Intelligent Design: Crash Course Philosophy #11
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
george
Evolution doesnt disprove anything. Youre denying the existence of a great grandfather because you know for a fact that you came from a mother and father. The counter argument youre using is not a counter argument. It has nothing to do with anything. How is evolution prooving that the univers is infinite and has always existed? How exactly is the evolution of organisms disprooving a point of origin? We came from a thing that came from a thing that came from a thing that(bilions of years of evolution) that came from a THING. Where did the THING came from? Are you sugesting it always existed? Arithmetics and thermodinamics may have something to say against that. For instance: if the univers has always been, and energy is runing out, then how come there is still energy left? If it is depleting, and we know it is, that means there is a point of origin, a begining, and so the univers also has a begining. The only thing that can create matter, space and time, before matter space and time existed, is a supernatural being. GOD. If there is some scientific way that can prove the eternity of space time and matter please share it. Atm science is on the theist side.
reply
Evolution doesnt disprove anything. Youre denying the existence of a great grandfather because you know for a fact that you came from a mother and father. The counter argument youre using is not a counter argument. It has nothing to do with anything. How is evolution prooving that the univers is infinite and has always existed? How exactly is the evolution of organisms disprooving a point of origin? We came from a thing that came from a thing that came from a thing that(bilions of years of evolution) that came from a THING. Where did the THING came from? Are you sugesting it always existed? Arithmetics and thermodinamics may have something to say against that. For instance: if the univers has always been, and energy is runing out, then how come there is still energy left? If it is depleting, and we know it is, that means there is a point of origin, a begining, and so the univers also has a begining. The only thing that can create matter, space and time, before matter space and time existed, is a supernatural being. GOD. If there is some scientific way that can prove the eternity of space time and matter please share it. Atm science is on the theist side.
reply
education
The video says you can't say god has designed some stuff with a purpose and some without, but could it not be the case that an intelligent creator set up the universe including it's laws of physics, then let the rest play out? What I am basically asking is could you not look at the laws of psychics/evolution (maybe there are others I am not thinking of) and analogise this and only this to the watch, arguing that it works together to create such a fascinating and wonderful universe, that it must have been intelligently designed. not that specifically everything within it has a purpose, only that it all works together nicely. He goes on to say who needs a watchmaker when you have natural selection, but I would say we have no theory for how the laws of physics came about, or why they are that way. All we know is that they exist and everything conforms to them. someone let me know what if im missing something please
reply
The video says you can't say god has designed some stuff with a purpose and some without, but could it not be the case that an intelligent creator set up the universe including it's laws of physics, then let the rest play out? What I am basically asking is could you not look at the laws of psychics/evolution (maybe there are others I am not thinking of) and analogise this and only this to the watch, arguing that it works together to create such a fascinating and wonderful universe, that it must have been intelligently designed. not that specifically everything within it has a purpose, only that it all works together nicely. He goes on to say who needs a watchmaker when you have natural selection, but I would say we have no theory for how the laws of physics came about, or why they are that way. All we know is that they exist and everything conforms to them. someone let me know what if im missing something please
reply
Tariq
I believe in the fine tuning argument. But instead of a -world maker- god is a universe maker. He sets the conditions for stars planet evolution galaxies black holes and everything to exist and evolve over time. But that's it. No more interference after the big bang. -God- initially set it all in motion in a very specific way in order for all the miracles of the universe to occur and evolve over time, and it or they (maybe multple -gods-) are just watching to see what happens over billions of years. Maybe it or they have many of these universes set up. Maybe they're waiting for our universe to achieve some specific ultimate result. Or maybe it's just for fun. Whatever the case, it's not all just random, and there has to be SOME reason that it or they put this universe in motion. That's what seems to make the most sense to me anyway, thanks for reading -
reply
I believe in the fine tuning argument. But instead of a -world maker- god is a universe maker. He sets the conditions for stars planet evolution galaxies black holes and everything to exist and evolve over time. But that's it. No more interference after the big bang. -God- initially set it all in motion in a very specific way in order for all the miracles of the universe to occur and evolve over time, and it or they (maybe multple -gods-) are just watching to see what happens over billions of years. Maybe it or they have many of these universes set up. Maybe they're waiting for our universe to achieve some specific ultimate result. Or maybe it's just for fun. Whatever the case, it's not all just random, and there has to be SOME reason that it or they put this universe in motion. That's what seems to make the most sense to me anyway, thanks for reading -
reply
Luke
The slight problem with the fine-tuning ideas is that you assume that all the events happen randomly and independently of each other. But as one event depends on the other it is fallacy to consider that. The general laws of nature can at least give us a good explanation as to the intermediate steps between two events. When ID proponents consider the complexity, they fail to consider that a process of incremental changes leads to the complex result we see today. Dominoes make a good analogy for this. If we place two dominoes really far apart the chance of both being knocked over is much lower as one doesn't affect the other. If we then fill in space with other dominoes to make a domino run as long as the first step happens the others will as they are driven and are dependent on the other steps so in time the final domino will fall.
reply
The slight problem with the fine-tuning ideas is that you assume that all the events happen randomly and independently of each other. But as one event depends on the other it is fallacy to consider that. The general laws of nature can at least give us a good explanation as to the intermediate steps between two events. When ID proponents consider the complexity, they fail to consider that a process of incremental changes leads to the complex result we see today. Dominoes make a good analogy for this. If we place two dominoes really far apart the chance of both being knocked over is much lower as one doesn't affect the other. If we then fill in space with other dominoes to make a domino run as long as the first step happens the others will as they are driven and are dependent on the other steps so in time the final domino will fall.
reply
walkergarya
Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled: -
While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3: 103 (Miller); 9: 19-20 (Haught. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as -methodological naturalism- and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5: 23, 29-30 (Pennock. Methodological naturalism is a -ground rule- of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1: 59-64, 2: 41-43 (Miller); 5: 8, 23-30 (Pennock. -
-and--
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation
reply
Judge Jones got it exactly right when he ruled: -
While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. (3: 103 (Miller); 9: 19-20 (Haught. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as -methodological naturalism- and is sometimes known as the scientific method. (5: 23, 29-30 (Pennock. Methodological naturalism is a -ground rule- of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. (1: 59-64, 2: 41-43 (Miller); 5: 8, 23-30 (Pennock. -
-and--
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation
reply
Ken
I regret that I can only give one thumb down. He says of _-natural selection and random mutation-_ that it's _-'another explanation for how bodies came to have the complexity and functionality the have today-. _ Wrong. That's a 19th century argument which modern science has put the lie to repeatedly.
He further says _-'but now we have a perfectly good scientific explanation for how the complexity of the world came about-, _ still promoting 19th century science. Dumb.
He quotes Hume saying, _-a flawed world implies a flawed creator. -_ But Hume didn't even know God. The explanation can't be found from science, but it's revealed in scripture--man's sin.
reply
I regret that I can only give one thumb down. He says of _-natural selection and random mutation-_ that it's _-'another explanation for how bodies came to have the complexity and functionality the have today-. _ Wrong. That's a 19th century argument which modern science has put the lie to repeatedly.
He further says _-'but now we have a perfectly good scientific explanation for how the complexity of the world came about-, _ still promoting 19th century science. Dumb.
He quotes Hume saying, _-a flawed world implies a flawed creator. -_ But Hume didn't even know God. The explanation can't be found from science, but it's revealed in scripture--man's sin.
reply
parsi
Why imagine a watch? Instead, imagine a smart phone. If you find one on Mars, you would assume you have found evidence of intelligent life on Mars, wouldn't you? Every part of every species has a purpose so it must have been designed. All parts of our bodies must have come to be all at the same time in order to server their purpose and in order for our bodies to function. Common sense says God must exist. Actually most scientists have come to realize that there cannot be no creator. Random mutation and these BS's you hear from fools are jokes.
reply
Why imagine a watch? Instead, imagine a smart phone. If you find one on Mars, you would assume you have found evidence of intelligent life on Mars, wouldn't you? Every part of every species has a purpose so it must have been designed. All parts of our bodies must have come to be all at the same time in order to server their purpose and in order for our bodies to function. Common sense says God must exist. Actually most scientists have come to realize that there cannot be no creator. Random mutation and these BS's you hear from fools are jokes.
reply
ty
Problem with the small sample size argument. The objection to the probability argument is that there-s only one example, Earth and therefore it can-t be claimed that life would be improbable without God. However, if the probability argument is correct then it would make sense that worlds besides Earth which God doesn-t care about are unlikely to have life if life is possible at all on them. For this reason, I claim that the sample size objection is cyclical and doesn-t give the teleological argument a fair chance
reply
Problem with the small sample size argument. The objection to the probability argument is that there-s only one example, Earth and therefore it can-t be claimed that life would be improbable without God. However, if the probability argument is correct then it would make sense that worlds besides Earth which God doesn-t care about are unlikely to have life if life is possible at all on them. For this reason, I claim that the sample size objection is cyclical and doesn-t give the teleological argument a fair chance
reply
Bo-jivan
if there are a lot of earths theists will say look must be god because theres so many. if there's only one earth they'd say look must be god because he only made us.
also complexity doesn't imply a creator. that was just asserted
we know watches have makes because we know a watch isn't made through natural processes. we don't know we have a maker because we are made through natural processes. complexity has nothing to do with creation.
reply
if there are a lot of earths theists will say look must be god because theres so many. if there's only one earth they'd say look must be god because he only made us.
also complexity doesn't imply a creator. that was just asserted
we know watches have makes because we know a watch isn't made through natural processes. we don't know we have a maker because we are made through natural processes. complexity has nothing to do with creation.
reply
Ming
Excellent vid, and also love your clear, brisk 'pace'. thx! IMHO, a large part of the dilemma is how we choose to _define_ 'God'. For example evidence for a Christian 'personal' God seems much more problematic, than say the pantheistic God of the hindus, who literally IS the universe, or a Deist God who may have created the universe but remains apart from it and still permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws.
reply
Excellent vid, and also love your clear, brisk 'pace'. thx! IMHO, a large part of the dilemma is how we choose to _define_ 'God'. For example evidence for a Christian 'personal' God seems much more problematic, than say the pantheistic God of the hindus, who literally IS the universe, or a Deist God who may have created the universe but remains apart from it and still permits his creation to administer itself through natural laws.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
