The Watchmaker Analogy DEBUNKED

[@HolyKoolaid]

So... If I create a watch, then it necessarily follows that I can create a universe, right?

[@casuallydebunked284]

... he's broken the code people!

[@stampede122]

Debunked lol

[@ZEUSAIMIGHTY]

If there is no God, who tangles the earbuds in your pocket? Checkmate, atheists.

[@Reason1717]

@@ZEUSAIMIGHTY , Check but not checkmate Nick, as the tangler is none other than...wait for it...SATAN. So you were close and kind of right :) Now I've got to run as Satan is headed for my dyer and that one sock.

[@DennisFang1]

Preach!! 🙌

[@MichaelMeridius]

"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". ― Carl Sagan

[@Kairi091]

"It's like a jungle sometimes it makes me wonder how I keep from going under." - Abraham Lincoln, 1858

[@raymondthebrotherofperryma1403]

It was a cherry pie in another possible world. 😎

[@boterlettersukkel]

@@Kairi091 Artists: Grandmaster Flash, Furious Five Album: The Message Released: 1982 Genre: Pop

[@arewestilldoingphrasing6490]

My brother used some version of this watchmaker. It went like this. " You find a watch and you think man this thing is so complex it had to have a maker" "sure" "Look at our body's we are complex beings right" "sure" "therefore there has to be a creator that made us" "Yeah a lack of birth control and two drunk adults"

[@dzdawlatzwamel9795]

Your answer doesn't make sense. It's like if I tell you who scored the goal in a soccer game, and you say "a foot", or when you're cooking dinner and I ask you who prepared the food you say "two hands, some ingredients and a little expertise".

[@qwerty_and_azerty]

“Believe it or no, watches don’t have sex.” - Rationality Rules, 2020

[@The-Cat]

Well... if i sexually identify myself as a "watch" instead of a "male"... and I have sex with somebody.... then in theory... i'll be a watch that is having sex. Rationality Rules gets debunked just like that. There's plenty of attack helicopters out there that are also having sex ya know... 😆😆 disclaimer: just some fancy loophole through the analogy made but obviously way out of the context that was originally set so I step aside and let my comment remain for the purpose of comic relief 😆

[@The-Cat]

@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ obviously you didnt read the disclaimer r/Woooshhhhh

[@rahall7611]

Wait stop! What else to do with a Cuckoo clock?

[@CyberChrist]

Just because we don't _see_ watches having sex...

[@KEvronista]

imagine if they did.... kzbin.info/www/bejne/o5SkomyYoqiYiJI KEvron

[@hassanabbas1994]

I just want to thank you, Steven. You, among many others, have helped me wake up from my deep slumber over the past couple of years. All the success to you with this new channel. Couldn't be more excited

[@casuallydebunked284]

Thanks Hassan : )

[@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom]

