Speaker 1: Hello and welcome to my podcast. This is an audio
Speaker 1: version of my videos available to make listening to my
Speaker 1: stuff in the background easier than YouTube makes it.
Speaker 2: But since my.
Speaker 1: Videos are primarily made for YouTube, there may be occasional
Speaker 1: references to visual materials. If you'd like this podcast ad free,
Speaker 1: you can join us on Patreon app, Patreon dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Vice Rhino. Please enjoy.
Speaker 2: Today's video is brought to you by surf Shark. Hello
Speaker 2: and welcome to my channel Vice Rhino. Here today, I'm
Speaker 2: looking at a video on the Impact Video Ministries channel
Speaker 2: that claims to give proof that God exists using three
Speaker 2: simple arguments. I don't like the word proof in this sense,
Speaker 2: I'd mentally replace it with the word evidence, and in
Speaker 2: so doing we wind up back at the btruzzi esque
Speaker 2: question of whether or not arguments even count as evidence,
Speaker 2: which I would suggest that they do not. You can
Speaker 2: construct a logically valid argument to arrive at just about
Speaker 2: any conclusion you like, But the way we would determine
Speaker 2: whether or not that valid argument is also sound is
Speaker 2: by finding evidence that supports the premises of the argument.
Speaker 2: So an argument can point us in the direction of
Speaker 2: where we should be looking for evidence. But it is
Speaker 2: not evidence in and of itself. With that out of
Speaker 2: the way, let's take a look. But first a word
Speaker 2: from our sponsor, serf Shark. Are you worried about privacy
Speaker 2: on the Internet in this day and age? If not,
Speaker 2: you probably should be, and one of the most important
Speaker 2: tools in the privacy toolbox is serf Shark VPN. Serf
Speaker 2: SHARKVPN is a virtual private network which allows you to
Speaker 2: appear to be connected to the Internet from any location
Speaker 2: where serf Shark has the server. By connecting through surf Shark,
Speaker 2: you can access streaming services from different geographic locations. This
Speaker 2: means you may have access to additional libraries of movies
Speaker 2: and TV shows not available in your home area. But
Speaker 2: that's not all they do. With their clean Web two
Speaker 2: point zero features, you can automatically block ads, reject unwanted
Speaker 2: cookies without fumbling through the pop up first get alerts
Speaker 2: when the website was a target of a data breach,
Speaker 2: and block malware. Serf Shark VPN adds an extra layer
Speaker 2: of encryption to your device, keeping you secure on public networks.
Speaker 2: I always connect to public networks through surf Shark. Serf
Speaker 2: Shark VPN is easy to use and simple to install.
Speaker 2: They do not monitor, track, or store your data, and
Speaker 2: it works on phones, tablets, and laptops with no extra fees.
Speaker 2: Serf Shark offers a thirty day money back guarantee so
Speaker 2: you can try it out completely risk free. My viewers
Speaker 2: get a special promo where you can get an extra
Speaker 2: four months out of your subscription for free. Go to
Speaker 2: serf shark dot com slash rhino or use code Rhino
Speaker 2: at checkout to get four extra months of search SHARKVPN. Again,
Speaker 2: that's serfshark dot com slash RICHI and O for an
Speaker 2: extra four months for free. This is a limited time offer,
Speaker 2: so sign up today and remember by signing up for
Speaker 2: surf Shark VPN, you are helping to support my channel,
Speaker 2: so thank you.
Speaker 3: The question of whether or not God exists is a
Speaker 3: common question that many people ask, and the existence of
Speaker 3: God is one that is heavily debated between believers in
Speaker 3: a higher power and skeptics and atheists.
Speaker 2: You know, I always find the acknowledgment that skeptics and
Speaker 2: believers are two mutually exclusive categories of people amusing. I
Speaker 2: know that in common parlance, skeptic can often just mean
Speaker 2: someone who rejects a claim, regardless of how they got
Speaker 2: to that rejection. But skepticism is more of a methodology
Speaker 2: than a position. A skeptic is someone who withholds belief
Speaker 2: in a claim until sufficient evidence is presented to support
Speaker 2: that claim. So if a God existed, a skeptic would
Speaker 2: not be someone who refuses to believe in God. A
Speaker 2: skeptic would be someone who waited until there was sufficient
Speaker 2: evidence pointing to the existence of God before they believed
Speaker 2: in God. So the way I see it, lumping skeptics
Speaker 2: in with atheists is a tacit admission that there isn't
Speaker 2: enough evidence to justify belief in God.
Speaker 3: And many times people who don't believe in God will
Speaker 3: ask for hard evidence for his existence.
Speaker 2: Yes, if a God exists and this God wants us
Speaker 2: to believe in him, then it would be reasonable to
Speaker 2: expect that he has provided or is willing to provide,
Speaker 2: enough evidence to convince anyone beyond a shadow of a
Speaker 2: doubt that he is in fact real.
Speaker 3: And they'll challenge Christians and tell them show me proof,
Speaker 3: and I'll believe.
Speaker 4: I know that.
Speaker 2: Earlier I said I'd mentally replace the word proof with evidence.
Speaker 2: But honestly, if a God actually existed, I feel like
Speaker 2: expecting the proof of his existence on the same level
Speaker 2: as mathematical proofs is not unreasonable. He is supposed to
Speaker 2: be all powerful, after all. But I shall temper my
Speaker 2: expectations and only require extremely high caliber evidence that should
Speaker 2: be super easy for an omnipotent God to provide, even
Speaker 2: if it doesn't rise to the level of proof.
Speaker 3: And to be honest, Christians can't give hard evidence that
Speaker 3: God does exist.
Speaker 2: Oh okay, so why do you believe in the guy?
Speaker 3: However, just because believers can't show God physically, it doesn't
Speaker 3: mean there aren't any good reasons to believe in God.
Speaker 2: Who said anything about it being physical? Dude would be
Speaker 2: capable of providing a personal spiritual experience to every person
Speaker 2: on the planet at any moment, would he not. That'd
Speaker 2: be some pretty great evidence, wouldn't you say? And there's
Speaker 2: precedent for that. That's how he converted Paul. He showed
Speaker 2: up and said Hi.
