Joe Rogan Confronted With A Logical Case For GOD 

Agreed. Personally, I don't understand these kinds of people though. If you are that open to the idea of God, but your waiting to be convinced ... Why not just give God a try and see for yourself? Salvation in Jesus is a personal experience, it's not a test you need to study for. Just pray to him with a genuine heart, with honest curiosity, with intention. Ask him to reveal himself to you, then start participating. Find a good church, pray and read the Bible. The bible is a spiritual book, tbh it's like magic. You need faith to unlock it's deeper insight and truth. Pray to God and ask him to speak to you through it. Then just pick a random page and start reading. Then contemplate how the words you just read apply to your life. Just try it for heavens sake, literally. All God is asking is for you to just acknowledge him.. and the sacrifice he made on the cross. Jesus loves all of us, no one is exempt from his mercy and forgiveness.

I absolutely disagree. None of what this guy said was a new argument, it's the same old mumbo jumbo that has been disproven countless times. Just because Rogan says "Woah man" to everything he says doesn't make it legitimate.

​@@thejdazdisprove it then

@@cosita7479thejdaz can’t disprove it. He’s just being a troll.

​@@thejdaz How is anything you said an argument for you position ?

You can learn a great deal about someones beliefs and where they stand by just letting them talk . You don't have to agree with them just acknowledge that you're hearing what they're saying . They'll either dig themselves a hole or rise and shine in elevate the both of you .

What the hell are you talking about. There are hundreds of podcasters who engage in friendly opposed dialog… ? 🤷‍♂️

It's Joe's job, so someone else speaking means he can sit back and think about renovating his bathroom. So your assumption is just that. 😮

@@matthewclark1006 Nah. Other podcasters have to constantly be talking and interrupting.

He interrupted plenty and pointed out the fallacies.

He has described his interview style as understanding it is his job to make them shine

@@karlwithak. Never expected the expert fallacy here

@@karlwithak. I am embarrassed for you.

@@karlwithak. Well what you wrote is not smart

​@karlwithak The idea that verbal fluency is the ultimate arbiter of understanding and intelligence is not borne out in reality. Incredibly intelligent people can have halting and hesitant verbal patterns. This gentleman is clearly intelligent with a wide breadth of knowledge, whether you agree with him or not. Nor do you have an understanding of Rogan's guests. He has had on some of the most successful, credentialed, and intelligent individuals in many disciplines, many far above his "I.Q.", and surely your own. Let me give you a bit of advice- you're not nearly as smart as you think you are.

Listen Joe reasonably smart guy, nothing special, and he’s got a podcast! If he was as smart as you assert he’d deconstruct this guy and his fantasies and bullshit in 5 minutes!!

@@dipdo7675 Shoo. /flaps hands in your direction.

@@dipdo7675​ Where to even begin with your asinine reply.. For someone with the audacity to critique the original comment in such a condescending way, one would think you would actually know how to read. 0P never indicated his opinion on Joe’s intellect. You literally made that up. OP was commenting on Joe’s willingness to listen with an open mind/curiosity. To be so condescending by coming from the position of something OP *didn’t* even say is astounding. So the only explanation for your embarrassing reply is you’ve had that teed up in your little mind for a while just waiting for an opportunity to whip that out in an attempt to seem smart. Boy did that backfire😂😂😅

@@dipdo7675 if that was so easy then why don't you go ahead and do so yourself? The answer is simple; you're not nearly as clever or knowledgeable as you think you are. The reality of God is undeniable since the rejection of God is the same as rejecting the reality of truth, since God is truth. The fact is that you presuppose that your intellect is realiable enough to make claims about objective reality. But you wouldn't be able to make that presupposition in an atheistic framework because in the atheistic worldview, there is no ultimate, objective purpose, meaning or truth behind anything - it's all just chance and co-incidences. These factors in the atheistic worldview does not produce a reliable intellect on which one can base one's reasoning on and make certain or even rational arguments to begin with. To presuppose reason of the intellect and intelligibility of the universe, of reality, you must first accept the premise of the reality of God.

Joe knows what he’s doing, giving intelligent people a platform is necessary!

Joe is very good at that.

I don't think Joe is playing skeptic...

Not only was there no yelling, there was also no belittlinging or comedic mocking.

Yes they behaved like… adults!

And This is why broadcast and cable news shows are on their death bed . Why would someone waste two or three minutes of their precious time watching some empty headed newscaster pitched prepared questions and cutting off their guest when they don't received the expected answer that they want ?

I believe I've heard Rogan describe himself as a big lunkhead . And I see that as coming from a place of humility it's a good quality to have . He may not be the smartest person but what he has that may be even more valuable is curiosity and a willingness to listen to something in its entirety without injecting his own personal beliefs and biases . And he knows how to ask a good question . Plus he knows how to inject humor at just the right moment to keep things lively and fresh I think This is why he's the number one podcaster . Whether he knows it or not he is an educator and a spreader of wisdom everyone from a muscle bound dude bro to a highly educated physicist can enjoy Rogan I wish him well and a long continued success .

Joe want's to believe and he will be full on believer very soon... you herd it here first.