@@casuallydebunked284 Instructional complex Information Blueprints, machines, and factories come only from Intelligence 1. The origin of blueprints containing the information to fabricate complex machines and interlinked factories which produce goods for specific purposes are both always the result of intelligent setup. 2. Living Cells store very complex genetic and epigenetic information through the genetic code, and over twenty epigenetic languages, translation systems, and signaling networks. These information systems instruct the making and operation of cells and multicellular organisms. Each cell hosts millions of interconnected molecular machines, production lines and factories analogous to factories made by man. They are of unparalleled gigantic complexity, able to process constantly a stream of data from the outside world through signaling networks. Cells operate robot-like, autonomously. They adapt the production and recycle molecules on demand. The process of self-replication is the epitome of manufacturing advance and sophistication. 3. Therefore, the origin of biological information and self-replicating cell factories is best explained by the action of an intelligent designer, who created a life for his own purposes. 1. A code is a system of rules where a symbol, letters, words, or even sounds, gestures, or images, are assigned to something else. Transmitting information, for example, can be done through the translation of the symbols of the alphabetic letters, to symbols of kanji, logographic characters used in Japan. 2. Assigning meaning of characters through a code system, where symbols of one language are assigned to symbols of another language that mean the same, requires a common agreement of meaning in order to establish communication, trough encoding, sending, and decoding. Semantics, Synthax, and pragmatics are always set up by intelligence. 3. We see that precisely in cells, where information is encoded through the genetic code which is a set of rules, stored in DNA sequences of nucleotide triplets called codons. They are used to translate genetic information into amino acid polypeptide sequences, which make proteins ( the molecular machines, the working horses of the cell ). The assignment of codons (triplet nucleotides) to amino acids must be pre-established by a mind. And so, the information which is sent through the system, as well as the communication channels that permit encoding, sending, and decoding, which in life is done by over 25 extremely complex molecular machine systems, which do as well error check and repair to maintain genetic stability, and minimizing replication, transcription and translation errors, and permit organisms to pass accurately genetic information to their offspring, and survive. This system had to be set-up prior life began because life depends on it. The origin of such complex communication systems is best explained by an intelligent designer. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpDXiqWkq8SibKM 1. Complex factories, made based on the precise instruction of prescribed instructional complex blueprints, containing production lines, interdependent complex machines that produce complex machine parts and subunits that are, after made, assembled in the right way; manufacturing machines that work independently of outside input of information, but that were pre-programmed to do their job autonomously like robots, with quality control departments, error check and fix mechanisms to keep the smallest error rate, walls that make a separation of the inside to the outside of the factory for protection, and with gates that permits cargo in and out, recognition mechanisms that let only the right cargo in, and lead it to the right specific sites and production lines, highways and cargo carriers that have tags which recognize where to drop the cargo where it's needed, clean up waste and have waste bins and sophisticated recycle mechanisms, storage departments, producing its energy and shuttles it to where it's needed, and last not least, does reproduce itself, requires undoubtedly intelligent minds to set all up. 2. Science has unraveled, that cells, strikingly, contain, and operate through all those things. Cells are cybernetic, ingeniously crafted cities full of factories, the most sophisticated self-replicating factory of the universe - containing an informational code system and programming languages like our alphabet or computer code, more versatile than C, Visual Basic, or PHP, and more robust and error-free than any other code system out of 1 million alternatives - using a communication protocol which wastes far less space than human-made ones - using furthermore a collection of rules and regularities of information coding for instructional complex texts - defined by alphabet, grammar, a collection of punctuation marks and regulatory sites, and semantics, and then uses that code system to create a blueprint for a self-replicating factory, which requires about 1500 books, each with 300 pages, 300.000,00 characters per book, each containing the precise complex instructions and information to create this factory, and stored in the smallest storage device possible and known, a trillion times denser than a CD, used to prescribe, drive, direct, operate and control interlinked compartmentalized self-replicating cell factory parks that perpetuate and thrive life. Large high-tech multimolecular robotlike machines ( proteins ) and factory assembly lines of striking complexity ( fatty acid synthase, non-ribosomal peptide synthase ) are interconnected into functional large metabolic networks. All this, of course, requires energy. Responsible for energy generation are high-efficiency power turbines ( ATP synthase )- superb power generating plants ( mitochondria ) and electric circuits ( highly intricate metabolic networks ). 3. All information storage devices, code languages, blueprints, information transmission systems, translation ciphers, with the purpose to make factories, and interdependent factory parks made upon those instructions are of intelligent origin. Biological cells are therefore the result of Intelligent design.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

@@casuallydebunked284 You need to respond to this: kzbin.info/www/bejne/roCtpKatqqxsqKc {:-:-:}

[@jimfish2341]

Man, I feel like this video marks a significant improvement in your editing skills. Great job Stephen, it looks great!

[@rationalityrules]

Cheers jim.

[@tonybanks1035]

Editing skills yes. Intellect? well Steven is as intellectually precise as a broken watch. Make believe debunks for a not very smart public that wants to pretend is smart.

[@jvalfin3359]

@@tonybanks1035 something makes me think you didn't watch the video

[@tonybanks1035]

@@jvalfin3359 it did hurt my grey cells but I did watch it.

