im not sure what is happening with all u atheists being alll crapped up about super donster im not sure whats going on someone fill me in btw i am a christian:attack me
As an atheist, i see what you are trying to say, but it's incredibly flawed. Almost as bad as the creationist rebuttals. It's cool for like the first 30 seconds afterwards, but beyond that, it's childish gibberish that can be denied quite easily. Kind of like water is the trinity analogy for Christians. Cool to hear, but full of shit. I know I will get flamed for this, but guys, we can do better.
eequalsfb you have presented some of the best logical arguments that I have ever heard on youtube and this is no exception. I shared a link to your naturalistic fallacy video and it really blew some minds back home. Thanks and please lets see more videos!
@rkyeun ths vid is about evolution.It's proposing tht the beach was naturally made,so were humans,and tht the watch was in fact designed,but by humans.The beach was designed by random events-big bang; evolution.I already stated the flaws in this vid's assumptions.I believe in God because of the infallible proofs=prophecy.Bible=foretold events at a clip of 100% accuracy;no othr book can claim this. The only way for tht to be possible is if an intelligence outside our space/time continuum wrote it
@lewisner the reason you actually think tht ppl will only believe in God because of their parents is because you've been brainwashed by the secular system tht was designed just for you to become the product tht they wanted you to become, frm since the day you were born; separated frm God.Your mind has been blinded by guess who?. For you to write to a complete stranger w/the assumption you just did,shws your completely brainwashed. I was an Atheist w/no believing family members/frnds.God is real
@SuperDonster Yeah right! From what age to what age were you an atheist? And you "just happen" to believe in the majority religion in your country, instead of turning out a Hindu, Sikh, Muslim etc? How convenient 8-)
I don't knw how any educated person could read about and study what evolution actually says and still come out actually believing in it.It's a secular agenda driven theory that has no merit to it what so ever.I'm actually ashamed tht I believed it. I was indoctrinated into ths totally baseless idea.But, I'm awake now ;-)
@shade421 I lie? You knw tht evolution is a seriously fake theory. Science shows it is Busted. You can say tht Behe got his "butt handed" to him, but wht does wht you say mean? I'm talking about the evidence. Why didn't you mention any of the other books I mentioned? Let's take God out of this. Show me some evidence of evolution. Not speculation; evidence.
If you actually think that there is no evidence of evolution. Then you are dumber than expected. Maybe if you went to a natural history museum you would see some. But I guess you want your evidence spoon fed to you...
As far as the other books are concerned I would not want to waste my time on such non scientific drivel. But if they have evidence to support what they say then by all means put it in for peer review.....
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@shade421 "If you actually think that there is no evidence of evolution." I'm not saying I 'think' there is no evidence. I'm saying I KNOW there is NO EVIDENCE. I used to believe that garbage, until my eyes were opened. You've been indoctrinated. You are a product. But, the good news is if you open up you head and start thinking for yourself, you will see how stupid and purposefully deceptive it [evolution] is. Have a grt day ;-)
@rkyeun aslo, you're ASSUMING tht wht ever made the watch ONLY makes things as complex as the watch. You ASSUME tht wht makes the watch can't make things less complex or more complex. So, wht designed the beach cn't be wht designed the watch?False.Evidence deff shws tht evolution is a farce.I used to believe in it too, but once a little research is done into the matter it becomes plainly evident it has no scientific fact or sufficient evidence. But, it's a free world so believe wht you'd like.
@rkyeun you can say it's false,but your explntion for why you believe tht just boils dwn to your rejection of wht I presented as being possible.I simply presented an answer tht demonstrates the flaw in this video's premise.If there is an omniscient and omnipotent God,and I believe there is, then your premise/ conclusion is rubbish. Actually, it's utterly destroyed. If you don't believe in God, tht is totally your decision. I believe tht the explntion to ths video is the one I presented.Tht's all
@rkyeun You missed my ENTIRE point.You're ASSUMING tht because it takes more brain power for a HUMAN BEING to design and create a watch,thn the same MUST be the true for an almighty God.Tht's flawed thinking.I'll just say it clearly so you can undrstnd: I present to you tht it does NOT take God anymore thought,effort,or time to create a watch as opposed to a beach;or anything else for tht matter.If you can't grasp tht concept, thn tht explains why you don't recognize God; the creator. Think ;-P
You're assuming tht the watch cldn't of been designed by the same process.
You're assuming tht wht ever designed the watch considered it "harder" to design. Your're assuming it took more "brain power",time,and/or effort to make the watch vs beach. If wht ever designed the watch uses the same amount of time and effort to design anything and everything,than your conclusion is wrng. So, everything can be designed with the same effort by wht designs all things.Complexity isn't an issue for God ;-)
I managed to see this as an argument for AND against intelligent design. You pointed out that it's to say that the beach is not designed, but it also infers that a complex anomaly in a natural world has a designer. I immediately thought that as an analogy to the origin of life.
this video still sits on my channel as the my recently favorited video. i really love the simplicity of the argument. it very succinctly sums up the flaw in the designer argument.
This video is simple, but incorrect... (I am leaving aside my oft used term "stupid" referring to this video; I also apologized, in pvt email, to the author/poster of this video for my so frequently having used this term when referring to this video; yet, it is incorrect... - the video, I mean).
Ah, but who created the creator? The problem with saying that everything complex has an intelligent designer is that ultimately you get to a sticky point. I have never met a christian who acknowledged that their God must have a creator, but when I tell them "then that means something complex can come into existance without a creator" then go right back to denying it and contradicting what they said prior.
Ok, this is my last comment. Since the guy who posted the video (eequalsfb) has threatened to block me (in private messages...), and since he was, unfortunately, very offensive in his pvt messages (using youtube engine), I have decided that I will post a video in reply to this one.
"If you put this stupid atheist before the Krebs Cycle, he will conclude it WAS designed."
Wrong. Strawman. No atheist would deny undesigned spontaneous complex organization in the universe (e.g. snowflakes, crystals, Saturn's hexagon, self-organized criticality, etc.- just wiki "self-organization"). The video poster's point was that ***PALEY*** (as you put it) "inferred it from the fact that watches ARE designed and he knows that beforehand."
@gatogreensleeves The question is not if spontaneous complex organization in the universe can come about. The question is how to identify it (and to rule out design). In the video, the atheist (which I suspect is a stupid theist in disguise...) stumbles upon a watch and seeminly does not know what it is; never saw it before. I repeat: put a Krebs' Cycle before him and he will Praise to the Lord Almighty. Unfortunately, many many atheists do exactly this...
@siqueirabarros I honestly don't see the video that way. I believe it's merely sarcasm of a poor argument. It really seems to me that he meant to be critical of Paley for conflating apples w/ oranges (i.e. known design vs unknowable design). Most atheists concede that it's just about impossible to infer cosmological design in the context of a self-organizing cosmos (see natural selection). The Krebs cycle is no different than other spontaneous self-organization, just more complex than some.
@siqueirabarros i know the kreb cycle (citric acid cycle) very well. look at it again and you will see that it is a simple system of enzymes. yet this simple system leads to metabolism and movement of of cells. in essence the citric acid cycle IS what we mean by being "alive". and look at what simple bio-chemical processes lead too, they lead to complexity. this complexity requires additional energy to be added to the system, thus not violating the law of entropy.
I have a feeling you did not understand my point... Anyway, to my knowledge, all you said is correct (and that is precisely why I feel you did not get my point).
Siqueirabarros, clearly the video poster was merely showing Paley inferred design UNJUSTLY by comparing forms. So Paley was also "stupid" by inferring design by comparison, right? I get the impression you're suggesting an agnostic position on inferring design, right? This video is a RESPONSE to a POSITIVE teleological argument first proposed by THEISTS, not atheists. The poster would probably AGREE with you and you didn't get the sarcasm. If anyone got a sunburn it's you for not seeing that.
@gatogreensleeves Yes, we can say stupid - of some atheists sometimes, and of Paley too - , obviously as long as we keep trying to improve our discussion and our understanding of the issue. Yet, I do not agree with you. What the video is saying is that the design argument CAN be used, as long as you use it correctly. Using it correctly, you WILL identify the watch IS designed; and you WILL identify the beach IS NOT. But that is the flaw. And... the sun (risking sunburns) shines upon us all...
@gatogreensleeves "So Paley was also 'stupid' by inferring design by comparison, right?" The most extreme stupidity in Paley' logic was the way he simply DID NOT use his own logic. If the universe is designed by a God (because the universe is so complex, so it goes), then God himself must have been designed by a more powerful God. And so on, ad infinitum. That is the mark of religious thinking: we stick to the rules only as long as it is convenient. The same for many atheists...Sadly.
