Part 1

Faith

The first 5 minutes are pretty laughable to start. The presenter is pretty much fucking himself by saying you must prove God exists before you can have faith in it. Not only is that notion preposterous, but since you can't actually prove God exists^[1] this line of reasoning essentially would leave Christianity with no other conclusion than that God doesn't exist. That will likely be enough to split the religious community apart: on one side the semi-rationale thinkers that understand that you can't, and practically don't need to, prove God's existence to have faith; and on the other side the irrational thinkers too hasty to get one over on the non-believers to even stop and think if this man, saying things that already agree with them, is actually making any logical arguments or proving his points (hint: he's not). There may be more sides than two, but those are probably the most interesting ones anyway.

On a side note, he doesn't even seem to comprehend what the word "faith" means. He qualifies it as "absolute confidence". The rationale thinking population seem to understand it to be, "belief without evidence" (quite contrary to everything he's preaching). To be fair, the dictionary does cite several generic and potentially contradictory definitions, albeit I'd argue that they're so generic as to be useless. Apparently the word dates back to around the 1200s and derived from words meaning "belief" or "trust" (approximately).

Interestingly, Wikipedia notes that, «the word translated as "faith" in the New Testament is the Greek word πίστις which can also be translated "belief" or "trust"». It's just another reminder that when reading and attempting to make some sense of the Bible one must remember that the English text (or whatever other language, except for the native ancient Hebrew and Greek) that they're reading have already been approximated by countless interpreters over the centuries and that the languages do not necessarily mesh up 1:1 (I've never even seen an example of modern day languages that do in their entirety).

"Proofs"

(I'm attempting to document what the presenter is asserting so when it's not obvious I'm probably restating what he has, not making a claim for myself... Try not to hold me to claims made here unless it's clear that I'm steering away from what the presenter has stated...)

1. The supposed odds for conditions to be exactly right are "zero" because of approximately 200 parameters required for life to exist. There appeared to be no citation for how he comes to this, unless this comes from the unreliable source of a for-profit business newspaper (the Wall Street Journal) or I simply missed it.

   Essentially the presenter argues that extremely low odds are equal to zero, and that somehow the odds of an omnipotent creator^[2] are greater and therefore more likely, and that, assuming that that was even true that it would be "proof"^[3].

   • That leads into allegedly even more unlikely odds for the universe to exist, again I believe without credible citations, noting that it's such an unlikely event that the universe's existence is "proof" of a creator. This again demonstrates a lack of comprehension in what probabilities are. He offers a layman's example of an extremely large number of coin flips landing "heads" every time. The odds of it happening are extremely low, that's true. That's irrelevant. According to our understanding of coin flips, it could happen. Things that are extremely unlikely to happen do happen all of the time.

2. Cesium atoms/atomic clocks are proof of God because they're approximately perfect. In particular, the physical laws that govern interactions with the time keeping mechanism are so precise, and we just happen to be able to harness them to keep time. As with most religious arguments of this nature, it is essentially saying that because it's "perfect" or "damn close to perfect" it must have been created by God (who is, presumably, perfect; despite all evidence to the contrary). This is not a logical argument and certainly not proof.

   
   

   • Optical clocks, again, because they're so almost perfect the presenter asserts that it can only be the result of a designer. Again, no. You don't comprehend what proof is if you believe that to be. We're no longer talking about probabilities, but about the very core nature of our universe. We're not actually talking about perfection either. Even optical clocks skew eventually. If anything, the lack of perfection would seem to indicate the lack of a "God" more than the approximate perfection would indicate one.

   • Just for fun, I'll note that although the presenter indicated that surely I, the viewer, must have a watch; I honestly do not. I, like many others, track time with my mobile phone. Before I had that, which is not too long ago, I used various other time keeping devices: digital clocks in vehicle dashboards or stereos, wall mounted clocks, clock radios/alarm clocks, and personal computers to keep relative track of time (and many of these I still use since I don't glue myself to my mobile phone).

     Generally I don't concern myself with time unless forced to. It seems like a very dated notion that everybody must have a watch. My girlfriend has a watch, and a rather expensive one at that, and I honestly can't comprehend why. Likely it's a fashion piece more than a utility, though she swore she used it for utility at least as well. Even she doesn't seem to wear it anymore (perhaps because they continued to tarnish regardless of repeated servicing and replacement by the jeweler, furthering the why).

3. The presenter argues that because the scientific community believes that the universe came into existence (presumably during the Big Bang), and that the first law of thermodynamics states that, "matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed," that this is proof that God exists because they contradict each other.

   It has been a while since I took a science class, but Wikipedia states that the first law of thermodynamics is a restatement of the law of conversation of energy, which essentially states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant (energy is neither created nor destroy).

   The actual first law states that the "internal energy" of a system is equal to the work being done by the system plus or minus the heat energy flowing in or out of the system and any other work done on the system. The important part to grasp here is the "system" part. The scope of the problem is defined. I'm probably not fully aware of all of the intricate details of the Big Bang or theories of the universe's origin point, but it's not difficult to imagine that (a) we don't have all of the answers yet (obviously), and (b) that the so called energy that the universe is composed of must have come from elsewhere. Whether that's a creator or some other phenomenon I don't know and I don't think science thinks it knows yet (I imagine science will need to go deep into the quantum realm for that).

   It's certainly not proof of God. It's undefined. It's incredibly illogical to use alleged contradictions in science as proof of God's existence. If and when science is contradicting itself it doesn't prove anything other than that the science is incomplete or wrong.

   
   

   1. This leads into an argument that radioactive elements degrade and therefore could not have always existed and therefore came into existence, again allegedly defying the first law of thermodynamics. Once again, it demonstrates a lack of comprehension in the science from the presenter. Not to mention that we know that atoms can be created and destroyed through nuclear fission (creating smaller atoms from a larger one) and fusion (creating a larger atom from smaller ones). To assert that the scientific community is "ignoring" a law to let this occur is blatantly ignorant.

4. The presenter states the the second law of thermodyamics is in contradiction to the theory of evolution. The second law of thermodynamics is non-trivial to understand, and essentially hinges on the idea of "entropy" (Wikipedia failed to give me a simple explanation for this). If anybody has one let's have it.

   It appears to state that the entropy of a system always increases. It cited an example where two rooms, a warm and a cold room, were separated by a wall and all energy could not escape nor penetrate the wall. When an external force is applied to the wall to allow heat energy specifically to pass through, the heat energy spreads into the colder room. This increases the temperature of the colder room, decreases the temperature of the hotter room, and generally reduces the amount of work that can be done by the collective energy of this system due to the decrease in difference in temperature.

   Ultimately, the temperatures would come to an equilibrium. At any time, restoring the wall would not increase the temperature of the hotter room nor decrease the temperature of the cooler room (obviously, this is assuming a hypothetical isolated system).

   I believe that this false proof hinges on the application of a microscopic physical law against a macroscopic biological process (or perhaps, set of processes that converge towards a result). It also probably hinges on the vague concept of "better" in terms of evolution. While it's generally true that evolution will tend to favor "better" changes, better is entirely subjective to the "here" and "now". What's better at any given space and time for a particular macroscopic entity is subjective and may not apply at another space or time regardless of how close or far they are.

   Evolution is not an intelligent force that steers organisms towards perfection, but merely a natural law of coincidence that overall increases the liklihood of "better" transformations surviving versus "worse" transformations (or replicating perfectly).

   It's important to note that humans and indeed every organism on the planet is generally not regarded as "perfect" or anywhere near to it^[4]. On the contrary, it's routine to discover seemingly useless or counter-productive parts or processes within nature (whether in living organisms or in the "unliving" world around us, which could also be described as being driven by evolution). These are evidence that things have not evolved "better" in every way, but that overall things tend to evolve to at least keep us alive so far. This again suggests that "evolution" is intelligent so it's worth noting that the transformations that occur are chaotic and somewhat random, or at least infeasible to predict, and that evolution is not a physical law or act itself, but really a high-level description of the cumulative effect of natural forces: evolution describes the strengths and weaknesses of successive generations of organisms (or non-organisms if taken out of a biological context), which either encourage or discourage the overall success of the class of entities which share these mutations. Evolution in particular describes those mutations that succeed and carry on in spite of environmental variations.

   It's also worth noting that the theory of evolution does not guarantee success. The countless extinct species are evidence of this. The unintelligent transformations that occurred (or the lack of such transformations given the limited scope of time) were insufficient to keep said species' alive.

   The presenter appears to hinge his argument on the assertion that evolution involves a continuous increase of "order" and "organization", which I think is highly subjective and misleading. Things tend to get more complex and chaotic, in general, but certainly not more ordered or organized. I'm sure if you were to analyze a reasonable sample of single-celled organisms you'd find fewer flaws than that of a realistic sample of complex organisms such as a humans. We certainly seem to get more complex, but not necessarily more ordered or organized. Considering the dinosaurs, I think it's wrong to generally assert that things tend to get larger too, though I'm not certain if there is evidence of an evolutionary link between a larger ancestor and a smaller descendant. I find that an interesting question to try to find an answer to (but I'm too tired to do so now).

5. He then quotes a man that Wikipedia cites as considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science". Considering that "creation science" does not gain much credibility within the scientific community that's not a very reliable source. That seems to have been a common them of the video production.

   The quote claims that various "blood chemistry tests" indicate various alternative closest relatives to humans than apes (e.g., snakes and beans). Don't ask me how they did tests on the chemistry of a butter bean's blood... If you have the energy to track down the sources and give us a credible answer than more power to you. I think I'll spare myself the waste of resources. It seems obvious to me that they lack an understanding of the science.

6. (...more improbabilities posing as proof for the feable minded to buy...)

7. He offers up a mouse trap as an example of a device that cannot be simplified without it ceasing to function (arguably, that would depend on the particular class of mouse trap). From here he leads into organisms representing "irreducible complexity" meaning that if you were to remove any "part" of the system it would cease to function, and offering that as a contradiction to a quote from Charles Darwin which presumably hinged the theory of evolution on the lack of an example of a complex organ in existence that could not have been formed by numerous slight modifications... Presumably from a lesser organ leading back to a simpler organism and ultimately back to lifeless chemicals in primordial soup.

   To debunk this I'm simply going to offer up examples of deformed animals (humans included) that for no explainable reason have misshapen or missing "parts" that barely resemble the fully functional piece (and these are complex, macroscopic examples), yet still manage to function on the whole. We understand chemical reactions occur that can transform molecules into other forms. We also understand that the building blocks for life are essentially molecules (and the definition for life can vary, but generally means self-replicating). I'm not sure yet if science has traced our steps back to the first "living organism" or identified such a primordial soup that would constitute life, but it's not entirely difficult with a basic understanding of science to imagine such a thing forming.

   We're not talking about minutes. We're talking billions of years for these "random" chemical reactions to become fruitful enough to form sustainable chemicals that actually "evolved" into more complex structures and eventually life (and who's to say it got all the way to us the first time). We're talking several orders of magnitude longer than the human race, or even multi-celled organisms have even existed just for the origin species of organism to form. And we're talking about extremely long periods of time for those first, basic organisms to replicate into transformed organism that were more complex and eventually, after millions upon millions more years into what you see today.

   Once again the presenter seems to lack a comprehension of the science he's debating in thinking that parts just magically come or go into or out of existence. It's probably not so clear cut as life tends not to be. The changes are likely so subtly incremental that you wouldn't necessarily notice them as an observer in a particular human span of time. It's not difficult to envision this simply from observations of differences among ourselves.

A little bit of logic and a basic secondary (high) school understanding (which is basically all that I have) of science is all that anybody needs to debunk this (and the Web can fill in anything that you lack if you care to try). Notably, that's significantly less understanding of these ideas than the actual scientists in our society have. Arguing science against the scientific community without science is absurdly comical. Nothing in this video proves that God doesn't exist either, but it certainly does not prove that he does. Essentially we're left right where we left off with the last debate (unfortunately!). We don't know for sure one way or the other. Though I'd argue that reading the Bible will leave any open minded, rational thinker with a clear conclusion regarding that deity.

If bambam's summary is more or less accurate (thank you bambam), all of these "proofs" boil down to variants of the old teleological argument. Nothing new under the sun.

If all the "proofs" are basically applications of the same argument, the video can't be any good.
They could at least have tried to include some of the other traditional lines of argumentation.

What I've liked best and what imho comes closer to a formal "proof" is the "ontological argument".
Wikipedia gives the following summary of its original version by Anselm of Canterbury:

While it's obviously flawed, I think it is an achievement in terms of structuring your thoughts - for someone living in the 11th century that is.

Well, that's what I thought.

Logic is a means of connecting propositions (and validating those connections). Unless it's pure formal stuff, such a statement does not make much sense in a general way without showing some actual "content".

Edit: Well, whatever. ^^
Maybe someone will come along and tell us if there's anything in the video that isn't just teleological argument reloaded.

There is. It's called Sburb.

Its hard to believe people can think without logic.

piccolo: Here are some good bible verses for you. Ones I pay close attention to these days. Answering questions is fine, but endless arguing with people who are not interested in learning from you, will only tear you apart spiritually. (took me a while to learn the same lessons) Anyhow, check these out... they contain good advice.

Matthew 7:6 (NIV)
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

2 Timothy 2:14 (NIV)
Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarrelling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.

2 Timothy 2:23 (NIV)
Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

{"name":"610122","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/d\/4db34b4856d11961d8e00d5955e9d0f7.jpg","w":960,"h":540,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/4\/d\/4db34b4856d11961d8e00d5955e9d0f7"}

Romans 1:20-22 (NIV)
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

At what? Sorry, but I am beyond that. I am actually more concerned about you, because while you may think this is a joke now. There is coming a day when it will get very serious for you. And you will see God in person, and you will know that He is quite real, and that your existence is coming to a violent end. So I feel sorry for you, and hope that someday you change before it is too late.

But I simply will no longer debate when it gets nowhere. It is pointless, and we have done this in the past to no effect.

I know God exists, I have proven it to myself beyond doubt. It's a fact, and the only person I need to prove it to is myself. And I did that a long time ago.

My main reason to post anything in here at all is to give my fellow believers advice to abstain from endless arguments like these. Don't let the wolves tear you apart (spiritually). But leave the conversation and maybe pray for them as we are commanded.

{"name":"610124","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/1\/51454de969379cb3f00b3ed6c109b8be.png","w":650,"h":432,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/1\/51454de969379cb3f00b3ed6c109b8be"}

Sorry, Neil, that wasn't addressed at you, but at the video presenter and presumably the "CEO" of that "church" (and the OP for posting this thread). While we have each others' attention I'll refer you to the rules for a discussion (I think we both know you don't agree to those terms).

It's pretty comical how you post in a thread that you claim to not want to participate in, and then respond to a post not addressed to you as if you were personally called out (to be fair, it came right after your post, but that was the only indication that it might have been addressed to you). It honestly looks like you're begging for attention. Just chill. If you don't want to participate then it's easy. Close the thread. You can even hide threads, IIRC (worst case you could with CSS, but I digress). I think we both know that you actually want to be here and will continue to post in this thread. Even if you reply that it's your last post in this thread! I avoid engaging you because I already know that you're incapable of, or at least refuse to, have a rationale discussion on the subject. If this changes let me know.

{"name":"610125","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/0\/10412124e4d15bc670c8ed324b3b6646.png","w":800,"h":578,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/0\/10412124e4d15bc670c8ed324b3b6646"}

One of my favourite passages, very comforting.

{"name":"610126","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/b\/db106ae1dc969bd689fed5422f47b580.png","w":599,"h":508,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/d\/b\/db106ae1dc969bd689fed5422f47b580"}

I'm just proving my arguing days are long behind me. I would rather joke around in these forums or talk programming then get upset over beliefs.

I ack what Johan said.8-)

Why.... why is this a thread?

{"name":"610129","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/2\/52531028ce78d620fca97c10259e11d9.jpg","w":720,"h":488,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/5\/2\/52531028ce78d620fca97c10259e11d9"}

And for the record, I do not attend churches either, can't stand them.... which brings to mind another image I created a while back...

{"name":"610130","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/0\/f0027a22f1d2a6cd93b6d8f0c983e34e.jpg","w":700,"h":478,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/f\/0\/f0027a22f1d2a6cd93b6d8f0c983e34e"}