Determining The Logic Of Design | Bandon-TX | The Atheist Experience 892

The Atheist Experience 892 for November 16, 2014 with Matt Dillahunty and Martin Wagner..
Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: bit.ly/aenmerch
► Become a KZbin member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tinyurl.com/Th...
► Chat room rules:
atheist-experie...
► The most up to date Atheist Experience videos can be found by visiting
atheist-experie...
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop and support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing and friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of state-church separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists and to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
www.atheist-exp... (The Atheist Experience TV Show)
► More shows and video clips can be found in the archive:
www.atheist-exp...
► DVDs of the Atheist Experience can be purchased via:
www.atheist-com...
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 1997 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.

[@danwatson171]

When apologists say “right” or “okay” after hearing an explanation, it tends to indicate a wilful ignorance of what was just said to them

[@channelfogg6629]

Yes, because they immediately continue to- as Matt so precisely put it - 'meander'.

[@CronoXpono]

😂 Matt now says “acknowledge the fucking point being made” 😆 The free ride to yeah yeah yeahing to the next point is over 😆

[@brynnd5523]

The other most consistent one I’ve heard has been “well, I would say” or “what I would say is”, or some variation of that. Of course that comes before they say something, but ya know

[@user-tz5uq2bt1s]

So many callers do it. The host makes a point, the caller clearly ignored every single word they said, states "Right" or "Okay" then proceeds to carry on with whatever they were saying before their premise was refuted.

[@Nocturnalux]

They are just gaining time so they can move on to their next point for more “whataboutism”, which is their approach whenever cornered. Don’t admit your point has been countered and just move on to the next.

[@Rocinantewow]

caller says "If you put an engine on a stick it wouldn't fly because it doesn't produce lift" .... he must have never seen a rocket...

[@XJWill1]

I was thinking that a bottle rocket is literally an engine on a stick. I wish they had mentioned that to the caller.

[@dashingkevs3295]

As soon as he asked is a wing logical? I had a strong feeling he was gonna be an idiot. Props to Matt and Martin for being patient with him.

[@facelessdrone]

Yeah, not even using the word in its correct context... on a mere technicality is the meaning correct, but his usage is very awkward and wrong, so he clearly doesn't understand what exactly logic entails,...

[@Jex2112]

Martin asked him “imagine you are blissfully ignorant” lol, he insulted him without him even noticing.. very good 😊

[@TheScotsalan]

As a design engineer, I have no idea what an aeroplane has to do with god. Remember the tower of babel.The so called god confused language because the ppl were working together. If it were up to god we would still be in the bronze age making animal sacrifices. The reformation opened up our minds to solving problems and creating things.

[@TheScotsalan]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 Excellent point ya maybe not 👍. If a middle eastern artist were to somehow carve a perfect wooden wing, nobody would know what it was. But the indigenous ozzies had the wing shape by then in boomerangs ( I think by then ). I dont think Judah had any major discovaries at that time. As gods chosen ppl, they should have been able to invent everything. But it was India who came up with the decimal place, and later on, muslims invented algegra. I have often wondered, why did god not just give us penecillian ? 👍

[@majmage]

Yeah as a game designer I find it particularly ridiculous when they claim our universe was designed since we have all sorts of designed universes _(video game universes)_ and we know what that looks like, and our universe doesn't resemble that at all (especially in relation to religions which claim it was designed _for us._ ).

[@optimus-el4444]

I guess this is the aaa gfe experience once again in a different spin lol ha ha ha ha with the jafafecan nick the mechanic...ha ha ha

[@sttonep242]

I'm a product design student and I just love creationists talk about god's "good design" :D

[@majmage]

@@ceceroxy2227 Birds aren't designed, they just _appear_ designed due to evolution. Pretty important difference (and doesn't involve a bird causing itself to fly)

[@Dr.HowieFeltersnatch]

To be fair, if I was trying to design an idiot, I would probably design someone just like Brandon.

[@Amor_fati.Memento_Mori]

Oh Doctor, don't use such language.

[@godlessolddude305]

@@Amor_fati.Memento_Mori Hell, I was going to call him a jackass. 😁

[@NPMEDPRO]

More like strong confirmation bias with Dunning Kruger effect and poor logic skills due to ignorance of such.

[@davidmauro8947]

Brandon is good at what he does.

[@rrpostalagain]

I’m so tired of people who think literally everything is designed telling me how I determine design… and this was a particularly bad job at it.

