise your POV in two layman sentences.?
Shit I can tell your smart, some words and expressions I don't understand your saying. Would love a breakdown for LAYMAN.
@@babushka9261 Sure thing! Yeah sorry bout the jargon. Basically it boils down to that Meyer argues at the beginning that the assumption that our senses (sight, hearing, etc.) are actually communicating to us the accurate real world is circular (which I think is correct, and why it is an unquestionable assumption or an "axiom"). And what I would say is that it's not possible to escape this circularity by changing the axiom because once you dig down enough into it you will always end up in a place where you're presupposing the accuracy of our senses.
@@virtualveins2351 Very Interesting topic. Are you sure that logic is derived from our sense data?
@@tprs_ita I would say so. Or to clarify myself to be more clear, our understanding of logic seems to be built off our understanding of the external world (which is communicated to us through our senses). Like for example our ability to perceive individual objects is how we can form the most fundamental rules of mathematics, such as taking one apple and another apple to make two apples, which we can sort of like verify through our physical interaction with the external world.
I agree with most of his points regarding the statistical improbability of a mutation driving creation. And I also agree that inductive logic (empirical) was preceded by deductive logic (a priori) however the existence of faith, or testimonial, deductive logic prior to inductive reasoning does not prove a creator gave us this process. This reasoning process has its basis in oral tradition and was simply how we came to 'believe' anything was true we didn't see. Its value is related to communication and reliance of trusting another persons writ. This necessarily can lead to abuse of 'words' and inevitably an empirical process (a posteriori) came about to give another metric of 'truth' to any 'words' claimed as 'dictum factum'. I, however am a firm advocate and supporter of a combination of both of these methods (inductive and deductive reasoning) ring used in tandem, which they CAN be, but most often are not used as complements. For a sound argument, faith in a claim is often predicated by the Ethos (credibility) of the speaker. This does NOT equal truth. Empirical proof can be used to determine any faith based predicate as valid before it has been established. The same for Empirical evidence, the statistical model is much stronger based upon a 'true' given 'word' of factual acceptance, a subjective truth is one that therefore already crosses over into both the theological and scientific worlds. This common ground can be reached through understanding the underlying definitions of the words used, not necessarily the meanings, or sway of the words.
"When you see a painting, you assume there's a painter" RIP Mr Riley, I will never forget those words
Paintings are demonstrably painted by a painter, there is a huge set og data underpinning that they don't for naturally....there is nothing even remotely like this for nature.
I like how short and to the point your videos are. It makes it easier to watch. Doing a simple commentary with a lot of impact. Great videos man. Much love to you.
I appreciate that!!
Praise Jesus Christ our lord and the true path to redemption ❤
Muslims say no.
I love conversations like this. It is very interesting to listen to and see two rational people have such an open dialogue about a complex topic. I absolutely agree that there is intricacy and intelligence that exists at every level of life. My question to you would be, aside from your preexisting conclusion, what exactly causes you to jump to the conclusion that it must only be due to a creator? I was tracking you all the way up to "divine fingerprint." It went from rational thought to pure belief and faith.
Myer is not a rational person. He is demonstrable liar who workd for a propaganda mill.
What makes believing in God any different from believing in evolution in the way Joe Rogan believes in it? Why is it that its always assumed that people who believe in God do so with absolutely no evidence for it. If you ask any believer they do see plenty of evidence for an intelligent designer (like a God) And they don't see any evidence for an unintelligent design (random chance). Yet many believe and put their faith in chaotic forces rather than order....... idk if you see where I'm going with this but... when I was an atheist I was blind to the fact that alot of my beliefs in that time were also faith based and nor actually provable in a matter of fact kind of way. But I did see what I thought at the time was somehow evidence for a chaotic design based on what was taught to me in school but once I ventured out and did searching beyond that - as stated previously I think there is actually more evidence for intelligent design (a God, Creator). And I don't think its a huge leap or without observable evidence for it. In essence your question is biased in a way that assumes the other side does not use evidence available in order to draw their conclusions. Devine fingerprint IS a rational thought.. Peace and Love hope I answered your question satisfactorily.
