Відео

Arguments for Christianity as a true philosophical and phenomenological way of understanding the world are gaining prominence. Coupled with Meyer’s work on the scientific front, we may be on the brink of a return to an era in the West where goodness, beauty, and truth take center stage again.

The defeater against abiogenesis: 1. DNA replication requires several proteins, and multi-protein machines that read, collect, assemble nucleotides together. 2. Those very same replication protein machines REQUIRE pre-existing DNA to code them, which means the protein machines can only arise from DNA-coded protein assembly in another mechanism. It is impossible to start "from 0" without the initial code already existing, you cannot make DNA without using DNA code. And the DNA code and coding mechanism are co-dependent. You cannot spontaneously generate a complex multi-component co-dependent system, from random chemical soup. It really is irreducible complexity. Software never writes itself from 0.

Very interesting discussion! The arch was a Roman invention for spanning larger distances when building with masonry materials; there was no steel or modern concrete at the time. No arches are found in the ancient Jewish tabernacle, synagogue, or temple in which Jesus himself taught. The symbolism was more about the center within the center or the Holy of Holies. Ancient Greek temple architecture on the Acropolis like the Parthenon used exaggerated forms (intentionally incorrect) to symbolize the Platonic perfection of the place of the gods when viewed by human eyes. Ancient Egyptian architecture attempted to bring immortality and glory to the pharaohs who claimed to be gods and seemed to like triangles… Ancient pagan architecture like Stonehenge was an attempt to strengthen our connection with nature or their understanding of a deity. Stonehenge does happen to be oriented as a circle. But without a ceiling. It is an ongoing challenge for architects to depict Heaven on Earth. What symbol’s resonate with believers today and for all time? What implications for sacred architecture are there in Jesus’s idea that believers are his temple now? The veil was torn? There is no more Holy of Holies? The Holy Spirit resides in us now. No longer represented by the smoke from an alter, or the light from a candle. It is impossible to contain new wine in old wineskins forever, and it is controversial to create new wineskins in which new wine desperately needs to age.

Humanity cannot carry into the future without coherent families. Families are not successful without examples of the selfless love of others. All this translates into peace for nurturing strong communities (common unity). Only common unities carry far into the future. Jesus brought this paradigm to life as an example to us. Atheism has brought to the world even less value than Islamic beliefs. Both are prideful coercive selfishness with no beauty.

Great interview! I enjoyed it. I think it goes over a lot of people's heads, judging by the comments, but keep it up. If people aren't challenged to up their game intellectually, they will always remain mindless drones, obedient slaves to the corporations, with no hope for Salvation or even a decent life here on earth.

21:17 is this the case with ROCOR? I chose one to visit this upcoming Sunday but there are many options.

Our tax dollars are being used to push a Neo-gnostic/Hermeticist mythology in public schools, while our tax dollars are also being used to suppress Christianity. I have wondered all my life why people put up with it. The whole deep time, evolution mythology is so stupid, I don't know how people don't eventually see right through it. Especially with fossils. Dead things don't last on the surface longer than a few days, or weeks if they are large animals. There's no way anything gets buried slowly.

53:38 lol at webex effects

Bring on James tour next please

Too bad Jonathan Pageau believes Stephen Meyer is going to hell because he is Protestant, not Orthodox christian.

This is the most rational scientific discussion I think I've ever seen.

1:12:16 Love how this video ends with the discussion of what design affords. Design has been bast@rdized as “The god of the gaps” fallacy when in fact it captures the very essence of meaningful pursuit. Ideas do not exist on their own merit but rather by what they afford. In this way they are of no more value than a rock which can simply take up space or form a hammer or a fortress. A rocks value is exponential to its utility as is the case with an idea. What is afforded by the idea that all ideas stem from a brain that is itself the product of blind indifference? What is afforded by the idea that our brains our created to explore ourselves and our surroundings? Which of the two ideas can justify and motivate meaningful pursuits?

Plutonic patterns seems to be a better description than Plutonic forms.

Superstitious propaganda.

Jonathan: Was there death before the fall? 🕚

This is an amazing interview. You should update the title of it to include the words "Dante Divine Comedy". I had trouble finding it again due to the generic title.

The biggest presupposition of evolutionism/atheism is that anything and everything is possible and will eventually happen. But when we go out and observe the world, we can clearly identify many phenomena that have hard-built limits to them. Light can only travel at a certain speed. New colors can't appear out of nowhere. Matter can't generate out of nowhere. Humans can’t jump from a building and survive. Animals can’t have wheels instead of legs.… etc. So I wonder, what is so wild about coming to the conclusion that life appearing out of rocks is impossible? That there is exactly a 0% chance for that to happen? Do you really think the Mona Lisa could spawn in the middle of nowhere out of chance? Or that an iPhone 9 could form out of dust on itself? There is a very big problem with presupposing probability has no limits (or you yourself being the one to arbitrarily choose them). The universe simply does not allow for this to appear out of nowhere. It does seem like there is a hard-built physical limit that does not allow dead stuff to be alive on its own. Like some kind of constant (which would make sense in the Christian worldview) that prohibits matter to become alive on its own. It is not justifiable to believe that it can just happen "given enough time". There is no justification for that position at all, and it is the basis for many of the things they believe.