[@d_camara]

"if you were in the middle of a desert and spotted a pocket watch you'd think it's hand made!" -person that thinks sand is hand made

[@trishayamada807]

Penguins have wings and don’t fly. Emus, ostriches, cassowary have wings, don’t fly. So not all wings are for flight, but they are still wings.

[@iraesch4637]

Poop has no function? Talk to literally any farmer or gardner, and they'll tell you exactly the function of poop.

[@Fizbin1701]

Another purpose would be to throw it at Brandon. ;)

[@darrenwallace6161]

Ode to Brandon “**** makes the flowers grow “

[@andrewey2083]

Wait until you can't shit if you want to know its function

[@c.guydubois8270]

Mr. Hankie says "hidey ho"...

[@MrPilton]

Many plants require birds too eat their fruit and poop out their seeds. Thus using the bird's poop to get a headstart on growing. Brandon does indeed need to investigate the "design" of poop.

[@FourDeuce01]

After listening to Brandon, I must say it's awful nice of him to let Matt speak on HIS show. ;)

[@jshaers96]

And people complain Matt loses his temper sometimes!

[@FourDeuce01]

@@jshaers96 If I was doing that show, I would have less patience than Matt has.😂

[@petyrkowalski9887]

My all time favourite is the talking puddle who is amazed how he has been “intelligently designed” to fit perfectly into the hole.

[@tetsujin_144]

1:36 - "So if you found a wing..." Or, you know, a watch... (sigh)

[@AlexPBenton]

At every turn, he ties himself into more and more knots. The “more than one purpose” bit is just stupid, because a wing has a single function, while a rock has many functions.

[@heavymeddle28]

Scotch on the rocks, rock'n roll, Mick Rock...

[@soren_hero247]

Depending on the bird, the wings have a second function. Tasty snack. So to the caller: why are some bird wings delicious in Buffalo sauce, and others aren't? were they designed that way?

[@AlexPBenton]

@@soren_hero247 I was talking more specifically about manufactured wings, but you’re right

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

@@AlexPBenton NEP will be here soon to tell us all about the purpose of moist rocks.

[@c.guydubois8270]

"damned stone tools"

[@yoredeerleader]

The poop of bats is used as a measure of mental stability.

[@mckorr2116]

It's used for gunpowder, so obviously god created bats so people could kill each other more efficiently. Such a loving god.

[@aemiliadelroba4022]

Bottom line > things happens ! Rocks happens! Humans assume , or turned them into something ( functional , designed , intended , …. )

[@ericburger6482]

Yup! So tired of the "Everything happens for a reason." statement. NO, stuff just happens. Only humans would try to assign purpose to something "happening".

[@jellyfishsii]

If animals are so well designed then why are 99% of all species that have ever existed currently extinct? I'm surprised the puddle analogy didn't come up in this conversation

[@meninblack3585]

Whats the puddle anology?

[@jellyfishsii]

@@meninblack3585 sort of like the sharpshooter fallacy. It's essentially a puddle becoming sentient and saying at since it's water fits it's hole so perfectly that it must have been designed. It's looking at the way something ends up and assuming the only way is through design.

[@JB-yb4wn]

Large rocks have a design - dinosaur killer. ☄️

[@hamster4618]

So because we have pacemakers, hearts must be designed.

[@hamster4618]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 😂 Indeed. It's all flaws, you design people to rape, pillage and murder, with litteraly the first instruction "go forth and multiply" telling people to do some incestuous inbreeding, then have an instruction manual telling you not to comply with your design 🤷‍♀️. Weird. Wouldn't it have been more useful to design people in such a way they (all) didn’t feel the need to do stuff like that? And how about "intelligent design", whomever comes up with a design for a population that can only survive on 1 planet if/when you created millions? I'd say it was intelligent design if we could live anywhere and didn't need food.

[@hamster4618]

@@yabutmaybenot.6433 but still, what makes it convincing, is that I do see some similarities with computers,especially in the early years: " goddammit, what is it doing now!", "OH, don't do that", "what do you mean error?!". So yeah, in a way I can see God fuming somewhere on a cloud about all those design flaws, like me when either the machine malfunctioned because someone else made a programming mistake or because I did, or hardware entirely. But there where computers have gotten better, humans didn't. It would have been more useful to create better humans, in newer versions. Although, he might have tried that with humanism. Unfortunately, with the Taliban emerging again with their Abrahamistic beliefs, we still see the design flaws. Or a crazy nasty God. Or, better explanation: no God at all.