Speaker 3: So in this video, I want to cover three reasons
Speaker 3: why people can believe in God. However, I should mention
Speaker 3: that these arguments should not be abused.
Speaker 2: On like children who the church has been abusing for
Speaker 2: basically as long as they've existed.
Speaker 3: For example, many people can enter into a debate of
Speaker 3: sorts and have the mentality to win, and will refuse
Speaker 3: to listen to the other person and will only look
Speaker 3: for moments to make the other person look stupid for
Speaker 3: their lack of knowledge.
Speaker 2: Greg Kochl comes immediately to mind when you say that
Speaker 2: dude wrote a book called Tactics, which is all about
Speaker 2: doing pretty much what you just said not to do.
Speaker 4: Here.
Speaker 3: Even now as I write, I know many people will
Speaker 3: watch this video with the mentality to prove all these
Speaker 3: reasons for God's existence wrong.
Speaker 4: Here I am, this is me. There's nowhere else on
Speaker 4: the Drabo Bee. In all seriousness, I don't actually approach
Speaker 4: these videos with the mindset of I must prove them wrong,
Speaker 4: with the possible exception of the creation of videos where
Speaker 4: their positions are so obviously and demonsterrably wrong that I
Speaker 4: can't even pretend to take them seriously. For the more general,
Speaker 4: God is just a thing that exists videos. I am
Speaker 4: actually open to the idea of a God of some
Speaker 4: kind exists, but I don't think it's likely, and I
Speaker 4: have yet to see any of these videos present a
Speaker 4: case that is in any way compelling. So over the years,
Speaker 4: I admit that I have gotten a bit jaded. I
Speaker 4: am still willing to change my mind if presented with
Speaker 4: adequate evidence, but I don't expect that any God who
Speaker 4: actually wants me to believe in him would make the
Speaker 4: evidence for his existence so tenuous that I can't be
Speaker 4: convinced after more than a decade of watching at least
Speaker 4: one video a week arguing that I really do have
Speaker 4: good evidence for God. This time, I swear, and I'll
Speaker 4: show it in the comments.
Speaker 2: HA proved you're wrong. I'm not in the comments. I
Speaker 2: made a response video.
Speaker 3: And that's honestly fine. But know that if you're a Christian,
Speaker 3: know that these three arguments that I'm about to cover
Speaker 3: are meant to promote discussion and to get people to
Speaker 3: consider that God may actually exist.
Speaker 2: It's really weird that these arguments, which are inevitably going
Speaker 2: to be slight variations on arguments that have been around
Speaker 2: for hundreds to thousands of years, seem to have gotten
Speaker 2: worse at convincing people as we learn more about how
Speaker 2: the world went works. As far as I can tell,
Speaker 2: there has not been a truly new argument for the
Speaker 2: existence of God since Aquinas, and even then he was
Speaker 2: pilfering material from ancient Greek philosophy. Yeah, the arguments get
Speaker 2: periodic updates. The cosmological argument is the most obvious example. Here.
Speaker 2: A Quinas formulated it as the argument from causality, the
Speaker 2: idea being that every effect has a cause and there
Speaker 2: cannot be an infinite regress. Therefore, God is the uncaused causer.
Speaker 2: Setting aside the problems this argument has, we discovered in
Speaker 2: the twentieth century that our instantiation of the universe is
Speaker 2: not eternal. It had a beginning, a scientifically explainable beginning,
Speaker 2: so the argument had to be modified and long story short. Now,
Speaker 2: the most common form of the cosmological argument goes something
Speaker 2: like this. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Speaker 2: The universe began to exist, Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Speaker 2: If you're paying attention, you may have noticed a slight
Speaker 2: issue here. This argument does not actually get us to
Speaker 2: a God, even if it is both valid and sound.
Speaker 2: It just gets us to a cause. But anyway, I
Speaker 2: feel like that's probably going to be one of the
Speaker 2: arguments they bring up, so let's hold off on addressing
Speaker 2: it until they do bring it up.
Speaker 3: Argument number one, the creation argument. This argument is also
Speaker 3: known as the cosmological argument.
Speaker 2: Yay, I called it.
Speaker 3: And while I could go through the argument in detail
Speaker 3: where I go through each premise, I think it's better
Speaker 3: to explain it in a way that you can use
Speaker 3: it in a conversation.
Speaker 2: I mean, going through each premise only takes a few seconds.
Speaker 2: I've already done it, though I didn't do the formal
Speaker 2: thing of saying outright which statements were the premisses and
Speaker 2: which was the conclusion. But okay, go ahead anyway.
Speaker 3: So the creation argument essentially states that everything that begins
Speaker 3: to exist must have a reason for its existence, a cause.
Speaker 2: Not a reason. It may feel like splitting hairs to
Speaker 2: make that distinction, but that is often necessary when dealing
Speaker 2: with apologetics. Apologists like to hone in on imprecise language
Speaker 2: in order to get a technical gotcha. There's a reason
Speaker 2: for existence, but reason presupposes to mind or go. The
Speaker 2: reason for the universe had to have a mind or go.
Speaker 2: It was God causes. However, don't need a mind. What
Speaker 2: caused my backyard to be muddy? A combination of poor soil,
Speaker 2: drainage and a lot of rain this past week. No
Speaker 2: mind required. Now, in common parlance, reason doesn't necessarily require
Speaker 2: a mind. The reason my backyard is muddy is all
Speaker 2: the rain we've had recently combined with poor soil drainage.
Speaker 2: But if there's one thing I've learned about apologies over
Speaker 2: the years is that they love equivocating on imprecise language.
Speaker 2: So we got to be precise here.
Speaker 3: So since that's the case, we as people should also
Speaker 3: have a reason for our existence.
Speaker 2: Oh so we're dumb in it, right of down. You
Speaker 2: skipped over like seventeen different aspects of the argument to
Speaker 2: get there. Okay, Well, the cause for our existence is evolution.
Speaker 3: So this is the way it works. Everything that we
Speaker 3: see has a cause for its existence.
Speaker 2: And causes do not have to have minds or intentions.
Speaker 2: What caused that earthquake, tectonic activity boom?
Speaker 3: Literally, for example, we can look at a building and
Speaker 3: we can see fyfely assumed that there were architects and
Speaker 3: construction workers that were responsible for making it.
