Another Theist Has "Proof" of Their God

[00:00:14][music] >> Welcome back everyone to Bridge the Divide, where we examine irrational beliefs, the irrational behaviors that often follow, and how we can bridge the societal divides they create with education, rationality, and reason.

[00:00:27]Today, we're taking a look at a video from the channel Fearless Faith Ministries. And in this one, broadcaster and evangelist Dan Wheeler presents what he thinks is proof for his god. Let's dive in.

[00:00:40]>> Do you ever look at a building and imagine that it just magically came into existence?

[00:00:45]>> No, because I'm neither a child nor an idiot.

[00:00:48]>> No, you realize there was a builder, an an intelligent design behind that building.

[00:00:55]>> Yes, and the reason we understand there was a builder is because of what we call priors. We humans collectively have prior experiences of humans creating things like buildings. So, when I see a structure that corresponds with the definition of what a building is, it is my priors that provide me the rational justification to make the extraordinarily strong inductive inference that it was humans that built it.

[00:01:17]>> Well, so many people look at the universe and they say, "Oh, it just came into existence magically."

[00:01:22]>> No, that's your position, that the universe was literally willed into existence by your magical sky daddy. I don't hold that position for three major reasons. Number one, I don't have any prior experience of any god or gods even existing, let alone such entities creating anything. So, I have no priors by which I can infer that the universe itself was created. Number two, concluding that just because there are intelligent agents in the universe that create things, it entails that the universe itself was created by an intelligent agent would just be a fallacy of composition. And number three, the evidence that we have access to and basic logic supports the position that the universe has always existed.

[00:02:01]So, I don't need to invoke a god to explain anything. That third one is also covered by the principle of parsimony, not multiplying my entities unnecessarily, which is exactly what I would be doing were I to assert without justification that an undemonstrable god entity exists when trying to understand the nature of the universe.

[00:02:19]>> And then through evolution, all of this happened.

[00:02:21]>> Technically, evolution or modern synthesis only covers how biological life diversifies. There's an entire world of naturalistic processes out there that are not covered by evolutionary biology.

[00:02:33]>> I want to talk to you about that in your morning cup of inspiration.

[00:02:36]>> Unless you have some evidence that your god actually exists to do the thing that you think it do, I'm not entirely sure how you're going to inspire anyone of anything. Unless of course you're only doing this video here to reinforce the belief of your fellow believers, and you have no real interest in defending the positive claims that you are making.

[00:02:55]>> There are many arguments for the existence of God.

[00:02:58]>> And all of them for one reason or another fail spectacularly. But for the sake of this video, I'm going to assume that you have a particular one in mind.

[00:03:06]>> One is the cosmological argument.

[00:03:09]>> Oh Jesus, not that crap again.

[00:03:11]>> Which says that everything that exists had a cause for its beginning outside of itself. So, it didn't create itself.

[00:03:19]>> That's sort of correct. Technically, the first premise is whatever begins to exist has a cause. And it's a premise that is supported by the foundational metaphysical intuition that something cannot come from nothing. But the evidence we have supports the position that the universe has always existed.

[00:03:36]And seeing as how we know the universe exists, we don't have to beg the question of its existence like you believers do when it comes to your god.

[00:03:44]>> The teleological argument says the universe displays such immense complexities and precise fine-tuning that's necessary for sustaining life. So, that suggests an intelligent design, not random chance.

[00:03:59]>> That's only if you start with the assumption that life as it exists on this planet was intended to exist in the manner that it does. For that to be rationally accepted as being the case, you would first have to demonstrate that such an entity actually exists and has the ability to do whatever it is you're claiming it do. And it's not really random chance that these things happen the way that they do. At least not like in the context of a random number generator in which the odds of any specific number combination coming up completely reset before each event. But more like random in the context of having no specific desired outcome or what we would call telos and in which each successive evolutionary event reduces or even eliminates the possibility of other evolutionary outcomes, which is a phenomenon that is described by Dollo's law of irreversibility and supported by observed developmental constraints and path dependency. An example of this would be that even though modern dogs and modern fish do share a common ancestor in the Osteichthyes or lobe-finned fish that lived approximately 410 million years ago, they are currently so separated by their evolutionary lines that neither species population will probabilistically ever give rise to anything like the other one. So, again, this argument is simply begging the question.

[00:05:15]>> But two things that I think definitely prove the existence of God are the eye and the brain.

[00:05:20]>> OH, THAT'S A BIG SURPRISE. THAT'S AN INCREDIBLE I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK AND DIE FROM THAT SURPRISE.

[00:05:27]>> SO, irreducible complexity, which is patently absurd because for one, there are numerous organisms out there with far more complex eyes than we humans possess. Mantis shrimp, raptors, chameleons, and jumping spiders are just a few examples. And while the human nervous system is, by current scientific understanding, the most complex nervous system in the animal kingdom, there are still things that our nervous system can do that many other organisms out there can. While the human central nervous system is highly specialized for cognition and flexibility, it comes at a deep evolutionary expense, namely developmental speed, vulnerability to physical and psychological dysfunction, lower sensory acuity and neural efficiency, and the inability to regenerate nerve tissue. Not to mention there exists in nature today every single step along the evolutionary line to complex eyes and nervous systems. And the reason that those species in question didn't develop complex eyes or complex nervous systems akin to ours is because over the course of their evolutionary lineage, the foundational building blocks for those traits were never selected for within their populations, which means the argument from irreducible complexity is itself reduced to an argument from ignorance or an argument from personal incredulity.

[00:06:40]>> Do you know how complex the eye is?

[00:06:42]>> Not as complex as it could be, I can tell you that. Hell, just a small adjustment in the placement of our optic nerves would completely eliminate our natural blind spots. That would certainly make them better.

