Years ago I wrote this guy a PM on facebook and he sent me a bunch of material and a personal letter with an autographed version of his book. Incredibly good guy. It's my most prized possession.
@@CRCov The modern inflated economy is surely stopping him, at least now he won't be rejected based on mere racial factors now that the supreme court made the wonderful decision of ending affirmative action.
@@sandwichbreath0 Indeed. Although I mean, to be fair, he or his team should've done maybe a little more research into him before hand. There's a reason scientists don't respect Stephen Meyer, and they should looked into it before inviting him.
It doesn’t though. Joe worships something he may or may not call god but God desires worship through free will. If you aren’t worshipping God you are living in Sin and actually worshipping the devil.
Dr. Meyers ability to communicate deep scientific AND philosophical concepts in a calm, courteous manner is extraordinary. His interest in Joe's questions , and no doubt in him personally, is genuine. Stephen appeared to thoroughly enjoy the conversation while at times Joe seemed unsettled by what he was hearing.
@@Reclaimer77 The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at its best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
@@ikestrawman4625 Also don't know why... I'll repost it here, maybe this time it will work? "The point is, looking at everything, seems like there's an order and laws and a start. It's a theistic argument, not a big man in the sky argument that is concerned about you touching yourself. Watch the whole interview, it's very long but very interesting. And watch some other interview, Rogan was not at his best here because these are very straightforward ideas but not mainstream.
Joe’s only retort to the points that Stephen cited throughout the whole podcast was “Well could there be more data collected in the future that could provide a different explanation? Yeah? Then these current studies aren’t 100%.” Rogan couldn’t seem to / wasn’t open to comprehend anything beyond his current belief system.
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq How would you expand the topics, is there other ways of asking for other interpretations, or potential attractive theories of a subject to continue expanding the conversation?
@@Jinzozaddy-qj6vq That was noticeable for me but, it was only for a period in the podcast joe was stuck on at a certain point he was trying to drive. Steve himself complimented Joe as he transitioned to cohesive subjects in the full interview and they were interchangeable.
@Xlippo I came to the conclusion because a lot of it essentially came down to Joe saying "well yea but isn't that just your view or your opinion". Well of course it is. Isn't that why you had him on? Is he supposed to give an opinion that's not his? It was at times as tho Joe was trying to change the guys mind or opinion to the same as Joe. Not joes best in my opinion but opinions are like assholes, everybody has one
I sat and watched a snake in a cage repeatedly going to the corner by the window and trying every possible position and combination of positions to get through that glass and outside. The determination and certainty that it could get out was built on observation and understanding. I can't help but think of that snake when humans espouse understanding the universe. I'm pretty sure there's an element missing in the equation because it's just so far beyond comprehension, just like the snake will never understand how humans make glass.
That’s a great way of illustrating the concept of inhabiting a space where something with a far greater intelligence has set the parameters for existing inside the “cage”. Meanwhile the inhabitant knows there’s more beyond the bounds of its domain even if it can’t comprehend the situation it finds itself in in its entirety.
What a dumb way of saying “I absolutely KNOW there has to be more than evolution and big bang.” Totally bro. Watching a snake totally proves an intelligent designer, but why stop there, as another commenter has alluded, your experience proves his god lul. You two have contributed much to our overall knowledge today. Thanks for your work. It is so incredible how people project their own bs on other people, that they have no idea what their work is about, they can’t even take the time to learn it, only say that it’s wrong, or they know better, because I watched a snake, and made an analogy. It’s so funny how oblivious you all are to this. Joe Rogan is a moron, who cannot help but find conspiracies everywhere. He surrounds himself with charlatans, like this guy, Bob Lazar, Graham Hanock, etc.
Here is the quote by Terrence McKenna that Joe referenced. “Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.”
