The Teleological Argument (Argument for the Existence of God) 

Does God Exist A Philosophical Inquiry, Available Worldwide on Amazon Paperback: US - www.amazon.com/dp/B088BH5HTL UK - www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2 Canada - www.amazon.ca/dp/B088BH5HTL eBook: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B076GRHTQ2 UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B076GRHTQ2 Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B076GRHTQ2 India: www.amazon.in/dp/B076GRHTQ2 Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B076GRHTQ2 Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B076GRHTQ2 The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - "Philosophy of Religion Part I" eBook, available on Amazon: US: www.amazon.com/dp/B088QM8QXC UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B088QM8QXC Canada: www.amazon.ca/dp/B088QM8QXC India: www.amazon.in/dp/B088QM8QXC Australia: www.amazon.com.au/dp/B088QM8QXC Germany: www.amazon.de/dp/B088QM8QXC

Thank you guys! This video really helped me with my philosophy essay, you've explained it in a very nuanced but simple way, awesome work!!

Why is the coffee maker on the bottom shelf in a cartoon about how well laid out things are?

Please never stop uploading your videos is so helpful and easy to understand

Always great vids. Keep it up! Ur one of if not the best philosophical channel on RU-vid

This was very helpful in fleshing out the Teleological Argument and it's refutations. Thank you!

Oh my god this just saved so much of my time and actually made me understand so much the first timeeee!

this is litterally carrying my understanding of philosophy class thank you so much

The arguments were very well explained. Congratulations!

thank you fot this video, if only irl philosphy debates were this civil...

Very good points as always!, i have been really enjoy watching your videos! please keep going :)

Such a amazing video It helps me a lot to understand the concept better

Thank you! Awesome breakdown and very straight forward 👌 🙂

This changes everything ! How come nobody told me this before ? My life will now be completely different. At last, I know everything I need to know.

This is helping me with a part of Ilia Delio’s book “Christ In Evolution” which seems to require frequent looks into a theological/philosophical dictionary.

I feel so grateful and lucky after watching this.

This video is simply brilliant!

Thank you so much guys for such a detailed explanation on this topic. This is so informative and I was finding this type of stuff for my exam's preparation. really grateful for this ❤️

Amazing work 🤩🤩 You guys are wonderful 😊

I love your channel. So good

Thank you gentlemen.

mind blown. thank you for this video

Madlads putting the picture of the goal that wasn't. Kudos for all the work on the channel.

This is a great video help me lots for my exam thanks you

Amazing video guys, perfectly balanced and detailed Much appreciated!

I find studying teleological ideas interesting not so much for the argument of god that comes from it but so systems can be created and work with some ease. Great study for becoming a businessman of all things. I keep on thinking that I will leave philosophy when I have a decent explanation for a teleological structure but I'm not so sure that I can give a sufficient account. Can you ever get out?

Really good video !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

then the thing is everything he says about random is also following the the fundamental laws and this fundamental laws isn't random. So this "everything is random" argument is self defeating every single time

Teleological Argument is based on the Non Sequitur Fallacy , suggesting that complexity and accuracy is a proof of an intelligent designer . , the argument's conclusion is not a necessary consequence . of the facts or statements presented

Great discussion. I want to point out 3 things. 1st, I think not enough weight was given to the fine tuning argument, because strong and weak nuclear forces and the expansion rate of the universe are only two of the baffling precision-based facts that you have to face when discussing fine-tuning design vs. randomness of nature being the cause of life's existance. 2nd, it was almost seceded as a given that the multiverse - or infinite universe - is valid. That is speculation and takes just as much faith as saying "God did it." As far as we know and can agree on for the most part, the universe had a beginning. So there is a time limit. You don't get to use infinity until theoretical physics or string theory produces more evidence than they have thus far been able to for the multiverse. 3rd, the teleological argument is often used as a sidecar to the cosmological argument. It's very hard to separate the two, because when you look at the contingency of things, everything in nature has a cause, and if you follow the line of contingency all the way back to the starter of the chain reaction of events, you are forced to face the question, "Well, what caused this first thing to become a tightly-packed bundle of everything that is to come?"