@@Piccolotheturtle because I don't "believe" in evolution. Science and therefore the theory of evolution don't require faith for it to be true. The evidence that supports evolution does so because it points towards evolutions. The evidence is all around us and showcases how closely related life on earth is. Evolution is the result of natural selection and natural selection is observed on a constant basis. It's not assumed that people who believe in God do so with absolutely no evidence for it. People who believe in God misinterpret the evidence they use and therefore have no evidence for it. Let me give the simplest explanation as I can for that: many creationists use the analogy that a building is evidence of a builder and therefore "creation" (in reality it's the existence of life but I digress) is evidence of a creator. While this analogy may seem sound on the surface it ignores the fact that we observe people building said buildings numerous times throughout our lives. We also observe humans every single day. It's undeniable that humans exist and that humans build so if you look at a building and say "that's evidence for a builder" you're absolutely correct. However, you would be wrong to say "I believe aliens built these buildings" because there is ZERO evidence of that. So, while there may be evidence of design there's no evidence of the designer that creationists claim aside from the "building" existing...or life existing. Whereas what you called "chaotic design" has more supportive evidence on a micro and macro level. Dogs and galapagos Islands organisms are evidence of microevolution. The evidence for macroevolution is in fossils and DNA. It's all around us. Look at our own species and how different we are depending on where you go in the world. Peace and love to you as well! I appreciate your response
@@Piccolotheturtle "What makes believing in God any different from believing in evolution "
Evolution is a demonstrable process, whereas no proposed God ever, has a demnstrable correaltion with reality whatsoever.
Joe Rogan is irrelevant
" Why is it that its always assumed that people who believe in God do so with absolutely no evidence for it." They accept aweful evidence when it comes to religion, which they rightfully reject in any other context. The evidence for Gods exist, it is just objectivly bad and in no way warrants belief.
"Yet many believe and put their faith in chaotic forces rather than order......." Accepting the demonstrable existence of the forces of nature (which are not exactly chaotic) is a rational and sane thing to do. IT is however not the same as " put their faith" in it whatever that means.
"when I was an atheist I was blind to the fact that alot of my beliefs in that time were also faith based and nor actually provable in a matter of fact kind of way" What forces of nature are in need of "faith" ? If they werent detectable they would not be forces of nature. The four fundamental forces of nature are Gravity · The weak force · Electromagnetic force · The strong nuclear force they all are understood and utalized....so what forces are you talking about?
" But I did see what I thought at the time was somehow evidence for a chaotic design based on what was taught to me in school but once I ventured out and did searching beyond that -" Are you sure you payed attention?
"I think there is actually more evidence for intelligent design (a God, Creator)." Then you surly can present some of it?
Present some for this ill-defined intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, which is not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. I can't wait.
" In essence your question is biased in a way that assumes the other side does not use evidence available in order to draw their conclusions. " If you mean IDiots by " the other side" then you are right. They don't. They use the Bible. ID is creatinism in a wig. THey lie, misrepresent science and make fallacious claims..but evidence? Nope.
"Devine fingerprint IS a rational thought.. " No, it is not. GIven that no proposed God ever, has a demnstrable correaltion with reality. It's as rational as a goblen- or pixie fingerprint.
@@derhafi macro evolution is actually not a demonstrable process at all. It requires faith to believe in that based on other observable factors in nature. Same goes for believing in God. Point blank period.
Also I'm talking about using God as a possible answer for creation. I did not bring religion into the convo but you did and you paint religion in a bad light so clearly you have some unresolved issues with religious people perhaps. That's an emotional convo not a rational one.
Every point of mine that in your head you broke apart... you actually missed the point entirely.
And your last point about the pixie fingerprint. Assuming Pixies were real. Pixies would exist within the same time and space we do. And if a Pixie was a being that existed outside of time and created the universe it would still be, by all purposes the God everyone is referring to. Names don't matter. The point is a creator.
Thanks, as a pastor and a great respect, and educationin science, this the stuff the ministers to me.
Hi Joe, I am Robinson from Hyderabad, India. I love watching your videos. I recently read the book of Stephen Meyer ' The return of the God hypothesis '. It was fascinating t o say the least. I am now seriously considering explaining this the Christian youth here. I need more inputs from you. Can we coordinate in some way? Expecting your kind reply. Thank you 🙏
Dang, this is straight FIRE!! Thanks for the upload brother- God bless you man!
I would urge people to go into the *Way Back* machine and listen to Joe's earliest podcasts... about 12+ years ago .
Many may be quite disturbed by his views and "interviews".
He was one of the earliest podcasters and his journey from
Then-To-Now would make for an interesting podcast of it's own .
I enjoy listening to most of his podcasts, especially when he's interviewing politicians, authors, scientists, etc .
(Well, actually, I listen to everything except when the topic/guests are
are conversations about wrestling, etc .)
He listens so intently and is willing to learn and not be *right* about everything.
A good listen..Subbed.
I think it’s crazy how we can go 1000s of years trying to disprove God and still no one can do it.