Speaker 2: Kind of jumping the gun there, running straight to things
Speaker 2: that are known to be caused by thinking beings with minds,
Speaker 2: aren't you? Why would you start there and not with
Speaker 2: something that is naturally occurring? Could it be because you
Speaker 2: want us to presuppose a mind is the cause.
Speaker 3: On top of that, paintings come from artists, dishes come
Speaker 3: from chefs, and forests come from seeds, and mountains come
Speaker 3: from the Earth's tectonic plates moving.
Speaker 2: Okay, my bad, they did get there. Okay, yes, you
Speaker 2: are correct. And did you notice that forests and mountains
Speaker 2: don't need a mind to cause them.
Speaker 3: So the idea is that all that we see needed
Speaker 3: to have some kind of cause, and our universe isn't
Speaker 3: any different, or so our.
Speaker 2: Intuition would have us believe. But the origin of the
Speaker 2: universe involves situations that we have never had any direct
Speaker 2: experience with, so our intuitions cannot be trusted to be accurate.
Speaker 2: Given that the origin of the universe happened on quantum scales,
Speaker 2: it stands to reason that quantum mechanics would have been dominant,
Speaker 2: and causality gets real wonky when it comes to quantum
Speaker 2: So even if the universe did begin in the sense
Speaker 2: that this argument requires, we don't know that it would
Speaker 2: have required a cause in the same way that things
Speaker 2: within the universe would require causes.
Speaker 3: According to science, our universe is expanding, and if it's
Speaker 3: continuously expanding, then if we were to rewind time, there
Speaker 3: had to have been a point in which everything started.
Speaker 2: Super sloppy language aside. Yes, it's not quite that simple,
Speaker 2: but we know that our current instantiation of the universe
Speaker 2: began about thirteen point eight billion years ago, and the
Speaker 2: fact that the universe is expanding was an important piece
Speaker 2: of that puzzle. But the problem for this argument lies
Speaker 2: in the assumption that there was nothing before the Big Bang,
Speaker 2: and so the universe had to be created by a
Speaker 2: god of some kind. Apologists usually ignore the plethora of
Speaker 2: cosmological models that don't start with the beginning in the
Speaker 2: same way that they mean when they say the universe began,
Speaker 2: but most people don't know enough about cosmology to point
Speaker 2: this out. But even ignoring all of that, usually apologists
Speaker 2: are advocating for the idea of a universe from nothing,
Speaker 2: and when they say nothing, they mean it nothing no time,
Speaker 2: no space, no quantum field, no laws of physics, just
Speaker 2: a formless, featureless void, what is known as a philosophical nothing,
Speaker 2: which seems like post hawk reasoning designed to make the
Speaker 2: argument fit in with Genesis one two, where the Earth
Speaker 2: is without form and void, but They also tend to
Speaker 2: ignore that Genesis one two doesn't describe a nothing either.
Speaker 2: Darkness was over the face of the deep, and the
Speaker 2: spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Seems like
Speaker 2: an actual nothing wouldn't have had water in it, But
Speaker 2: what do I know? But if I grant them a
Speaker 2: philosophical nothing, then we run up against another issue with
Speaker 2: the argument. You see, the reason we all intuitively know
Speaker 2: that you can't get something from nothing is because we
Speaker 2: exist in a universe that has laws of physics. In
Speaker 2: such a universe, it is true you can't get something
Speaker 2: from nothing. If, however, there were actually a philosophical nothing,
Speaker 2: this nothing need not play by the laws of physics,
Speaker 2: because a nothing that includes the laws of physics wouldn't
Speaker 2: actually be a proper philosophical nothing. So in an actual
Speaker 2: philosophical nothing, there isn't actually anything stopping the universe from
Speaker 2: spontaneously popping into existence. So, in a rather amusing plot twist,
Speaker 2: if they are right about the origin of the universe,
Speaker 2: then it has to be possible for a universe to
Speaker 2: come from nothing. And if this is how the universe began, then,
Speaker 2: as it happens, we don't actually know if the universe
Speaker 2: absorbs the nothing, or if the nothing continues to exist
Speaker 2: outside of the universe. If it continues to exist outside
Speaker 2: the universe, then it need never stop generating universes, leaving
Speaker 2: us with a potentially infinite multiverse. The way I see it,
Speaker 2: we have two options here. If the universe came from nothing,
Speaker 2: God is not needed to explain it, and if the
Speaker 2: universe did not begin to exist in the sense that
Speaker 2: this argument means, then God is still not needed to
Speaker 2: explain it. Either way, God is superfluous.
Speaker 3: So the question is how did everything begin? And the
Speaker 3: answer to this question is still a mystery in science
Speaker 3: because we obviously can't go back and observe how life
Speaker 3: actually began.
Speaker 2: Please stop jumping between arguments. The origin of life and
Speaker 2: the origin of the universe are two very different questions.
Speaker 2: But I mean, at least he's basically coming right out
Speaker 2: and saying we don't know therefore God. Usually I have
Speaker 2: to infer that from the argument itself. It's nice when
Speaker 2: they put the fallacies on full display for me.
Speaker 3: So the creation argument pretty much states that because things exist,
Speaker 3: things like the universe and its galaxy, stars and planets,
Speaker 3: and the Earth with its land seasoned people, then something
Speaker 3: or someone had to be responsible for its existence.
Speaker 2: Some thing. Sure, unless the philosophical nothing preciated the universe,
Speaker 2: in which case no cause is needed. But someone you've
Speaker 2: gone from there's a cause to the cause is a
Speaker 2: person with a mind. Without explaining your reasoning here, things
Speaker 2: need causes is not a statement that is sufficient to
Speaker 2: get us to an in physical magical man who watches
Speaker 2: you poop.
Speaker 3: As a conclusion, and while people may argue and say, well,
Speaker 3: maybe the universe was just always here. To that, I'd
Speaker 3: say that the universe expanding is proof that our universe
Speaker 3: isn't infinite because it all had to start at a
Speaker 3: single point in history.
Speaker 2: It's evidence that our local instances of space time is
Speaker 2: not infinite. But once again, even if you are correct,
Speaker 2: this does not get us to the invisible magical copprofile, because.
Speaker 3: From what we know and observe from the universe, that's
Speaker 3: the most logical conclusion we can come to.