THERE MUST BE A RULE GIVER TO SUCH A RULE FOLLOWING UNIVERSE

helped me so much with my essay

This is great for my Nat5 RMPS exam revision , cheers lads! Saved my arse got an exam in a couple weeks

I honestly agree with both of you. We show appreciation for our lives by giving credit to a God, believing there is a purpose for our existence. On the other hand, this is one big algorithm, and we happen to be in a stage where humans are capable of great achievements. What if God’s design is an algorithm? I want to take both of your arguments and make them one. Why does it have to be one or the other? Maybe there are some things that happen because of nature and others happen for a reason. Some things happen by chance, somethings don’t. But we will never really know which one is which so what’s the fucking point?

I was kinda expecting the anthropic principle explicitly

The first question that arises for me is, with our contemporary understanding of the finity of the universe (i.e. that there is at least a beginning-the Big Bang) notwithstanding that the universe is vast, it seems unreasonable that a divine creator, given the attributions of unlimited ability and given the scale in both time and dimensions of the known universe would invest in only ONE planet and only ONE sentient species. Further, given that the divine creator has conferred on the ONE species the capricious capacity to eliminate not just other species (which presumably had a purpose beyond being expendable at our hand) but the entire ‘watch’. If the objective/purpose/telos of Earth was to be ended capriciously by the ONE sentient species in the universe, why would the creator (again considering the vastness of space and time) run only one such experiment. I can’t imagine a God whimsically creating such a complication as earth simply to see if the inhabitants it has created will destroy it. Given the age of the universe, the age of our galaxy, and the age or our planet, the tenancy of Homo sapiens is but a blink in time. The existence of Homo Sapiens is measured in hundreds of thousands of years while existence of earth is measured in tens of MILLIONS of years. So this one creation, if one is to believe divine creation, given the inclination to do so and alacrity with which it has done so, can only have as it’s sole purpose self-annihilation and the destruction of the planet and-presumably-the extinction of sentient life in the universe. Given the above, if creationists still assert the existence of a divine creator and if, indeed, it’s intention was for the one sentient species in the universe to extinguish itself within a few hundred thousand years-there being NO GREATER accomplishment than the capacity to end it’s existence and the time frame to reach this being imperceptibly short on the cosmic scale-they have to concede that the entire investment in man is of no-or immeasurably small-consequence to the creator or it’s intention, and therefore one should not concern themselves with it’s existence.

Keep it up 💜

negentropy is the second law of thermodynamics which means when heat is applied objects fall into order , this is the opposite of entropy ( chaos ) . So the scientific reason for so much order or the perception of design which we see on earth can easily be understood to be a result of this fundamental law. Disorder or chaos will only be seen in a system that lacks heat. I like to point out this is most likely why the amazon rainforest the biggest life filled forest in the world exist on the equator and not in Antarctica and remember temperature is a relative thing based on perspective so even tho Antarctica is cold to us, to the rest of the universe it is still very very very warm which is why life and order can still exist there. And thank you for coming to my ted talk lol sorry for bad grammar

Totally agree with the purple guy!

Thanks for posting both sides of the debate in intelligible and unbiased way. Great explanation with arguments and counter arguments for both sides. I appreciate the respectful way you approached this topic.

Fascinating video guys! I'd always known there were problems with the teleological argument, but this really laid many out in a very compelling fashion. I will say though that it feels very, very one-sided. Perhaps the teleological argument really is that broken and its good to highlight its flaws, but I can't help but feel the video's position was too stacked against it? Just a thought!

Another great video. An additional critique of the teleological argument is that it does not isolate one God, so even if one agrees with the argument it does not specify which God, and that is an issue as well.

If the sun is much closer to the sun, the chances of our existence on earth will be out of question. Will that shift in sun's position somehow gave chance for other planets to develope life on them? I wonder.