8:15

Should I take what he says literally? Or is his explanation metaphorical or symbolic?

What I would like to see from the leading atheist in this era is well formulated and coherent arguments that only concerns their position. Instead, most of the time is trying to debunk all Christian arguments or ridiculing them to earn sympathy from their audience. Contrast is mother of clarity.

16:55

Humans are an insignificant speck in a vast and unfashionable universe. We’re not special.

Amazing interview. Stephen is a genius and living legend! The tide is turning, toward God

The design is undeniable, and our Eternal Creator is the only possible source.

Life is not supped to be figured out. It’s just supposed to be experienced. Where it can from does not really matter. It’s here and that’s all.

The virus

Awesome interview, Dr. Stephen Meyer!!!

How would the "Darwinists" explain the persistence of Christianity in the world: something with death being integral to its cause seems like it would be in complete opposition to "natural swlection".

Big fan of Dr Meyer. If Moses lied in Genesis, the Bible God is schizophrenic and None of the Bible or the Church should be trusted. Period. I agree with Dawkins who said “Science and Religion are about the same thing, they are about the origins of the universe and they both cannot possibly be right.” Christians attempt to apologize for Moses’ record written by the finger of OLAS Jesus Christ but they cannot finagle evening and morning sun and moon 24-hour cycles. Seven day weeks. Heliocentric cosmology is equally not falsifiable as geocentric. (This is admitted in contemporary academic text) Speed of Light not being longitudinally constant gives the appearance of super years. Creation appears designed. Speed of light is not actually constant, relativity has fallen, therefore gravity has fallen, therefore heliocentrism has fallen, therefore Moses is not a liar. Einstein and the other materialists are liars. Everything I just said can be found as evidence in science journals raised as contemporary questions and conundrums. “Science Needs a New Theory of Relativity” Heliocentric cosmology needed Relativity needed materialists The YEC have been right the whole time. Archaeologists and materialist researchers and pop culture lobbyists have been dishonest for decades. They left a paper trail. Stephen Hawking Pg 94 “Universe appears designed but the evidence is ILLUSORY.” John Lennox “13 Billion years is not enough time for evolution to work.” Even diehard YEC lack current satisfactory arguments against old earth, arguments raised by the old earthers themselves. Most I talk to don’t even know Relativity collapsed. They have no idea of the implications of these issues.

Big fan of Dr Meyer. If Moses lied in Genesis, the Bible God is schizophrenic and None of the Bible or the Church should be trusted. Period. I agree with Dawkins who said “Science and Religion are about the same thing, they are about the origins of the universe and they both cannot possibly be right.” Christians attempt to apologize for Moses’ record written by the finger of OLAS Jesus Christ but they cannot finagle evening and morning sun and moon 24-hour cycles. Seven day weeks. Heliocentric cosmology is equally not falsifiable as geocentric. (This is admitted in contemporary academic text) Speed of Light not being longitudinally constant gives the appearance of super years. Creation appears designed. Speed of light is not actually constant, relativity has fallen, therefore gravity has fallen, therefore heliocentrism has fallen, therefore Moses is not a liar. Einstein and the other materialists are liars. Everything I just said can be found as evidence in science journals raised as contemporary questions and conundrums. “Science Needs a New Theory of Relativity” Heliocentric cosmology needed Relativity needed materialists The YEC have been right the whole time. Archaeologists and materialist researchers and pop culture lobbyists have been dishonest for decades. They left a paper trail. Stephen Hawking Pg 94 “Universe appears designed but the evidence is ILLUSORY.” John Lennox “13 Billion years is not enough time for evolution to work.” Even diehard YEC lack current satisfactory arguments against old earth, arguments raised by the old earthers themselves. Most I talk to don’t even know Relativity collapsed. They have no idea of the implications of these issues.

Jonathan, how does this fit with the spiritual understanding of life?

"Atheists tend to abstract themselves from the reality and not consider the place of man in the cosmos." What? Are you kidding? We atheists do this all the time!

5:12 the wine at the wedding at Cana would also have had the appearance of being ‘old’. It wasn’t.

These arguments are simplistic. To say that a simulation is constrained by an intelligence therefore the real thing must have been constrained by an intelligence is silly. If I simulate say erosion in a lab does they mean all erosion is directed as in a lab? If I make lightening in a lab it means lightening is made by an intelligence?

Are there any atheist ID proponents?

Genetic algorithms

This is the usual 'it looks like so it is' argument from pseudoscience.