[@paulokas69]

Penguins have wings and they don't fly. Chickens also don't fly

[@SC-zq6cu]

Here is the problem with claiming something was designed: you do not get to figure out what was involved in it existing. calling something as being designed does not talk about what was involved in it being designed. If you want to know those you have to talk about the processes involved in making it. At that point "it was designed" becomes a meaningless banter. Therefore the "design argument" is not an argument for anything other than theists trying to dress up ignorance as knowledge.

[@walnutoil100]

Your evidence is?

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@walnutoil100 Its not a claim that you can ask evidence for. Its an explanation. Read the comment first before you try to post a troll reply to it.

[@walnutoil100]

@@SC-zq6cu yes it is a claim

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@walnutoil100 No it isnt.

[@D-me-dream-smp]

Design is a process with a specific intent therefore you need to prove/verify the intent first. Sand on a beach didn’t occur so we could have a soft spot to rest on it’s a byproduct of natural processes that happens to benefit us and other living organisms just like planets didn’t form simply so one could develop the conditions suitable to support life. The theistic purview that everything was created for us is quite arrogant and solipsistic and while this is a normal world view for toddlers most mature adults grow out of it.

[@jonc4719]

Having bar arguments is a helluva gig. Hats off to the soberlings that make all this work.

[@ElaineIp]

Well, that was painful...

[@drg8687]

Poop can be used to fertilize or vandalize but it was not designed to do either.

[@krisaaron5771]

A wing can't EVER "fly" ... by itself. A wing has to be moved by something external before it can perform its function.

[@slimjim227]

Well after listening to Brandon for 20 minutes I’d say he knows all about poop, the poor mans suffering from verbal diarrhoea. Didn’t he realise that he ended up describing evolution by natural selection?

[@arsenic1987]

19:10 - There are birds with wings composed of the same feathers that can't fly... I don't think it's even consistent in this ramble.

[@arsenic1987]

Oh look. I commented before I watched the rest. They brought it up =)

[@cmvamerica9011]

Rocks were made to throw at glass houses.

[@delbomb3131]

Simple plothole in this guy's theory, the wings of a flightless bird 🤷‍♀️ Also the end was amazing and completely worth it 🤣🤣

[@daisy3525]

I mean, I could see exactly where the argument was going from that first question, after all of these I've watched, but I wanted to see where it went. My problem is, the argument fell apart as soon as he asked the second question, about finding a wing and knowing it could fly, because what defines an airplane wing as a wing as opposed to an aerodynamic rock is the intent behind it, which is what misses from his analogy. A rock happens to be aerodynamic because that's how it's shape ended up. A wing is a wing as opposed to something else because it was made with the intent for it to function as a wing. Something having a characteristic does not signal a clear intend behind its function, and if we don't have no proof of intent, it's just as likely to be a coincidental natural occurrence. Basically the only reason we can say a design is "logical", to use his terms, is that we know what it's final function was intended to be, and know that it fills that function. If there was no intent, or no known intent, behind some thing's existence, any function it manages to perform is by happenstance, because it wasn't necessarily meant for that function in particular. For this analogy to work, you first have to prove intent. Otherwise you're comparing oranges to apples. Or planes to sticks, as it were.

[@lotanerve]

Many tools designed for one use have also been used as a hammer.

[@Rob-fc9wg]

Most tools!

[@raduen2]

Martin killed me at the end "somewhere some religion has the god of poop".. Awesome

[@Wh40kFinatic]

There definitely are birds that are terrible at flying; penguins and quails are two examples that come to mind for me.

[@nicholashazel7049]

Lmao. "Wait, I can't explain the simple instance. Let's use a complicated example instead so I can muddy the water"

[@Mysterychannel12]

existence of God is obvious,I mean ,look at the trees

[@wyldink1]

Aw man, I looked at a Wendy's and became a Zoroastrian.

[@timsn274]

A cassowary's wing has no apparent function.

[@scotthoenle7693]

Jk aside, poop being so freaking recyclable and useful is a far better justification for design than that the animals currently alive are capable of living.

[@darksoul479]

4:35 yada yada yada if you find a watch on a beach. He just changed the watch to Wing.

[@tetsujin_144]

Yeah but I mean, what are the chances that the people on AXP have heard that one before? I mean if they'd heard this argument before they probably would have already converted to Christianity. Because it's just that good.