I was under the impression that an infinite amount of time cannot exist because there is a now. If the universe was infinitely old how many moments have their been up until now? If there were infinite moments before now then now represents the end of infinity and that doesn’t make sense. The fact that their is a now means there had to be a beginning. You cannot pass infinity to get to today or add to it to make it bigger... would love to hear your thoughts?

Ok, that's good, I can see both sides that's great guy's 👍

Has the chance of creating matter from void ever been calculated? I'm genuinely curious of what are the chance of it ever occuring.

I wish I could share this with my classmates but the They are gonna kill me 🤪

The problem with the teleological argument is that there are so many other ways in which the universe could be configured that might have allowed for other equally if not more incredible life forms (just not necessarily our own). The insinuation that there is something uniquely special about our particular form of life that couldn't have been brought about any other way than by a God quickly evaporates when you think about it. Imagine you're a normal random person (which most people are), and imagine yourself going back in time 1 year and looking forward from that point over the next year that's about to happen. Now ask yourself, what is the likelihood that those exact series of events (which do in fact end up happening in your life) actually occur over the next year? It's incredibly small. And yes, I'm talking about every detail (the fact you woke up at 7:36 am on Jan 1, 8:03 am on Jan 2, etc). Does that make the fact that that exact series of events happened any more special? Basically, with the teleological argument, you're asymmetrically weighing "the infinite versions of a firey non-life-permitting hell" against a SINGLE "miraculous life-permitting outcome". You're just privileging the exact current configuration of the human lifeform and implying that no other lifeform could have possibly come about that would be miraculous enough to warrant an argument for God.

The main problem with the Multiverse theory (amongst others) is that to accept it is to also accept that all possible outcomes will eventually happen. Including a universe that is overseen by a God. It’s just as likely to occur as a universe with no God.

Something so find problematic as anything having a Telos is that goals are functions of human consciousness not properties of objects. Yet this argument acts as if goals are present in objects aside from human consciousness.

The fine tuning of the conditions on the planet is a completely different argument to the fine tuning of the universe. It is easy to imagine life could adapt to many different planetary atmospheres and conditions and we know there are a vast number of planets in the universe. However the argument of fine tuning is really about the fine tuning of the universe to allow for any complex structures whatsoever, a prerequisite for life of any kind. We also have evidence for only one universe. The fine tuning of the universe to allow for stability and complex structures is unfathomly unlikely in a sample size of the one universe we observe.

Watching these videos helped me go from an e to a b in my exam! Thank you :))

0:48 Man do I see order in that solar system model.

The problem with the athiest model is that it's proven the universe has not been around long enough for the perfect world to randomly happen. The correct model for the universe is that it does have a beginning.

Free will is teleology of universe, with human conscious choice playing a role towards free will.

Puddle analogy!

Enjoyed listening to both sides, unfortunately the argument for an infinite universe, or multi - universe is quite weak.

But the universe was not created just by chance. The more laws developed, equates to less chances.

The premise of the chance arguments rely on an infinite amount of time. Have we any information backing up the universe to be in existence for an infinite amount of time?

Why would there be any such thing as time? It’s not a given that there would be anything, so the infinite time argument makes no sense to me

Because of the extreme amount of chance for us to live

I'm seeing and issue from the second counter-argument. The first counter-argument argument is that the watch analogy applies human logic and functioning to a being above a human. Ironically, something similar can be said for the second counter-argument. We're perceiving nature in a human way: it is violent and horrible. But what if it's seen in a super-human way? ETA: How do we know that infinite time + chance = guarantee? Couldn't that also guarantee a creator? Jk, but really: the first counter-argument also says that the creation of a watch is observable, but not the creation of the universe, so how do we truly know that the universe has been intelligently designed if we've never observed such designing? Same thing with the time + chance = guarantee thing, how can we know that that's the case?

I see people in the comments saying that the guy objecting is stupid. I think he's rather intelligent.

An infinite amount of time and universes? How does one prove anything from an infinite regress?

the main point of the one on the left was that the world is a harsh place and a good God wouldn't make this however the one on the right failed to say that it is because of the fall and mans sin

Always comes back to the problem of evil….