For real. These people are in denial. They just don't want to admit that they are sinners and Need Jesus to forgive their sins. Boom. There you go. You're welco.e
Men have always known God is a tool of fiction. You can explain everything with fiction. Re: Luke 11:29-36 "As the crowds increased", Jesus said, “This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah. Jonah 1:15-17 KJV So they took up Jonah and cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging. Then the men feared the LORD exceedingly, and offered a sacrifice unto the LORD, and made vows. The superstitious crowd is wicked. We know them by their works & those use the vocabulary of fiction as if we did not know nothing fails like prayer in a children's hospital. No man looks for prophet as a job description outside of fantasyland. Even Jesus Christ proclaims faith is worthless since you can't get mountains to jump on command, as if they could ask "How high sir." Jesus Christ is fiction so you can cherry-pick a number of things. I'm trying to use the text to point out nothing is sacred or divine, it is your faith which heals you & not touching the hem of his tunic like people do, by virtual touching the shroud of Turin. The scream from the wicked generation says look there is a magic image of Jesus, He is not fiction. Men have always known God is fiction. The Temple of God serves the best meat, & if Gods existed, She would have no need of men for teachers. Thanks for the reply. How is it possibly ethical to suggest the equivalent of a notion we all travel with one foot in a stranger's fantasyland, using fictional vocabulary: prophecy, prayer, etc. We have Moses: World's worst navigator leading a party as if travel were best done with one foot in fiction. If Christianity were so good, why are the Jews unconvinced? The religious lack any standing for a vacuum of quality-control. The Jews have a joke: God made Mormons so Christians would know how Jews feel. As the crowds increased, Jesus said, "This is a wicked generation. It asks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah, who was sacrificed overboard & the raging sea grew calm." The sign of Jonah is the superstitious working their way to a majority & good people dying. Need we add more? Should we ignore it was secular law & order ending the inquisitions, the witch killing? Nothing fails like prayers in a children's hospital. We don't recommend prophet as job description. We know them by their works & Christians have attempted to put their new wine in the old Jew wineskin. They both come from genital mutilation spun up with circumcision as a shortcoming. We know them by their works, the vocabulary of fiction, of spin.
@luciferfn5367 I once took a lot of magic mushrooms and went to sleep and had a crazy dream about Lil Wayne on The Joe Rogan podcast it was very Vivid and it WAS A GREAT PODCAST
It wouldn't be a JRE episode without Joe not grasping half of what his guest is saying/arguing and Joe taking everything literally and derailing the topic from what his guest just said every time he opens his mouth.
@@Nebx1989SM was outlining his views on metaphysics vs science in a really profound way that I had never considered and Joe couldn't wait one second before blurting out a complete brain fart after. Excruciating to listen to.
It was a tough conversation for Joe at times, it’s great to see some constructive conflict at such a high level on a fascinating topic. Some of the best stuff on the internet today
This guy was spewing bullshit about evolution, not being real, that in a binary digital computing system it doesn't make sense. Nature works on the quantum computing system as kaku said. So this guy is completely off to begin with
Joe made some very dumb "counterpoints". He wasn't following the guest arguments at all some times. I think he was too predisposed to ridiculing intelligent design which did a disservice to the conversation because he used very basic, anti intellectual arguments against it. Like 5th grade level arguments. Like Stephen said there's actually a lot of scientists questioning the theory of evolution these days which is mind-blowing in itself.
I've just finished the entire interview - awesome discussion. Some have suggested that Rogan was unfairly combative, but he seemed genuinely curious. The stakes here are high if Meyer is right and so probing questions are absolutely called for. Meyer fielded them well - an intellectual tour de force.
Rogan seems so unwilling to accept anything that Meyer put forward. “Isn’t that based on a limited amount of information?” In reference to all the collected information we have spanning scientific research from the beginning of science as we know it.
I thought Rogan was being pretty obtuse. He doesn't ask any other scientist "but isn't that just based on our current knowledge?". Besides that his thing questioning the validity of Meyer's personal experience was pretty odd given how often Joe talks about the validity of psychedelics based on people's personal experiences with them.