Speaker 2: Our observations about how things behave inside the universe cannot
Speaker 2: necessarily be applied to how the universe as a whole behaves.
Speaker 3: So if the universe and everything in it seems to
Speaker 3: have needed a cause or reason, to exist, then God
Speaker 3: or some higher power seems to be the only explanation
Speaker 3: that makes sense.
Speaker 2: I suppose if you ignore all the other explanations.
Speaker 3: And I know some people will say, you Christians look
Speaker 3: at the unknown and turn off your minds and credit
Speaker 3: the unknown to God. At least scientists are out there
Speaker 3: observing and trying to figure everything out.
Speaker 2: It's not quite how i'd say it, but yeah, that
Speaker 2: is literally what you're doing here. We don't know how
Speaker 2: the universe began. Therefore God. You also ignore all of
Speaker 2: the models put forth by theoretical physicists, which are potential
Speaker 2: answers to that question, in order to prop God up
Speaker 2: as your preferred answer.
Speaker 3: You know, back when I was in college, I sat
Speaker 3: in one of my friends classes and JP Morland was
Speaker 3: the professor, and he taught his class something interesting, and
Speaker 3: he stated that the origin of the universe is outside
Speaker 3: the realm of science.
Speaker 2: Yeah, okay, I'm gonna go right ahead and trust a
Speaker 2: Christian philosopher and apologist about what counts of science and
Speaker 2: not the hundreds two thousands of scientists who have been
Speaker 2: studying the origin of the universe over the past century
Speaker 2: and a half, the study of which has led to
Speaker 2: breakthroughs that have real world applications.
Speaker 3: Sure, and the reason why is because science is based
Speaker 3: on the scientific method, or in other words, it relies
Speaker 3: solely on us making observations of the world around us. So,
Speaker 3: due to the fact that time, space, and matter all
Speaker 3: began at a single point in time, a point in
Speaker 3: time that no one can go back and observe, science
Speaker 3: then cannot answer the question of how the universe began.
Speaker 2: It is possible that we may never get a definitive
Speaker 2: answer there, but we can use what we know about
Speaker 2: how the universe operates to construct mathematical models that describe
Speaker 2: potential ways that the universe could have begun, as well
Speaker 2: as what came before the Big Bang. That is, using
Speaker 2: observations in the present to infer things about the past.
Speaker 2: Turns out, direct observation is not always necessary in order
Speaker 2: for something to be scientific.
Speaker 3: So mor Lens the professor then asserted that the question
Speaker 3: of how the universe began should actually be answered in
Speaker 3: the realm of philosophy, not science.
Speaker 2: So the philosopher who specializes in making arguments for God
Speaker 2: concluded that a scientific field that seems to pretty definitively
Speaker 2: render God unnecessary is actually not a scientific field, but
Speaker 2: a philosophical one. I'm shocked, shocked, I say.
Speaker 3: Well, not that shocked, and I thought that was interesting
Speaker 3: for me personally. If someone were to tell me, you're
Speaker 3: just turning off your mind and crediting the unknown to God,
Speaker 3: I'd respond, I'm not turning off my mind. I just
Speaker 3: think that a higher power that is greater than time, space,
Speaker 3: and matter can only be respet responsible for creating the
Speaker 3: universe that we observe today.
Speaker 2: I'd argue that it's actually worse than turning off your mind.
Speaker 2: You are actually using the power of your mind to
Speaker 2: rationalize a conclusion that you already held, instead of using
Speaker 2: it to actually understand.
Speaker 3: Do you have a better explanation on why everything exists today?
Speaker 2: Okay, do you not see it? I use my mind
Speaker 2: to think about how God makes sense. If you don't
Speaker 2: have a better explanation ready to go, then I guess
Speaker 2: God is the answer because it's the only one that
Speaker 2: makes sense. No further thought required.
Speaker 3: Because if you do, then I'd love to listen and
Speaker 3: I'm willing to learn.
Speaker 2: Well, then you could have done some light ask Jeevesing
Speaker 2: before writing the script for this video, because there are
Speaker 2: plenty of explanations out there that aren't hard to find.
Speaker 2: The fact that you made this video without learning about
Speaker 2: them serves to demonstrate that you are, in fact using
Speaker 2: God to fill the gap in your knowledge.
Speaker 3: So if you're watching this and you're someone who does
Speaker 3: not believe in God, I'd challenge you and ask, how
Speaker 3: do you think we all came to exist?
Speaker 2: Gay unicorn Gary, whose Holy Merch can be purchased at
Speaker 2: merch dot Vice rhino dot com, had a massive gay
Speaker 2: orgy resulting in a cosmic scaled orgasm that became the universe.
Speaker 2: Hence the Big Bang.
Speaker 3: Argument number two, the design argument. This argument is also
Speaker 3: known as the teleological argument.
Speaker 2: In short, some things have the superficial appearance of design.
Speaker 2: So if I ignore all the stuff that doesn't have
Speaker 2: this appearance and pretend that the appearance is not superficial,
Speaker 2: then it must have a designer, which must be God.
Speaker 3: So this argument pretty much states that complex and intelligent
Speaker 3: design must come from an intelligent mind or designer.
Speaker 2: Amusingly, one of the diagrams he's got up to illustrate
Speaker 2: intelligent design is the Earth's axial tilt. A spinning ball
Speaker 2: is a bit off center that is way too complex
Speaker 2: intelligent design is necessary.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: I know he's going for the Earth was designed specifically
Speaker 2: to give us seasons or whatever. But given the sheer
Speaker 2: size of the universe, the existence of Earth is neither
Speaker 2: surprising nor special.
Speaker 3: So let's look at the complexity of people. And I
Speaker 3: cover this in our is They're Really a God?
Speaker 4: Video?
Speaker 2: And I cover that in My Things are Long Therefore
Speaker 2: God video link in that place where links go high rule,
Speaker 2: I think.