When people talk about reconciling science and religion, that is only an issue with people who have preconceived ideas, but scientists cannot/should-not have preconceived ideas they must believe the evidence. All scientific models must conform to NATURE or REALITY, If there is any tiny evidence for some unnatural forces then they must include that in their paper and account for it. originally from Karachi Pakistan and Teer Haripur Hazaara, now ex-Muslim Atheist ., ,

Infinite time, just an absurd statement. If time was Infinite then that will imply that the past is also Infinite, it just continues to stretch back Infinitely therefore you cannot ever get to today nor tomorrow. When you start a race, the only reason you can get to the middle of the track and eventually to the end is because there is a starting point, it's the same with time. If time was Infinite and had no starting point then that means you can never get to the present nor future because the past stretches back Infinitely.

You are misunderstanding Aquinas fifth way. Aquinas Is not arguing that world is perfectly designed for humans or intelligent life, neither for life in general, but rather is arguing that the order of the world cannot be result of caos or chance for the obvious reason that caos means disorder and trying to explain order with disorder is either contradictory or circular since the very definition of caos presuppose order. Darwinian or any other scientific explanations can't do anything against the teleological argument because they presuppose what need to be explained: the intelligibility of the world.

Jeff Durbin : Your ancestors were fish? Atheist : Yes! Jeff : Do you eat fish? Atheist : 😐

Many of Hume's objections to cosmological and teleological argument can be refuted. Objection (1) :"A great number of men join in building a house or a ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world?" (Dialogues) Responses: "And, to jump ahead a bit, there are two further problems with polytheism as an explanation of the existence of not merely a universe but a universe governed throughout space and time by the same natural laws . If this order in the world is to be explained by many gods, then some explanation is required for how and why they cooperate in producing the same patterns of order throughout the universe. This becomes a new datum requiring explanation for the same reason as the fact of order itself. The need for further explanation ends when we postulate one being who is the cause of the existence of all others, and the simplest conceivable such-I urge-is God. And, further, the power of polytheism to explain this order in the world is perhaps not as great as that of theism. If there were more than one deity responsible for the order of the universe, we would expect to see characteristic marks of the handiwork of different deities in different parts of the universe, just as we see different kinds of workmanship in the different houses of a city. We would expect to find an inverse square of law of gravitation obeyed in one part of the universe, and in another part a law that was just short of being an inverse square law-without the difference being explicable in terms of a more general law." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") "If the physical universe is the product of intelligent design, rather than being a pure accident, it is more likely to be the handiwork of only one rather than more than one intelligence. This is so for two broad reasons. The first reason is the need for theoretical parsimony. In the absence of any evidence for supposing the universe to be the handiwork of more than one intelligence rather than only one, then, faced with a choice between supposing it the handiwork of one or of more than one intelligent designer, we should choose to suppose it to be the creation of only one. For it is not necessary to postulate more than one to account for the phenomena in question. The second reason for preferring the hypothesis of there being only one designer of the universe to supposing more than one is that the general harmony and uniformity of everything in the universe suggest that, should it be the product of design, it is more likely to be the handiwork of a single designer, rather than a plurality of designers who might have been expected to have left in their joint product some trace of their plural individualities. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (2) :"[I]f we survey the universe ..., it bears a great resemblance to an animal or organized body, and seems actuated with a like principle of life and motion. A continual circulation of matter in it ...: a continual waste in every part is incessantly repaired: the closest sympathy is perceived throughout the entire system: and each part or member ... operates both to its own preservation and to that of the whole [I]t must be confessed, that... the universe resembles more a human body than it does the works of human art and contrivance [Y]et is the analogy also defective in many circumstances ...: no organs of sense; no seat of thought or reason; no one precise origin of motion and action. In short, it seems to bear a stronger resemblance to a vegetable than to an animal." (Dialogues) Response: "Hume's argument seems weak. Hume's claim is that the physical universe - more specifically, our solar system - bears a closer resemblance to some animal or a vegetable than it does some machine or other artefact. The claim is unconvincing. In its manifest workings, the physical universe in general, and our own solar system in particular, exhibits a degree of regularity and predictability that far exceeds that which is exhibited by any animal or vegetable. After all, it is by the sun that we set our clocks and not by the comings and goings of sun-flowers or salamanders! That this is so suggests that the physical universe more closely resembles some regular and predictable machine or artefact, for example a clock, than it does any far less regular and predictable animal or vegetable. " (David Conway "Rediscovery Of Wisdom") Objection (3) :"But how this argument can have place where the objects, as in the present case, are single, individual, without parallel or specific resemblance, may be difficult to explain." (Dialogues) Response: "From time to time various writers have told us that we cannot reach any conclusions about the origin or development of the universe, since it is the only one of which we have knowledge, and rational inquiry can reach conclusions only about objects that belong to kinds, for example, it can reach a conclusion about what will happen to this bit of iron only because there are other bits of iron, the behaviour of which can be studied. This objection has the surprising, and to most of these writers unwelcome, consequence, that physical cosmology could not reach justified conclusions about such matters as the size, age, rate of expansion, and density of the universe as a whole (because it is the only one of which we have knowledge); and also that physical anthropology could not reach conclusions about the origin and development of the human race (because, as far as our knowledge goes, it is the only one of its kind). The implausibility of these consequences leads us to doubt the original objection, which is indeed totally misguided." (Richard Swinburne "The Existence Of God") Objection (4) :"In such a ... succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer that the uniting of parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, .. . is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable should you afterwards ask me what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts." (Dialogues) Response: "Consider an illustration. Suppose that the series of contingent beings were merely a series of self-propagating robots, each one bringing the next into existence. No matter how far back in time you go, there was just one of these robots functioning. Each robot functions for, say, ten years, then, in the last few minutes of functioning, propagates a new robot. (Just as the new robot starts to function, the old one ceases to function and disintegrates.) Now, in this scheme, we have a cause for the existence and functioning of each of the robots. But we have not identified a cause of the robot series as a whole. For example, what causes (or caused) the series to be one of robots rather than one of rocks, roses, rats, or reindeer? What is the cause of there being any robots at all? That question has not been answered. In the same way, even if we know that each contingent being is caused to exist by some other contingent being, we still do not have an explanation for the fact that there are contingent beings. There might have been nothing at all or only necessary beings. " (Stephen Layman "Letters To Doubting Thomas")