[Continuing]: that is, it is very difficult to infer DESIGN from form. And it is almost always impossible to infer LACK OF DESIGN from form. Our stupid atheist did not infer the watch was designed by analyzing its form. Instead, he inferred it from the fact that watches ARE designed and he knows that beforehand. That is why I claim that this video is stupid and stupidity-inducing.
Ok, this is the problem: "Upon examination it becomes even more apparent that this object's intricate inner wokings simply could not have come about by the natural processes that formed the rest of the beach. Which is how we know the object was designed. And by logical extension, the beach was not."
If you put this stupid atheist before the Krebs Cycle, he will conclude it WAS designed... If you put him before an artificial beach, he will conclude it was NOT designed.
When you compare a mechanical tool with organic organism, that's when you know the yahoo who made this video needs a few centuries of cognitive development to hone his polemic skills.
@ninuxy this video is a response to the 'watchmaker' argument put out my theists. if you don't understand that argument you won't understand this response.
I don't understand what you are trying to prove. It's a common piece of manmade tech on a populated beach. The question of 'where did this come from' is not much of a mystery...
@juliengarneau the argument is that just as we observe the intricate workings of a watch to be made by a watch maker made so should we see the intricate workings of living organisms (and, by the theists logical extension, everything else in the universe including the earth) as evidence of a divine creator. the problem with this argument, as this video points out, is that you can't make the distinction between a natural object and a designed one if you think the natural object was also designed.
@Quouar of course it does. he's saying the reason we know watches are different from natural objects is exactly the reason why it's ridiculous to then say those natural processes must also be a product of design. it's like saying you found a watch on a beach, claimed it was different than the beach itself and thus designed, and then claiming the beach was actually made of billions of tiny watches.
@Quouar And yet the video succinctly manages to demonstrate the inherent absurdity and weakness of one of the favorite, classic arguments from creationists.
You are dealing in duality. If I point up and say "That is up" I would be correct. If I point down and say "That is down" I would be correct. If I stood on a chair, what was previously up would become down. Up and down are percepts/concepts which are entirely interrelated and dependent on each other for existence, and they revolve around the one arbitrarily identifying them. Similarly, "Design" and "Not-Designed" or "Intelligent" and "Not-Intelligent" are of the same dualistic nature.
@Rybot9000 The "intelligence" which we 'possess' is a product of the natural order/intelligence. Unless you believe that you have free-will, everything you think, say, do and what you call "my intelligence" or even "human intelligence" is nothing more than an extension of the primal intelligence which are you saying is not intelligent. However, like "Up and Down" the judgment revolves around you, whereby you imagine yourself to be in possession of a unique intelligence.
@Rybot9000 The very act of perceiving demands a dualistic contrast of this sort. While the space represented by "Up and Down" is continuous, the act of perceiving and identifying reduces it to finite, yet interrelated concepts/percepts. What is alluded to by most theistic arguments is the undifferentiated reality outside of the arbitrary division of self-consciousness. To be perfectly skeptical one must question even their own existence. Scientifically speaking; there is no self in the brain.
@Rybot9000 Ryle (1987) put the argument that there can be no inner act of mind that has a determining/causative effect on the world or that acts from intelligence. And this is commonly called the "Homunculus Argument" which is used to identify where theories of mind fail or are incomplete. By all observational accounts there is no self-agency in the brain apart from the laws of chemistry which govern it. Whether or not this is realized by the majority of theists is irrelevant to the actuality.
@Rybot9000 duality is an illusion created by the mind. you can point or down, but you most also realize that you are not forced to point just up or down, you are also given options to point north and south, left and right. when you get to the north pole you can no longer point north. the word "designed" is a human expression implying intent. we know a watch is designed because we know humans create watches. but a small island used to build a house on is both designed and not designed.
@greycloud24 Duality is all-pervasive, it encompasses much more than directions. Active/Passive is duality. Intentional/Unintentional is duality. So when you say "designed implies intent", sure it does, but only from a dualistic reference point, which is fallacious. There is no such thing as "intent" over and above chance occurances. Saying a human being intends to do something is like saying Haley's Commet intends to pass the earth on occasion. There is no inner homunculus to intend anything.
@greycloud24 The naive perspective which is with us at about 2 years of age is one borne out of self-consciousness. As soon as we become self-conscious we begin modelling the world according as one separate individual interacting with individual objects within a global environment. But the reality is that we are not individuals separated from our environments or the "individuals" with which we interact. We are intrinsicly bound to the universe, the appearance of separation is delusional.
@greycloud24 The self of which we are aware is an illusion and it's children are illusory. This is otherwise known as the "Father of Lies", "The Evil One", "The Sinful Nature", "Lucifer (the light-bringer)" and "Satan". This self-aggrandizement inherent in being self-conscious causes an apparent schism between what humans do and what the universe at-large does. When it is humans doing it, our self-conscious reflection causes us to elevate it to supernatural heights, claiming we are special.
@greycloud24 For example; when we tend towards some result, we call it "in-tending", but only because we are consciously aware of our tendency as being our own. We pretend it is a "consicously willed" act, but in-fact it is just a tendency. The self-conscious appearance of "intention" is the illusion. But let me take this a step further, that the universe at large does not "intend" but merely "tends" toward some goal is just as delusional, the opposite reaction to conceiving ourselves as special
@greycloud24 The general effect of self-consciousness is to raise everything humans to do the level of a consciously willed act, and to lower everything not done by humans to a passive stupidity. This is the dualistic perception generated by a self-conscious mind, it places undue speciality on human beings, focusing on self-consciousness as the catalyst that shot us into our superior space, but in reality, self-consciousness has also made us delusional about ourselves as compared to the universe
@greycloud24 All duality is manifest around self-consciousness. Up and Down are relative to the conscious self. All of these distinctions are made relative to self-consciousness, there is no way around it. If one follows it to it's logical epicenter, the duality between self and other provides the pivotal starting point of all duality. "Other" becomes Up, Down, East, Sideways, Unintentional, Stupid, while the self acts as the arbitrary divider. Our entire experience consists of such delusions.
@greycloud24 Thus is explained the parable of creation. Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (duality), which made them self-concious. “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
So we see here that eating from the tree of self-knowledge caused Adam and Eve to be fearful and embarassed. At this moment Adam knew he was naked.
@Rybot9000 not all things are good or evil, this is another illusion of duality. . a rock that just exists is neither good nor evil. a combat medic might save lives but is still participating in a war.
"Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe gets that. "- hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.
Well, I don't agree with number 1. In the deist version of events, God made a kind of fine-tuned machine which randomly spat out the universe in the Big Bang. The event was designed, but the processes resulting from it are entirely natural.
So you could "design" the universe, but the stuff that's in it would not be designed.
"Well, I don't agree with number 1. In the deist version of events, God made a kind of fine-tuned machine which randomly spat out the universe in the Big Bang. The event was designed, but the processes resulting from it are entirely natural."
Then the universe would not be designed and the 1 stands.
@jazzx251 "God made a kind of fine-tuned machine which randomly spat out the universe in the Big Bang"
Can you cite your peer reviewed reference for this please?
Have a long look at history. 500 years ago everyone thought that God was responsible for everything we see, lightning, rain, earthquakes, mental illness, volcanoes, etc. We now know how those work and 1 by 1 we find that everything happens naturally. Theists have a tendency to attribute what we don't know to God but they're always wrong
I too think the deist argument is weak through lack of evidence (a MASSIVE lack).
I was merely trying to show BlizBob that it might be a remote possibility that you could have a deity that started things off and then sat back watching. Designing the mechanism by which the universe is created and then doing fuck all.I suppose I mean designing nature - and then the processes take over.
Much like a computer programmer designing a simulation, pressing return & watching what happens.
@jazzx251 " you could have a deity that started things off and then sat back watching"
I agree. That's a distinct possibility. The questions of the very beginning are always tricky. I wasn't down on you just to be clear.
If I was going to put a stake in the sand I'd say that experience has shown us that natural explanations are always right (so far). So I wouldn't suddenly make a U-turn on the beginning either. And anyway, if God made the Big Bang then we still need to work out who made God.
@jazzx251 My other thought on all of this is that if God made the Big bang and then sat back eating popcorn to see what would happen but didn't interfere then what's the point of worshiping him and praying to him. It won't make any difference anyway.
SO ENJOY THE SHOW GOD AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH! (obscure Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference). 8^)
Theism - which believes in a God who does listen to prayers and interferes and passes judgement on your sex life, is dead in the water. It's such an obvious manifestation of the human psyche, barely evolved from its animalistic roots.
