God Exists…Because Bacteria have Brains?

God Exists…Because Bacteria have Brains?

hello and welcome to my channel vice rhino here today i’m looking at another prageru’s videos this one promising four new arguments for god well it’s been a long while since i’ve seen any new arguments for god and even then they were just new to me at the time there hasn’t been a truly new argument for god that i’m aware of in probably centuries at this point so i’m curious what these new arguments will be let’s go [Music] you know for 27 years i was an atheist i thought anyone who believed in a god or gods was well stupid or uneducated naive gullible okay so this is one of the i used to be an atheist then i was presented with christian apologetic acts and now i’m a believer type of stories okay that’s nice i really don’t care about your personal story though just tell me what apologetic it was that convinced you and we’ll see if that does the trick because honestly you’re not doing your side any favors by painting your old atheist self as an abrasive self-righteous prick all that does is set christians up for a surprise when they learn that not all atheists are like that in fact most aren’t certainly many of us go through what is known as the angry atheist phase upon coming out of religion but in most cases that is a temporary phase and in my experience the non-religious community is an incredibly generous community i’ve done a charity fundraiser every christmas for the last three years and every year i’ve surpassed the initial goal of the fundraiser last year by several thousand dollars the guys who do the god-awful movies podcast used to do an annual charity fundraiser called vulgarity for charity where they would come up with creative insults for people in exchange for donations to charity both jonathan and vice rhino would like you to take it to doug for the trump-esque premiere of ontario uh why don’t you take this one with me okay um doug ford looks like somebody tried to summon a patronus but they didn’t really think it through and they just like yelled out chris farley nazi what shit and he’s somehow even more pink orange than trump he looks like he got mad that hot dogs aren’t shaped like a ball so he decided to become that oh i can help you out here he’s orange like that so that when you leave him on somebody’s porch they’ll try to stomp on him and then he’ll be all over their shoes he looks like middle-aged biff from back to the future two swallowed young biff and in 2019 their fundraiser was so successful that they still haven’t finished with the insults and if i recall correctly they ended up raising over a quarter million dollars but of course this is just anecdotal evidence but researchers have found that non-religious individuals are motivated to generous action through compassion while religious individuals are motivated more through doctrine a communal identity or reputational concerns in other words atheists give out of the goodness of their hearts religious people give out of a feeling of obligation to their church and if i may extrapolate my own hypothesis here the idea that they gave to the church can stop them from giving to actual helpful charities because they feel like that’s part of what they pay their church to do but unfortunately tax laws in most countries don’t require churches to actually disclose where their money goes now that said there was a recent voluntary survey conducted by the lake institute on faith and giving which found that churches were spending a whopping 72 percent of their income on administrative stuff and another six percent on dues leaving a huge 21 percent of their income left over to spend on actual charity work a good chunk of which is devoted to proselytizing instead of you know being useful and if you look at the breakdown of the various programs 35 of the program money is spent on worship how do you even spend money on worship i don’t understand that now compare this to something like modest needs which spends 4.6 percent of its budget on administration another 4.7 on fundraising and the remaining 90.7 percent of its income actually helps people so we can see that a donation to a well-chosen secular charity will have a much greater impact than a donation to a church and this is using data that the churches themselves gave voluntarily with no accountability of any kind to ensure that they were being truthful in other words this is the data that they gave thinking that it would make them look good i would not be surprised at all if the reality were much much worse okay tangent over back to the video or just into the gig for money sex and power oh god damn can we just get away from jay warner wallace and the whole people only lie for these three reasons thing i mean after all everyone knows that religion is just a psychological crutch for intellectual weaklings right no that’s the apologist strawman of the atheist point of view most atheists will be perfectly happy to recognize that there are in fact some very intelligent people who happen to be religious so what changed my mind well look i tell the whole story in my book shattered but for our purposes here on prager university i was simply challenged by my christian teammates on the cincinnati reds to read some religious books critique them and then share with the guys where the authors were wrong so really easy stuff for anyone who is even mildly informed on the subject matter gotcha also i know from other sources that the main apologist he was being asked to read was c.s lewis the man whose best argument was that if you start with the assumption that the bible accurately records the life of jesus then jesus has to either be a liar a lunatic or the lord of course this whole argument does fall apart if you don’t start with the assumption that the bible is accurate which should be a piece of cake for most atheists especially once you learn when the various books of the bible were written with relation to the events they supposedly depict and why atheism is the only real and true outlook for anyone not deceived by fantasy fiction or mythology i mean for someone who wants to base their beliefs and values upon evidence and argument not emotion and tradition personally i’d put more stock in