The laws of physics form matter into increasing complex structures over time, that's why there's something and not nothing. Evolution by natrual section forms and adapts life into all the different lifeforms we can obverse, that's why there's life and different lifeforms instead of no lifeforms at all. We are like ice in a hole; it appears the ice was designed to fit into the hole, but in actuality it's natually occurring via the laws of physics and only has the illusion of design.

Really nice video liked it really well explained arguments and I think I can add something little. No 1. God didn't create a cruel universe the devil does all evil then makes man blame it on God. God's law is perfect love and the devil's will is the opposite. 2. If man really did evolve doesn't it mean that we would have grown immune to diseases and the dangerous effects of alcohol alcohol after thousands of years of exposure to them?

After billion and biliion universe exists,then come out one that is suitable for human life.. Does that proof that our universe is special designed universe by our GOD? if universe like ours, earth like ours can exists by random, why our planet earth are the one and only planet out of bilion of billion or triliion or infinite number of universe that has life on it and can support life?

I think one of the largest killers of the teleological argument is that we can, and do, infer design from things that are _not_ complex, and for which we cannot infer a purpose. Were you to find a very straight piece of carved wood broken at both ends in a forest, what you would have is one piece of wood surrounded by more wood, and yet without missing a beat you can tell it was designed. You could _guess_ at a purpose, but there's really no way to suggest you'd be right or even close, and a straight piece of wood is _not_ complex _at all,_ so it can't be those things that are tipping you off to the fact of its design. Instead, you've inferred design because wood does not form that way _in nature,_ and yet by appealing to nature as the point of contrast one is instinctively referring to nature as "not designed". More than this, if nature _is_ designed, then one loses contrast used to decide the carved stick was designed in the first place. In fact this very contrast can even _fool_ us, when nature makes unusual features that are _extremely_ uncommon but _rememble_ structures that we know are human-made, leading us to think they are designed instead of natural until we investigate further.