Speaker 3: And in it I talk about how within a single
Speaker 3: person they have a cardiovascular system, an endocrine system, a digestive, respiratory, excratory, lymphatic, nervous, muscular,
Speaker 3: and skeletal system. And on top of that, according to
Speaker 3: the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, the DNA from
Speaker 3: one of our cells is six feet long.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I was briefly worried that I'd have to explain
Speaker 2: why I called the video things are Long Therefore God
Speaker 2: if they just skipped past this part, but they went
Speaker 2: ahead and clarified that for me. Thanks anyway, they keep
Speaker 2: going with this, but I'm going to skip it. You
Speaker 2: can watch the other video if you want a more
Speaker 2: detailed response to this specific claim.
Speaker 3: So the design argument would suggest that a person is
Speaker 3: too complex, and evolution could not have been the reason
Speaker 3: why people exist, regardless of how many billions of years occur.
Speaker 2: On the contrary, things are complex because they evolve. Evolution
Speaker 2: is a lengthy process of trial and error that often
Speaker 2: results in things being way more complex than they need
Speaker 2: to be in order to do what they do. The
Speaker 2: length of all of our uncoiled DNA is actually a
Speaker 2: good example of that. There is no reason why every
Speaker 2: single cell in your body, except for the red blood cells,
Speaker 2: should have a copy of your entire genome. They just
Speaker 2: need the genes required to do what they do, but
Speaker 2: they get the whole shebang because from an evolutionary standpoint,
Speaker 2: that is way easier to accomplish than cutting out only
Speaker 2: the bits of the genome that will be required for
Speaker 2: any particular cell. Thus, there is extra complexity in the system,
Speaker 2: specifically because it was not designed.
Speaker 3: For example, it would be nonsense to think that a
Speaker 3: laptop in a forest got there by evolution, because even
Speaker 3: if all the necessary parts of a laptop were in
Speaker 3: an area, and that area was untouched and nature just
Speaker 3: had its way for billions of years, a working laptop
Speaker 3: would not be the result.
Speaker 2: Yeah, because laptops don't reproduce, and that's kind of a
Speaker 2: key aspect of evolution.
Speaker 3: Yet many people who believe in evolution use this line
Speaker 3: of reasoning for people.
Speaker 2: So you remember how laptops don't reproduce, People do so.
Speaker 3: And they'll suggest that the building blocks for people were
Speaker 3: in an area and over time in organism formed and
Speaker 3: from that it kept evolving until we got to people.
Speaker 2: That's oversimplified, and the graphic he's using paints a ridiculous
Speaker 2: picture of the building blocks for life, including things like
Speaker 2: fully formed eyeballs and such. But yes, evolution likely began
Speaker 2: with auto catalytic reactions of non living material, that is,
Speaker 2: chemical reactions where one of the products is a catalyst
Speaker 2: for the reaction itself.
Speaker 3: And I do want to add that I do find
Speaker 3: a lot of credibility in evolution within a species.
Speaker 2: Then if you actually understand how evolution works, you would
Speaker 2: also find a whole lot of credibility in the theory
Speaker 2: as a whole, because there's not really a functional difference
Speaker 2: between evolution within a species and evolution of a new speed.
Speaker 2: It's the same mechanisms at play, the scale is just larger.
Speaker 3: Like Darwin's finches for example, finches do evolve over time,
Speaker 3: but they don't become anything other than birds.
Speaker 2: Why would you expect them to become anything other than birds.
Speaker 2: That's not what the theory of evolution predicts. But since
Speaker 2: you brought up the finches, this would be a great
Speaker 2: time to point out that researchers have observed in real
Speaker 2: time the evolution of a new species of Galapago's finch
Speaker 2: over the course of just a few decades. Not sure
Speaker 2: how that helps your case that evolution stays within the species. Also,
Speaker 2: the fact that flightless birds are a thing that exists
Speaker 2: suggests that evolution can create things that are fundamentally different
Speaker 2: from their ancestors. Penguins diverged from their flight capable ancestors
Speaker 2: just after the asteroid that killed the Nannie. Even dinosaurs
Speaker 2: hit the large ocean based predators were wiped out, thus
Speaker 2: leaving a relatively untapped niche for anything that hunted seafood.
Speaker 2: But as it turns out, having a body that is
Speaker 2: good at diving for fish requires traits that make it
Speaker 2: difficult to be able to fly, so in optimizing for diving,
Speaker 2: penguins gave up flight. So yes, penguins are still birds,
Speaker 2: but they are quite different from all the other categories
Speaker 2: of bird.
Speaker 3: And we do have wolves that mates with lesser violent canines,
Speaker 3: and evolution can create a bunch of different types of dogs. However,
Speaker 3: they stay dogs, except for the ones that turned into seals. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 3: I know it was the last common ancestor of seals
Speaker 3: and wolves that did that.
Speaker 2: It wasn't a dog or a wolf or whatever. Why
Speaker 2: can't I just be pithy for once.
Speaker 3: It's evolution that turns species into other species, like fishes
Speaker 3: turning into birds and birds turning into dogs that I
Speaker 3: would disagree with.
Speaker 2: You don't believe in flying fish then, because they are
Speaker 2: a thing that exists. I have seen them with my
Speaker 2: own two eyes. They're actually super cool to watch, and
Speaker 2: they can fly for a surprisingly long time. Now, we
Speaker 2: wouldn't actually expect evolution to turn a currently extant fish
Speaker 2: into a currently extant bird, but evolution does frequently develop
Speaker 2: similar traits in unique ways, because, as it turns out,
Speaker 2: traits are almost universally helpful. Being able to see, for instance,
Speaker 2: eyes have evolved independently at least forty times because being
Speaker 2: able to see things can help you find food, find shelter,
Speaker 2: and avoid predators, among many other uses. So a fish
Speaker 2: might not evolve into a bird, but a flying fish
Speaker 2: could plausibly evolve into a type of fish that is
Speaker 2: able to sustain flight in much the same way as
Speaker 2: a bird given the right evolutionary pressures. And hey, since
Speaker 2: we've already spent a bunch of this video being needlessly pedantic,
Speaker 2: fish did evolve into birds. The last common ancestor of
Speaker 2: all terrestrial vertebrates was a.
Speaker 3: Fish, and the reason why is because in our fossil record,
Speaker 3: I don't recall seeing much of any transitional species that
Speaker 3: were in the middle of evolving.