@@DrewHop325 I did here it here first Isaiah but I probably won't remember 😂Hope he does though

This seems like an older video. Based on the studio set up

There's no expiration date on wisdom .@@nathanielace7534

Anyone with a degree of self-awareness will become more open in their later years . I think when you become more conscious of your own mortality you become more open to the possibility of something beyond this physical and temporal realm of existence . As a 67 year old man I find myself in the midst of a spiritual awakening .

I feel all the times he got up in arms on those subjects he was drunk lmao. Especially the crowder episode lol.

Joe is an involving man, As we all should be.

He asks very dumb questions at the start, but then he’s able to iterate on them to get more specificity and narrow in on much better questions that get to better answers and conversation.

I honestly think it was his ego asking most of those questions. They were annoying at first, but I realized joes ignorance on the subject was beneficial to potentially millions of theists who now have a coherent and cohesive argument laid out by Joe’s guest. The answers were so intelligently relayed that I became happy with the questions.

Such double standards The guest spouted absolute nonsense especially his computer analogy. His argument can be dismantled by a five year old. You can’t see it because you are dearly trying to defend your belief.

​@ThomasRosehands , well if it can be dismantled by a 5 year old, then you should have no issue. Go ahead. Dismantle it.

@@ThomasRosehandsI also found his reasoning as being not that great. For me I can still coming from primordial soup.

It is is irreducibly complex. It proves life cannot have arose from chemicals into life. All the components of a cell must be present at the same time. It could not have came from anything more simple.

I agree. Something must have created life on earth. But what and why and how. It's unclear.

@phoenixgamer1565 it doesn't prove it, it is just unfathomly unlikely that it could occur naturally. We don't really know either way

The basic question is where did we come from. If the answer given is a single cell. The following question is where did the cell come from? Evolutionist can't answer that.

​@@josephmartin5483it's very clear

Your mother is always with you and I know you know that!

He would be a wonderful presidential debate moderator.

He definitely wasn’t always this understanding and open to different views. He’s definitely improved in this area

What I don't like is the guy that's reviewing this clip is making this incredible leap in logic, stating that life is is complex therefore there must be a higher intelligence that designed life. 1. If a God exists, what created God? 2. What is this God made of? (Does it have DNA?) 3. If there is a higher power, why do you think its exactly the God you believe it to be? What if it's just advanced extraterrestrial being that seeded life on the planet? These questions are literally unanswerable therefore it's much more rational to take the stance of "I don't know" just like most rational intelligent scientists do when they don't have the evidence. Just because we don't know, doesn't mean there is no rational, logical explanation for our questions, we just lack the technology or knowledge to answer these questions. A couple centuries ago everyone thought the world was flat; this topic is akin to that. You can believe whatever you want to believe but don't say there is proof of God, don't try to rationalize it because that is just not true. The whole premise of any religion is that what you believe is based on faith, or in other words, lack of evidence.

@@johnj3027 nobody’s stopping you from thinking/believing whatever you like. Nor should you or anyone else try to stop others from doing the same.

@@johnj3027 I wouldn’t say lack of evidence, but lack of proof. One can say certain evidence points me to believe in a higher power, but doesn’t actually prove anything. Same goes for scientists’ best guess as to what was before the Big Bang..

Sorry but Joe is a regular guy! Possessing a decent level of intelligence! He’s got a podcast and not a pedigree of academic achievement! Don’t make him out to be something he isn’t! A guy like Dawkins, now there is an intelligent guy, brilliant actually, who would deconstruct (yes destroy) the lightweight guests pseudo- intellectual statements!! As he said himself, he studied philosophy in college, not biology, chemistry, genetics, physics, so his scientific pronouncements are facile at best and lies at worst!

@dipdo7675 I hate saying this but I think you're unlikely to be a good judge of intelligence. I'm basing this on your excessive use of exclamation marks, your non-ironic use of the word 'destroy' to describe someone winning a debate and lastly because you said: "Not a pedigree of academic achievement". 😉 Seriously though, academic achievement is a fairly poor indicator of intelligence. Academic achievement is generally only proof that you can intellectually paraphrase other people's ideas. If Joe Rogan was the same person in every way except he had a masters in molecular biology I think you would view him completely differently. This in itself is stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!

@@dipdo7675 Dawkins is a bloody shill, his true colors were revealed over the past couple years just like his buddy Neil Defart Tyson

@@dipdo7675Dawkins has said some pretty stupid things recently. If you want to put him on a pedestal and call him a heavyweight by all means. But he has looked like a chump in some debates.

​@@dipdo7675 I believe he said, maybe in a different clip, he has a degree in geo physics and maybe evolution too. Philosophy was his side interest. Not to say I think all his ideas are correct.

Do you accept or deny evolution?

@@derekallen4568 Do you? Does Meyer? You are missing the necessary first step. Define what you mean by your terms. If I ask you, “Are you gay?”, it behooves you to know what I mean by the word gay. I could well be using the word in the common sense of usage in the 1960s and before, or, conversely, I could be using the word in the common usage of today. Your answer to the question expressed using the same words may vary considerably with a different meaning attached to the word “gay”. Does Meyer believe in evolution? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in chemical evolution?