The watered down Deist version, as you say, makes going to any Church/Mosque a meaningless exercise.
And given the lack of any positive evidence, they might as well be atheist/technical agnostic.
@jazzx251 So just because the details of the Big Bang haven't all been worked out, saying that "God dunnit" puts you on thin ice because that's never been the case throughout history.
And saying "God made a kind of fine-tuned machine which RANDOMLY spat out the universe" doesn't sound very divine.
The other problem I have is that if everyone thought God did it then we wouldn't have Scientists looking for a natural explanation and that would keep us in the dark ages. Religion stifles progress.
@jazzx251 by definition, whatever (whoever) created the universe must be even more complex..............who created the designer?? truth is the universe never needed one, but humans in our infancy did, we've outgrowen our infancy now.....time to stop thumb sucking
I am an atheist. But I also try to see the other side of the argument.
I presented a common Deist argument for how some intelligence might have started the universe off and then buggered off to do its dishes or watch celestial TV. Effectively designing the universe and the processes that govern it, but not at all guiding those processes.
Maybe you should have read my first post before being a complete dickhead.
god is everywhere and occupies all times, he knows the past present and future - this is established fact according to religious types.
that being the case, and as he is my creator, he would know prior to my creation, that i would grow up to be an atheist and thus be condemned to an eternity of hell
- now why would god expend that energy on making me in the first place and is he really that vindictive to condemn me to hell? not a nice god if true
@SickeninglyILL not a very good challange though, because despite the free will element he would still create me knowing that i wouldnt believe so it doesnt stand up, giving me free will is irrelevent because god would already know that my free will would take me elsewhere - thats the result of occupying all points in time, nice try but logically it fails.
@utrapzab that's not me trying, I'm not a theist but that's what they say "God gave us free will," and really if he did (to quote Carlin) then we had no choice in the matter
@SickeninglyIL FAIR ENOUGH BUT they HAVENT REALLY GOT A CLUE ABOUT TEMPORAL ANOMOLIES BECAUSE DESPITE GIVING ME FREE WILL GOD ALREADY KNOWS IM A DISBELIEVER AND AS HE CREATES ME HE CONDEMNS ME TO HELL, THAT REALLY IS THE NUTS OF IT - PS Ill learn to use the caps lock one day
It never ceases to amaze me, that in the "watchmaker argument", they always use ONLY manmade items as proof. It falls apart instantly if you look at a tree, a fish, or a natural item of the natural world. Their argument starts with finding a watch in the grass or something. Change that to "found a bird" and use the same argument. You can't.
@pburto Just as point of interest, couldn't God have given every being the ability to evolve? That seems, to me, a very simple idea, but complex in its nature (ie, intelligent design). It would also explain the whales and dolphins, because the way they evolved may account for the fact that they don't have gills.
@MrCatalystic The fossil record explains how whales and dolphins came about. They evolved from land animals (not unlike wolves) that returned to an aquatic life due to some climate change. That's why the swim undulating up and down... like a dog running,.. as apposed to side to side like a fish or lizard. It's their mammalian spine.
@jpl10380 You missed the point of what I said. Just read the first two sentences, that's my claim. Because you, in effect, proved the second part of my statement
@MrCatalystic No I didn't. You don't understand what skepticism is. It's not a philosophy, it's merely a way of approaching epistemology. It's an analytical system that all humans share (some are just poor analysts).
Without skepticism no knowledge can develop, ergo all knowledge we do have is a result of some one, some where, being skeptical; even children form hypothesis and then apply a method of testing when learning about their environment. Skepticism is how human brains arrive at facts.
... Knowledge is classically defined as "justified true belief." Justification can only come when skepticism is applied. Without skepticism there is only belief, not knowledge. That all knowledge is the product of skepticism. This is inescapable just as logic and reason are inescapable because you cannot reason your way out of them. You can propose other forms of knowledge that do know rely on justification, but I would reject such structures as actual "knowledge." It isn't justified.
@Jacnas No. Instead, I am a satisfied creator. I do not wait for the miracles. I make them myself (like late C. Sagan said of the ancient pre-socratic Greeks from Ionia). This video we are talking about is highly simplistic, and inducer of stupidity. Anyone who cannot see this is either stupid himself (herself) or, as an alternative, is looking at the video with the stupid facets of his/her Self.
@siqueirabarros No one who watches this short video expects it to exhaust the debate regarding the watchmaker argument. It merely sets forth one small but interesting tidbit of the argument. I pointed this out in my first comment but apparently it needs to be spelled out more clearly for you: just because the video is not 2 hours long and doesn't tackle every argument, counter-argument, counter-counter-argument, etc. doesn't mean it's stupid. Got it?
@Jacnas "It merely sets forth one small but interesting tidbit of the argument. I pointed this out in my first comment". No you did not. You just said it was a good video. How can a highly simplistic and stupidity-inducing video be any good? The way it is presented in the video, the argument is simply stupid. And you know: stupid is as stupid does...
@siqueirabarros BTW, don't insult the intelligence of your opponents; it makes you look that much more foolish in comparison when you lose. And everyone loses sooner or later. Debating lesson 101.
@Jacnas My opponents are usually very intelligent, so there is no way I could insult their intelligence. What I truly do sometimes is to point out the lack of intelligence in some people, or better, in some pieces of reasoning. Even "stupid people" (e.g. traditional avowed skeptics) aren't always stupid, and most of the times people get stupid by "leaving their rational capabities aside," and not by "not having these capabilities." So, just Get Smart ;-)
@siqueirabarros So, you have the nerve to call me stupid ("get smart") despite displaying your lack of reading comprehension when you say that my first comment only points out that the video is "good"? Hello? Is anybody there? Have you read the other two sentences? The watchmaker argument has been dealt with comprehensively and given a final death blow by Darwin. I acknowledge that in my first comment.
@Jacnas "The watchmaker argument has been dealt with comprehensively and given a final death blow by Darwin. I acknowledge that in my first comment." No you did not. You merely posted an over simplitic comment to an over simplistic video. And sorry about the get smart. I did not mean to say that you are stupid (for if you were, I wouldn't be wasting my time; I would just respect your stupidity and leave you be). Just remember I said get smart right after saying there are no stupid people...
@siqueirabarros What I'm praising about this video is it's fresh take on it. On something that looked like flogging a dead horse. BTW, it's illuminating to step back and analyze what you've managed to say to me so far:
1. the video is simplistic and stupid (no reason given, it just is)
2. skeptics are stupid (no reason given, they just are)
3. you have smart friends.
That's all you've conveyed in this conversation so far.
@Jacnas Let's see: 2- I never said skeptics are stupid. 3- I never said I have smart friends. Where did you get all this from? (maybe you believe you are a psychic...). And as to 1, I posted a comment saying I might make a video reply to heal the stupidity out of this sloppy video. So, what are you really complaining about?
@siqueirabarros Will you understand then if I, based on what I've heard from you in this exchange and assuming you're not a troll, will call you a monumental asshole and an idiot? Do you see where I'm coming from?
@Jacnas Yes, I would fully understand your calling me names. That is the typical response when we try to bring people closer to rationality and away from silly beliefs: name calling (in this case, the silly belief is: this video is good, fresh take on the subject). The good thing is that everybody can see who is truly making the offenses (you...), and who is indeed trying to debate the issues per se (me). Usually, people will only lose their temper *after* having lost the debate... :-)
@siqueirabarros Oh, skeptics arent' stupid; they tend to be stupid. A world of difference. When I listed the things you said to me so far and asked you "can you see where I'm coming from?" I was trying to point out 2 things:
1. We're not debating anything. You're not presenting arguments.
2. You were calling people stupid first. Therefore you lost the debate before it even begun, which it never did. You set this tone.
Well, Jac, MrCatalystic also kind of "complained" to me regarding my assertion. I replied to him: "Yes, most skeptics, even in this narrow sense that I put it, are intelligent. But their intelligence wanes as they go astray the way you portray." And I stressed that, by skeptics, I was referring to the woo woos from the organized skeptic movement (and lovers; can we count you in?...). You said good things about skeptics. I disagreed. Why the censorship?
Continuing, Jac. The video was not about skeptics, but about atheists. You decided to bring this suspicious subject (skeptics...) to the arena. Bizarre... Right after it, I limited very much and very well what I meant by stupid. So the score is this: I keep improving my aim and defining better my target. You, instead, keep falling over the edge... Your choice. As I said to MrCatalystic, skeptics engage in stupid behaviour. God knows why...
@siqueirabarros And therefore calling you stupid was fair game. And I genuinely believe now that you're stupid; even if you have a university education. I didn't start our exchange with this belief.