Who deigned the designer?

10:00 as Camus put it, the universe is ABSURD

It’s non-intuitive to understand that all this complexity is just natural and no intervention of any being is required, it’s much much simpler and easier for humans to believe that some being did it magically, especially when we are indoctrinated to believe from a very early age by our parents, teachers, leaders, elders practically everyone. And if we don’t conform to our parents religions then we can be shunned, disowned and possibly harmed. originally from Karachi Pakistan and Teer Haripur Hazaara, now ex-Muslim Atheist ., ,

Arguments against the teleological argument seem very weak to me especially against the fine tuning of the universe and the design aspect of life (the DNA molecule for example). These arguments against seem a bit like "gap of science" arguments (if we could just have a way of proving parallel universes, or if we just had trillions of years, etc.)

Um original sin? No full treatment can exclude that doctrine.

Great video, and I would like to add that even though I understand these arguments are arguments from reason and not from biblical authority, it's worthy to add that the bible, which correlates and agrees with these arguments from design, has an answer to the problem of faults being present in the design of the universe. Problems of evil, suffering and such. It goes on to explain in the book of Genesis about the creation of the universe and it's origin which by the way "was good" (or perfectly designed) but then in chapter 3 it describes a great fall which brought disorder into God's perfect design, and so this is why we see such problems intermingled with such complexity.

Even if you proved a designer.....all the work is still ahead of theism.

but u also use analogy for random formation of universe like the monkey did, from the function of cells to the ecosystem and biodiversity, from the simple input materials to components of galaxy's it can't be simply by chance why animals are not changing to humans by now, like before..?

Here's a mystery. I don't think God would explain the following, but here goes. In any area with vegetation and soil and loam, how come when you dig a little bit, you always find a few small rocks in any given spot. How come previous generations of decayed vegetation which turned into soul didn't completely bury those particular rocks, and instead they're up near the surface, and sometimes right on the surface of the soil. What kept those rocks from being totally subsumed by organic soil.

is it possible for the universe to exist without a beginning?

The watch isn't designed as is. I mean it is slowly realized over centuries maybe millenniums of time keeping tools starting with observation of the shadows. Then the sun dial. A watch is designed in terms of size and style and quality. The idea of time keeping is not invented every time.

Many modern philosophers have rejected Hume's critique of religion.For example: "The next argument which we meet in the Dialogues is that the postulated existence of a rational agent who produces the order of the world would itself need explaining. Picturing such an agent as a mind, and a mind as an arrangement of ideas, Hume phrases the objection as follows: "a mental world or Universe of ideas requires a cause as much as does a material world or Universe of objects." Hume himself provides the obvious answer to this-that it is no objection to explaining X by Y that we cannot explain Y. But then he suggests that the Y, in this case the mind, is just as mysterious as the ordered Universe. Men never "thought it satisfactory to explain a particular effect by a particular cause which was no more to be accounted for than the effect itself." On the contrary, scientists have always thought it reasonable to postulate entities merely to explain effects, so long as the postulated entities accounted simply and coherently for the characteristics of the effects. The existence of molecules with their characteristic behavior was "no more to be accounted for" than observable phenomena, but the postulation of their existence gave a neat and simple explanation of a whole host of chemical and physical phenomena, and that was the justification for postulating their existence. " (Richard Swinburne "Argument From Design")

I have a problem with the argument that infinite time + random chance = life as we know it. Even from the evolutionary perspective, the existence of some life-form must precede the more-evolved version of it. But what did the first living organism come from? An infinite combination of non-living things over time? Where did the non-living things come from? Time itself? Then what did time come from? Even in your Shakespeare example, three things must first exist in order to end up with the book: monkeys, typewriters, and time. It all boils down to the fact that "nothing" cannot produce "something." To argue otherwise would require your definition of "nothing" to include time, chance, and/or objects for the time and chance to act upon. But there isn't anything inside of nothing.