@@samdg1234 word salad! Evolution is a fact of life. You can call it what you like. It can be called micro evolution or macro evolution, it's the same thing, over a longer time period over a longer period of time. Abiogenesis is a different question.

Atheists are also very religious with their many beliefs that are not backed by material evidence. No one has seen something created from nothing. No trillions of pre, mid, and post-transistions of plants and animals over 'billions of years' to show macroevolution. Many other atheistic beliefs that don't have material evidence.

@@derekallen4568 calling something a fact of life when there isn't a shred of actual evidence for macro evolution, but there is of adaption

James Tour’s debate with Dave Farina on the cluelessness of abiogenesis is hilarious.

we may never know hoy it happened however it doesn´t mean there was a god needed.

​@@roddydelipsa1769how impossible does abiogenesis has to be for you personally to admit that this is impossible without intervention?

​@@horridhenry9920no, it wasn't lol, it wasn't kek, it was pure cringe.

@@horridhenry9920 James gets so worked up during the debate. Dave was his normal condescending self...

Which God? There have been thousands.

Dont forget he only make supposition... He's far from a 100% There a God...

@@sachalg5720 Jason Lie is a young Earth creationist masquerading as a scientist. He’s a 1000% sure there is a God; he knows his name and what he wants.

@@horridhenry9920 to start with, I am guessing, any god, that can create....and maybe later on narrowing that down, a bit...so loosen up and listen to the presentation......that is the beginning of knowledge.....knowing, if not believing ones argument....

@@horridhenry9920 First of all is name is Jason Lisle. He Said There a God whit some "THEORY" but Nothing really New. Funny part he discredit all the bible so you still like him??

You have every right to be wrong.

@guitarszen Agreed. There is no logical case for god. Only people who *believe* things to be logical about their religious *believe.*

@@kevinkerr9310 Prove me wring, pumpkin. Or better yet, prove that you have any humility at all.

@guitarszen A renowned scientist with an IQ 3 times yours, and you have the arrogance to question his logic? LOL. Liberals are like dogs who can't tell the difference between a bone and a sewage pipe.

@guitarszen God dies when you realize that there is no. Absolutley no reason whatsoever fo god to not tell ever man, women and child in the universe that he exists. He could send everyone a hand written letter of pure gold. He could talk to everybody in the same time without losing anything. Neither time or anything else. There is and there will never be a real reason why he is not doing so if he exists, but people will always make up the craziest stories about why he does not choose to do so. If they cannot explain their bs, they just say: God works in mysterious ways. Nitzsche tried to and this childishness, but their ignorance was stongter than his intellect.

Nobody has ever learned anything from the garbage Meyer spills out for his employer, the very ill-named Discovery Institute.

Yes! Let’s pray for Joe today!

​@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom🙏 Agreed

there was 0 discomfort recorded... you guys will really just make up whatever and run with it... isn't it tiring?

If he became Christian his show goes about preaching the "word" - no disrespect but it would drop to the same amount subscribers that this RU-vid channel has , Christianity has edge to it.

@@notimportant3686 this is a snapshot, not the whole interview. I'll leave it there.

Thank you for sharing this!

Absolutely. The resistance to belief of God's existence/character/authority/intent is not lack of evidence, but a delusion intentionally orchestrated by Satan in his determination to destroy us. I used to think it was basically the inability of Christians to articulate their position/evidence, or the hypocrisy of fallible human nature of Christ's people. I now see that empirical scientific evidence of the Biblical narrative is dismissed & ridiculed by people determined their superstitious faith in evolution/atheism is TRUTH, even if it contradicts their own observations/experience. Their blindness is irrational.

To say that DNA stacked itself is complete denial, sadly many today believe that, it’s a combination of genetics and structural engineering that no one can accomplish, with direct and immediate applications and deficits depending on how it’s intertwined. If it was random why aren’t people being born other creatures or puddles of gelatin?

Do you understand entropy? Who says it’s embedded in something?

Risking falling into your strawman fallacy argument, I will respond anyhow. I believe everyone reading this understands the meaning that was conveyed. Of course the exact definition of entropy means different things in different sciences and contexts. It is one of those words that has too many definitions. To make it simple for you to understnad, think of it as degredation. All living things degrade over time. All living organisms eventually die.

@@FloresTrumpet - they're not manufactured explanations, they only appear manufactured to people who've been suckered into blindly believing the Bible isn't true.

@@FloresTrumpet - we have miles and miles of old and defunct science textbooks, would you see a doctor trained from medical books in the 1800's? I'm sure you wouldn't, yet somehow you're wiling to let science "fill" prior gaps w/o question, yet the Bible is unchanged since it's beginning - and considered the most printed/sold book in human history... and yet you're guarded about "manufactured" spiritual explanations. It will always look manufactured to people who are relying on other people's claims rather than looking into it for themselves.

The doctors today are specifically trained not to ever cure anyone. They treat symptoms without identifying or eliminating the root cause whenever possible. So it's not like modern medical practices are sooo great in comparison to the past.