evidence than argument when it comes to something like a god claim even the best argument is not itself evidence for god even if there were a good argument in favor of god that still would be insufficient to lead to the conclusion that a god actually exists now that said i have yet to see a good argument for god but there’s supposed to be four new ones in here somewhere so maybe one of those will finally be the one now look simply put i set out to disprove theism that’s quite the task there it’s really hard to disprove an unfalsifiable claim which is why the null hypothesis is the way to go on that one which i didn’t think would take very long i mean if you turn christian because you failed to falsify the unfalsifiable then that doesn’t lead me to believe that your arguments are going to be shall i say intellectually rigorous but i ran into some difficulties along the way difficulties like aristotle augustine aquinas oh please tell me this is just background and this isn’t representative of the arguments that you’re calling new the newest of those philosophers died over 700 years ago i mean in simple terms i was confronted with the awareness that there are really four big bangs that have to be accounted for not just one i’m unsure what any big bangs have to do with anything at this point i thought we were talking arguments for god here not cosmology the only argument for god where cosmology becomes relevant is the cosmological argument which definitely is not a new one i’d never really even considered that before i mean we’re all familiar with the first big bang right it’s usually the answer given to the question why is there something rather than nothing it’s the idea that there was nothing it popped and boom there’s something that is not what the big bang is the big bang was the initial expansion of space-time that led to our current instantiation of the universe what came before the big bang is unknown at this time maybe it was pure energy maybe it was a bouncing cosmology where there were previous universes maybe it was the heartless hawking state maybe it was nothing the fact of the matter is that we do not know so any assertions about what came before the big bang are just that assertions i mean that time matter and space all came into existence and some great cosmological flash about 16 billion years ago 13.7 billion years ago this was filmed while the internet was a thing you could have looked it up you didn’t have to say the wrong number you chose to is such rigorous attention to detail indicative of the quality of your work normally there was no gradual development no transitional forms just a binary flip wait what do you think people think the big bang is did you hear hoeven give his six kinds of evolution speech often enough that you ended up thinking that the big bang actually is categorized as a type of evolution scientifically and so think the lack of transitional universes is somehow damning i don’t often go for this response but i think this merits it here you’re not even wrong you’d have to do some serious research and studying just to attain the level known as completely wrong you are so off base here that it’s more likely that a separate universe just popped into existence somewhere in the cosmos in which you are actually right than it is that you actually have any inkling of what you’re talking about here a metaphysical now you don’t see it and now you do fine i want to follow the evidence wherever it leads no you clearly do not because you’re here making arguments based on topics that you obviously are not even slightly informed on however astrophysicists tell us that this first big bang yielded only a handful of fundamental elements and that it would take billions and billions of years for the nuclear furnaces of trillions of stars to yield 118 elements in the periodic table well that’s massively oversimplified and only 92 out of the 118 elements are known to be naturally occurring so your numbers are off again but yes ish now how does this have anything to do with theism or atheism you’re just describing how elements formed albeit poorly elements formed in the stars yep heavier elements formed in supernovae but i doubt you’d know anything about that so let’s just say they’re all formed in stars to keep things nice and simple for you how would any of this either prove or disprove the existence of god but the first theoretical cosmological big bang well it only yields matter and energy doesn’t even begin to address the origin of life so it’s not supposed to address the origin of life the earliest life we know about didn’t happen until about 10 billion years after the big bang so why would we expect big bang theory to explain the origin of life so how do you get life from non-life there are many hypotheses on the matter none of which are conclusive at this time but a lot of them are quite plausible given your complete lack of understanding on anything to do with the big bang though i’m just gonna go ahead and guess that anything you have to say about abiogenesis is going to be similarly ill-informed how did abiogenesis occur i mean the notion that something can come from nothing no abiogenesis is not the notion that something can come from nothing abiogenesis is the notion that autocatalytic chemical reactions can spontaneously develop given the right chemicals in the right environment an autocatalytic reaction being a reaction that ends with one of the products being a compound that catalyzes the same reaction again and over time these auto catalytic reactions serve to concentrate other chemicals and over more time life developed at no point did this life come from nothing nor was it in any way related to the big bang and of course this is massively oversimplified but the specifics are almost as easy to find as the known age of the universe so i guess they’ll just forever remain a mystery because that’s just too much damn work apparently where’s the evidence here’s a paper that shows the conditions that are known to form complex organic compounds that are important to life exist in solar nebula here’s one that shows that a mixture of rna fragments will self-assemble into self-replicating ribozymes and form cooperative catalytic cycles and networks an important