[@schroonsjozef]

He edits this himself? HOLY SHIT

[@Chaosism]

I work as an engineer, myself, and I observe it's the simplicity of a design that makes is robust, not its complexity. A design with too much complexity has that many more potential ways to go wrong. As such, the only way to remotely conclude that something was designed just by observation (which you can't logically do in the first place), is if you cannot find any unnecessary complexity. In this way, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is a perfect example of unnecessary complexity. Thank you for all you do, RR!

[@dzdawlatzwamel9795]

The Universe is extremely complex, but nothing is made at random. You compare your work environment knowing that we are intellectually finite beings, it is obvious that the more complex we try to make something, the more the chances of making mistakes will increase. But the universe doesn't work in the same way, or at least it is so well designed that we are not yet ready to see "mistakes" in it, but for that we must already know the purpose of the creation of the universe. The example of the giraffe does not make sense, the living world is too complex for our understanding, so we cannot check if a vein is "useless", your judgment is biased. And as I said before, as long as we don't know the purpose of the existence of a giraffe, we cannot know if it contains errors.

[@abdullahharoun6680]

@@dzdawlatzwamel9795 This is no response nor a wise argument. You’re just saying that we must shut our minds and critical thinking because there’s always something hidden and with “purpose”, sadly that’s not how science works. Also, the giraffe analogy is the perfect analogy for demonstrating unnecessary complexity. We now have advanced anatomy and medical knowledge and know that evolution did that to the larengial nerve for specific reasons, for if the reasons didn’t occur, the logical path is to be directly connected to the voice box in the throat, not to be recurrent which is wasted unnecessary complexity by definition. Your response is just “leave things as they are and don’t think, just believe”. That’s no argument, sorry.

[@cklester]

But consider items that require complexity because they function to achieve complex objectives. Take, for example, a robot. We would both agree that a robot is complex. You can make a robot as simply as possible, but no simpler. :D Consider human beings. What is our function? To survive in the material world. To reproduce. For that, we have sensory peripherals. We have a CPU. We have a reproductive system that utilizes raw materials from our environment to form new versions of ourselves. As most scientists would admit, the human body/brain is the most advanced machine in the known universe. Nothing we have created comes close. Because of our functionality, our machinery can only be so simple... and not any simpler.

[@davidsellon4580]

This is your best video yet. The production quality in every respect is better than ever. And this is particularly well-phrased: "Look -- if one must claim that being skeptical of extraordinary claims causes extraordinary occurrences to cease, then maybe the extraordinary events are not occurring."

[@trexmarkus]

For all of those who want to know some of those lovely music bits that are scattered around, here you are: 0:10 Depths Of Fear by Oculus Aeternum 2:07 Hyperdrive by Sebastian Forslund 3:43 Diabolical Suitor by Sightless in Shadow 5:25 Sooner Than You Know by Carvings

[@ZEUSAIMIGHTY]

Every human did have a creator, their parents.

[@rationalityrules]

Creators* Boom, polytheism proved!

[@raymondthebrotherofperryma1403]

@@rationalityrules just re-created ancestor worship! 🤔

[@faisalhakim5920]

I would rather call it... transformer.

[@anonymousperson1904]

Here is a classical argument for the existence of God: Change occurs. Change can only occur if there is some thing or substance that changes. Change is the actualization of a potential. Things or substances that change have potential for existence, since they can potentially exist in many other ways or potentially not exist at all. So, they require an actualizer of their potential for existence at any particular moment at which they exist in the here and now, according to the principle of causality (which states that a potential can only be actualized by something already actual). But, if that actualizer also has potential for existence, then it will also require a simultaneous actualizer of its existence here and now. This will lead to a causal regress that is hierarchical in nature and so cannot regress to infinity. Thus, it must terminate in a first actualizer that is purely actual devoid of all potentiality; otherwise if it had some potential for existence, then it would require some further and more fundamental actualizer. But then it wouldn’t be the first actualizer. Thus, the first actualizer cannot have any potential for existence and must exist in a purely actual way. So, the occurrence of change and the existence of things that undergo change presuppose the existence of a purely actual actualizer.

[@raymondthebrotherofperryma1403]

@@anonymousperson1904 So you just proved it can't be the Christian God since he allegedly became a man. Congrats. Also you just proved that the Quantum foam is the ultimate God. Pantheism proven! Congrats again!