@siqueirabarros Just to be clear, I don't believe that merely calling your opponent stupid is a sign of losing the debate. But you seem to think so. So, by your own logic, you would have lost this debate if we were actually debating something.
@Jacnas As I said: I explained it fully to MrCatalystic at the very same time I was first answering your objections. "Stupid" may be an offense or, alternatively, a description. The way I am presenting it here, it is a description (due to my fully explaining afterwards). The way YOU are using it here, it does not seem to be a description (of me). Anyway,... Your choice.
I agree. Regarding the rest of your comments: look in the mirror. Oh, and I am a skeptic; a person with a perfectly healthy state of mind, regardless of whether he's a member of an organization or not. I'm not getting through to you. Can you please carefully reread your comments and see how many times you've contradicted yourself? I'm tired of pointing this out to you. Goodbye. I will most likely not respond anymore.
@Jacnas Sometimes we are contradictory. But I have not been shown one single instance of this from me here. Anyway, maybe part of the problem is that you, I think, do not read the comments addressed (by me) to other posters (even AFTER I indicated them to you...) about the very first comment that I made to you! I have fully indicated now the sloppiness of this video. I came to this page looking for info against fine tuning. Instead, I found your pseudoskepticism. Ok then. Rest In Peace...
@siqueirabarros I don't like skeptics, but they aren't stupid. In fact, many of them are fairly smart. In my opinion, they go out of their way to disprove everything
@MrCatalystic All true knowledge comes from conclusions arrived at via elimination. All true knowledge humans have ever developed has been the product of a skeptic somewhere. As a historian I can assure you there are no exceptions to this fact.
@jpl10380 True scientists (and people with truly scientific-inclined minds) tend never to use absolute words and expressions, like "Always," "Never," "All this," "All that," "There are NO exceptions to this," "There are NO exceptions to that," etc. Your thesis is cute (All true knowledge humans have ever developed has been the product of a skeptic somewhere). But untenable.
@siqueirabarros "True scientists (and people with truly scientific-inclined minds) tend never to use absolute words and expressions, like "Always," "Never," "All this," "All that," "There are NO exceptions to this," "There are NO exceptions to that," etc."
Not true, mathematicians deal in absolute axioms all the time, and science is relies on mathematics. My assertion that knowledge is the product of skeptical inquiry and therefor all knowledge is the product of skepticism, is axiomatic.
Note that I did not say that scientists NEVER use absolute words. I said that we scientists TEND never to use (i.e. avoid it as much as possible. Safeguard rule). I should have been more precise and said, instead, that scientists TEND NOT to use absolute words. So, in an important way, your criticism truly applies. Yet, there is an astronomical distance between math axioms and YOUR assertions regarding skepticism and knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is NOT the product of skepticism.
@MrCatalystic What I meant was the members (official, professional, and/or amateaur) of the Organized Skeptic Movement, and active endorsers. Skepticism per se is one of the three bases of science (the other two ones being, IMHO, researching and theorizing). Yes, most skeptics, even in this narrow sense that I put it, are intelligent. But their intelligence wanes as they go astray the way you portray.
@TheNephilimFree why is it that religious people always forget 'love thy neighbor'? As for spreading lies - no thanks. You should try learning some actual science. Read 'Your Inner Fish'. Until then you are making a public fool of yourself.
@eequalsfb Thank you for this! I had been thinking sort of the same thing myself recently (as I have been reading an apologetics book). The whole idea of this argument is to make one conclude that the whole world had to be designed, but the thing that bothers me is why, then, if I found a small rock, why would I not find that to be designed like the watch? Of course, I know the answer, but it has made their argument all the much more pathetic to me.
"Two beeches that love each other very much get certain urges to after take long walks on each other." - Richard Darwin from the book "On the origin of watches".
To trash this argument, the materials from which the watch was made, were a natural material. Man did not make the gold or other materials from which it was made. Next argument please.
@ktorch Heavier elements are made inside of stars, which explode and send the materials out into space when they go supernova. A natural process does this. The argument stands.
well, some beaches are manmade aswell :P perfect sand, and some layer of plastic or something fiber? that seperates the sand so you have a perfect beach :P but you will have to dig a meter or so to figure that out
So now that you have a watch, you might want to check that "intelligently designed" tide table that you stuffed in your pocket. But, don't be so silly as to think that the tides themselves, nor the clock in the heavens, i.e., the sun, moon, stars, etc., were intelligently designed.
What if an alien comes to earth a second time and says "Hey! That's my watch. I mislaid it during my last visit."?
naganokumas 2 months ago
@Griptease2 what?
Tonjuax 3 months ago
im not sure what is happening with all u atheists being alll crapped up about super donster im not sure whats going on someone fill me in btw i am a christian:attack me
Tonjuax 3 months ago
As an atheist, i see what you are trying to say, but it's incredibly flawed. Almost as bad as the creationist rebuttals. It's cool for like the first 30 seconds afterwards, but beyond that, it's childish gibberish that can be denied quite easily. Kind of like water is the trinity analogy for Christians. Cool to hear, but full of shit. I know I will get flamed for this, but guys, we can do better.
Heifsin85 4 months ago
eequalsfb you have presented some of the best logical arguments that I have ever heard on youtube and this is no exception. I shared a link to your naturalistic fallacy video and it really blew some minds back home. Thanks and please lets see more videos!
kenn5545 5 months ago
@rkyeun ths vid is about evolution.It's proposing tht the beach was naturally made,so were humans,and tht the watch was in fact designed,but by humans.The beach was designed by random events-big bang; evolution.I already stated the flaws in this vid's assumptions.I believe in God because of the infallible proofs=prophecy.Bible=foretold events at a clip of 100% accuracy;no othr book can claim this. The only way for tht to be possible is if an intelligence outside our space/time continuum wrote it
SuperDonster 6 months ago
@SuperDonster You believe in "god" because your parents brainwashed you.
lewisner 3 months ago
@lewisner the reason you actually think tht ppl will only believe in God because of their parents is because you've been brainwashed by the secular system tht was designed just for you to become the product tht they wanted you to become, frm since the day you were born; separated frm God.Your mind has been blinded by guess who?. For you to write to a complete stranger w/the assumption you just did,shws your completely brainwashed. I was an Atheist w/no believing family members/frnds.God is real
SuperDonster 3 months ago
@SuperDonster Yeah right! From what age to what age were you an atheist? And you "just happen" to believe in the majority religion in your country, instead of turning out a Hindu, Sikh, Muslim etc? How convenient 8-)
lewisner 3 months ago
@lewisner then in this case... your parents brainwashed you...See how I contradict you?
Tonjuax 3 months ago
@Tonjuax Contradiction is no substitute for a coherent argument.
lewisner 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lewisner "Contradiction is no substitute for a coherent argument."
That's a serious violation of the law of non-contradiction. WTF,
can you contradict your self more?
coherent = 1) logically or aesthetically ordered or integrated
2) consistent 3) having clarity or intelligibility : understandable
4) cohering; sticking together 5) having a natural or due
agreement of parts; harmonious
argument = A discussion in which disagreement is expressed;
a debate. b. A quarrel; a dispute.
protectorian 3 weeks ago
Evolution Shattered:
Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson
Evolution: A Theory In Crisis by Michael Denton
Darwin's Black Box by Michael J. Behe
Road to Reality by Roger Penrose
I don't knw how any educated person could read about and study what evolution actually says and still come out actually believing in it.It's a secular agenda driven theory that has no merit to it what so ever.I'm actually ashamed tht I believed it. I was indoctrinated into ths totally baseless idea.But, I'm awake now ;-)
SuperDonster 6 months ago
@SuperDonster
Didn't Behe get his butt handed to him in the dover trial???
Yes he did, and Why???
Because the evidence did not back him up!!!!
Gotta love it when you have to LIE to try to puch your beliefs!
shade421 6 months ago 3
@shade421 I lie? You knw tht evolution is a seriously fake theory. Science shows it is Busted. You can say tht Behe got his "butt handed" to him, but wht does wht you say mean? I'm talking about the evidence. Why didn't you mention any of the other books I mentioned? Let's take God out of this. Show me some evidence of evolution. Not speculation; evidence.
SuperDonster 6 months ago
@SuperDonster
If you actually think that there is no evidence of evolution. Then you are dumber than expected. Maybe if you went to a natural history museum you would see some. But I guess you want your evidence spoon fed to you...