I feel that he is very articulate. The reason he pauses at certain points is because he is deciding what to say. The ideas he is trying to explain to a layman audience are very complex, and he wants to explain things so that normal people like us can understand. The guy has devoted his life to study these topics and clearly has an immense amount of knowledge, seen by the fact that he is constantly quoting or references endless amounts of scientists, dates, and even specific events in his life. So when Joe asks a question, his brain is probably going in multiple directions as to how to best answer a question. And he doesn't seem nervous at all, he has spoken to much more hostile audiences. He is awesome!
@@johnnyboy1586 He is also way more wrong than Dawkins. And yeah, he is smooth, isn't he? Most conmen are, it's not exactly a prerequisite, but it helps enormously.
@@johnnyboy1586 You are in good company then, as Meyer isn't a scientist either. His doctorate is in philosophy. Car salesman is actually a good analogy, now that I think about it. He has been embroiled in this ridiculous "teach the controversy" thing from a few years back and he continues to push "creation science" and intelligent design, both of which are demonstrable nonsense. Effectively, every time he quotes a scientist, you can trust that quote. You can also trust that he has taken it out of context and that whatever he claims as a conclusion has no basis in science. Stephen Meyer is a snakeoil salesman who seeks to discredit all of astrophysics, because it doesn't mesh well with scripture.
@@johnnyboy1586 In more specific terms, and I beg you to forgive the double post: In this particular segment, he has mislabeled the Big Bang as the "beginning" of the universe. Which he needs to be true so he can say "god did it", which he does all the time. The first 6 minutes are him waffling about. It is a preamble for what comes next. Starting at minute 6, he starts to talk about a "beginning". Which was originally prompted by Rogan, but he didn't correct him on it. Which he SHOULD have because the Big Bang is not the "beginning". We do not know what happened before the Big Bang. Calling it the beginning of the universe is therefore disingenuous. He then mentions hawkins and Penrose, saying how their findings point towards "a beginning". No, they don't. Both of which have done work exploring the idea of the Big Bang, and Penrose in particular has forwarded the idea of a cyclical universe. Meaning, that there IS no beginning if Penrose is correct. And again, he KEEPS calling it "the beginning". That is disingenuous. The big Bang is not the beginning of the universe. And this is important for Meyer of course, becuase he NEEDS a beginning to justify his "theistic implications" that he mentions at the 11 minute mark. Ask yourself this: He talks about "proofs" for a beginning. I already told you that "beginning" is a deliberate mislabeling by Meyer, but what proofs were actually mentioned in this clip? He just says they exist, he mentions names, he mentions his book, but he makes no effort to explain what they actually are. This entire segment is him waffling. Cheers comes to mind, in particular the famous "but he didn't say anything!" exclamation in episode 11x21 And then of course he launches into the whole fine tuning bullshit at the end of the clip, on which I would refer you to Douglas Adams and his puddle analogy.
Found the atheist ostrich Ok sorry, that was a bit snarky 😅 My friend, did you even listen to the conversation? I ask because you’re coming off as an arrogant fellow who is afraid of hearing compelling arguments, scientific or philosophical or both, for a reality that contradicts your worldview. I’m not saying you ARE that way, I’m saying you’re sounding that way. If you don’t want to listen to the conversation, allow me to do you a favor and give you a timestamp where Joe talks about something that, technically proves miracle(s) are real. This will only take a minute of your life. Start at 12:06
@iservHim It's not a miracle. Let me give you an example: Sir Isaac Newton was kind enough to offer us a very good understanding of how gravity works, to the point where we can use this understanding to make very accurate predictions. But Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation couldn't explain Mercury's orbit. At that time, with what we knew of physics, Mercury's orbit was impossible. It seemed like a miracle, do you see where I'm going? Then Einstein, in his theory of general relativity, gave us an insight into the nature of gravity and was able to explain and predict Mercury's orbit. It doesn't mean that Newton was wrong, as Newtonian physics is still valid. It just means he was missing an aspect of the universe that he couldn't imagine. Now, the Big Bang is no different. Right now, we can't explain what happened before it. But someone will come up with a successor theory to General Relativity and show us the aspect of the universe that we overlooked. Without the math for it, simple things like Mercury's orbit can indeed seem like a miracle. So no... the big bang is not a miracle. It's just an event that we aren't smart enough to understand yet. we're only human.