[@agusmolfino]

These are so well made. Not only because of the thoughtfulness of the arguments but the clarity of the presentation. thank you!

[@theboombody]

Worst refutation of the watchmaker argument is to claim the universe has no laws so there's no lawmaker. Don't know if there's a lawmaker, but without a shadow of a doubt there ARE laws.

[@melodicmonster]

Instant subscribe after seeing the mention of this channel in your Rationality Rules channel.

[@biologicalengineoflove6851]

I'm excited for this channel, and this video did not disappoint. I love the straightforward fallacy demonstrations and breakdowns. Very well done!

[@robertredbeard1855]

WiFi is not invisible. We have tools to see it and prove it is functioning.

[@Cinnovations]

One glaring thing too is that they completely ignore the fact that watches evolved over time. We didn’t come up with a watch over night. First there was a sun dial/astronomical time keeping. Then we invented certain simple machines. Then maybe gears, and so on. So it’s quite hilarious indeed that they would think a watch could just appear. Their nonsense is always orders of magnitude more complex than what we observe with our senses and instruments.

[@itsROMPERS...]

Watches EVOLVED like everything else. Someone noticed that a weighted string, which originally could have been a vine, swings at regular intervals and can thus be used to measure time. To make it more accurate, it was refined. Refinements led to pendulums, which led to clocks, and eventually watches. These steps were taken by humans who are intelligent, but the watch was not created at once, but moved from very simple to complex, just like life.

[@Mykahaia]

Can you do the "Evil is absense of good( that's usually than argued to being God) just like dark is absence of light"?

[@gordo64ful]

Or, the "Albert Einstein" argument.

[@Mykahaia]

@@gordo64ful yeah...I want to see this anedote dissected...

[@km8770]

@Xeno The Strange That is like a twist on the "God of the gaps" argument, lol

[@theboombody]

Absence is good is not something you want, believe me.

[@khalidkhan1906]

It's really helpful for students who study Logic in high school when you simplify these stuffs. I always recommend my friends to watch your videos. You're doing a very great job!

[@tshepokgwele1789]

Wow, I love the format of this video, it's cool, educational, and the best part is that it's building to a conclusion

[@masisam]

What a great idea for a channel. Looking forward to improving my understanding and knowledge. Thanks

[@shahmirkhan8093]

Loved the video and the pace at which you went, I'm looking forward to you debunking more arguments! Great job.

[@GodlessGranny]

Had a little trouble finding this. Search of “Debunked” took me to another channel by the same name. I had to use the link in your most recent video to find this.

[@User24x]

Yeah, he should have it in his other channels tab on his main channel

[@Pedantic_Brit]

@@User24x throw that his way as a suggestion. I was planning to do so as well.

[@ThomasDohn]

You editing is insane in this one, but in my humble opinion, the watchmaker debunked on RR was an absolute destruction of the argument, in comparison to this one. You did great in both, but in the other one, I was quite blown away at the thoroughness of the deconstruction and debunking of it. Good job man, glad to see your channel having grown since it was deleted. Keep up the work, take care.

[@justinwolz4932]

I can't remember who said it about this analogy, but they said it would be like discovering a watch on a beach made of watches in a universe made of watches. How did you distinguish anything made from anything not made?

[@somedumbgrunt1]

Honored to be one of the first thousand or so, of what will no doubt be many, many more to subscribe!

[@georgepaul6240]

Just out of curiosity whats an example of an analogy that isn't a false analogy?

[@Aaron-cs3xl]

"Faith and WiFi are both invisible" is a legitimate analogy. The problem with false analogy is that we then assume something else about them must be similar. This assumption could be true though. "My cat and dog both have four legs, a tail, nose two eyes, and two ears. My dog has lots of fur. Therefore my cat must also have lots of fur." However my cat could be a hairless breed, or I could be a monster and shave it off so it is hairless. However it's generally true in this case (but that's just dumb luck more than anything.)

[@rlevitz]

Stoked about this channel! The Debunked videos were always my favorite on RR.