As far as the other books are concerned I would not want to waste my time on such non scientific drivel. But if they have evidence to support what they say then by all means put it in for peer review.....
shade421 6 months ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@shade421 "If you actually think that there is no evidence of evolution." I'm not saying I 'think' there is no evidence. I'm saying I KNOW there is NO EVIDENCE. I used to believe that garbage, until my eyes were opened. You've been indoctrinated. You are a product. But, the good news is if you open up you head and start thinking for yourself, you will see how stupid and purposefully deceptive it [evolution] is. Have a grt day ;-)
SuperDonster 6 months ago
@SuperDonster
You are the funniest person on youtube....EVER!!!
Not only ignorant, but willfully so....
shade421 6 months ago 6
Comment removed
Stinukli 4 months ago
@SuperDonster Obvious troll is obvious, but successful. 9/10
BassKilla47 3 months ago
@rkyeun aslo, you're ASSUMING tht wht ever made the watch ONLY makes things as complex as the watch. You ASSUME tht wht makes the watch can't make things less complex or more complex. So, wht designed the beach cn't be wht designed the watch?False.Evidence deff shws tht evolution is a farce.I used to believe in it too, but once a little research is done into the matter it becomes plainly evident it has no scientific fact or sufficient evidence. But, it's a free world so believe wht you'd like.
SuperDonster 6 months ago
@rkyeun you can say it's false,but your explntion for why you believe tht just boils dwn to your rejection of wht I presented as being possible.I simply presented an answer tht demonstrates the flaw in this video's premise.If there is an omniscient and omnipotent God,and I believe there is, then your premise/ conclusion is rubbish. Actually, it's utterly destroyed. If you don't believe in God, tht is totally your decision. I believe tht the explntion to ths video is the one I presented.Tht's all
SuperDonster 6 months ago
@rkyeun You missed my ENTIRE point.You're ASSUMING tht because it takes more brain power for a HUMAN BEING to design and create a watch,thn the same MUST be the true for an almighty God.Tht's flawed thinking.I'll just say it clearly so you can undrstnd: I present to you tht it does NOT take God anymore thought,effort,or time to create a watch as opposed to a beach;or anything else for tht matter.If you can't grasp tht concept, thn tht explains why you don't recognize God; the creator. Think ;-P
SuperDonster 6 months ago
love it
AtheistStream 6 months ago
Win !
TheLordHWotton 7 months ago
You're assuming tht the watch cldn't of been designed by the same process.
You're assuming tht wht ever designed the watch considered it "harder" to design. Your're assuming it took more "brain power",time,and/or effort to make the watch vs beach. If wht ever designed the watch uses the same amount of time and effort to design anything and everything,than your conclusion is wrng. So, everything can be designed with the same effort by wht designs all things.Complexity isn't an issue for God ;-)
SuperDonster 7 months ago
Thank you! Never thought of it like that before
niriop 7 months ago
whats with ppl leaving a full page worth of comment
mboundtogether 7 months ago
@mboundtogether I know... that's what video replies are for... it is youtube after all.
no2religions 7 months ago
I managed to see this as an argument for AND against intelligent design. You pointed out that it's to say that the beach is not designed, but it also infers that a complex anomaly in a natural world has a designer. I immediately thought that as an analogy to the origin of life.
TheBreadfan 8 months ago
this video still sits on my channel as the my recently favorited video. i really love the simplicity of the argument. it very succinctly sums up the flaw in the designer argument.
greycloud24 8 months ago
@greycloud24
This video is simple, but incorrect... (I am leaving aside my oft used term "stupid" referring to this video; I also apologized, in pvt email, to the author/poster of this video for my so frequently having used this term when referring to this video; yet, it is incorrect... - the video, I mean).
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
Ah, but who created the creator? The problem with saying that everything complex has an intelligent designer is that ultimately you get to a sticky point. I have never met a christian who acknowledged that their God must have a creator, but when I tell them "then that means something complex can come into existance without a creator" then go right back to denying it and contradicting what they said prior.
tfavors28 8 months ago
Ok, this is my last comment. Since the guy who posted the video (eequalsfb) has threatened to block me (in private messages...), and since he was, unfortunately, very offensive in his pvt messages (using youtube engine), I have decided that I will post a video in reply to this one.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
nice...
kilroy227 8 months ago
"If you put this stupid atheist before the Krebs Cycle, he will conclude it WAS designed."
Wrong. Strawman. No atheist would deny undesigned spontaneous complex organization in the universe (e.g. snowflakes, crystals, Saturn's hexagon, self-organized criticality, etc.- just wiki "self-organization"). The video poster's point was that ***PALEY*** (as you put it) "inferred it from the fact that watches ARE designed and he knows that beforehand."
gatogreensleeves 8 months ago
@gatogreensleeves The question is not if spontaneous complex organization in the universe can come about. The question is how to identify it (and to rule out design). In the video, the atheist (which I suspect is a stupid theist in disguise...) stumbles upon a watch and seeminly does not know what it is; never saw it before. I repeat: put a Krebs' Cycle before him and he will Praise to the Lord Almighty. Unfortunately, many many atheists do exactly this...
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros I honestly don't see the video that way. I believe it's merely sarcasm of a poor argument. It really seems to me that he meant to be critical of Paley for conflating apples w/ oranges (i.e. known design vs unknowable design). Most atheists concede that it's just about impossible to infer cosmological design in the context of a self-organizing cosmos (see natural selection). The Krebs cycle is no different than other spontaneous self-organization, just more complex than some.
gatogreensleeves 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros i know the kreb cycle (citric acid cycle) very well. look at it again and you will see that it is a simple system of enzymes. yet this simple system leads to metabolism and movement of of cells. in essence the citric acid cycle IS what we mean by being "alive". and look at what simple bio-chemical processes lead too, they lead to complexity. this complexity requires additional energy to be added to the system, thus not violating the law of entropy.
greycloud24 8 months ago
@greycloud24
I have a feeling you did not understand my point... Anyway, to my knowledge, all you said is correct (and that is precisely why I feel you did not get my point).
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
Siqueirabarros, clearly the video poster was merely showing Paley inferred design UNJUSTLY by comparing forms. So Paley was also "stupid" by inferring design by comparison, right? I get the impression you're suggesting an agnostic position on inferring design, right? This video is a RESPONSE to a POSITIVE teleological argument first proposed by THEISTS, not atheists. The poster would probably AGREE with you and you didn't get the sarcasm. If anyone got a sunburn it's you for not seeing that.
gatogreensleeves 8 months ago
@gatogreensleeves Yes, we can say stupid - of some atheists sometimes, and of Paley too - , obviously as long as we keep trying to improve our discussion and our understanding of the issue. Yet, I do not agree with you. What the video is saying is that the design argument CAN be used, as long as you use it correctly. Using it correctly, you WILL identify the watch IS designed; and you WILL identify the beach IS NOT. But that is the flaw. And... the sun (risking sunburns) shines upon us all...
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@gatogreensleeves "So Paley was also 'stupid' by inferring design by comparison, right?" The most extreme stupidity in Paley' logic was the way he simply DID NOT use his own logic. If the universe is designed by a God (because the universe is so complex, so it goes), then God himself must have been designed by a more powerful God. And so on, ad infinitum. That is the mark of religious thinking: we stick to the rules only as long as it is convenient. The same for many atheists...Sadly.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
[Continuing]: that is, it is very difficult to infer DESIGN from form. And it is almost always impossible to infer LACK OF DESIGN from form. Our stupid atheist did not infer the watch was designed by analyzing its form. Instead, he inferred it from the fact that watches ARE designed and he knows that beforehand. That is why I claim that this video is stupid and stupidity-inducing.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
Ok, this is the problem: "Upon examination it becomes even more apparent that this object's intricate inner wokings simply could not have come about by the natural processes that formed the rest of the beach. Which is how we know the object was designed. And by logical extension, the beach was not."
If you put this stupid atheist before the Krebs Cycle, he will conclude it WAS designed... If you put him before an artificial beach, he will conclude it was NOT designed.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
0:26 Super Smash Bros.
Yimi97 8 months ago
hey @Jacnas, @siquerirabarros, stop being stupid. mm'k?
Everfalling 8 months ago
@Everfalling I liked this one! :-) . Well, I believe we are still trying hard to do it. And, hopefully, we will succeed!
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
Brilliant video! Straight to the point.
DillingerEscp 8 months ago
When you compare a mechanical tool with organic organism, that's when you know the yahoo who made this video needs a few centuries of cognitive development to hone his polemic skills.
ninuxy 8 months ago
@ninuxy this video is a response to the 'watchmaker' argument put out my theists. if you don't understand that argument you won't understand this response.