@@iservHim You responded to my snarky comment with a snarky comment. No offense taken. Well played sir. I am very familiar with Stephen Meyer and his arguments. That’s why I feel confident in my comment and stand by it. His views are extremely “anti scientific” and intellectually dishonest But I will review the link you sent. Thanks!
@@iservHimit’s very difficult to take seriously someone who is so seriously invested in the religious argument. I mean your tag is ‘’ iservhim’ for crying out loud?! I think the difference between the atheist types that you point out and you is that their arguments seem to be more convincing for one particular reason. They’re not self serving. In other words, they’re putting forward the atheist argument, which is when you think about it pretty grim. No real purpose to life, and no after life. where as believers like yourself want to believe because it just feels a lot better than the grim realisations of the other side.’ I mean who wouldn’t want to live forever and re-meet their dead family and friends. It’s just so comforting and peaceful. I really really wish there was some solid evidence for it as I miss my father very much.
@@rogerthornhill1491 Yes, there are comforting aspects of faith in God, but it has nothing to do with whether it is true or false. Moreover, we can also say that atheism is comforting because if it is true, then you won’t be judged, there are no significant consequences of your actions, so you can live a life that aims at what feels good. It is easy to put aside Christianity or Theism saying it is based on wishful thinking, but there is much more solid basis for it.
I second this, especially as Dr. Ross has a tonne of insights regarding the alien / UAP phenomenon, which would likely interest Joe. Lots of great info regarding black holes too, which I’ve heard him describe as “evidence of God’s care”.
I am about 2/3 of the way through the conversation and am disappointed. It has its bright spots, the clip above is one of them, but the overall conversation feels like two steps forward and one step back.
I went into this interview hoping to hear something convincing, instead what I got the overwhelming sense of while he spoke was that he went into science seeking evidence of God, not that he discovered God in science. The fact that he said one of his confirmatory experiences with God was that he heard God's voice in his head kinda hints his frame of reference
Exposing Discovery Institute : Stephen Meyer ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Akv0TZI985U.html These are the top 5 institutions promoting creationism. They are all bogus, pseudo-scientific . 1. The Discovery Institute (DI) 2. Institute for Creation Research (ICR) 3. Creation Ministries International (CMI) 4. Reasons to Believe (RtB) 5. Answers in Genesis (AiG) This is actual science. Evolution Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: ru-vid.com/group/PL0FB1F085BD950D0F
Exactly! I love Joe's podcast but I notice a lot of his viewers put a huge emphasis on the charisma and personal connection with the guest rather than their actual evidence or epistemology. Nothing wrong with charisma or personal connection but it shouldn't be used to base the truth or believability off of, but unfortunately it's a common pitfall of human psychology
As interesting as the story is, what it really makes me consider is the fact that we now live in an age where our information is being so distilled and twisted to support a specific point of view that the average consumer of news cannot get the straight information: it always comes with someone’s bias wrapped around it, and that is really hurting us as a species right now. Whether it be politics, science, religion, healthcare, or any other community-centric topic, it is really hard for us to discuss these things when the information comes half-baked and distorted.
I think it's the opposite. The average IQ of the world has gone up so much due to social media. News is always biased and 70% of the world is programmed by nature to fall for for biases (survival of the fittest is a significant law of nature) if anybody wanted to fund the truth the information is out there. Most choose to the way of fast food new due to whatever excuses one may have.
Perception and priority. If we assemble our priorities properly, the perception we receive will propel us alot farther forward. Its like trying to walk across a bridge as you build it.
Simply isn’t how science works. You’re suggesting that we draw conclusions prior to making even a hypothesis. Your logic should extend to exactly where you applied it: construction. Science is not a bridge, making poor analogies isn’t helpful.