[@joshswart2565]

I really love Dawkins' response about how we don't need a crane, but a skyhook. It's wordy, and I probably wouldn't use it on a colloquial discussion, but it's a great illustration. Also, I would love to you tackle the fallacies of some presuppositionalist arguments.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

With theism nearly all of the arguments involve Begging the Question. Here’s a great series which brutally eviscerates theists’ logic with merciless parsimony. kzbin.info/aero/PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk

[@PabloAlvestegui]

Great work with this video. Congratulations on your new channel. You got one more subscriber!!!

[@RenaldoRamai]

Well done. Thank you for making this and similar videos. I think the contents are critical to humanity and you have presented them well.

[@winnipegjake8323]

Brilliant! Sharing these ideas and methodologies with my grandchildren ha just become so much easier! We all thank you for your content and efforts on both your channels. All the best and stay well.

[@wladislawstanislaw9254]

How old are you sir?

[@winnipegjake8323]

Wladislaw Stanislaw Old enough to enjoy a dozen grandchildren, some of whom have sharp mind and are of an age to make use of presentations like these

[@Frogthroat1]

Absolutely a great summary of the watchmaker fallacy. For me the biggest issue for the design question is: compared to what? How do we know a pocket watch was designed by an intelligence and did not come about through natural processes? We compare it to the nature. If you would find an item on the beach that you have no prior knowledge of. Never seen anything like it. How do we determine if this is designed or not? Compare it to the nature. Is there anything in the nature that reminds you of it? Does anything in the nature fit? If not, then it is most likely designed by an intelligence. So when there is a claim that, for example, the universe is designed, I must ask: what did you compare it to? In order for us to be able to conclude that this universe was designed by an intelligence, we must compare this universe to a universe that is naturally occurring. We can't compare our universe to itself.

[@rl7012]

This 'debunking' is an own goal

[@alexsharp3481]

Glad to be here! I'm a sub from your main channel as well!

[@MathiusKajal]

Great way to start your new channel, and it seems it will be as awesome as the previous. Can i ask you where to find the music you used for the intro and the fallacies? It rocks!

[@macmillian8942]

short question to the first flaw: 'trees are green. my eyes are green. trees have leaves. Conclusion: My eyes have leaves.' this has to be true, right?

[@ZEUSAIMIGHTY]

Looking forward to your game! I can’t wait to teach my stupid family how to have a discussion without a fallacy. (Ad hominem intended)

[@roqsteady5290]

Good luck with that!

[@jacklarm2170]

Nice to hear you’re not the only one with a stupid family. Cheers!

[@pandora808]

Love the new channel split, excellent idea. My ONLY feedback is the flashing invert video transitions. Really hard to watch.

[@Ponera-Sama]

In order for the watchmaker analogy to even make sense, it relies on the assumption that people can tell things that are designed from things that are not. I don't know about Paley himself, but the majority of people making this argument today believe that literally everything in the universe was created by their God. If that were true, it would make it impossible to tell when something is designed, because there would be no distinction between things that are designed and things that aren't (since the latter category is empty), making the whole argument self-defeating.

[@michaeldominic3183]

Congratulations on this new program. You are one of the most rational people I have had the pleasure to watch. Your poise, even under the most virulent attacks, is astonishing. Best of luck going forward.

[@jadu79]

I recommend everyone to at least listen to Nightwish and their song "the greatest show on earth" which is based on Richard Dawkin's book of the same name and songwriter inspiration for several of the songs from there (is a Finnish band I like and they are good artists but radio and other places don't play them and that song is 24 minutes long and several of the songs are longer than the radio usually plays) I didn't expect Dawking's voice to hear any songs from that record

[@TGRoko]

Oh, please don't do that flashing to negative transition again. It may trigger some with epilepsy.

[@pandora808]

+1 +1 +1 I don't have epilepsy but it made me look away each time it was used.

[@arbiterofreason2068]

You sound triggered already.

[@TGRoko]

@@arbiterofreason2068 You got it, definitely-not-a-troll-account

[@arbiterofreason2068]

@@TGRoko Oh dear. You're one of those people who think everything's a troll or Russian bot.

[@TGRoko]

@@arbiterofreason2068 Oh dear. You're one of those people who thinks every time someone says "trigger" they mean it terms of PTSD. I asked something of Stephen, even said please, out of concern for people who have epilepsy. I didn't make a demand. He's even stopped doing the transition, though maybe not because of my comment. But you came in with your snarky, "gotcha" comment -- like a troll.

[@heatherchapman1984]

I am really interested in learning all the rules of logic (never got the chance at a debate class while in school). Thanks for producing such an easy to take in, and entertaining set of examples. I'll be looking out for an opportunity to pick up your card game. :-)

[@caiocamillo9886]

I really appreciate more explained videos like this, specially because english is not my first languange (I'm Brazilian). In previous videos I had to pause often so could process the information that was given, mainly to understand fallacies. Thank you.

[@geezerbill]

Thanks for the clip. I've seen creationists try to use Paley's watchmaker argument for the creation of the universe, which makes even less sense because it begs the question of whether the universe is supposed to be the woods/desert where you found the watch, or be the watch itself.

[@anserbauer309]

So glad you have started this channel. Too many old favourites (in my opinion) have moved to in-depth discussion around philosophy, epistemology and apologetics as a reflection of the channel creators' personal and educational development, which, while interesting to see, do not necessarily reflect the musings and discussions of ordinary communities and societies more broadly in relation to religion, critical thinking and applied morality etc. I foresee this channel being a fantastic resource for everyday people wishing to explore these topics as they apply to their lived experience, rather than the more esoteric discussions around complicated and abstract concepts requiring a good deal more patience and foundational knowledge than most ordinary people have at their disposal. Great job!

[@warrenburroughs3025]

Followed the link from Rationality Rules and immediately subscribed.

[@sphericalchess]

Great! Good luck with the new channel!

[@noah2354]

I really enjoyed the style of this video! The art and animation was great. And of course I especially liked the music :)

[@mihaichira2888]

No sane engineer, with unlimited power and knowledge, would make such a complex and prone to malfunctions product, like we are, as humans. So the argument from complexity backfires on creationists.

[@dzdawlatzwamel9795]

You can't know if a product is malfunctioning until you know the purpose of its creation.

[@mihaichira2888]

​@@dzdawlatzwamel9795 Are we some kind of toy product, made by Big-Bad-Boss so he can have fun? What is the purpose of humans? To glorify the "Lord"? This is holy slavery!

[@dzdawlatzwamel9795]

@@mihaichira2888 I have no idea.

[@matthewminter6874]

A big hello from south Africa, I must say I do like the new channel

[@mr.camera1585]

Hello Mr. Woodford! I’m Seth. I wanted to say that I think this channel is an excellent idea and I love that you have created it! The editing is very smooth (for the most part!) and your deep explanations are very clear, so thank you. One bit of feedback I have is to maybe not use the flashing light to transition as it’s uncomfortable to my eyes. (It might also trigger someone with epilepsy to have a seizure although I’m not 100% sure on that.) I also wanted to say that I don’t agree with the Special Pleading fallacy point you made as the justification for the exception is that theists believe God has always existed. I’ve only ever seen the reason for this belief boil down to Circular Reasoning or faith though. Thanks again for creating this channel and these extremely informative videos. You are the reason I’ve studied fallacies and it has helped me think more logically about things, and I really appreciate that. I can’t wait to see what else there is to offer so I’ll be on the lookout for that.

[@waringrob]

Good luck with the new channel. I've always found your videos informative.

[@CallMeChato]

You alluded to this but neither you nor Dillahunty explicitly and simply say that a watch is not natural and a watch can't make a watch. A building can't make a building, etc. You did mention parents but it's just something I find curious how many people don't express this one point succinctly. Great work. Keep on keeping on.

[@susanl3510]

Great work! I'm going to get my sons to watch your videos. You're a great teacher of difficult concepts.

[@staticinteger]

This is an amazing video! I am so looking forward to more content! Super great resource for when I am debating

[@Iceican]

I love the new channel definitely clicking the bell.

[@peter_xplr]

In conversations about this, I also like to highlight how often intuitive thinking is wrong. Intuitively, complex things have creators, the Earth is flat, everything revolves around the Earth, our atmosphere is "empty", and we could go on forever. Most people seem to acknowledge how blatantly wrong we are intuitively after hearing some examples. That usually helps.