Yeah, but let me just jump in and say it before an atheist does, in those same thousands of years, God has never been proven either. But this is exactly as he intended it. The decision for or against God is to be determined in the heart, the will of each person, not the mind or intellect. By remaining unheard, unseen, unproven to the general masses, he has allowed it to be crystal-clear who wants him and who doesn't. Juxtapose that to when Jesus essentially proved himself as God, and thousands followed him. Even then he had to be taken prisoner and go to the cross in order to separate who truly belonged to him, and who just followed for the miracles and favors he could do for them, according to God's righteousness.
He has, it just that your not in agreeance with the methodology used.
No one has disproved Bigfoot or Unicorns, either. I don't think you understand the burden of proof
@@johnboehmer6683love this response.
There was an intelligence that created the Christian god. Prove that that intelligence does not exist, and did not create the Christian god. .
We as man cannot create something from nothing we can only take form what already exists and make new things for example a chair is made by taking the wood from a tree reshaping it and turning into a chair . God is the only one who can make something from nothing.
Edit: Well this blew up. When I wrote this it was not my intention to start a war on does god exist or not. I was just giving my fellow Christians some encouragement. Some people need to grow up and stop thinking they can tell people what to believe in.
Imagine trying to compare the greatest mystery of all time. How the universe was formed and making a chair. This is a fallacy comparison. No one knows how the universe came to be but we all understand how a chair gets produced.
@@coolguy1127he is saying that there is a law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed and is using a chair as an example where something isn’t created but shaped from material whereas the universe via created in someway that we can’t do
Wait for it! Wait for it! The atheists are just about to ask their fundamentally foolish question, i.e., "who created God?"
@@EduardoHernandez-nu6ye astrophysics doesn’t say the Big Bang created anything. It simply says matter always was. The Big Bang pushed it all out. The current rule of physics applies now we think-quantum physics contradicts basically everything we thought we knew about physics, but not to something we don’t understand-where the universe came from. We all know where a chair comes from we have no clue how the universe came to be.
Just like time is infinite, matter itself may have always been infinite.
@@wabejoo it’s a logical premise of nothing can be created from nothing. The answer of well he’s God, is my response well matter just always was
I actually love it when you stop in the middle and give your opinion or further explain
I need that my bro. Thank you and God bless.
Love this conversation!
If we can't trust our senses for one thing and start having exceptions for God, we are still stuck with the same problem. Humans have been worshipping false Gods for centuries, so much so, that it had to be written in a bible not to worship False Gods.
It would be much easier for everyone if the real God addressed this. Thank you.
Thank you for this
I’m pleased that Joe Rogan is interacting with this expert. He may look further into these things and benefit!
love it. the more we know the more we realize how ignorant and small we are. sounds like life to me
Joe’s so respectful to sit there and listen and not cut him off at all
When a fool is rambling, you don’t interrupt them. Meyer hangs himself with his assertions.
@@professorshadow470 How can you not see the massive irony in your own statement? Do you realize the thousands of assertions that have to be made in order for you to deny an intelligent creator and believe that it all just happened somehow?
I'll give one major example for you to ponder that atheists often claim. "There is no god". That assertion alone is enough to not take the advocates of evolution seriously! Unless you are all knowing, there is no way to logically make that fantastical claim.
@@mattdillon4398I know the answer wasn't for me, but I like your premises and I'd love to chat a bit. I'm "pro evolution" I guess that's the best way to describe it idk(?) But I like your argument about the fantastical claim. If I understood correctly you're saying that only by being "all knowing" you can make an assertion such as "god isn't real", if that's true you will need the same amount of knowledge to make the assertion "god is real" since it's an equally fantastical claim, or at least that's the logic behind it. So why are all theist making this fantastical claim?
@@mattdillon4398 Please list the thousands of assertions that have to be made.
I see ZERO evidence that there is a God. Do you have any?
Until you can demonstrate that a God exists, we are justified in saying there isn’t one. Just like we can say there is no Bigfoot or Mothman.
What evidence can you present that would suggest that a God exists?
@@lucavannini9762 Excellent job pointing out just how stupid his argument is. Bravo.
Back in the days when i study biology i learned about Greg venter......read on his work.....
interesting concerning creating life in lab
Great 'show' brother.
Respect for Joe.
Dr Stephen Meyer is the most outstanding philosopher of science alive today. His colleague, Professor James Tour is also an incredible authority on synthetic chemistry and associated problems with evolutionary theory. Both are truly top-notch thinkers.