Energy, Matter, and Information is a nuts framework. God the Father as Energy as in where it all comes from and the force and reason God the Son as Matter as He interacts with the material world, compressing into a finite form God The Spirit as Information the maker of life and with interaction with regard to language

. What was the function of the protein that was first coded by RNA or DNA from which a selection could be made? 2. If the fewest genes that a cell can have to sustain life is around 400 but it has to have additional DNA to have reproductive function how can RNA or DNA have primacy ? 3. If a flatworm can be multiploidy and maintain function and morphology how does DNA have primacy? 4. How is it that a cockroach and rats can reproduce, after nuclear radiation,with mutations such that they become multi ploidy in order to maintain morphology and function and RNA or DNA have primacy or a selective function? 5. Why are a dog and a Tasmanian wolf or completely different genetic plants nearly identical? To what are they “converging “? 6. There can be any number of ways that a thing in nature can be the shape of a sphere but how many possible ways are there that a thing in nature can be the shape of a Mandelbrot set? Why is the brain a Mandelbrot set? How is a Mandelbrot set selected for from an infinite number of fractal patterns?

Ahh the hilarity Of happenstance’s Serendipity Of a single singularity Instantaneous and Spontaneously Mixed in a state Of lowest entropy Stirred by unstable Nothingness Exploded into Everything And so by emergence A mid state of entropy Causing all causality From strings Spinning spinors And twisting twistors Both matter and purpose Intent by blind Engineering Created mind And meaning Whose dark cold End is empty Emptiness once again Sparking infinite expansion Of unstable nothingness Into something again And again eternal Without end Quite the credulity The religion of nihilism From nothing to nothing Is illogical in the face Of any meaning Or purpose of being Self supposed Or otherwise opposed Contradicting existence And factual experience For never one see’s Nothing become something Nor something become nothing By physical laws As so described even Something at lowest Entropy would require Non self induction The spark and bang Of any creation And so without Hesitation and with great Adulation are the Songs and praises Of Anti-creation To infinite universes Of infinite potential And we but one In a game of chance No miracles required Of a being higher Yet Folly on follies Unthought the chance Of Unopposed infinite Potential the absolute One is infinitely possible Let not the nihilist Not fully presume a non nihilist Meaning and purpose Of nothingness creating Somethingness going To nothingness For full presumption Of nihilistic nihilism Would evidentially require The impossible extraction Of any purpose Any meaning From the nothingness Going to nothingness For just as we never see Something come from nothing Neither do we see purposelessness generate intent First there was a beginning Now there is an image What sort of paradigm would not look for an image?

@JonathanPageau This may already exist, but i’m curious if you and @johnvervaeke have ever explored the Genesis creation account as a sort of mythos for Relevance Realization? I’ve found the model it provides to actually be a helpful structure to conceptualize. When the Divine Mind engages the meaningless, unordered tohu vavohu, there is illumination of the problem space (light), dispersion of irrelevant data to create space for relevant info (separation of the chaos waters), and emergence of solid grounding to stand on where life can emerge/flourish. This all occurs in accordance with the Agape and Wisdom of God, and humans are created as little microcosms of this process to continue the project of RR and carry out the meaning and life of Eden into the surrounding desert. Of course, the serpent could represent the introduction of self-deceptive processing where agape and wisdom are removed, which leads to meaninglessness, isolation, anxiety, depression, and removal from contact with Reality. Haha just fun to think about. Sorry for the novel!

I am actually really disappointed. Jonathan is asking good questions, but this Stephen Meyer gentleman has not struggled with questions of information and evolution with an honest mind. We know how information is added to the genetic code through natural selection, and we have examples of evolutionary algorithms generating computer programs and useful engineering designs. In spite of this, he appears to be arguing that evolution is impossible. This is simple foolishness, I'm sorry. This is not to say that there are not limitations, problems are similar with evolution. But to assert that evolution is impossible is putting your head in the sand. And hence my disappointment, because Jonathan has been extremely good at resolving questions of symbolism without transgressing the science. I think it is as important to not let science blind us to the symbolic nature of reality as it is to not try to wish away the scientific structure of reality.

Here I come to upset everyone by reiterating my opinion that natural selection is in fact intelligence.

Stephen Meyer spells his name with ph, not v.

Wonderful video! 150 years ago, figures like Schumann, Berlioz and a few others wrote cogently and incisively about the music of their time-while simultaneously writing great music. Shortly after that, there began a lull in the contemplative side of musical creation, as composers and fine artists both grappled with the facts of the camera or of Richard Wagner-and their implications for the art of the future. Perhaps it’s because the second world war is no longer living memory for the vast majority of the population, but it seems to me that conversations such as this one again begin to bring together aspects of artistic “meaning,” if one can use a term with such strong vernacular implications after the impact of voices like Milton Babbitt or Virgil Thompson. I’m very glad of it; the time is very ripe now. Bravi, both!

The fine tuning argument really annoys me.

Archaeologists and geologists and paleontologists amaze me, because they can pick up a small obscure object off the ground or that was in the ground and immediately recognize that it is ancient manmade tool, or that it is a nodule that contains an ammonite fossil, or that it is a small bone from an extinct animal. If we saw these objects, we would think of them as just another rock. Sounds intelligent to me.

“It was the best of times, it was the BLURST OF TIMES!? You stupid monkey!” - Mr. Burns

Thanks for the conversation!