[@BLR1GBattlemaster]

@3:30 It's like saying, if my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bike. You're right. Just because two things share similar qualities, it doesn't make one something like the other.

[@BachtotheFutureBWV]

This was great. It is awesome how you are giving further reading. Thanks. Keep up the good work man!

[@Comboman70]

Wow! Your editing skills or on a godlike level! Please share the road to obtain such knowledge.

[@colsylvester639]

Great format, with a succinct way of listing and dealing with fallacies, for folks like me who are learning, thanks!

[@Martial-Mat]

Fantastic production values Stephen.

[@isaacg3327]

Love the content, subscribed!

[@keyboarddancers7751]

Channels like Debunked and RR is why (here in Britain) I don't bother to watch TV. The lockdown has brought much misfortune but it also affords time to enjoy material such as this latest intellectual gem.

[@michaelmitchell6092]

Just the kind of rigour I was hoping for. Putting an explicit name to the fallacy makes your points more memorable, and more useful moving forward. Hope this channel takes off

[@mmerri9780]

Can’t wait to see the rest of the series. I’ve been interested in learning the specifics of logical fallacies and this should be an entertaining way to do that.

[@maxstooksberry9458]

The problem is that the universe has not always existed. Einstein and others showed it had a beginning, therefore a cause. Who/what caused it. You need an uncaused cause

[@damienschwass9354]

So? Any assertion of what that cause was is purely speculative. Nothing in this video has been refuted by this “problem”.

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

Einstein dismissed god entirely - he called belief in such a being as _"Human weakness"_ and described the Bible as _"Primitive legend"_

[@joe1719]

I enjoyed this video, and look forward to more from this channel. Thanks!

[@bodan1196]

I did not know that there could be two channels with the same name. You learn something new everyday.

[@Hominid999]

I think I'm your 3rd Patreon supporter... Couldn't afford more, as I'm semi-retired, but I truly believe in your work.

[@buki5376]

I love the editing! Can’t wait for more content

[@Hailfire08]

Watches don't have sex, I don't have sex, therefore I haven't evolved.

[@saltydodger9597]

Such high quality content. Will be using with students.

[@countvanbruno182]

Awesome new channel. Keep up the great work!!!

[@HabeeShirzad]

Even the production quality deserves a like and a comment.

[@elijahking1801]

Congrats on the new channel dude. Glad to see that you're growing as a content creator

[@mariacamilahoyosayala7074]

You got a new subscriber, great content, keep on! Saludos desde Colombia

[@atheistsfightclub6684]

The human eye as proof of intelligent design could only prove a sloppy or indifferent designer, it might be complex (in some senses, remarkably simple in others) but it is poorly designed as an eye for the pinacle of creation, a supposedly superior being built for mastery over all other creatures and the entire world we all live in. What with its poor utilisation of the internal surface area, with nerves and blood vessels reducing the area for rods and cones and including an inconvenient blindspot that has to be compensated for and still kicks us in the ass if anything comes at us out of it, bleeding into the fluid introducing visible distractions, distortions of shape requiring corrective lenses, degradation of capability over the lifetime of its use and the tendency towards cataracts in later life rendering it all but useless without surgery, as an eye it is far too piss poor a design for a being capable of designing all the other complexities of the universe, more of an apprentice piece than a masterpiece. It's failings are however entirely consistent with an evolutionary process that builds on what exists and works over time, with no aim of a perfect eye but the result of a functional one, for a given value of functional.

[@atheistsfightclub6684]

I don't have to have an eye factory to know a bad design spongebob, almost a passable deflection from my point there, if a little sparse, well done for trying though, your participation medal is in the mail.

[@atheistsfightclub6684]

If it was a piss poor process designed in gods image spongebob then yes, but since god is a fantasy of little imagination and fossilisation a natural process there is little to complain about in its regard, its major problem is the tight set of circumstances required for it to occur, not the process itself, soft tissue being notoriously difficult to preserve for permineralisation timescales.