I would say that I was totally shocked to see Stephen on Joes show but then he’s always been good about having people on with different views. During my conversion, when I was struggling to reconcile the Genesis account of creation with what we know about the origins of life, I came across Stephens work. Love this man of God! Great podcast!
@@atheosmonde Two things. First: Why did you put "simple" in quotes? Second: I don't understand your question, and not just because you didn't put a question mark. God bless you!
He's complicating what's very simple. The point is James Webb Telescope disproved the big bang theory. But these secular zealots changed their theory "again" and are arguing the change never occurred. They were are wrong.
absolutely great episode no matter what worldview you hold, some did say joe was being a little combative but that's understandable, they're discussing entire worldviews which would probably bring along some kind of defensiveness on both sides but regardless I'm glad joe did bring on someone he disagrees with, his ability to do that separates him from the rest..amazing stuff
i'm 90 minutes through so far, i listen to about an hour of a podcast every single day and Joes attitude this episode has been really disappointing, he hasn't smiled or laughed once and seems to dismiss EVERYTHING Stephen says...not sure if he was in a bad mood the day this was recorded or what but it's been painful to listen to so far..
@duane6504 If "God" exists outside of our physical realm of space and time (and it'd have to If it created this construct), then we'd have no way of measuring . Our inability to prove something simply proves our limitations, not that something doesn't exist.
This is another example of why this is the best podcast on the face of the Earth. The ideas stem from comedy, to politics, to health, to religion, and a fusion of all of those things together in a myriad of combinations, that teases and pleases the intellect.
You say this like millions of other people don’t talk about the same shit. They just weren’t global celebrities when they started talking about the same shit.
@@jsweetness5 My point is that you’re praising Joe for something he isn’t even remotely unique or special for doing just because he has the name recognition others don’t.
@@AzarathMetreon you don’t know my intent. Did someone hurt you? Why are you picking fights with strangers on the internet? Do you struggle when people have different opinions than yours?
I would've LOVE to see Dr. Michael Heiser on Joe's show b4 he passed. He was such a great communicator for the complexities of the Ancient Near East languages. He could've helped Joe really understand the cuneiform tablets of Sumer or the hieroglyphics of Egypt or what the Biblical Hebrew REALLY says about the Unseen Realm. Hopefully Dr. Heiser's videos come up while looking into Dr. Meyer.
You are right very good professor. And he also had knowledge of the UFO subject that Joe is so interested in, I have seen his program fringepop321 on RU-vid, very good.
Surprisingly enjoyable conversation that gave me a lot to think about. Stephen humbly reminding me that I still have prejudices, if I'd known he was a proponent of intelligent design I doubt I'd have listened but he makes a great argument for it.
I don't understand why evolution itself can't be the "intelligent design". I mean when human beings design A.I., we try to design it to evolve and adapt to anything. I just think evolution vs intelligent design is an unwinnable argument, because they both are the same thing. Evolution is the intelligent design.
@@weshouser821 That was basically Stephens argument though wasn't it? How we have that (I forget the proper terminology he used) integrated circuit which is evidence of fine tuning and cannot itself handle any kind of mutations without shutting down the whole framework. So the advantageous mutations that cause evolution are reliant on a system that was seemingly fine tuned from the get go. And the more levels you regress the more fine tuned systems there appear to be to even get to having a galaxy/solar system/planet for all this to occur in the first place. As Sagan said, if you wish to build an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the universe... but literally :')
@@weshouser821especially when you consider the implication that time is relative, and really, something only expirenced by objects with mass. Several billion years of evolution to create a human, or a day, might as well be the same thing if time is relative.
Having a beginning doesn't mean that there wasn't something that was there before. Stars explode all the time, it doesn't mean the star didn't exist before.
In the most common philosophical argument for God, the Kalaam, the definition for beginning, in layman's terms, is anything that at some point in the finite past did not exist. So you did not exist at some point in the finite past but obviously your mom and dad did.