Speaker 2: Well, then you haven't looked very hard. Aside from the
Speaker 2: pedantic nitpicking about how every species is a transitional species,
Speaker 2: Archaeoptriyx is a very obvious example of the transition from
Speaker 2: therapod dinosaur to bird. It's got teeth clad fingers on
Speaker 2: its wings and a bony tail like therapods, but it's
Speaker 2: got asymmetrical light feathers and a wishbone that make it
Speaker 2: rather obviously a bird.
Speaker 3: So, going back to the argument of design, complex and
Speaker 3: intelligent design requires a complex designer.
Speaker 2: Which means that God has to be complex, and complexity
Speaker 2: indicates design. So who designed God? If nobody needed to
Speaker 2: design God, and God is if anything way more complex
Speaker 2: than people, then why do people need a designer?
Speaker 3: So when you look at the complexity of people and
Speaker 3: all that makes up a single person, this kind of
Speaker 3: complexity had to have come from some higher power.
Speaker 2: Which by extension, had to be created by some power
Speaker 2: that is even higher still.
Speaker 3: So if you're someone that doesn't believe in God and
Speaker 3: you think that evolution makes more sense and that people
Speaker 3: did evolve, I would challenge you to think of a
Speaker 3: time when life can come from non life.
Speaker 2: The digestion process is quite literally life coming from non life.
Speaker 2: When you eat something, it is either already dead or
Speaker 2: will be shortly after being exposed to your stomach acid.
Speaker 2: Your body then takes this non living material and builds
Speaker 2: itself out of it. Thus life from non life help
Speaker 2: Plants do this at an even more fundamental level. Most
Speaker 2: of the body of a plant is made out of
Speaker 2: carbon that they pulled directly out of the air. Life
Speaker 2: is made entirely out of molecules and chemicals that are
Speaker 2: not themselves alive, but the way they interact creates the
Speaker 2: gestalt that we know is life. Life is at its
Speaker 2: core a cascade of chemical reactions, none of which we
Speaker 2: would call a live on its own. Given the fact
Speaker 2: that life is itself a cascade of lifeless chemical reactions,
Speaker 2: why would we expect the origin of life to be
Speaker 2: anything other than a cascade of lifeless chemical reactions.
Speaker 3: Or, in other words, if evolution did start everything and
Speaker 3: the world started with a bunch of non living things
Speaker 3: that people ultimately evolved from, can you think of another
Speaker 3: time when life was able to emerge from something that
Speaker 3: wasn't alive.
Speaker 2: No, but we wouldn't really expect life to spontaneously develop
Speaker 2: in that way after life that's already on the planet
Speaker 2: has become so well established. Our planet is favorable for
Speaker 2: the type of life that we are, so any life
Speaker 2: that would evolve on this planet would be in competition
Speaker 2: for the same resources that we use, So it would
Speaker 2: be immediately outcompeted for those resources by the currently living
Speaker 2: organisms that are already highly specialized for living in their environments.
Speaker 2: It'd be like trying to open a mom and pop
Speaker 2: shop right next to a Walmart. The Walmart is already
Speaker 2: well established and will immediately outcompete the mom and pop shop.
Speaker 3: Because if that's not the case, then where did life
Speaker 3: begin there are a few hypotheses.
Speaker 2: The one that makes the most sense to me is
Speaker 2: a tidal pool environment where wet dry cycling would encourage
Speaker 2: auto catalytic reactions in the mud that was rich with
Speaker 2: organic materials.
Speaker 3: You could say, you just don't know, but I think
Speaker 3: that the most logical explanation is life coming from some
Speaker 3: originator of life, and I would call this originator of
Speaker 3: life God.
Speaker 2: Once again, we don't know, therefore.
Speaker 3: Good And if you're a Christian and you're wondering how
Speaker 3: you can use this argument in a conversation, I would
Speaker 3: encourage you to ask a lot of questions on what
Speaker 3: someone believes regarding the complexity of life, and I'd say
Speaker 3: something along the lines of people are incredibly complex. Where
Speaker 3: do you think we came from? And how do you
Speaker 3: think life started?
Speaker 2: And thus we arrive at a problem that I've pointed
Speaker 2: out with apologetics before. For apologists, if you believe in God,
Speaker 2: you don't actually need to have any good justification. But
Speaker 2: if you want to question God's existence, now you have
Speaker 2: to be an expert in biology, biochemistry, geology, astronomy, and
Speaker 2: theoretical physics, among others. In order to be taken even
Speaker 2: the slightest bit. Seriously, I'm skipping the rest of this one.
Speaker 2: It's just him talking about how he has a friend
Speaker 2: who is a chemist who doesn't believe in evolution. Great,
Speaker 2: you found one out of tens of thousands two millions
Speaker 2: of scientists who denies a thing that all the rest
Speaker 2: of them accept. Forgive me for not caring.
Speaker 3: And argument number three the moral argument. This argument pretty
Speaker 3: much states that because people have universal laws that they
Speaker 3: all abide by its evidence of God, because he had
Speaker 3: to give people these laws.
Speaker 2: Except we don't and he didn't. Different cultures have different
Speaker 2: opinions on ethics, and that's to say nothing of the
Speaker 2: disagreements between individuals in the same culture. So this argument
Speaker 2: fails upon the tiniest bit of scrutiny to.
Speaker 3: Explain it more, Murdering babies, purposefully polluting water reservoirs, and
Speaker 3: other crimes like rape are wrong.
Speaker 2: Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and
Speaker 2: dashes them against the rock Psalm one thirty seventy nine.
Speaker 2: Seems like the book that you think is the word
Speaker 2: of God disagrees with you about the murdering of babies.
Speaker 2: It also treats rape as a property crime, committed against
Speaker 2: whoever owns the woman, and doesn't acknowledge that men can
Speaker 2: also be victims of rape. It also says nothing about
Speaker 2: polluting in water, So an application of the Polline principle,
Speaker 2: the idea that when the Bible is silent on an issue,
Speaker 2: it's not prohibited, but it's also not necessarily good, would
Speaker 2: tell us that it's at least allowed. And I don't
Speaker 2: know if it's properly called the Pauline principle. That's just
Speaker 2: what I heard it called it the Christian high school
Speaker 2: I attended, But apparently after some googling, the Pauline principle
Speaker 2: is actually Paul's version of the ends don't justify the means,
Speaker 2: which can be found in Romes three eight. The thing
Speaker 2: that I know as the Pauline principle comes from First
Speaker 2: Corinthians ten twenty three. All things are lawful, but not
Speaker 2: all things are edifying. Whatever it may be called, it's
Speaker 2: the idea that at least some Christians have that if
Speaker 2: the Bible does not explicitly forbid a thing, then that
Speaker 2: thing is not sinful. But just because it's not sinful
Speaker 2: doesn't mean it's good.