[@atheistsfightclub6684]

Because Daniel Paulson, we needed poor eyesight, brain hemorrhages, blood clots, hemophillia, porphyria, heart attacks, kidney failure, death in childbirth, birth defects, genetic diseases, parasites that burrow into your eyes or infest your guts, cancer and AIDS for babies to make us humble before god. Apparently. It's not enough to damn us to hell for eternity because someone created in perfect innocence didn't understand a warning they were too innocent to understand and fell into the trap of a megalomaniacal sadist with galloping insecurity stemming from his impotent omnipotence, life should apparently be hell on earth too so we'll spend what time we have on our knees trying to make our tormenter happy with our purty mouths. It's for our own good and all done to us out of love.

[@alananimus9145]

Yes. I am so glad you decided to make this new channel that focuses just on theism.

[@RicardoTorresMusic]

Damn Steven, the video production went way up!!

[@LouisGedo]

Excellent premiere video for *Debunked* !

[@LouisGedo]

@SpongeBob Imagination I'm not only an "internet vegan" but I'm also a real world vegan.....I use my actual name and photo for this YT account. I'm opposed to "pet" ownership.......period......this includes snakes. As for vegans like me caring for rescued cats, this certainly does present an ethical dilemma but in some cases, some cats actually do well on a supplemented plant based diet. Ideally, I think that lab grown meat may prove to be the best non perfect solution to vegans caring for rescued cats......unfortunately the wide spread commercial viability of such technology is probably still a decade away.

[@conors4430]

Oh my god, that cloud in the sky looks like an elephant for a few minutes until it blended with that other cloud, somebody must’ve done that right?

[@bigchungisjoe102]

The thing that always gets me about this argument is a pocket watch is perfect for its purpose the human is far from it meaning any creator of humans would be really bad at his job

[@God-CDXX]

has anyone watched Aron Ra ?

[@johnharding4444]

He is very well know as an Atheist activist.

[@God-CDXX]

@@johnharding4444 he is cool

[@johnharding4444]

@@God-CDXX I enjoy his content, his educational stuff on phylogeny is awesome. His debates can be a bit brash but i enjoy them.

[@1970Phoenix]

With your (excellent) choice music throughout the video, I kept thinking that I was watching an Aron Ra video.

[@gevans826]

Great work. Nice and concise and easy to understand.

[@JohannesLilover]

You are one of the best channels on youtube

[@abigailslade3824]

Hope this new channel takes off quickly for you Stephen

[@ryanbruno1212]

Your production is beautiful. What program do you use?

[@dohsky]

I'm not sure that this matters in the watchmaker analogy but it's not like the human are the only living specie on Earth. So if you were to walk on a beach where there are cogs and springs everywhere, different size (from microscopic to elephant size), various assembly of cogs and springs in shell (all the variety of the living kingdom), and through out all this, there are a few that are "watches". Would you assume a watchmaker ? Probably not since cogs and assemblies (as life) at many stages of evolution are everywhere.

[@aretorta]

Excellent video as always! I know it fits your style, but maybe the music could be toned down? Just a bit less range in intensity would be better imho. Keep doing what you do best!

[@stevenbyers8747]

Well done! I love these short but well reasoned responses.

[@peterskovgaard8689]

yeah, the same arguments were made by a norwegian play writer from 17th century, LudvigHolberg, where in his play Erasmus Montanus he said:"A stone can not fly, and mom can't fly, therefore mom must be a stone"

[@ThiagoGasparino]

@9:21 A question. Where is this Diderot quote from?

[@amirhosseinahmadi3706]

Fantastic graphics, keep going!

[@mahojohodge5395]

Debunk the ancient argument provided by the Sumerian philosophers of the mother of an atheistic child loudly telling relatives on the phone that their atheism is a 'funny phase'. No I'm not crying... you're crying!

[@JayMaverick]

Warms the cockles of my heart to imagine all the Frank Tureks of the world getting mortally butthurt for being referred to as "fellow apes."

[@shonbrown6982]

Stephen--I'm a fan and want to help via patreon--but, in order to determine the level I wish to contribute, I will need to know the frequency in which you intend to churn these out--how many per month???