Only those who have been initiated understand the synchroniser

Interesting how the first person is making a reasoned argument based off of epistemological and in fact more naturalist ideas than the very person that thinks it is simply random chaos. I mean, just look at all the presuppositions of the second argument. 1) Believes that there are infinite random universes constantly coming in and out of existence when no evidence for such a thing actually exists. Nor can it even be inferred from the state of our constantly expanding universe. 2) Believes that randomness and chaos can actually produce something like Shakespeare when in reality no, the Monkeys would not be able to produce Shakespeare in any given amount of time because they will always hit random keys. Randomness does not ultimately fall into order. You can throw the parts of a watch at each other all you want, infinite amounts of times, it will not magically become a watch if you do it enough. The Universe can't just be chanced upon by a monkey, but even then there's the idea that there was a monkey, to begin with. Where the argument is really "if you left the typewriter alone for enough time it will produce Shakespear's complete works". Overall the second argument is actually more "mystical" then the argument for intelligent design. Because not only does it use information that we don't know/cannot know, it uses information that is actually fabricated and appealing to authority that well, doesn't have any authority over anything.

I have to disagree with idea that wastefullness or even worse human suffering are valid arguments against the existence of form god since the first is made with incomplete knowledge and seconds projects human notions.

That a fallacy to assume human are not created under the imagine of God. Furthermore we only have 1 known universe so we can't make a hypothesis on a mutple universe.

I see where Purple Shirt is coming from. But I think that Purple Shirt’s arguments against the Teleological argument ultimately fail. For a couple of reasons. 1) Chance is an abstract concept and therefore cannot stand in causal relationships to the physical world. So when someone says that chance created or designed something they are committing a reification fallacy. 2) Purple Shirt assumes that the universe is infinitely old. But this is highly controversial. And I think unlikely. Based on philosophical arguments that seem to show that an infinite amount of time cannot be traversed. And 3) Purple Shirt assumes that evolution is true. But I have yet to see any real explanation as to how the theory of evolution can overcome genetic entropy. As pointed out by geneticist Dr. John C Sanford.

We know we're star material, everything is. The BBC in England conducted an experiment in the science series "Horizon" some years ago using the microwave background radiation in which two points on it were the corners of a triangle and the Earth the third. If the triangle were Euclidean, the Universe would have bounds. If flat, unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time. Result was indeed a flat triangle. Meaning it did not begin and has no edge. Given that we are made in the stars, a scenario arises with the universe being an organism creating life could be regarded as God perhaps. It's a scenario l grapple with because in the end l think there's no understanding possible. An eminent scientist once said the Universe isn't as strange as we can imagine but it is far stranger.

Many people who convert to Islam or revert back to Christianity is because religious organizations provide a sense of community, comradely, fellowship and a sense of belonging. These powerful emotional needs are fulfilled, even if religions are not historically and scientifically accurate or just myths. "ignorance is a bliss" Matrix-quote., ,

Hey guys...good.video....but is this a christian channel? O.o

interesting concepts. Thanks for the video, although something I don't really understand. Let's assume monkeys are lucky -> and they manage to write 1 page of any infamous book within 1 milliard of monkeys. A few questions from here: - where are the pages written which are 10/20/50/99% almost accurate? - where are the 10/20/50/99% monkeys who almost built the typing machine? - what about the 10/20/50/99% monkeys who tried to learn writing? - what about the 10/20/50/99% monkeys who tried growing fingers and almost succeeded? to unlimited numbers of tries in milliards and milliards of unsuccessful "attempts" should logically produce a lot more "error" than "success". Why don't we observe that most things around us are largely failures? curious to hear your point . CN

Is the same guy talking through these voices?hahah

When science's only answer is chance, science loses all integrity. Practise what you preach and make science mere chance- no method, no proposition, no goal. Science would become nonsense.

0:40 coicidences are crazy