Speaker 3: And while that seems obvious that they're wrong. The question
Speaker 3: is why do we think they're wrong.
Speaker 2: Because as a species that evolved to be social, a
Speaker 2: sense of morality that promoted social behavior also evolved. But
Speaker 2: this also explains why not everyone agrees on morality. Evolution
Speaker 2: works through variation, so any trait that is a result
Speaker 2: of evolution can be expected to have some variation within
Speaker 2: a population. Most of us agree on most of the
Speaker 2: big ticket items like murder, because there are very few
Speaker 2: scenarios where murdering someone will help with social cohesion. But
Speaker 2: then you'll notice that plenty of people disagree about killing
Speaker 2: in certain other circumstances. Some of us think that the
Speaker 2: death penalty is state sponsored murder and it's clearly immoral,
Speaker 2: while others think that the death penalty is a necessary
Speaker 2: part of the justice system. From an evolutionary perspective, I
Speaker 2: could definitely see why killing members of a society that
Speaker 2: severely break our moral code can be beneficial, But that
Speaker 2: creates a conflict with our general distastes for killing, and
Speaker 2: so there is much disagreement about it. Sure, Christians can
Speaker 2: point to the many instances of God commanding executions and
Speaker 2: genocides in the Bible to support capital punishment. And if
Speaker 2: morality comes from God, then that would certainly be an
Speaker 2: excellent argument for it. But does the fact that so
Speaker 2: many people are against the death penalty not make you
Speaker 2: wonder about this moral code that God supposedly wrote on
Speaker 2: everyone's hearts.
Speaker 3: The moral argument suggests that these moral laws can't develop
Speaker 3: from a purely biological world, and that these morals need
Speaker 3: to come from a higher power or God.
Speaker 2: Well, there's no real reason to think they couldn't develop
Speaker 2: through evolution, So that's just an assertion with nothing backing
Speaker 2: it up.
Speaker 3: And the reason why is because if there was no
Speaker 3: God and we were purely biological beings, then we'd be
Speaker 3: no different than animals.
Speaker 2: We are animals, and rudimentary morality exists within our closest
Speaker 2: animal relatives, along with biological explanations for its existence.
Speaker 3: Because lions can kill gazelles and dogs can go have
Speaker 3: sex with other dogs without their consent, But lions don't
Speaker 3: murder gazelles and dogs don't rape other dogs. They're just
Speaker 3: acting like animals.
Speaker 2: You consider killing an animal in order to eat it murder,
Speaker 2: So are you a vegetarian or are you a murderer?
Speaker 2: Or is killing for sustenance morally permissible as to rape,
Speaker 2: It's about cognitive capacity. Dogs don't have the cognitive ability
Speaker 2: to consent in a way that humans would consider necessary
Speaker 2: for sex, so applying our morality to their behavior in
Speaker 2: this regard is just nonsensical. Side note. This is also
Speaker 2: one of the many reasons why the off proposed slippery
Speaker 2: slope from gay marriage to bestiality doesn't work. As long
Speaker 2: as we maintain consent as a fundamental aspect of sexual ethics,
Speaker 2: bestiality will never be okay because we don't know of
Speaker 2: any animal that is capable of consenting in a way
Speaker 2: that would make it okay.
Speaker 3: So to really think about this argument, we need to
Speaker 3: consider why we as people think that things are wrong.
Speaker 3: Because if we truly did believe that our world was
Speaker 3: purely biological, then we couldn't say that what Hitler did
Speaker 3: was wrong.
Speaker 2: Why Why does having its basis in biology mean that
Speaker 2: we can't think genocide is wrong? More to the point,
Speaker 2: how can a Christian say that genocide is wrong when
Speaker 2: they worship a god who has commanded his people to
Speaker 2: carry out several genocides. Not to mention, if you take
Speaker 2: the story of Nozark seriously, he directly committed the biggest
Speaker 2: genocide in human history. Unless this all get dismissed as
Speaker 2: old Testament stuff, the Christian apocalypse holds that He's going
Speaker 2: to come back and commit genocide again during the end times.
Speaker 2: As an atheist, I am free to say that genocide
Speaker 2: is always an unequivocally wrong. As a Christian, you have
Speaker 2: to contend with the fact that a moral code based
Speaker 2: on the Bible allows for genocide in some cases. I,
Speaker 2: as an a theist, don't have to do any mental
Speaker 2: gymnastics to say that Hitler was wrong. But the Christian
Speaker 2: apologists are up there competing with some own biles in
Speaker 2: order to be able to both condemn Hitler and justify
Speaker 2: God's genocides.
Speaker 3: If morals were not given to us by God, then
Speaker 3: the rules we have as a society would be subjective.
Speaker 2: And if they were given to us by God, they'd
Speaker 2: still be subjective, just instead of it being our subjective
Speaker 2: opinions and feelings about them, it would be God's subjective
Speaker 2: opinions and feelings about them. God being God, does not
Speaker 2: make his opinion objective. He's still a subject in this
Speaker 2: sense of the word.
Speaker 3: Meaning what's wrong for me may not be wrong for
Speaker 3: other people, and we could then respectfully disagree.
Speaker 2: You know, kind of like we do about the morality
Speaker 2: of the death penalty or of eating meat. Weird how
Speaker 2: it seems to work the way you say it would
Speaker 2: work if it wasn't from God. Almost like it's not
Speaker 2: from God.
Speaker 3: But this moral argument suggests that there are things that
Speaker 3: we can't respectfully disagree with, like we can't respectfully disagree
Speaker 3: with Hitler.
Speaker 2: We'll tell that Chuck Schumer.
Speaker 3: What he did was morally wrong.
Speaker 2: Okay, I skipped a bit in the Hitler section, but
Speaker 2: it's relevant now, so let's go back to it.
Speaker 3: They also killed black people, gay men, people with disabilities,
Speaker 3: and their political opponents.
Speaker 2: Now that we've heard that, let's read from the Good Book?
Speaker 2: Shall we levitik Is twenty thirteen. If a man lies
Speaker 2: with a male, as with a woman, both of them
Speaker 2: have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death.
Speaker 2: Their blood is upon them. Now. To be fair, there
Speaker 2: are plenty of Christians who point out that this is
Speaker 2: likely about pederasty rather than about just being gay, which
Speaker 2: actually gives it a new level of cupidness when you
Speaker 2: see the victim of what would then be rape being
Speaker 2: put to death, although that is pretty consistent for the Bible,
Speaker 2: so maybe that's the case, but most American Evangelical Christians
Speaker 2: interpret this to be the death penalty for being gay.
Speaker 2: Seems to me like you said in your video that
Speaker 2: killing gay men was a bad thing. Are you disagreeing
Speaker 2: with the moral code that was given to us by God?
Speaker 2: And what's more, you're saying it's achieved such a level
Speaker 2: of immorality that it is not possible to respectfully disagree. Now,
Speaker 2: I'm all for it if that's what's happening here, But
Speaker 2: something tells me that they would suddenly have a bunch
Speaker 2: of hedging and qualifying to do if this were actually
Speaker 2: pointed out to them.
Speaker 3: But if we lived in a purely biological world, I'd
Speaker 3: argue that we couldn't say that he was wrong.
Speaker 2: Okay, fine, I suppose I'll give my moral system a
Speaker 2: basic explanation at this point, net harm versus net well being.
Speaker 2: If the results of an action increase harm, they are bad.
Speaker 2: If they increase well being, they are good. Genocide increases harm,
Speaker 2: so it's bad. Therefore Hitler was bad. Not all that complicated,
Speaker 2: though this is midly oversimplified.
Speaker 3: Because he was just doing what was right for him, but.
Speaker 2: His actions impacted other people, so it's not just about him.
Speaker 4: Is it.
Speaker 3: And people could argue that objective moral values could emerge
Speaker 3: from a society. But if a objective moral values did
Speaker 3: begin within a society, how would we know which moral
Speaker 3: values to defend.
Speaker 2: By seeing which ones do the best job at reducing
Speaker 2: harm and increasing well being?
Speaker 3: Because different moral values could technically arise that contradict other ones.
Speaker 2: As happens with the death penalty example. Once again, morality
Speaker 2: in the real world seems to work in exactly the
Speaker 2: way you say it would if morality did not come
Speaker 2: from God.
Speaker 3: So if you don't believe in God, I would challenge
Speaker 3: you to think of where your conscience came from. Like,
Speaker 3: you have a sense of right and wrong, So where
Speaker 3: did that come from?
Speaker 2: Definitely didn't come from that God that supposedly inspired the Bible.
Speaker 2: That's for sure. I have way too many disagreements with
Speaker 2: biblical morality for that to be the source. That's it
Speaker 2: for this one. Today's comento the Day comes to us
Speaker 2: from the life of Trash, who says, if you just
Speaker 2: watch his channel, you will learn that he states all
Speaker 2: of this is not true. It's just plausible and it's
Speaker 2: a giant critical thinking class. This was on my video
Speaker 2: responding to Professor Jang, where he spends the majority of
Speaker 2: his time explaining why he thinks European Christians believe that
Speaker 2: everyone was created equal. Therefore there was no excuse to
Speaker 2: killer and slave people until Darwin came around and gave
Speaker 2: them the excuse to do slavery right in the middle
Speaker 2: of that time, when Europe began outlawing slavery. And therein
Speaker 2: lies the problem. Even if your framing is correct, he's
Speaker 2: not saying that the things that he's teaching as though
Speaker 2: they are actually true are actually true. He's just bringing
Speaker 2: up plausible alternatives with the goal of getting you thinking.
Speaker 2: The fact remains that the stuff he brought up is
Speaker 2: not actually plausible. It's not even superficially plausible if you
Speaker 2: spend any amount of time actually thinking about the implications
Speaker 2: of what he's saying. But he's also not making it
Speaker 2: clear that he's just presenting plausible scenarios to get people thinking.
Speaker 2: He's teaching it as though it is established fact. Now,
Speaker 2: maybe he does clarify somewhere that he's not actually teaching facts,
Speaker 2: but then we run into the same issue that we
Speaker 2: had with Armored Skeptic when I covered him a couple
Speaker 2: of years ago. As a YouTuber, you cannot expect your
Speaker 2: audience to be familiar with your entire back catalog. Always
Speaker 2: have to make your videos with a new viewer in mind.
Speaker 2: Putting a statement that everything you're teaching is false at
Speaker 2: the very very beginning of an extremely long series is
Speaker 2: not adequate cover for presenting untrue shit as though it
Speaker 2: is true eleven hours into the series without reclarifying that
Speaker 2: it's actually not true. Most people only see clips of Jang,
Speaker 2: not entire videos, and the clips are very much of
Speaker 2: a These are true things that this guy is saying
Speaker 2: variety not. These are some interesting hypotheticals to promote critical thinking.
Speaker 2: Thanks for watching. Don't forget to go to surf shark
Speaker 2: dot com slash rhino for an extra four months for free.
Speaker 2: I'll be back next Friday with more, but if you
Speaker 2: need to get your rhinofix in before then, I live
Speaker 2: stream of service every Wednesday eight thirty Eastern on my
Speaker 2: other channel, The Watering Hole, and periodically published shorts to
Speaker 2: the channel Vice Rhino Shorts. I should probably do that again.
Speaker 2: Thanks to Piper for being my editor and special things.
Speaker 2: As always to my patrons, who are the line that
Speaker 2: I forgot to write here for the outro. That is
Speaker 2: the outro to my channel. If you'd like to be
Speaker 2: forgotten about, you can join us on patriot at patreon
Speaker 2: dot com, slash vice Rhino, or by supporting the channel.
Speaker 2: The other method that I can be on the links
Speaker 2: ibis round dot com. Thanks for watching Something Something by
Speaker 2: funk Off. Yeah you didn't tell me you're recording now,
Speaker 2: Well I'm recording now.
Speaker 4: Who do you want? Oh?
Speaker 2: I should stop recording half