​@@alanncsu3243what's true about the Bible. I can show how it was created by the Piso family in Rome during the 1st century. How flavius josephus was a made up character. It was created to try to stem a revolt by the jews as their religion was growing and was against almost everything the Roman empire pressed upon people, such as slavery, which was the economic basis of the empire. The Roman aristocracy was afraid of a slave revolt. Choose to believe in historical fact or a sky fairy. The choice is yours.

Every pseudo scientist is peddling that same trash. There is a reason that science is consensus based- because if it was not we would have bricks like you claiming your emotions are science.

The scientist made no scientific point in this discussion. His computer analogy against macro evolution can be dismantled easily.

Stephen Meyer is NOT a scientist. He is a philosopher and historian. And to say his views on this topic fringe science is an understatement of Biblical proportions.

ITT: Two people who don't know what science is

This was pure and utter ideology

Then make the argument.

Learn what? This guy is a standard apologist. He’s intellectually dishonest and has an agenda. Christians are bogus people

This video is utter nonsense ….no real scientist takes this guy seriousley😂😂😂😂😂

@@chrisrendon461 You seem like a decent chap

@@chrisrendon461 Wow, you've met all the real scientists. I'm impressed.

Thanks for the kind words and welcome to the family of God brother!

@@onedirection2301 dude why would you get your information from this man why not a person with a phd in biology they can easily explain everything he states… you think thousands and thousands of scientist are wrong they spend there whole life looking into these things and studying and looking at the data there all wrong but this guy is right that has an agenda …. Thats delusional

Great to see you coming back to Christ! But are you sure the authoritarian dictates came from the church? Or maybe just someone representing it? You can disagree with the church but it has a very long intelectual tradition (see thomistic theology as an example) it really has a reason for everything it teaches.

@@mateoarmas3585 I wouldn’t smear all Catholics with the same brush. I do condemn those leftists in the Church for their crimes and corruption. Like those who committed the Spanish Inquisition which had nothing to do with Christianity but everything to do with copying the Jihad. There have been evil Popes and priests and self-righteous attendees. But I also many good and great Christians that are Catholics. Contrary to what the leftists say I find their false assertions that the only way to Christ is through the Catholic Church. Every church is about fifty/fifty percent Christians and others seeking Christ, some far more and some far less, plus some pretenders. Church leaders vary as much. It’s like any profession. There are incompetent doctors and dentists just out for money scamming patients. It’s just the way of things.

What took you so long between finding god and finding christ?

@@jackhogan6639 It is as just two years. I found God reading Felix Salten’s book and learning to understand the world. I found Christ through a college friend two years later. What came harder was finding faith and understanding Christ not just knowing about Him. I spent ten years trying to be good enough without realizing I could never be until a Southern Baptist preacher led me through the last steps. I spent ten years trying to be good enough till he explained that I could never be, that salvation is God’s gift who will love Him enough to accept His Son as their Savior.

Paintings are demonstrably painted by a painter, there is a huge set og data underpinning that they don't for naturally....there is nothing even remotely like this for nature.

The guy is a conman. Member of Discovery Institute who peddles pseudoscience like intelligent design. The scientific community has been fighting against them.