James Tour is nt a biologist so he can not speak about Evolution
@@globalcoupledances
*"James Tour is nt a biologist so he can not speak about Evolution"*
Dont do that.
You have a pretty low bar here. If you want to read quality philosophy of science, I'd recommend looking at Dan Dennett and Alex Rosenberg
@@01MTodd Both are completely out of date. You've sadly committed yourself to trite drivel.
@@Xingqiwu387 They're out-of-date drivel, while you're singing the praises of poorly repackaged creationism?! Next you're going to tell me the Michael Behe is a cutting-edge thinker.
I still can’t get over how gorgeous the background of your videos are. Beautiful set up dude
I agree with you all Joe is the best out there. He’s real he gets to the bottom of things I can go on and on. He’s been good at what he does for a long time many years and he was and is very good . I believe what we see in you is you do everything with all of your heart. Seems like always and that’s what makes you so great to me anyway I bet millions of people would agree with me though.
But yes I agree JR is a great interviewer. Very opened minded and respectful. And realise the interview is about the interviewee and not himself, great.
Wonderful clip and commentary! I loved it! I'm going to be teaching science at a christian school and this type of analysis is going to come in very handy. Thank you!
You go girl indoctrinate those kids with unproven facts 🙏
@@RaxIsLost HAHA, either way these people don’t realize that god has nothing to do with their religion
The claim that macro evolution hasn’t been proven is solely based on ignorance and lack of knowledge.
The claim that we can’t observe macro evolution in nature is ridiculous, and would only be claimed by someone who has very few good arguments. We can’t sit down and measure macro evolution as scientists because we only live 100 years, and macro evolution takes far longer than 500.000 years.
We can however, primarily in fossils, see proof of macro evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution, “The origin of species by means of natural selection” is thoroughly proven, and only questioned by people with severe lack of knowledge in the topic.
For those who claims that the earth is less than 6000 years, if that was true the fossils would include almost all animals living today.
You have three choices as a teacher in a Christian school.
Stay ignorant and trust the Bible.
Read up and tell the truth about evolution
Read up about evolution and lie to the kids.
Genesis chapter 1 and 2/Luke3 (and basically everything before the exodus/exit from Egypt) is bullcrap, and proven false. I used to believe, I miss my god
The claim that macro evolution hasn’t been proven is solely based on ignorance and lack of knowledge.
The claim that we can’t observe macro evolution in nature is ridiculous, and would only be claimed by someone who has very few good arguments. We can’t sit down and measure macro evolution as scientists because we only live 100 years, and macro evolution takes far longer than 500.000 years.
We can however, primarily in fossils, see proof of macro evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution, “The origin of species by means of natural selection” is thoroughly proven, and only questioned by people with severe lack of knowledge in the topic.
For those who claims that the earth is less than 6000 years, if that was true the fossils would include almost all animals living today.
You have three choices as a teacher in a Christian school.
Stay ignorant and trust the Bible.
Read up and tell the truth about evolution
Read up about evolution and lie to the kids.
Genesis chapter 1 and 2/Luke3 (and basically everything before the exodus/exit from Egypt) is bullcrap, and proven false. I used to believe, I miss my god
Fantastic video clip. I literally have gone ahead and bought two books from Amazon to begin my journey on understanding the science properly to be able to effectively and confidently explain why macro evolution is just impossible. Here are the two books I purchased:
Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Darwin Devolves
I love Joe's humility. We really cannot learn without it. I would only interject on the point of micro evolution: I believe what we are seeing here is adaptation. We see adaptation via natural selection, and by selective breeding. For all the dog breeds we have, they are still canis lupus familiaris. Darwin recognized adaptation.
Love your channel brother!
I love that he mentioned the chemical or periodic table side of the equation... we often talk about life in ev but not chemicals and elements which also have an insane amount of order and complexity.
Thank you Joe for being open minded.
Sadly the 'supposed scientist' was talking utter bollocks
I remember reading Richard Dawkins book the God Delusion and being astounded by the his seemingly impossible theories about the evolution of life as we know it. I was more convinced than ever in intelligent design.. I would like to see Jo Rogan's response to his response
I read the book as well. After Dawkins was refuted on what he wrote in the book, he claimed the book was a "joke".
@@jeremyjames1659the content of the book has not been refuted, and Dawkins has not walked his claims back - he certainly never characterised them as a “joke”
@@jeremyjames1659 liar for jebus
Good point about the complexity of developing new life, but the problem is much greater than that. Dr. James Tour reminds us that when considering two single celled organisms, one that is currently alive and the other that is no longer alive, scientists have no idea from a material standpoint what the living cell possesses and that the non-living cell no longer possesses. In other words, we have no idea what it is that allows a cell to be alive.