Everfalling 8 months ago 2
@Everfalling Woops! I had a call, so I turned the sound off in the last few seconds which totally changes the intent of the video. My bad.
ninuxy 8 months ago
I don't understand what you are trying to prove. It's a common piece of manmade tech on a populated beach. The question of 'where did this come from' is not much of a mystery...
juliengarneau 8 months ago
@juliengarneau the argument is that just as we observe the intricate workings of a watch to be made by a watch maker made so should we see the intricate workings of living organisms (and, by the theists logical extension, everything else in the universe including the earth) as evidence of a divine creator. the problem with this argument, as this video points out, is that you can't make the distinction between a natural object and a designed one if you think the natural object was also designed.
Everfalling 8 months ago
This video doesn't actually make a coherent argument or refute anything.
Quouar 8 months ago
@Quouar of course it does. he's saying the reason we know watches are different from natural objects is exactly the reason why it's ridiculous to then say those natural processes must also be a product of design. it's like saying you found a watch on a beach, claimed it was different than the beach itself and thus designed, and then claiming the beach was actually made of billions of tiny watches.
Everfalling 8 months ago
@Quouar And yet the video succinctly manages to demonstrate the inherent absurdity and weakness of one of the favorite, classic arguments from creationists.
Gnug215 8 months ago
This video is just so stupid that I might make a video response to that.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
Mindfuck.
MrTatzer 8 months ago
You are dealing in duality. If I point up and say "That is up" I would be correct. If I point down and say "That is down" I would be correct. If I stood on a chair, what was previously up would become down. Up and down are percepts/concepts which are entirely interrelated and dependent on each other for existence, and they revolve around the one arbitrarily identifying them. Similarly, "Design" and "Not-Designed" or "Intelligent" and "Not-Intelligent" are of the same dualistic nature.
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@Rybot9000 The "intelligence" which we 'possess' is a product of the natural order/intelligence. Unless you believe that you have free-will, everything you think, say, do and what you call "my intelligence" or even "human intelligence" is nothing more than an extension of the primal intelligence which are you saying is not intelligent. However, like "Up and Down" the judgment revolves around you, whereby you imagine yourself to be in possession of a unique intelligence.
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@Rybot9000 The very act of perceiving demands a dualistic contrast of this sort. While the space represented by "Up and Down" is continuous, the act of perceiving and identifying reduces it to finite, yet interrelated concepts/percepts. What is alluded to by most theistic arguments is the undifferentiated reality outside of the arbitrary division of self-consciousness. To be perfectly skeptical one must question even their own existence. Scientifically speaking; there is no self in the brain.
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@Rybot9000 Ryle (1987) put the argument that there can be no inner act of mind that has a determining/causative effect on the world or that acts from intelligence. And this is commonly called the "Homunculus Argument" which is used to identify where theories of mind fail or are incomplete. By all observational accounts there is no self-agency in the brain apart from the laws of chemistry which govern it. Whether or not this is realized by the majority of theists is irrelevant to the actuality.
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@Rybot9000 When I was at University, in the toilets of the Physics Department someone wrote above the toilet rolls:
"PHILOSOPHY DEGREES, PLEASE TAKE ONE"
Just ribbin' ya. 8^)
warren52nz 8 months ago
@Rybot9000 duality is an illusion created by the mind. you can point or down, but you most also realize that you are not forced to point just up or down, you are also given options to point north and south, left and right. when you get to the north pole you can no longer point north. the word "designed" is a human expression implying intent. we know a watch is designed because we know humans create watches. but a small island used to build a house on is both designed and not designed.
greycloud24 8 months ago
@greycloud24 Duality is all-pervasive, it encompasses much more than directions. Active/Passive is duality. Intentional/Unintentional is duality. So when you say "designed implies intent", sure it does, but only from a dualistic reference point, which is fallacious. There is no such thing as "intent" over and above chance occurances. Saying a human being intends to do something is like saying Haley's Commet intends to pass the earth on occasion. There is no inner homunculus to intend anything.
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@greycloud24 The naive perspective which is with us at about 2 years of age is one borne out of self-consciousness. As soon as we become self-conscious we begin modelling the world according as one separate individual interacting with individual objects within a global environment. But the reality is that we are not individuals separated from our environments or the "individuals" with which we interact. We are intrinsicly bound to the universe, the appearance of separation is delusional.
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@greycloud24 The self of which we are aware is an illusion and it's children are illusory. This is otherwise known as the "Father of Lies", "The Evil One", "The Sinful Nature", "Lucifer (the light-bringer)" and "Satan". This self-aggrandizement inherent in being self-conscious causes an apparent schism between what humans do and what the universe at-large does. When it is humans doing it, our self-conscious reflection causes us to elevate it to supernatural heights, claiming we are special.
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@greycloud24 For example; when we tend towards some result, we call it "in-tending", but only because we are consciously aware of our tendency as being our own. We pretend it is a "consicously willed" act, but in-fact it is just a tendency. The self-conscious appearance of "intention" is the illusion. But let me take this a step further, that the universe at large does not "intend" but merely "tends" toward some goal is just as delusional, the opposite reaction to conceiving ourselves as special
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@greycloud24 The general effect of self-consciousness is to raise everything humans to do the level of a consciously willed act, and to lower everything not done by humans to a passive stupidity. This is the dualistic perception generated by a self-conscious mind, it places undue speciality on human beings, focusing on self-consciousness as the catalyst that shot us into our superior space, but in reality, self-consciousness has also made us delusional about ourselves as compared to the universe
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@greycloud24 All duality is manifest around self-consciousness. Up and Down are relative to the conscious self. All of these distinctions are made relative to self-consciousness, there is no way around it. If one follows it to it's logical epicenter, the duality between self and other provides the pivotal starting point of all duality. "Other" becomes Up, Down, East, Sideways, Unintentional, Stupid, while the self acts as the arbitrary divider. Our entire experience consists of such delusions.
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@greycloud24 Thus is explained the parable of creation. Adam and Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (duality), which made them self-concious. “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
So we see here that eating from the tree of self-knowledge caused Adam and Eve to be fearful and embarassed. At this moment Adam knew he was naked.
Rybot9000 8 months ago
@Rybot9000 not all things are good or evil, this is another illusion of duality. . a rock that just exists is neither good nor evil. a combat medic might save lives but is still participating in a war.
"Arthur: All my life I've had this strange feeling that there's something big and sinister going on in the world.
Slartibartfast: No, that's perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe gets that. "- hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy.
greycloud24 8 months ago
LOL
uabm 8 months ago
1. If universe is designed then everything in it is also designed
2. One cannot deduce a thing to be designed without a reference point
3. We can deduce if object is designed
4. Therefore the universe is not designed and there is no designer
BlizBob 8 months ago
@BlizBob
Well, I don't agree with number 1. In the deist version of events, God made a kind of fine-tuned machine which randomly spat out the universe in the Big Bang. The event was designed, but the processes resulting from it are entirely natural.
So you could "design" the universe, but the stuff that's in it would not be designed.
jazzx251 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jazzx251
"Well, I don't agree with number 1. In the deist version of events, God made a kind of fine-tuned machine which randomly spat out the universe in the Big Bang. The event was designed, but the processes resulting from it are entirely natural."
Then the universe would not be designed and the 1 stands.
BlizBob 8 months ago
@jazzx251 "God made a kind of fine-tuned machine which randomly spat out the universe in the Big Bang"
Can you cite your peer reviewed reference for this please?
Have a long look at history. 500 years ago everyone thought that God was responsible for everything we see, lightning, rain, earthquakes, mental illness, volcanoes, etc. We now know how those work and 1 by 1 we find that everything happens naturally. Theists have a tendency to attribute what we don't know to God but they're always wrong
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz
I too think the deist argument is weak through lack of evidence (a MASSIVE lack).
I was merely trying to show BlizBob that it might be a remote possibility that you could have a deity that started things off and then sat back watching. Designing the mechanism by which the universe is created and then doing fuck all.I suppose I mean designing nature - and then the processes take over.
Much like a computer programmer designing a simulation, pressing return & watching what happens.
jazzx251 8 months ago
@jazzx251 " you could have a deity that started things off and then sat back watching"
I agree. That's a distinct possibility. The questions of the very beginning are always tricky. I wasn't down on you just to be clear.
If I was going to put a stake in the sand I'd say that experience has shown us that natural explanations are always right (so far). So I wouldn't suddenly make a U-turn on the beginning either. And anyway, if God made the Big Bang then we still need to work out who made God.
warren52nz 8 months ago
@jazzx251 My other thought on all of this is that if God made the Big bang and then sat back eating popcorn to see what would happen but didn't interfere then what's the point of worshiping him and praying to him. It won't make any difference anyway.
SO ENJOY THE SHOW GOD AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH! (obscure Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference). 8^)
warren52nz 8 months ago
@warren52nz
Well, yes.
Theism - which believes in a God who does listen to prayers and interferes and passes judgement on your sex life, is dead in the water. It's such an obvious manifestation of the human psyche, barely evolved from its animalistic roots.
The watered down Deist version, as you say, makes going to any Church/Mosque a meaningless exercise.
And given the lack of any positive evidence, they might as well be atheist/technical agnostic.
jazzx251 8 months ago
@warren52nz
Not sure what you meant by that last sentence.
I need to put a Babel fish in my ear to see what you mean...
jazzx251 8 months ago
@jazzx251 So just because the details of the Big Bang haven't all been worked out, saying that "God dunnit" puts you on thin ice because that's never been the case throughout history.
And saying "God made a kind of fine-tuned machine which RANDOMLY spat out the universe" doesn't sound very divine.
The other problem I have is that if everyone thought God did it then we wouldn't have Scientists looking for a natural explanation and that would keep us in the dark ages. Religion stifles progress.
warren52nz 8 months ago
@jazzx251 by definition, whatever (whoever) created the universe must be even more complex..............who created the designer?? truth is the universe never needed one, but humans in our infancy did, we've outgrowen our infancy now.....time to stop thumb sucking
jjcrazi 8 months ago
Comment removed
luminaeus 8 months ago
@luminaeus
I am an atheist. But I also try to see the other side of the argument.
I presented a common Deist argument for how some intelligence might have started the universe off and then buggered off to do its dishes or watch celestial TV. Effectively designing the universe and the processes that govern it, but not at all guiding those processes.
Maybe you should have read my first post before being a complete dickhead.
Foul-mouthed keyboard warrior.
jazzx251 8 months ago
this whole argument is easily dealt with...
god is everywhere and occupies all times, he knows the past present and future - this is established fact according to religious types.
that being the case, and as he is my creator, he would know prior to my creation, that i would grow up to be an atheist and thus be condemned to an eternity of hell
- now why would god expend that energy on making me in the first place and is he really that vindictive to condemn me to hell? not a nice god if true
utrapzab 8 months ago
@utrapzab well, I'd have to challenge that with the theist argument that god "gave" us free will
SickeninglyILL 8 months ago
@SickeninglyILL not a very good challange though, because despite the free will element he would still create me knowing that i wouldnt believe so it doesnt stand up, giving me free will is irrelevent because god would already know that my free will would take me elsewhere - thats the result of occupying all points in time, nice try but logically it fails.
utrapzab 8 months ago
@utrapzab that's not me trying, I'm not a theist but that's what they say "God gave us free will," and really if he did (to quote Carlin) then we had no choice in the matter
SickeninglyILL 8 months ago
@SickeninglyIL FAIR ENOUGH BUT they HAVENT REALLY GOT A CLUE ABOUT TEMPORAL ANOMOLIES BECAUSE DESPITE GIVING ME FREE WILL GOD ALREADY KNOWS IM A DISBELIEVER AND AS HE CREATES ME HE CONDEMNS ME TO HELL, THAT REALLY IS THE NUTS OF IT - PS Ill learn to use the caps lock one day
utrapzab 8 months ago
@utrapzab lol
SickeninglyILL 8 months ago
@utrapzab win
SickeninglyILL 7 months ago
You really changed tack at the last second there! Haha, you really had me going. Nice video. :D
0mni42 8 months ago
If I found Paley's watch on the beach, I'd sell it on eBay
dwayne0t 8 months ago 2
It never ceases to amaze me, that in the "watchmaker argument", they always use ONLY manmade items as proof. It falls apart instantly if you look at a tree, a fish, or a natural item of the natural world. Their argument starts with finding a watch in the grass or something. Change that to "found a bird" and use the same argument. You can't.
lebeaubastion 8 months ago
@lebeaubastion Like all theistic arguments it's self-refuting.
jpl10380 8 months ago
Whales and dolphins could really use gills, but do not have them. Anti-evolutionists, I challenge you to explain that fact.
pburto 8 months ago
@pburto Just as point of interest, couldn't God have given every being the ability to evolve? That seems, to me, a very simple idea, but complex in its nature (ie, intelligent design). It would also explain the whales and dolphins, because the way they evolved may account for the fact that they don't have gills.
MrCatalystic 8 months ago
@MrCatalystic Do you have any evidence to suggest that, or are you just trying to fit your already established opinion into the gaps?
1KidsEntertainment 8 months ago
@MrCatalystic The fossil record explains how whales and dolphins came about. They evolved from land animals (not unlike wolves) that returned to an aquatic life due to some climate change. That's why the swim undulating up and down... like a dog running,.. as apposed to side to side like a fish or lizard. It's their mammalian spine.
jpl10380 8 months ago
@jpl10380 You missed the point of what I said. Just read the first two sentences, that's my claim. Because you, in effect, proved the second part of my statement
MrCatalystic 8 months ago
@MrCatalystic No I didn't. You don't understand what skepticism is. It's not a philosophy, it's merely a way of approaching epistemology. It's an analytical system that all humans share (some are just poor analysts).
Without skepticism no knowledge can develop, ergo all knowledge we do have is a result of some one, some where, being skeptical; even children form hypothesis and then apply a method of testing when learning about their environment. Skepticism is how human brains arrive at facts.
jpl10380 8 months ago
... Knowledge is classically defined as "justified true belief." Justification can only come when skepticism is applied. Without skepticism there is only belief, not knowledge. That all knowledge is the product of skepticism. This is inescapable just as logic and reason are inescapable because you cannot reason your way out of them. You can propose other forms of knowledge that do know rely on justification, but I would reject such structures as actual "knowledge." It isn't justified.
jpl10380 8 months ago
OUCH! that gotta hurts!
Th0usandMaster 8 months ago
Oh snap!
AimiriZ 8 months ago
"...the beach was not" HA hahahahaha.
savageecho 8 months ago
Good video! A fresh take on the argument. I thought skeptics have already scored goals from every possible angle and distance.
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas
Not really. Skeptics tend to be stupid. Though not as stupid as the above video.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros Should I take from it that you're a frustrated creationist?
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas No. Instead, I am a satisfied creator. I do not wait for the miracles. I make them myself (like late C. Sagan said of the ancient pre-socratic Greeks from Ionia). This video we are talking about is highly simplistic, and inducer of stupidity. Anyone who cannot see this is either stupid himself (herself) or, as an alternative, is looking at the video with the stupid facets of his/her Self.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros No one who watches this short video expects it to exhaust the debate regarding the watchmaker argument. It merely sets forth one small but interesting tidbit of the argument. I pointed this out in my first comment but apparently it needs to be spelled out more clearly for you: just because the video is not 2 hours long and doesn't tackle every argument, counter-argument, counter-counter-argument, etc. doesn't mean it's stupid. Got it?
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas "It merely sets forth one small but interesting tidbit of the argument. I pointed this out in my first comment". No you did not. You just said it was a good video. How can a highly simplistic and stupidity-inducing video be any good? The way it is presented in the video, the argument is simply stupid. And you know: stupid is as stupid does...
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros BTW, don't insult the intelligence of your opponents; it makes you look that much more foolish in comparison when you lose. And everyone loses sooner or later. Debating lesson 101.
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas My opponents are usually very intelligent, so there is no way I could insult their intelligence. What I truly do sometimes is to point out the lack of intelligence in some people, or better, in some pieces of reasoning. Even "stupid people" (e.g. traditional avowed skeptics) aren't always stupid, and most of the times people get stupid by "leaving their rational capabities aside," and not by "not having these capabilities." So, just Get Smart ;-)
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros So, you have the nerve to call me stupid ("get smart") despite displaying your lack of reading comprehension when you say that my first comment only points out that the video is "good"? Hello? Is anybody there? Have you read the other two sentences? The watchmaker argument has been dealt with comprehensively and given a final death blow by Darwin. I acknowledge that in my first comment.
Jacnas 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jacnas "The watchmaker argument has been dealt with comprehensively and given a final death blow by Darwin. I acknowledge that in my first comment." No you did not. You merely posted an over simplitic comment to an over simplistic video. And sorry about the get smart. I did not mean to say that you are stupid (for if you were, I wouldn't be wasting my time; I would just respect your stupidity and leave you be). Just remember I said get smart right after saying there are no stupid people...
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros What I'm praising about this video is it's fresh take on it. On something that looked like flogging a dead horse. BTW, it's illuminating to step back and analyze what you've managed to say to me so far:
1. the video is simplistic and stupid (no reason given, it just is)
2. skeptics are stupid (no reason given, they just are)
3. you have smart friends.