step in abiogenesis here’s one that shows a self-sustained rna enzyme replication in the absence of proteins or other biological materials resulting in an amplification of the rna which could hypothetically be continued indefinitely here’s a critical review of a bunch of the different hypotheses on the origin of the genetic code which includes a bunch of evidence both for and against each of the different hypotheses and i could go on if you actually want the evidence there is a lot of it out there but if you just want to incredulously ask where’s the evidence then feel free to continue ignoring all the evidence just be aware that ignoring the evidence like that makes you look like a kid closing their eyes plugging their ears and saying i can’t hear you well you’re gonna need another something from nothing leap of faith some kind of biological second big bang oh god are your four big bangs the four new arguments for god because the first one was just a botched rephrasing of the cosmological argument and the second one if it’s the origin of life is just a god of the gaps we don’t have all the details yet therefore god did it for all the mind-blowing advancements we’ve made in physics biology and chemistry in just the past hundred years we’re still no closer to making it happen we don’t have a clue no you’re completely wrong we are way closer to being able to make life in a lab now than we were in einstein’s day hell we’ve been making synthetic life for over a decade now and advances in things like microfluidic technologies are bringing us closer to developing truly synthetic life with everything in the organism being built by us rather than using some naturally occurring elements combined with the synthetic genetic code experts estimate that that breakthrough will happen sometime in the next decade or so are you telling me that this does not represent any progress in molecular or cellular biology since the 1930s when we didn’t even know what dna looked like the closer we look the whiter the chasm that’s how most things are the more you learn about something the more complicated you learn that thing is when teaching a toddler about colors do you go into detail about how the colors aren’t really colors they’re just the results of which wavelengths of light are reflected by the material you’re looking at and these wavelengths of light stimulate the various cone cells in your eye in different amounts which creates an electrical impulse that your brain detects and interprets his color and even that is a big oversimplification or do you just maybe say this is red and that is blue does the toddler that is taught that this is red and this is blue grow up and learn that the colors that we see mostly correspond with the various wavelengths of light and then declare that this is now a lot more complicated and there’s way more things that they don’t understand about color and therefore color must come from god no of course not that would be ridiculous so when we look at something as apparently simple as color we find that the closer we look the harder it is to explain and the more complicated it gets this is how learning works why would this not apply to the origin of life i mean sure we’ve learned a lot about how to manipulate life forms how to add and subtract dna material even map the human genome and how do you not see how all of those discoveries are directly relevant to figuring out how life could have originated in the first place how do you not understand that us having a much better understanding of how life works will allow us to have a better understanding of how life began but we have no idea how to literally create life from dead step we have literally been doing that since 2010 not in an abiogenesis sort of way but you’re showing frankenstein’s monster there and we absolutely have made franken bacteria now look at this point we still only have physics chemistry and some basic biology or matter energy and simple life if you will but we still don’t have a way to account for the great diversity of life forms okay we’re just gonna go full creationist now for some reason i was under the impression that prageru was one of those organizations that like to skirt around the evolution versus creation debate in an attempt to appeal to both sides but sure just go ahead and ignore the extremely well evidenced and well demonstrated mechanism of species diversification that is evolution i mean the huge differences between bacteria plants and animals nor do we have a way to account for the differences between man and animal we still don’t have an anthropology at this point there are no significant differences that distinguish humans from the rest of the animal kingdom every trait you can name that might be used for such a distinction can be found albeit often in a more rudimentary form in other living animals so we’re going to need a kind of anthropological third big bang to account for all this for fuck’s sake which of course is what darwin was after in his descent of man thesis you can just call it evolution that is allowed we’ll all know what you’re talking about now look darwin answered a lot of questions but he could never answer the core question how did evolution begin so you’re just gonna take it back to abiogenesis again man you are all over the place but hey we’re still not done describing the world that is all around us a final big bang is going to be required to explain how a mechanistic animal brain can become a self-reflective human mind no we don’t need a new mechanism it’s the same mechanism with the right selection pressures that’s what you get and that’s what we got even the lowest life forms have brains and central nervous systems i’m sorry what did you just claim that single-celled organisms have brains and nervous systems i hope for your sake that this is just a terrible analogy for like the nucleus of the cell or something because that is just asinine i mean if i’m generous he didn’t actually say single celled but he did say lowest life form while the video showed a picture of a single-celled organism so maybe he just meant the most basal animal but then he’s still wrong on account of the whole you know sponges don’t have brains or neurons thing and they’re not the only ones