@@imanilim6632 just because someone doesn’t agree with you ideologically doesn’t mean they are pseudo scientists. Doubt you have a PHD in biology from Oxford. Or have the Oesper Award (2021), Centenary Prize (2020), Trotter Prize (2014), and Feynman Prize (2008) like James Tour A scientific argument can be developed for intelligent design based on the information bearing properties of DNA. Discovery in modern molecular biology tells us that even the smallest and simplest units of life, the living cell, have within them sophisticated information storing molecules and a complex information storage/transmission/processing systems such that if you want to explain the origin of life, you’ve got to explain where that information processing system came from. The inability to explain that system as a result of spontaneous interaction of simpler non living chemicals is the reason that there is a complete impasse in origin of life research and studies of chemical abiogenesis. That was the reason Ben Stein was able to extract that concession from Richard Dawkins. No one does have a clue how such a system of information and information processing could have arisen from interactions of simple non living chemicals on a prebiotic earth. What we know from our experience is that information, especially when found in a digital or alphabetic form, always arises from an intelligent source. Even Richard Dawkins has recognized that DNA is like a machine code. The argument for intelligent design is not an argument from ignorance or based on what we don’t know they are arguments based on what we do know not only about what undirected processes of evolution can and can’t produce but also about what we know from our uniform and repeated experience about another type of cause, that cause being agency/mind. At the foundation of life there is information in a digital form. The DNA molecule store’s information in a 4 character digital code and this discovery has overtime created an impasse in both chemical evolutionary theory, which are the theories of the origin of first life, and a biological evolutionary theory, which are theories about how you get new forms of life from preexisting forms. To build anything in biology you have got to have code/information. This information is an indicator of a mind/intelligence. Darwin developed a rigorous method of scientific study of events in the remote past and he had a key principle of reasoning which is if you are trying to explain an event in the remote past you should be looking for causes that are known to produce the effect in question. The key effects in question for scientists studying the origin of first life was the origin of information (the digital codes stored along the spine of the DNA molecule...where did it come from?). What we know from our uniform and repeat experience, which is the basis of all scientific reasoning, is that information comes from an intelligent source. Whether Its a hyroglific inscription, a paragraph in a book, a headline In a newspaper, or a section of code in a software program...whenever we trace information back to its source we always come back to a mind not a material process. Therefore the discovery of digital code found along the spine of the DNA molecule and the whole conflux processing system that surrounds it is decisive evidence of intelligent design. That is concluded on the basis of Darwin’s own method of scientific reasoning which credits our knowledge of cause and effect as the key criteria by which to decide what constitutes the best scientific explanation for any phenomena. If you wanna give your computer program a new function you have to give it digital code. To get life going you need digital information in the DNA molecule and probably a lot of other information as well. This is the reason that professor Dawkins and others recognize that there is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of the first life and it is because scientist in that field have been unable to account for the origin of the information necessary to get life going in the first place. Once you have life you may be able to generate some modest amounts of new information by some kind of mutation but getting the vast amounts that are necessary for major macro evolutionary transitions is also problematic. So the discovery of information in the foundation of life in even the simplest cells suggests the activity of a designing intelligence. Even Peter Atkins, an outspoken atheist scientist, is quoted saying “I concede that intelligent design theory does present some very interesting questions” Methodological naturalists who believe only a natural process could make things is like someone looking at a hyroglific on a wall and saying “it was the wind” And the fine tuning of the universe points to an intelligent designer as well. It’s not only been discovered that there is evidence of design in life, but the universe itself from its very foundation has been finely tuned in its basic physical parameters to allow for the possibility of life. The universe appears to be a setup job, some physicists describe it as a “Goldilocks universe”. The basic parameters of physics, for example, the strength of gravitational attraction...it could be stronger it could be weaker but instead in falls into a very narrow window with a very narrow tolerance where in the production of carbon is possible and many other features that are necessary for life to exist. The strength of electro magnetic attraction and the other fundamental forces of physics all fall within very narrow limits that allow life to exist in the universe. The masses of the elementary particles, not too heavy not too light. The force that causes the expansion of the universe outward from the beginning, something called the cosmological constant, is exquisitely fine tuned at 1 part in 10^90 power (is an accepted value by many physicists, some hold that the fine tuning is even more exquisite). The fine tuning of the initial arrangement of matter and energy at the very beginning of the universe which is called the initial entropy fine tuning. This fine tuning is almost begging computation, it’s been calculated to be 1 part in 10^10 power raised again to the 123rd power. It’s called a hyper-exponential number. A life friendly universe is beyond improbable. Many physicists, including Sir Fred Hoyle, an astrophysicist who was initially an atheist who opposed the Big Bang theory on the grounds that he thought it supported a theistic view of creation. He ended up changing his world view after discovering some of these key fine tuning parameters himself and later said that “a common sense of interpretation of the data suggests that a super intelligent intellect has monkied with physics and chemistry in order to make life possible. Your precious “scientific community” has been highjacked by ideologs. High Ross steamrolled Peter Atkins in their debate. Meyer, Ross, And Tour have schooled so many atheists I’ve lost count.

@@imanilim6632 You mean like the scientific community fought against all things COVID that didn't follow the narrative? I just simplified that with such a comparison, but there are huge questions within the theory of evolution. Science has historically shown us that they are far from above reproach, and can be very unscientific at times as it relates to letting their ideas be challenged.

@@imanilim6632 Pathetically fighting against a far superior factually logical framework of reasoning.

@@imanilim6632 good arguments stand on their own merit no?

So true. The only way to disprove the necessity of intelligent design is if they made a big soup and waited until life formed in it

@@ShadowQuik Even then it would be intelligent design. Soup needs to "evolve" by itself. If you make the soup it is still intelligent design.

even if they never manage to do it... that doesn´t prove an intelligence was needed.

So you people are saying that the earth is flat and sits atop of stone pillars situated at the very centre of creation with the sun revolving around the earth? Cause that's gods creation and if he's wrong then what does that mean for creation itself...or your belief in it

Your clearly just dont want to know... because There already a lot of theory/study Goin on when we get There we Will tell you dont worrie ...loll

Myer is not a rational person. He is demonstrable liar who workd for a propaganda mill.

What makes believing in God any different from believing in evolution in the way Joe Rogan believes in it? Why is it that its always assumed that people who believe in God do so with absolutely no evidence for it. If you ask any believer they do see plenty of evidence for an intelligent designer (like a God) And they don't see any evidence for an unintelligent design (random chance). Yet many believe and put their faith in chaotic forces rather than order....... idk if you see where I'm going with this but... when I was an atheist I was blind to the fact that alot of my beliefs in that time were also faith based and nor actually provable in a matter of fact kind of way. But I did see what I thought at the time was somehow evidence for a chaotic design based on what was taught to me in school but once I ventured out and did searching beyond that - as stated previously I think there is actually more evidence for intelligent design (a God, Creator). And I don't think its a huge leap or without observable evidence for it. In essence your question is biased in a way that assumes the other side does not use evidence available in order to draw their conclusions. Devine fingerprint IS a rational thought.. Peace and Love hope I answered your question satisfactorily.

@@Piccolotheturtle because I don't "believe" in evolution. Science and therefore the theory of evolution don't require faith for it to be true. The evidence that supports evolution does so because it points towards evolutions. The evidence is all around us and showcases how closely related life on earth is. Evolution is the result of natural selection and natural selection is observed on a constant basis. It's not assumed that people who believe in God do so with absolutely no evidence for it. People who believe in God misinterpret the evidence they use and therefore have no evidence for it. Let me give the simplest explanation as I can for that: many creationists use the analogy that a building is evidence of a builder and therefore "creation" (in reality it's the existence of life but I digress) is evidence of a creator. While this analogy may seem sound on the surface it ignores the fact that we observe people building said buildings numerous times throughout our lives. We also observe humans every single day. It's undeniable that humans exist and that humans build so if you look at a building and say "that's evidence for a builder" you're absolutely correct. However, you would be wrong to say "I believe aliens built these buildings" because there is ZERO evidence of that. So, while there may be evidence of design there's no evidence of the designer that creationists claim aside from the "building" existing...or life existing. Whereas what you called "chaotic design" has more supportive evidence on a micro and macro level. Dogs and galapagos Islands organisms are evidence of microevolution. The evidence for macroevolution is in fossils and DNA. It's all around us. Look at our own species and how different we are depending on where you go in the world. Peace and love to you as well! I appreciate your response

@@Piccolotheturtle "What makes believing in God any different from believing in evolution " Evolution is a demonstrable process, whereas no proposed God ever, has a demnstrable correaltion with reality whatsoever. Joe Rogan is irrelevant " Why is it that its always assumed that people who believe in God do so with absolutely no evidence for it." They accept aweful evidence when it comes to religion, which they rightfully reject in any other context. The evidence for Gods exist, it is just objectivly bad and in no way warrants belief. "Yet many believe and put their faith in chaotic forces rather than order......." Accepting the demonstrable existence of the forces of nature (which are not exactly chaotic) is a rational and sane thing to do. IT is however not the same as " put their faith" in it whatever that means. "when I was an atheist I was blind to the fact that alot of my beliefs in that time were also faith based and nor actually provable in a matter of fact kind of way" What forces of nature are in need of "faith" ? If they werent detectable they would not be forces of nature. The four fundamental forces of nature are Gravity · The weak force · Electromagnetic force · The strong nuclear force they all are understood and utalized....so what forces are you talking about? " But I did see what I thought at the time was somehow evidence for a chaotic design based on what was taught to me in school but once I ventured out and did searching beyond that -" Are you sure you payed attention? "I think there is actually more evidence for intelligent design (a God, Creator)." Then you surly can present some of it? Present some for this ill-defined intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, which is not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science. I can't wait. " In essence your question is biased in a way that assumes the other side does not use evidence available in order to draw their conclusions. " If you mean IDiots by " the other side" then you are right. They don't. They use the Bible. ID is creatinism in a wig. THey lie, misrepresent science and make fallacious claims..but evidence? Nope. "Devine fingerprint IS a rational thought.. " No, it is not. GIven that no proposed God ever, has a demnstrable correaltion with reality. It's as rational as a goblen- or pixie fingerprint.

@@derhafi macro evolution is actually not a demonstrable process at all. It requires faith to believe in that based on other observable factors in nature. Same goes for believing in God. Point blank period. Also I'm talking about using God as a possible answer for creation. I did not bring religion into the convo but you did and you paint religion in a bad light so clearly you have some unresolved issues with religious people perhaps. That's an emotional convo not a rational one. Every point of mine that in your head you broke apart... you actually missed the point entirely. And your last point about the pixie fingerprint. Assuming Pixies were real. Pixies would exist within the same time and space we do. And if a Pixie was a being that existed outside of time and created the universe it would still be, by all purposes the God everyone is referring to. Names don't matter. The point is a creator.

Should people, instead of science, more rely on irrational beliefs in some ill-defined metaphysical entity/force/intelligence/power/ supernatural whatever, not subject to the known laws of physics, that supposingly interacts with the fabric of our reality in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science? That is what the professinal liar Meyer promotes. Given that he works for a propaganda mill. The ill-named Discovery Institute, where no research at all is done, none. They employ several demonstrable liars with a degree and no scientific integrity to misrepresent scientific research. Not to mention that one of its founders Howard F. Ahmanson, Jr. openly wants to replace democracy with a fundamentalist theocracy. They specialise in intellectual vandalism, which is predominantly based on the deceptive lie that discrediting scientific research would add credibility to their ancient mythology. Nothing about debunking any scientific hypothesis or theory automatically equals or even remotely alludes to “God did it”. As if an appeal so some random deity constitutes an explanation, as if “divine powers did it” is the default position for anything.

randomness and chaos doesnt create information and complex laws that govern the universe...a car would not come by after billion of years

Sounds kinda rash and weird if the person has evidence that leans more towards one being more probable or less

​@@swabrianwar1020except it has, because rare but possible conditions were met.