That's all you've conveyed in this conversation so far.
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas Let's see: 2- I never said skeptics are stupid. 3- I never said I have smart friends. Where did you get all this from? (maybe you believe you are a psychic...). And as to 1, I posted a comment saying I might make a video reply to heal the stupidity out of this sloppy video. So, what are you really complaining about?
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
Comment removed
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros Will you understand then if I, based on what I've heard from you in this exchange and assuming you're not a troll, will call you a monumental asshole and an idiot? Do you see where I'm coming from?
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas Yes, I would fully understand your calling me names. That is the typical response when we try to bring people closer to rationality and away from silly beliefs: name calling (in this case, the silly belief is: this video is good, fresh take on the subject). The good thing is that everybody can see who is truly making the offenses (you...), and who is indeed trying to debate the issues per se (me). Usually, people will only lose their temper *after* having lost the debate... :-)
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros Oh, skeptics arent' stupid; they tend to be stupid. A world of difference. When I listed the things you said to me so far and asked you "can you see where I'm coming from?" I was trying to point out 2 things:
1. We're not debating anything. You're not presenting arguments.
2. You were calling people stupid first. Therefore you lost the debate before it even begun, which it never did. You set this tone.
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas
Well, Jac, MrCatalystic also kind of "complained" to me regarding my assertion. I replied to him: "Yes, most skeptics, even in this narrow sense that I put it, are intelligent. But their intelligence wanes as they go astray the way you portray." And I stressed that, by skeptics, I was referring to the woo woos from the organized skeptic movement (and lovers; can we count you in?...). You said good things about skeptics. I disagreed. Why the censorship?
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@Jacnas
Continuing, Jac. The video was not about skeptics, but about atheists. You decided to bring this suspicious subject (skeptics...) to the arena. Bizarre... Right after it, I limited very much and very well what I meant by stupid. So the score is this: I keep improving my aim and defining better my target. You, instead, keep falling over the edge... Your choice. As I said to MrCatalystic, skeptics engage in stupid behaviour. God knows why...
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros And therefore calling you stupid was fair game. And I genuinely believe now that you're stupid; even if you have a university education. I didn't start our exchange with this belief.
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas There is no exchange happening, Jac. I AM listening to you. But you just keep shut. Shut and offending. Your choice...
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros Just to be clear, I don't believe that merely calling your opponent stupid is a sign of losing the debate. But you seem to think so. So, by your own logic, you would have lost this debate if we were actually debating something.
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas As I said: I explained it fully to MrCatalystic at the very same time I was first answering your objections. "Stupid" may be an offense or, alternatively, a description. The way I am presenting it here, it is a description (due to my fully explaining afterwards). The way YOU are using it here, it does not seem to be a description (of me). Anyway,... Your choice.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros "There is no exchange happening, Jac"
I agree. Regarding the rest of your comments: look in the mirror. Oh, and I am a skeptic; a person with a perfectly healthy state of mind, regardless of whether he's a member of an organization or not. I'm not getting through to you. Can you please carefully reread your comments and see how many times you've contradicted yourself? I'm tired of pointing this out to you. Goodbye. I will most likely not respond anymore.
Jacnas 8 months ago
@Jacnas Sometimes we are contradictory. But I have not been shown one single instance of this from me here. Anyway, maybe part of the problem is that you, I think, do not read the comments addressed (by me) to other posters (even AFTER I indicated them to you...) about the very first comment that I made to you! I have fully indicated now the sloppiness of this video. I came to this page looking for info against fine tuning. Instead, I found your pseudoskepticism. Ok then. Rest In Peace...
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros I don't like skeptics, but they aren't stupid. In fact, many of them are fairly smart. In my opinion, they go out of their way to disprove everything
MrCatalystic 8 months ago
@MrCatalystic All true knowledge comes from conclusions arrived at via elimination. All true knowledge humans have ever developed has been the product of a skeptic somewhere. As a historian I can assure you there are no exceptions to this fact.
jpl10380 8 months ago
@jpl10380 True scientists (and people with truly scientific-inclined minds) tend never to use absolute words and expressions, like "Always," "Never," "All this," "All that," "There are NO exceptions to this," "There are NO exceptions to that," etc. Your thesis is cute (All true knowledge humans have ever developed has been the product of a skeptic somewhere). But untenable.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros "True scientists (and people with truly scientific-inclined minds) tend never to use absolute words and expressions, like "Always," "Never," "All this," "All that," "There are NO exceptions to this," "There are NO exceptions to that," etc."
Not true, mathematicians deal in absolute axioms all the time, and science is relies on mathematics. My assertion that knowledge is the product of skeptical inquiry and therefor all knowledge is the product of skepticism, is axiomatic.
jpl10380 7 months ago
@jpl10380
Note that I did not say that scientists NEVER use absolute words. I said that we scientists TEND never to use (i.e. avoid it as much as possible. Safeguard rule). I should have been more precise and said, instead, that scientists TEND NOT to use absolute words. So, in an important way, your criticism truly applies. Yet, there is an astronomical distance between math axioms and YOUR assertions regarding skepticism and knowledge. Therefore, knowledge is NOT the product of skepticism.
siqueirabarros 7 months ago
@MrCatalystic What I meant was the members (official, professional, and/or amateaur) of the Organized Skeptic Movement, and active endorsers. Skepticism per se is one of the three bases of science (the other two ones being, IMHO, researching and theorizing). Yes, most skeptics, even in this narrow sense that I put it, are intelligent. But their intelligence wanes as they go astray the way you portray.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@siqueirabarros Skeptics ARE stupid. They don't believe in Santa Claus. lol. no presents for them!
jpl10380 8 months ago
@jpl10380 See my reply to MrCataluystic
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jpl10380 See my reply to MrCataluystic, sorry, I meant MrCatalystic
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Jacnas
Not really. Skeptics tend to be stupid. Though not as stupid as the above video.
siqueirabarros 8 months ago
@TheNephilimFree why is it that religious people always forget 'love thy neighbor'? As for spreading lies - no thanks. You should try learning some actual science. Read 'Your Inner Fish'. Until then you are making a public fool of yourself.
farvision 8 months ago
I love this video. I've watched it five times.
joethemoproductions 8 months ago
So much win! Over 9000
pumpstations 8 months ago
nice twist
kitrana 8 months ago
Do Watchdogs count?
thekwizatshaderach 8 months ago
People repeating Paley's argument often fail to realize that watches do not self replicate and are therefor a fallacious analogy for living things.
FosterZygote 8 months ago
Oh, I laughed and laughed.
Perfectly delivered punchline :D
Polymeron 8 months ago
Win!
steveb0503 8 months ago
@eequalsfb Thank you for this! I had been thinking sort of the same thing myself recently (as I have been reading an apologetics book). The whole idea of this argument is to make one conclude that the whole world had to be designed, but the thing that bothers me is why, then, if I found a small rock, why would I not find that to be designed like the watch? Of course, I know the answer, but it has made their argument all the much more pathetic to me.
TheMidwestAtheist 8 months ago
omg I'm a theist now....
Otherworld314 8 months ago
"Two beeches that love each other very much get certain urges to after take long walks on each other." - Richard Darwin from the book "On the origin of watches".
Danmill23 8 months ago
Hehe, excellent vid. I've often asked creationists who made the watchmaker argument if rocks are created, or intelligently designed, too.
This, of course, confuses them and produces no answer.
Gnug215 8 months ago
@Gnug215 Exactly. LOL.
eequalsfb 8 months ago
That nails it.
jklarson66 8 months ago
So simple and yet to the point. Good vid.
Campineiroamericano 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tell me more of this "beach"...
DasHortH 8 months ago
To trash this argument, the materials from which the watch was made, were a natural material. Man did not make the gold or other materials from which it was made. Next argument please.
ktorch 8 months ago
@ktorch Heavier elements are made inside of stars, which explode and send the materials out into space when they go supernova. A natural process does this. The argument stands.
debatablescientist 8 months ago
well, some beaches are manmade aswell :P perfect sand, and some layer of plastic or something fiber? that seperates the sand so you have a perfect beach :P but you will have to dig a meter or so to figure that out
FusionNinjin 8 months ago
So now that you have a watch, you might want to check that "intelligently designed" tide table that you stuffed in your pocket. But, don't be so silly as to think that the tides themselves, nor the clock in the heavens, i.e., the sun, moon, stars, etc., were intelligently designed.
escritura48 8 months ago
LOL someone just got trolled...... 5/5
Quietville 8 months ago