As much as I love learning about these subjects. I strongly believe the science community knows about 1% of what the universe is and the potential of what is possible. We all need to be open minded and explore all possibilities and leave ego at the door.
@@Marrikable How about you actually take the time out of our busy schedule to listen to the entirety of the podcast before resulting to fruitless insults.
Listen to Oxford Maths professor John Lennox on this subject also. His discourse with Jordan Peterson on JBP’s podcast is essential listening. Meyer talks so eloquently, he’s a superb listen. I’m also now convinced 🙏🏻
After watching this RU-vid clip earlier today, I went to Spotify and watched the entire interview. My reaction is WOW! This is the best interview I have ever seen Joe Rogan do. Dr. Stephen Meyer is obviously very brilliant but lots of folks are brilliant. What is so impressive to me is that his arguments make great sense when I ignore my desired presuppositions.
Ok I just downloaded Spotify to watch this video as I'm a huge fan of SCM. So it was first time on Spotify. The app didn't let me see the video only the audio?? Is that normal or do I need to do something to activate the video of this discussion? Dumb question I suppose for ppl who have used Spotify before.
@@MarcoH72 He is not wrong he is just a liar, he deliberately avoids talking about things like how old is the earth because his audience is YEC and his ideas even when fully accepted don't support YAC, but he is just trying to get money from them so he avoids talking about many implications of his own thinking.
Put those guys in a room with actual experts in Evolution and enjoy the Intelligent Designers squirm uncomfortably around the easy rebuttals to their nonsense. In most cases these guys are either misrepresenting the experts they vaguely cite or are parroting science that was already debunked and abandoned half a century ago.
@@williamingramm2293 What, so they can fail to to explain the gaping holes in their own theory? Even Gerd Müller acknowledges the problem Developmental Gene regulatory Networks (dGrns) present for current micro and macroevolutionary models (check out Eric Davidson's work at Caltech see what I mean). Meanwhile, David Berlinski and David Galertner are not "intelligent designers," so now who's "misrepresenting" William? In which case, I'd suggest, it's people who seem to think this is "a competition" that make the problem all that much harder. This should be about (not) guarding ego and paradigm, and (not) siloing "the truth" (according to only certain experts), and 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘺 acknowledging what questions remain. That's all a person like Stephen Meyer is saying. New atheism is dead, try and keep up.
@@ssj4goku18825theepic If you mean humans as in we, then modern humans (H. sapiens) evolved from a lineage of hominins, becoming a species about 300 thousand years ago
If the Big Bang was not a singular locus but a fissure, then equal threshold moments would be translating up the axis of the fissure leaving a trail of older initial points behind. A zipper disconnecting. This could establish enexpected mass differences when only modelling a point reference. A fissure would produce an extrapolated expansion origin futher forcing imbalances, mixtures, time dilations etc. Scalar realms of the universe would further differentiate giving the field of the universe its own living energy dynamic. As a vibrating spring with mutiple frequency inputs.
Enjoyed the show. I like the intellectual shows the best. Wish you would have more of them. Try to get James Perloff on. He wrote the book " Tornado in a Junkyard."
Finally Steven on Joe’s podcast. Can’t wait for another. They just barely touched subjects from Steven’s first and second book. Such a pleasure to listen to Steven and such a pleasure to listen to so thoughtful and respectful host.
Ok I just downloaded Spotify to watch this video as I'm a huge fan of SCM. So it was first time on Spotify. The app didn't let me see the video only the audio?? Is that normal or do I need to do something to activate the video of this discussion? Dumb question I suppose for ppl who have used Spotify before.
This is the best of Rogan, when he has an intelligent, articulate interviewee. You may not agree with them but you have to listen and give them their due. I don't understand the "nothing from nothing" argument. At the moment of the big bang, everything was contained in the singularity, if I am interpreting it correctly. It is the same with the uber massive black holes that are now in the 100 billion solar mass range. The first singularity would have had to have been a lot more massive.
The issue with the materialistic theory of the big bang, is in order for it to happen, you would need the fundamental laws of nature, how did those exist if there was nothing?