@swabrianwar1020 - a car isn't biology. 1/64 of all mutations creates information

@@edgaraf9411 there was an intelligent being being that assembled those system and parts together

The truth is, Joe knows the very God of Christians that he mocks. We all do. We just suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

@@tx2jbh81 You mean Allah?

@@horridhenry9920 Negative: Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

​@@horridhenry9920just arabic word for God. Christians in Arabic say Allah

@@tx2jbh81 Yep and keep reading Romans 1 on thru verse 32 and you'll see a description of exactly what's going on around us.

Muslims say no.

I appreciate that!!

Can you summarise your POV in two layman sentences.?

Shit I can tell your smart, some words and expressions I don't understand your saying. Would love a breakdown for LAYMAN.

@@babushka9261 Sure thing! Yeah sorry bout the jargon. Basically it boils down to that Meyer argues at the beginning that the assumption that our senses (sight, hearing, etc.) are actually communicating to us the accurate real world is circular (which I think is correct, and why it is an unquestionable assumption or an "axiom"). And what I would say is that it's not possible to escape this circularity by changing the axiom because once you dig down enough into it you will always end up in a place where you're presupposing the accuracy of our senses.

​@@virtualveins2351 Very Interesting topic. Are you sure that logic is derived from our sense data?

@@tprs_ita I would say so. Or to clarify myself to be more clear, our understanding of logic seems to be built off our understanding of the external world (which is communicated to us through our senses). Like for example our ability to perceive individual objects is how we can form the most fundamental rules of mathematics, such as taking one apple and another apple to make two apples, which we can sort of like verify through our physical interaction with the external world.

Yeah, but let me just jump in and say it before an atheist does, in those same thousands of years, God has never been proven either. But this is exactly as he intended it. The decision for or against God is to be determined in the heart, the will of each person, not the mind or intellect. By remaining unheard, unseen, unproven to the general masses, he has allowed it to be crystal-clear who wants him and who doesn't. Juxtapose that to when Jesus essentially proved himself as God, and thousands followed him. Even then he had to be taken prisoner and go to the cross in order to separate who truly belonged to him, and who just followed for the miracles and favors he could do for them, according to God's righteousness.

He has, it just that your not in agreeance with the methodology used.

No one has disproved Bigfoot or Unicorns, either. I don't think you understand the burden of proof

@@johnboehmer6683love this response.

There was an intelligence that created the Christian god. Prove that that intelligence does not exist, and did not create the Christian god. .

Imagine trying to compare the greatest mystery of all time. How the universe was formed and making a chair. This is a fallacy comparison. No one knows how the universe came to be but we all understand how a chair gets produced.

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@coolguy1127he is saying that there is a law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed and is using a chair as an example where something isn’t created but shaped from material whereas the universe via created in someway that we can’t do

Wait for it! Wait for it! The atheists are just about to ask their fundamentally foolish question, i.e., "who created God?"

@@EduardoHernandez-nu6ye astrophysics doesn’t say the Big Bang created anything. It simply says matter always was. The Big Bang pushed it all out. The current rule of physics applies now we think-quantum physics contradicts basically everything we thought we knew about physics, but not to something we don’t understand-where the universe came from. We all know where a chair comes from we have no clue how the universe came to be. Just like time is infinite, matter itself may have always been infinite.

@@wabejoo it’s a logical premise of nothing can be created from nothing. The answer of well he’s God, is my response well matter just always was

When a fool is rambling, you don’t interrupt them. Meyer hangs himself with his assertions.

@@professorshadow470 How can you not see the massive irony in your own statement? Do you realize the thousands of assertions that have to be made in order for you to deny an intelligent creator and believe that it all just happened somehow? I'll give one major example for you to ponder that atheists often claim. "There is no god". That assertion alone is enough to not take the advocates of evolution seriously! Unless you are all knowing, there is no way to logically make that fantastical claim.

​@@mattdillon4398I know the answer wasn't for me, but I like your premises and I'd love to chat a bit. I'm "pro evolution" I guess that's the best way to describe it idk(?) But I like your argument about the fantastical claim. If I understood correctly you're saying that only by being "all knowing" you can make an assertion such as "god isn't real", if that's true you will need the same amount of knowledge to make the assertion "god is real" since it's an equally fantastical claim, or at least that's the logic behind it. So why are all theist making this fantastical claim?

@@mattdillon4398 Please list the thousands of assertions that have to be made. I see ZERO evidence that there is a God. Do you have any? Until you can demonstrate that a God exists, we are justified in saying there isn’t one. Just like we can say there is no Bigfoot or Mothman. What evidence can you present that would suggest that a God exists?

@@lucavannini9762 Excellent job pointing out just how stupid his argument is. Bravo.

Sadly the 'supposed scientist' was talking utter bollocks

Mr.Meyer is basically making gods of the gaps argument, that's why he stopped debating with athiests.

Why is that wrong? Is that worse than “time and chance” in the gaps like evolutionists propose? It’s basically believing in magic but denying the magician.