[@rebeilsolneman6930]

Indeed, we see wings of birds, but we also see wings of bats and wings of insects and none of these are "consistent" in structure or composition. But we can see how they evolved. Why does a "designer" "design" biological systems along evolutionary lines? Without any execption? We don't see birds' wings on mammals or insects' wings on birds.

[@philojudaeusofalexandria9556]

Easy! God loves to play hide-and-seek! Undefeated champion of all of existence (and non-existence)! He'll even let billions pretend they found him (and not clue them in that they haven't found shit) because by telling them he would give away his hiding spot!

[@walnutoil100]

Your evidence they evolved?

[@rebeilsolneman6930]

@@walnutoil100 I'm confident that you are able to use google scholar yourself to find the manifold peer review papers addressing the evolution of wings and flight.

[@kratosGOW]

Arguments from design stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and how it works.

[@kratosGOW]

@@mikemeredeth4573 Don’t boy me, BOY!

[@channelfogg6629]

'Arguments from design stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of evolutionary theory and how it works.' - No, they derive from a rejection of evolutionary theory.

[@kratosGOW]

@@channelfogg6629 Rejecting evolution, in my experience with lots of conversations with creationists, was ALWAYS because they had a cartoonishly ridiculous misunderstanding of the theory.

[@Userre]

Is it not mildly humorous that Brandon is from Round Rock. lol

[@vizzini2510]

@Chance Wagy Right there in the middle of Brushy Creek, I have enjoyed a picnic on the namesake round rock, so it was obviously designed to be a picnic table. I have also napped on the round rock, so it was obviously designed to be a bed. As a young stupid boy, I also peed on that same round rock, so it was obviously designed to be a toilet. Some magical invisible creature MUST have designed this amazing multi-function rock!

[@GayorgVonTrapp]

I can neither fly nor breathe under water. I do not have sticky hands and feet to climb up walls. I am unable to squirt poisonous chemicals out of my ass to defend against predators (sort of). I am designed shitly.

[@cristemtano2256]

That would mean that brandons brain is desined NOT to work

[@Nivola1953]

Bats and flying squirrels don’t have feathers but they still fly! Even Acer (maple) seeds can fly! Natural selection is working pretty good!

[@vilkoskorlich259]

Rocket don't have wings but flying to the MOON????

[@willcampbell8829]

The caller definitely designed the poop flowing out of his mouth....

[@bill01ng]

There is a big logical flaw in Bandon's argument, he wrongly assume the only function of the wings is to fly. This is wrong! There are animals that have wings but don't fly!! For example, penguin, ostrich, turkey, ducks...etc. If there is a designer, why he made wings for ostrich, turkey, it they can not use it for flying. Go check Britannia for more of this animal.

[@jasonspades5628]

Matt, you need to say: Arguments are logical or illogical. Not objects and things.

[@histreeonics7770]

A bottle rocket is an engine on a stick and it flies.

[@cmvamerica9011]

Nature has made many marvelous flying machines; that’s where the idea for airplanes came from.

[@cmvamerica9011]

An airplane is a simple representation of a bird.

[@mikekelsey6777]

I am a hang glider pilot. I have flown hang gliders since the early 80's. Every glider I have owned was designed at a factory using the best known concepts of flight to make for a safe flying foot launched glider. If I came upon something in the woods or in the desert, and it had an appearance to a wing, I would not even consider flying it. I am also a designer of aircraft. Paper Airplanes that is. I love flying my little paper airplanes that I design, but in no way would I believe I could indeed take a flight on them.

[@davecladwel5707]

How logical is it to put the breathing time and the eating tube in the same place?

[@Lupinemancer87]

So if a species all have a specific thing it's good at proves design, that proves humans weren't designed cuz we aren't all good at the same thing.

[@DanDan-eh7ul]

25:53 "Some religion somewhere has a god of poop" Allow me to introduce The Great, Mighty Poo! He's going to throw his shit at you!

[@nunyabusiness979]

And now let us open up our services with a hymn. Turn to page 2 and join in singing *WINNIE THE 💩*

[@lukewojtanowicz1991]

I think Catholics call their leader the poop. Or is that something else?

[@nunyabusiness979]

@@lukewojtanowicz1991 let me pontificate or pondeficate on that and I'll get back to you. 😉

[@lukewojtanowicz1991]

@@nunyabusiness979 You doo that.😁

[@Plaksa2004]

"you look at a Bird and their wings are made perfectly for flying and a penguin Is looking back at u...

[@Amor_fati.Memento_Mori]

"In some religion, somewhere has a God of Poop." 😂 *Timestamp: The End.*

[@DukeofGames50]

10:44 gesundheit I'd say bless you, but, y'know.

[@mkock4454]

i need this to fall asleep........

[@SuperTreemendus]

Scolars concluded that wings and birds developed over time. They weren't designed, it was a response to the environment. The environment changed, over time, flying birds into flightless birds.

[@petersmafield1494]

Both Brandon and Matt are forgetting about box kites which fly quite well. There have been experiments using rings as wings for motorized small airplanes ones that can and do hold a human adult.

[@garyking9484]

See what happens to adults who love their imaginary gods so much that they can’t divorce themselves from the idea?

[@heiyuall]

Saying the fallacies slower and louder doesn’t change that they’re still crappy PRATTs.

[@darrenwallace6161]

You would already be familiar with wings and watches. This argument seems more inane every time they present it.

[@lynettekomidar2819]

OH MY!

[@catalin1859]

As a rc model flying hobbyist, I can assure you that you cab make some ilogigal stuff flying, just need a bigger engine 😅

[@allyfrenyay9944]

Bad Watchmaker argument

[@ixtlguul4578]

Doesn’t his argument boil down to : this thing looks designed, therefore it’s designed? Has he not read up on Darwin, who went to exhaustive lengths to show how natural selection can give the appearance of design?

[@Valisk131]

Is it the wombat that poops cubes? Now there's an eye-watering design, Brandon.

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

Known as "shitting bricks" in the vernacular.

[@arthurmee]

and do not forget that healthy human poop can be used medically via capsules or via a naso-gasteic tube or colonoscopy for treating recurrent C. Difficile colitis.. Mainstream medicine seriously. The intelligent design caller has got a lot to learn.

[@defenestratefalsehoods]

All airplane dont have round wheels. So what is he getting at? The landing gear is subject to the mission of the aircraft

[@j50wells]

Magic mushrooms grow from poop, so therefore poop was designed? Brandon?

[@afroatheist-isnowafroantit6154]

The caller had so many damn excuses.

[@FourDeuce01]

There’s no logic in design until somebody proves that design exists.😈

[@RichieDb2]

If every creature has been intelligently designed, as the caller suggests, why are there extinct animals?

[@kirklarson4536]

So if I come across a kiwi's wing, what am I supposed to think of that? It has nothing to do with flight.

[@nollaf126]

"Everything has a function" "What about poop?" "But poop doesn't do anything."

[@D-me-dream-smp]

See if he feels the same way after not pooping for a week!!! If we didn’t poop we would die.

[@cmvamerica9011]

Nature can do anything that man can do.

[@neglectedpizzacrust90]

Does that mean faith is designed to keep people ignorant because it consistently does so?

[@simay4977]

"Poop is miraculous" 😂

[@skummisrocker]

The wing on a plane lifts the plane up. The air around the wing takes a longer way on the wing so the air trying to catch up with the air underneith the wing ad therefore lift the plane. So, the wing lifts the plane, not pushing from under the wing. 😉

[@69eddieD]

@@blarglemantheskeptic That's a nice explanation, bro. In simple terms, stall is when lift is less than the weight of the plane. Stall speed varies with flap setting. Putting flaps down decreases stall speed but increases drag. It's a common misconception that you can land a jumbo jet without engine power. Technically you could, if you could find a runway long enough. But stall speed with flaps up is way too high to land on almost all runways. Flaps down with no power will slow the plane down fast and it will surely stall. But flaps down with increased power lowers stall speed and the increased power compensates for increased drag. That's why the pilot increases engine power when you're landing. The pilot has the flaps way down so he can slow down enough to land without stalling. He powers up the engines to compensate for the increased drag.

[@69eddieD]

@@blarglemantheskeptic Engineers and scientists have a lot to talk about!

[@69eddieD]

@@blarglemantheskeptic If you understand physics and you know what the controls do then you could probably land a jumbo jet in an emergency. I know I'd give it a shot. It'd be better than letting the plane land itself. On some planes you can just lock in a vector and the autopilot brings you right in until you're 40 feet off the ground... easy peasy. You still have to be in the cockpit though, watching the instruments and making sure the controls are actually being controlled by the autopilot. It's not exactly foolproof, and if things get stupid enough the autopilot will disengage and leave you to control the plane manually, usually at the worst time.

[@channelfogg6629]

@@69eddieD I'll take your word for that.

[@sergeyfox2298]

Omg.. this took me forever to grasp but I finally get it: If we live in a universe that's designed, and If all we know is design And we don't experience non-design, that would be problematic, because we can't comprehend non-design because all we know is design, but we can't know design if we can't comprehend non-design. We would have to grasp non-design to even grasp design. To know requires to experience juxtaposing realities, which assume that the juxtaposed states exist to begin with AND THAT we have experience of these juxtaposing realities. I finally understand why we can't comprehend design, given that everything is designed, because we don't know non-design. How can we know everything is designed, when non-design is required to compare it too. But that would give me sense that "everything is designed" is likely false to begin with. So if I had to ask Myself the question: is the universe designed? Indeed, I have no comprehension of design, because I don't actually comprehend what's not designed. I am unable to detect juxtaposing realities, which means I don't detect two distinct realities, which means I am not having any experience of one reality because I am not experiencing the juxtaposed reality. Weirdly, to say I experience reality X is unlikely because I don't have detection of realities in relation to X, and I can't say I experience X, because X is in relation to not-X, where I am not experiencing not-X to begin with. So.. I have no reason to assert design or not-design , but not assert design rather than assert not-design. It is then unintelligible to think God created anything, if I don't even know what non-created things look like. Wow.

[@jaymorgan7728]

"Everything has a function" What's the function of this freckle on my butt?

[@garyskinner2422]

Everyone knows freckles are to play dot to dot for God knew we'd get bored lol

[@brucewilliams4152]

Birds evolved from ground running feathered dinosaurs, the grab and snatch motion, very similar to flight. That is proven.

[@Glasschin2.0]

Some small theropods could already fly.

[@laurentead65]

Good grief could a caller take more time to make a bloody point

[@MauriDoval]

Curious how you guys would assume that reality is atoms that physicaly interact and nothing else, and yet they can call something like a coffee mug "not naturally occuring", when under the argument that reality is nothing but atoms, what really happened is that atoms interacted across billions of years, and out of their interaction, a coffee mug resulted, and therefore this coffee mug naturally ocurred indeed. So if your coffee mug didn't occured naturally are you saying the matter of the universe did not produced it? Atoms didn't produce it? Are humans something more than just atoms? Then what produced it? Is your intelligence not the result of atoms alone?? If consciousness is made of interacting atoms, then yes, this coffee mug occured naturally, because through natural selection, atoms interacted with each other to form molecules, cells, organisms, until this interaction evolved far enough for organisms "made of atoms" to be able to produce this coffee mug. So the materialistic view of reality is saying that atoms themselves are capable of designing. And therefor there is an "intelligence" in the atom itself, there is an "intelligence" in everything that makes up the whole universe that enables it to "design itself". This intelligence is not exclusive to brains with intellectual capacity, because these "brains" themselves are the result of the atom and its natural interactions across billions of years. This intelligence is what some call "God" which I think people wrongly interpret as an old man sitting on a throne in the sky. Its causal origin and the complete mechanics of it is still unknown to Science. For some reason atheists prefer to believe that intelligence and consciousness ceases to exist with the death of the body, when under their logic the very atom itself is what is intelligent, and atoms were already existing before their body was "alive". Now they would argue that they have no "evidence" of intelligence existing after death or without a brain, when this intelligence was there from the very beginning of the universe (if there was even a beginning), because from the very beginning there was atoms that would eventually produce an airplane and a coffee mug. They could say, "no, it was the electrical and chemical activity of my brain that produced it" and yet it is all part of a connected chain of physical, electrical and chemical reactions that go back all the way to the big bang. If you would restart the universe with every single atom in the very same precise and exact position and velocity as they were in the beginning of this universe, you will probably still get the same coffee mug and airplane eventually on this specific planet. If you didn't... then what else moves these atoms other than the physical laws already observed by Science? right? So therefor, under their argument, yes, this coffee mug and the airplane occured naturally, and intelligence and consciousness itself is natural and an innate characteristic of the whole universe, not only brains.

[@trustprojects]

What a self refuting tap dance. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@nicholasagnew2792]

Theres a little theory that explains why some birds can't fly...it rhymes with schmevolution.

[@goingmonotheist783]

Name one thing that isn't good at being what it is.. people!

[@tcironbear21]

METAL DOESN"T OCCUR NATURALLY!!!

[@the-trustees]

A wing is also an exceptional paperweight, like most everything else that has an appropriate amount of mass, so Brandon, was almost everything in the universe designed to be a paperweight? Let it go buddy.

[@jakeherter]

This is the thing saying these things are designed is incompatible with their other vast claims about god. We are constrained to our reality and a wing works on physical principals, if I get to just pick what reality is the physical principals I put in it are perfectly arbitrary, it makes me no designer at all. If you argue he had to figure out how to make this one, and that's his design then there is a larger framework he MUST be working under and isn't God. So, either god could make it however he wants, or it must make sense by a constraint, if it's however then the design is arbitrary.

[@mwnDK1402]

Pretty sure Matt wants to show that Brandon's argument fails by itself, but I do think it would be easier to show that the function of a wing does not prove design by talking about evolution. Evolution is a great example of how we initially misidentify something as design, only to later realize that there was indeed a way for this amazing function and complexity to arise without any intent behind it. I can imagine some of the reasons for leaving this out of the discussion, but it felt odd to hear Brandon talk about animals proving design when this is exactly something we do know the real explanation of.

[@CFifth]

poop might be the only true intelligent design...

[@samfetter2968]

Lol...there are birds with wings, that have feathers...but they couldn't fly if their life depended on it. Guess by this callers standards birds are not designed...🤷‍♂️😏🤣🤣🤣

[@macarrion]

So… everything is “perfect” as it is (or as it was designed). If the wing won’t work for flying, it is perfect for whatever it does. I don’t know, but that sounds like “it’s perfect for the function it performs”, as in if you remove something from the flagellum it would be perfect as it’s new function… Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but isn’t that guy actually destroying his intelligent designed crap by way of self refuting irreducible complexity? I mean, I may be equivocating the comparison between birds which can and cannot fly and the wing function, but somewhere on that discussion I felt he was contradicting himself. Although that would not be something new in apologetics.

[@Hedcase71]

Chickens have wings but they can not fly. Checkmate

[@Ben-no4lz]

Penguins have wings and they can barely jump 😂

[@knottreel]

Holy shit moment.

[@lookingforonetruechristian7396]

So something appears designed... So what... Why do you think your favorite God designed it... What about the Hindu God or Ahura Mazda or Zeus or some creative being that did so and left the universe or some creative being we could not fathom or know or some natural cause that we haven't yet discovered... etc...

[@WunHungLo99]

I think birds were a pretty big influence on how man chose to make flying things. The question should be if you found a bird, with wings, would you say it was designed. Man made wings so not self replicate. Why do these people equate non biological design we know is designed by man, vs biological entities.

[@av3sta480]

I’m an atheist myself, so I can’t help but lean toward the position of the two men answering the call. Unfortunately, I think that the behavior of the man on my right is incredibly rude. I’ve noticed this at 18:30 especially and in his other videos. I understand when conversations start to break down and the caller is stubborn or starts to talk in circles that it can be frustrating, but I find it unappealing to see someone succumb to such behavior when engaging in intellectual discourse. I’m not sure I want to keep watching a channel that attempts to engage in such discourse, but can’t maintain neutral emotional composure and instead resorts to such negative behavior. I’m a bit disappointed honestly.

[@ianp3112]

Unfortunately intellectual discourse is on the menu but it's not the popular item! Seriously though, if intellectual discourse is your thing, you should look elsewhere like the thinking atheist or Christopher Hitchens debates or Matt's (guy on the right) debates. For a call in show, you have to talk at the level of the caller and most of the time it's hardly intellectual. Which is the core of the problem, lack of education and critical thinking skills! I'm not defending Matt, I have my criticisms as well. But I give him some slack for his longevity and commitment to ridding the world of superstitious nonsense! Cheers 😽

[@av3sta480]

@@ianp3112 I can certainly understand that and I’m a big fan of Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson to name a few, so I’d be more likely to enjoy civil, composed discourse among those individuals I’m sure. 😂 I was hoping to see the same here, but I understand that having to cater to the disposition and education of these types of callers can certainly be frustrating. I just wish that he would rise above a bit more and showcase a better level of patience despite how frustrating his callers must be. I’ve dealt with people like that plenty myself, so I understand. I just don’t like seeing someone who espouses a particular level of intellectual prowess succumb to such emotional bait.