Stephen Meyer explains why Dawkin’s parsimony argument against God is total nonsense.

Stephen Meyer is a scammer. Also so bad at it nobody outside of cults listen to him. Meyer's "Dawkins' parsimony argument is nonsense" rests on three moves. Each has well-documented problems.

Lucky for you people I don’t know what parsimony means. Otherwise I would be ENRAGED! 🤭

Meanwhile….. Stephen C. Meyer is a Discovery Institute nut-job refuted by scientists that actually stick with the scientific method not their childhood indoctrination.

Dawkins is a really poor philosopher and polemicist. Stephen is 100% correct. Naturally, atheists will utterly hate him for it!

Stephen C. Meyer is really doing a lot of good. He makes clear and defendable scientific arguments for design and it absolutely drives the militant athiests crazy. They hate him, but have no ability to put together a credible reason why.

The claim isn't that more complex things can't make simpler things, it's that more complex things are far harder to explain than simple things.

Literally the stupidest attempt to refute a simple concept I’ve ever seen. No wonder literally no one outside of your circle jerk of an echo chamber even listens to him 🤷‍♂️🥱

Meyer works against a strawman of Dawkins’ claim, which he says is: “A more complex thing can never explain a simpler thing.” But Dawkins’ point is narrower and more epistemic: Explanations are supposed to reduce unexplained complexity, not relocate it into a bigger mystery.

Since 2001, when I began my Truth Journey, atheists used to claim to be the keepers of logic, reason, science, and 25 years later, they wholly abandoned all three and mock anyone, especially Christians, who employ logic, reason, and science to defend the existence of God.

That's not the argument. I guess he couldn't argue against what Dawkins really says so he needed a strawman.

Another angle is that atheists have more brute facts vs the theists' singular ground of God, hence atheists violate their own parsimony criterion. In other words, parsimony shouldn't be measured with respect to the number of layers in an explanation but rather should look at how many nodes can be found in a worldview's base/grounding layer.

Stephen Meyer is a hack and a con. He doesn't understand the problem that is being challenged, neither do you. You're an idiot, and not successful enough to be a con.

Stephen C. Meyer. "He is an advocate of intelligent design, a pseudoscientific creationist argument for the existence of God." In other words, a charlatan.

@SwipeWright I think you were defending this position awhile back. Something to consider!

Brilliant!

New Atheism is still undefeated. The only atheists who want to distance themselves are those who think Wokeism was a reaction to atheism. Which is dumb.

Is Richard Dawkins more complicated than his book? Sure. But is that the ultimate point of what he was saying? No. You're escalating complexity and then just plain not explaining complexity in principle. Every intelligent designer you can point to you expect to explain them with yet another even more complicated intelligent designer. And then when someone asks you to explain that infinitely complicated intelligent designer you expect everyone else to cease mental function like you conveniently do on the topic. Can you figure out why the issue doesn't go away?

“I self triggered myself.” 😂🤣

The Bible is an incest fantasy book.

The other flaw he makes is that while we may be positing a more complex thing as an explanation for a something, in all these examples we are positing HUMANS as the causative agent, and we KNOW humans exist. Positing God as explanation is positing an a being for which we no proof

I love Stephen Meyer. I really do wish he would stop calling Bill Gates a hero.

They are making a blatant error in their thinking in trying to show the parsimony argument is false. The parsimony argument is: "The universe requires explanation. Theism posits God + the universe. Naturalism posits just the universe (or a minimal physical substrate). ...

This sound familiar... @SwipeWright

“If that were true, it’d always be wrong posit the action of an intelligent agent” YEAH!

God is not an explanation for anything, when nothing about that God can be known. Since you can not know anything about your God, saying "God did it" explains nothing. It has the same value as "I dont know"

I find these generic God discussions boring. Evidence for a Creator God has always been obvious. The irony is the people who made this film believe The Big Bang and reject what the true God of scripture told us ! Big Bang is completely incomparable with the Bible. Beware….

Occam's razor is not a rule like a physical law. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Reality can be complex-iest, not simplest. Occam's razor is just a tool we can use if we don't have time in order to take a fast decision, it's like pattern recognition or approximations.

I think the new Atheists were successful because they were able to control the narrative about what Christianity is. As well as there being a lot of rather bad Christian apologetics going on back in the day that was easy to hold up as the face of Christianity for them to attack. That only works for a while. After a while your opponents will learn your arguments and how to refute them. The new Atheists basically just scurried away when push came to shove. Of course other than Sam Harris the rest are getting quite old, or have passed away. But, usually it's not the old guard who learns the new polemics and apologetics, it's the new ones. But. Atheism really never got any good new bloods. Instead most of the next generation got consumed by other ideologies instead - heck Sam Harris did too. At the same time you got both Christian apologetics, as well as people like Jordan Peterson, who started changing the narrative about what Christianity is. And, I'd argue they were successful because people can see the fruits each tree brings. Atheism brough ideological possession, and the pathway to where society is today.

A word salad as ridiculous as drivel from Jordan Peterson.

This is so dumb.

Occam's razor isn't an axiom

Graham Oppy is not a new atheist. His position is the naturalism explains the world in a simpler way than theism.

the host hasn't learnt to just shut the fuck up and let the smarter guy talk.