@@whatistruth2810 God of the gaps is a logical fallacy. It's basically saying, I don't know how this works therefore god did it.

@@whatistruth2810 There's no magic in evolution, it is well supported in many branches in science, from genetics to paleontology and etc.

​@@reg-pi1srYou are making a strawman fallacy. Stephen Meyer at no times said "we don't know, so God did it." He is making an inference to the best explanation. Theory of multiple competing hypothesis and using "known" events now to help explain past events. If you dropped your dogma for a second you would understand.

James Tour is nt a biologist so he can not speak about Evolution

@@globalcoupledances *"James Tour is nt a biologist so he can not speak about Evolution"* Dont do that.

You have a pretty low bar here. If you want to read quality philosophy of science, I'd recommend looking at Dan Dennett and Alex Rosenberg

@@01MTodd Both are completely out of date. You've sadly committed yourself to trite drivel.

@@Xingqiwu387 They're out-of-date drivel, while you're singing the praises of poorly repackaged creationism?! Next you're going to tell me the Michael Behe is a cutting-edge thinker.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

I appreciate that!!

@christopherpeery7436 have you watched Hovind debating Dave Farina or Aron Ra?

Any intelligent person with a basic understanding knows these arguments are "god of the gaps" in type. The rest do not want the truth, they want to be told they are right without evidence.

I saw another person saying that God intended for it to be this way, the last time he came down he sacrificed himself for our salvation, that salvation can be grasped through faith in Jesus, and him alone. The next time he comes down will be judgement day, and everyone will kneel. So if salvation used to be by acts, now it is by faith, does it not make sense to you that youre not meant to find him? He will see who actually wants to be with him, who believes in his word, who believes in his son, who believes with his heart, not his mind. He said, those who don't believe have already been judged. If i were you i would take a leap of faith. It will do nothing but good. Or are you blinded by pride, is it too childish and outlandish for you to believe in the Truth, and in Good. 150 thousand people die every day.

Yep it doesn't prove anything. And the truly absurd leap is in even if you believe there is some intelligence behind the existence of the universe, how do you then get believing it is benevolent and cares about human beings?

@@antonego9581 I try not to use words like "absurd" or make implications, I understand the world a certain way and I'm commenting on it from my perspective. I'm not here to impugn people who see it differently.

You go girl indoctrinate those kids with unproven facts 🙏

@@RaxIsLost HAHA, either way these people don’t realize that god has nothing to do with their religion

The claim that macro evolution hasn’t been proven is solely based on ignorance and lack of knowledge. The claim that we can’t observe macro evolution in nature is ridiculous, and would only be claimed by someone who has very few good arguments. We can’t sit down and measure macro evolution as scientists because we only live 100 years, and macro evolution takes far longer than 500.000 years. We can however, primarily in fossils, see proof of macro evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution, “The origin of species by means of natural selection” is thoroughly proven, and only questioned by people with severe lack of knowledge in the topic. For those who claims that the earth is less than 6000 years, if that was true the fossils would include almost all animals living today. You have three choices as a teacher in a Christian school. Stay ignorant and trust the Bible. Read up and tell the truth about evolution Read up about evolution and lie to the kids. Genesis chapter 1 and 2/Luke3 (and basically everything before the exodus/exit from Egypt) is bullcrap, and proven false. I used to believe, I miss my god

The claim that macro evolution hasn’t been proven is solely based on ignorance and lack of knowledge. The claim that we can’t observe macro evolution in nature is ridiculous, and would only be claimed by someone who has very few good arguments. We can’t sit down and measure macro evolution as scientists because we only live 100 years, and macro evolution takes far longer than 500.000 years. We can however, primarily in fossils, see proof of macro evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution, “The origin of species by means of natural selection” is thoroughly proven, and only questioned by people with severe lack of knowledge in the topic. For those who claims that the earth is less than 6000 years, if that was true the fossils would include almost all animals living today. You have three choices as a teacher in a Christian school. Stay ignorant and trust the Bible. Read up and tell the truth about evolution Read up about evolution and lie to the kids. Genesis chapter 1 and 2/Luke3 (and basically everything before the exodus/exit from Egypt) is bullcrap, and proven false. I used to believe, I miss my god

Analogy: "There's no way to know how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere thousands of years ago." Just because you don't see how that is done doesn't mean science hasn't figured out a way to do it. Just because you haven't figured out how doesn't mean there isn't ice from thousands of years ago in Antarctica that we can retrieve and melt in a vacuum to obtain air from bubbles in that ice that we can then analyze for carbon dioxide concentration. There is and we've done it. We understand that organelles (mitochondria most evidently) evolved from what were once independent organisms. Just because you don't see how that happened doesn't mean science hasn't figured out a way to show that it happened. Genetic algorithms work. There's a huge body of evidence showing it accomplishes things. As one example, see the sources on the "Evolutionary art" wikipedia page.

@billgates1935 so what are you arguing? That mutations do happen and over long enough time periods they can lead to new species? Because I am also arguing for that...

Why a stream of analogies doesn't work well- because I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to get across...