The problem with the digital analogy is that changing one bit could completely crash a program compared to DNA where changing one nucleotide might not completely disable the protein function.
A better comparison would be a billion identical programs running side by side filled with functions and objects, that if a function or object gets a bit "mutation" in one of them, it doesn't necessarily crash the whole program.
Also, a one bit mutation in a program is not a proper comparison to a mutation in a protein. A one bit mutation in a program would very likely never be enough to create a functional line of programming. However, a one nucleotide change in protein quite possibly could create a new functional structure.
A better comparison would be a one operator mutation, or a one function call mutation, or a one piece of data mutation, or the deletion or addition of a new line code.
It was great that Joe not only invited Stephen Meyer to his interview but was extremely professional in allowing him to speak and listen to the brilliant material Stephen presented.
Mr.Meyer is basically making gods of the gaps argument, that's why he stopped debating with athiests.
Why is that wrong? Is that worse than “time and chance” in the gaps like evolutionists propose? It’s basically believing in magic but denying the magician.
@@whatistruth2810 God of the gaps is a logical fallacy. It's basically saying, I don't know how this works therefore god did it.
@@whatistruth2810
There's no magic in evolution, it is well supported in many branches in science, from genetics to paleontology and etc.
@@reg-pi1srYou are making a strawman fallacy. Stephen Meyer at no times said "we don't know, so God did it."
He is making an inference to the best explanation. Theory of multiple competing hypothesis and using "known" events now to help explain past events.
If you dropped your dogma for a second you would understand.
Anyone have a link to the full episode?
I agree with much of the arguments, but I think the digital code argument doesn't consider the selection of reproduction passing successful mutations along as well as the vast stretches of time. A digital code doesn't reproduce after a tiny change and allow selection to take place and then reproduction. Combine this with vast stretches of time which our digital age of code hasn't had the chance to go through. I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong and if there are tests that simulate these considerations - I'd love to read about them.
Analogy:
"There's no way to know how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere thousands of years ago."
Just because you don't see how that is done doesn't mean science hasn't figured out a way to do it.
Just because you haven't figured out how doesn't mean there isn't ice from thousands of years ago in Antarctica that we can retrieve and melt in a vacuum to obtain air from bubbles in that ice that we can then analyze for carbon dioxide concentration. There is and we've done it.
We understand that organelles (mitochondria most evidently) evolved from what were once independent organisms. Just because you don't see how that happened doesn't mean science hasn't figured out a way to show that it happened.
Genetic algorithms work. There's a huge body of evidence showing it accomplishes things. As one example, see the sources on the "Evolutionary art" wikipedia page.
@billgates1935 so what are you arguing? That mutations do happen and over long enough time periods they can lead to new species? Because I am also arguing for that...
Why a stream of analogies doesn't work well- because I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to get across...
great video brother. you’re much more informative than many other channels and i enjoy your in-depth explanations
I appreciate that!!
Unfortunately this wouldn't convince anyone on a logical level, reason being that the gap in knowledge being referred to (the fundamental assumptions of consciousness and sensory input) - we just don't really know where they came from. People want to say that if something "is" and it works then it was given to us, but there is no better case for that, than that we just don't know and we will find out eventually, like has happened many times.
Any intelligent person with a basic understanding knows these arguments are "god of the gaps" in type.
The rest do not want the truth, they want to be told they are right without evidence.
I saw another person saying that God intended for it to be this way, the last time he came down he sacrificed himself for our salvation, that salvation can be grasped through faith in Jesus, and him alone. The next time he comes down will be judgement day, and everyone will kneel. So if salvation used to be by acts, now it is by faith, does it not make sense to you that youre not meant to find him? He will see who actually wants to be with him, who believes in his word, who believes in his son, who believes with his heart, not his mind. He said, those who don't believe have already been judged. If i were you i would take a leap of faith. It will do nothing but good. Or are you blinded by pride, is it too childish and outlandish for you to believe in the Truth, and in Good. 150 thousand people die every day.
Yep it doesn't prove anything. And the truly absurd leap is in even if you believe there is some intelligence behind the existence of the universe, how do you then get believing it is benevolent and cares about human beings?
@@antonego9581 I try not to use words like "absurd" or make implications, I understand the world a certain way and I'm commenting on it from my perspective. I'm not here to impugn people who see it differently.
I’ve been waiting for Joe to interview Stephen Meyer for years.
I still can’t find the whole interview on CZcams. All I’ve found is clips.
This was a good one.