[00:06:52]>> It has over 2 million working parts.

[00:06:55]Think about that.

[00:06:57]>> That's actually incorrect, and it's likely because you got that from a simple Google search. You really need to learn how to do research. The human eye has 30 individual anatomical parts. One of those parts is the retina, located at the back of the eyeball, which is a light-sensitive tissue filled with rods and cones, which are specialized photoreceptor cells. Cones, of which there are approximately 6 to 7 million, are concentrated in the fovea within the macula and are responsible for high acuity or photopic vision and detecting spatial detail. Rods, of which there are approximately 120 million, are distributed throughout the peripheral retina and absent in the center of the fovea and are responsible for low-light or scotopic vision and detecting motion.

[00:07:40]So, whether you're talking about the number of individual anatomical parts or the total number of cells that contribute to the functionality of the eye, 2 million was way off.

[00:07:49]>> Over 40 sub systems that allow it to have advanced light detection and image processing.

[00:07:57]>> And they're actually pretty mid when compared to many other organisms on the planet. That mantis shrimp I mentioned earlier has upwards of 16 types of photoreceptors compared to the measly three that humans have. They have stalked compound eyes that move independently in three directions, provide them with trinocular vision compared to the binocular vision of humans, their vision is processed far more efficiently than we humans process ours, and they're capable of detecting linear and circular polarized light as well as ultraviolet and infrared, which humans completely lack the natural ability to detect. And it's of course exactly what we would expect to see from a species that is the result of billions of more years of evolution than anything on land.

[00:08:39]>> And then it operates as an extension of the brain through over a million nerve fibers, and the brain is even more complex with the eye.

[00:08:48]>> Our brains are pretty complex, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that this is still an argument from personal incredulity.

[00:08:54]>> Because the brain is the seat of intelligence, the interpreter of our senses, the initiator of body movements, and the controller of behavior.

[00:09:05]>> Well, I can see someone Googled basic brain functions.

[00:09:08]>> Think about that. Do you think that all just came into existence from an explosion?

[00:09:13]>> No, it developed over billions of years of evolution. And the Big Bang wasn't an explosion, which means not only are you misrepresenting the field of cosmology, you're deliberately conflating cosmology with evolutionary biology, which are two completely separate fields of science.

[00:09:28]This is what we call intellectual dishonesty.

[00:09:31]>> From nothing?

[00:09:32]>> Nope, that's your position, not ours.

[00:09:35]>> Well, the Bible tells us how it came into existence in the first verse.

[00:09:38]Genesis 1:1 says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

[00:09:44]>> Yeah, but there's a problem there.

[00:09:45]That's not an explanation. It's an assertion. An assertion is just a claim about something. You are asserting that your God entity created everything, but you are not addressing how it created anything. An explanation contains the how part of that mechanistic process.

[00:10:00]Exactly how did your God do whatever you assert that it do? And if you can't provide that, which you can't because the Bible doesn't provide it, you're left with an appeal to magic and mystery, which means that we can essentially ignore it.

[00:10:13]>> And in 1 Corinthians 2:9, Paul writes, "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has entered into the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him."

[00:10:24]>> Yeah, I don't really care about what some cult adherent thinks about the cult that they're a part of. Paul may have been convinced that what he believed was true, but that would not logically entail that what he believed was actually true. That's two separate claims.

[00:10:38]>> So, if you think the world and the universe are magnificent, >> Which I do.

[00:10:42]>> just wait till you see what's coming, heaven.

[00:10:45]>> Oh, creepy.

[00:10:47]>> Existing eternally is not something I'm even remotely interested in, no matter where it happens to be taking place. And I don't have the psychological need for such an appeal to emotion to make my time here on this planet more tolerable.

[00:11:02]Now, when it comes to apologists like Dan here, bridging the divide is actually pretty easy. And what's great is that it's easy because they make it easy. The primary tactic used by Dan and his ilk in the course of their evangelism is to exploit the general scientific illiteracy of believers.

[00:11:18]Basically, they weaponize the believers' fear and ignorance against them.

[00:11:22]Fortunately for us, their tactics are so unbelievably desperate and obvious that we know exactly what we need to do, which is why the best way to bridge the divide with their audiences is with persistent educational and entertaining science communication. By supplying these audiences with the information that these guys don't want them to have.

[00:11:41]This does of course entail that science communicators need to commit to doing the work to ensure that they represent the various fields in question accurately because doing so creates a sort of positive feedback loop. The science communicator ensures that their own educational understanding remains consistently relevant to the topic at hand which leads these audiences to consistently have access to the information they need to formulate more rational positions which then leads to predatory apologists like Dan here slowly losing their ability to victimize these groups as their intellectual dishonesty is exposed for exactly what it is. Nothing more than a means of emotional manipulation and behavioral control. And I think most non-believers and believers together would agree that a society with a more educated, discerning, and rational populace has significantly better chances of accomplishing their agreed upon societal goals when they are less predisposed to falling into the pointless trap of emotional tribalistic conflicts.

[00:12:39]Conflicts by the way that the various faith systems from all around the world have historically capitalized on to the constant bloody detriment of the very citizenry they claim to be in service to.

[00:12:52]Thank you all for watching. I hope you enjoyed the video and if you did, please like, share, and subscribe and hit that bell for notifications. And be sure to leave a comment below. I love reading your responses and those interactions help with the dreaded algorithm. Don't forget, June is Alzheimer's and Brain Awareness Month. The link to where you can support these important efforts is down in the description. And if you like what you saw here and would like to support this channel further, links for channel membership and to get yourself some official Bridge the Divide gear are also in the description. Once again, a massive thank you to each and every one of you for your constant support and as always, be safe, be excellent [music] to each other, And together, we can bridge the divide.

[00:13:36]>> [music] [music]