this is stupendously wrong even with the most generous interpretation i mean how does something like that become the mind of a michelangelo a shakespeare a beethoven oh god it wasn’t an analogy was it oh boy no cells do not have brains or nervous systems brains and nervous systems are made up of cells but a single celled organism does not have them some multicellular organisms don’t have them lots of multicellular organisms don’t have them have you ever heard of plants they don’t have them come on animals don’t do art and they don’t appreciate beauty you can buy paintings made by the elephants at the buffalo zoo sure it’s not much but it’s at least as good as a pollock right and how do you know that animals don’t appreciate beauty why do female birds choose the more beautiful male birds as their mates if they don’t appreciate beauty like sexual selection is one of the selection mechanisms of evolution that is entirely based on the personal preferences of those seeking the mate this mate looks nicer than the others in this way so i will choose them and so their nicer looking trait will be selected for do you think male peacocks are benefited by their giant beautiful tales in anything other than mating get out of here with your animals don’t appreciate beauty nonsense but the problem is even more basic than that how do you account for free will and introspection introspection is an emergent property of the brain and free will has not been demonstrated to even exist at this point that’s just another one of your assertions let alone man’s pressing existential drive to ask why curiosity leads to innovation innovation leads to better chances of survival which leads to selection pressures that favor curiosity and innovation the real question here is why do you want to stop scientific research that seeks to answer questions that you have already decided you have an answer for well we’re going to need some kind of psychological fourth big bang to account for man’s moral and aesthetic sense what a mind blow ah see what i did there see what i did there ah mind blow psychological big bang mind blow yeah yeah in his search for meaning significance and purpose and of course his appreciation for the true the good and the beautiful not only is god not needed to account for any of that god is quite possibly the least interesting answer you could ever come up with why do humans have a mind well in a quest to answer that question we could do an intensive study of neurology psychology evolution and how they work together to give us what we have or we could just say god one of those options has the potential for scientific advancement furthering our understanding of how our bodies work potentially even coming up with new treatments and cures for various diseases along the way the other gives us a superficially satisfying answer that gets us nowhere and again you must understand these problems require bangs i mean sudden binary pops into existence nope that’s not true of any of them except perhaps the one where there’s no reason to think that that’s not how it could have happened since there’s no evidence for any gradual development in any of these i suppose with your method of not even bothering to look into the evidence that we have it might be said that you have found no evidence of them but if you just look a little tiny bit there is plenty of evidence out there although for you i’d recommend going back to the basics as you seem to have an incredibly flawed understanding of the fundamentals of every scientific topic that you’ve touched on so far it really is quite extraordinary so i like you have a choice it’s either faith in these four big bangs of somethings from nothings to account for what we see all around us again only one of those four things could even potentially have been something from nothing and that’s only if one of the several competing hypotheses for it is true or faith in some kind of creator god behind it all so next time someone asks you hey what about the big bang make sure you ask them which one and then be prepared for a dumbfounded look as they wonder what the fuck you’re even talking about and potentially to be laughed at if you actually use any of the points found in this video so this video was supposed to be four new arguments for god instead we got a very clunky rephrasing of some of the well-trodden centuries-old arguments for god that everyone uses but surrounded by an understanding of science that is either laughably horrible or tragically pathetic like seriously i think matt powell might have a better understanding of science than this guy and matt powell wonders why african americans still exist since other americans evolved out of them if it’s about survival of the fittest and we evolved from african americans into other americans what about the americans that are still alive today today’s comment of the day comes to us from mestizia who says every time a christian cites romans 1 20 i’m going to reply with the verse from the quran where it says that the trinity is dumb and those who believe in it go to hell well the verse you’re looking for is the 171st verse of the fourth surah for that do not say three stop it that is good for you allah is the only one god he is far too pure to have a son it doesn’t explicitly say that you’ll go to hell for believing in the trinity but it definitely implies it thanks for watching thanks for this week’s paypal hero charles special thanks as always to my patrons mark mcmanus mark hetcham clench eastwood lynn dobbs what jesus and all the rest who are the brains in the single-celled organism that is my channel if you’d like to be completely ridiculous you can join us on patreon for as little as a dollar per week over at patreon.com vicerino if you feel so inclined you can also support the channel through direct donation or my amazon wishlist which are linked in the description if you’d like to listen to my videos in podcast form or listen to my podcast with my daughter the links for those are also in the description as well as links to my social media accounts and my po box address see you next time [Music] you
rn

God Exists...Because Bacteria have Brains?

rn

Share this post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *