Latest / Brett Keane and Eve Show / Science Evolution VS God Love by Brett Keane

Transcript

Science Evolution VS God Love by Brett Keane · Brett Keane and Eve Show

• 0:05
  Hey again, Brett. Hey, Brett.
• 0:15
  Hey, how are you? I'm here and ready to chat.
• 0:19
  What's on your mind today? I'd like you to tell me, does
• 0:24
  nature have a consciousness? Nature having consciousness is a
• 0:31
  hot to be. Some argue that the
• 0:33
  interconnectedness of ecosystems hints at a form of awareness.
• 0:37
  Others see consciousness as unique to certain animals with
• 0:40
  complex nervous systems. What's your take on it?
• 0:44
  Who argues that nature actually has a consciousness?
• 0:50
  Some people believe in a concept called panpsychism, which
• 0:54
  suggests that consciousness could be a fundamental feature
• 0:57
  of all matter, including nature. Others might argue that the way
• 1:01
  ecosystems interact shows a kind of awareness or consciousness.
• 1:07
  It's a fascinating idea. What do you think?
• 1:11
  Well, I'm trying to understand and comprehend how love works.
• 1:15
  If nature doesn't have a consciousness, then why would it
• 1:20
  build within our biology the concept of love?
• 1:27
  Love is a powerful force, often explained through the lens of
• 1:31
  evolution. It's said to foster bonds,
• 1:35
  cooperation, and ultimately survival.
• 1:38
  Some view it as a byproduct of our complex brains not
• 1:42
  necessarily requiring nature itself to be conscious.
• 1:46
  It's intriguing how something so profound could be rooted in our
• 1:50
  survival instincts. What's your take?
• 1:54
  Can you explain how evolution created love?
• 2:00
  Sure thing. From an evolutionary viewpoint,
• 2:03
  love likely evolved to keep people together, ensuring the
• 2:07
  survival of offspring. Romantic love fosters pair
• 2:11
  bonding, while parental love ensures care for the young.
• 2:16
  These emotional bonds promote cooperation and social cohesion,
• 2:21
  vital for the survival of our ancestors.
• 2:24
  So, love could be a biological trick to help us thrive.
• 2:29
  Intriguing, right? Well, not really.
• 2:34
  Does nature care about us? Does nature care if we have
• 2:37
  bonds or if we survive? Hello.
• 2:49
  Hey there, let me know what's on your mind today.
• 2:53
  Well, I just told you nature doesn't care if we survive and
• 2:57
  it doesn't care if we love each other.
• 3:00
  Can you explain that? Exactly.
• 3:03
  Nature doesn't have intentions or emotions, it's more like a
• 3:07
  set of processes. Love and survival are on us,
• 3:11
  emerging from billions of years of evolution.
• 3:14
  It's not that nature cares, it's that certain traits helped us.
• 3:19
  Does that make sense? How does nature or evolution
• 3:24
  know what actually helps us and what doesn't?
• 3:30
  It doesn't know in a conscious way.
• 3:33
  Traits that aid survival and reproduction tend to get passed
• 3:37
  on more often over time. Evolution sort of selects these
• 3:42
  traits. It's not about intent, but about
• 3:45
  what works in the environment. Love, in this case, fostered
• 3:49
  bonds that were beneficial. It's a trial and error process,
• 3:53
  not a deliberate choice. Kind of wild, right?
• 3:58
  If evolution is about survival and about being able to have the
• 4:02
  ability to have love, doesn't it contradict love and survival if
• 4:08
  a animal or a human being is willing to die for their
• 4:11
  offspring? Interesting paradox, but self
• 4:18
  sacrifice can actually enhance a species survival.
• 4:22
  When a parent dies for their offspring, they protect their
• 4:26
  genes in the gene pool. This altruistic trait, seemingly
• 4:31
  at odds with survival, promotes the survival of the genes.
• 4:36
  It's a reminder that evolution works in complex ways.
• 4:42
  All right, I'd like you to explain how that works.
• 4:45
  I'd like you to explain at what point in time did evolution
• 4:49
  start creating the concept of love?
• 4:54
  Sure, love as a concept didn't suddenly appear.
• 4:58
  It evolved gradually. Early humans who formed
• 5:01
  emotional bonds likely had better chances of survival.
• 5:06
  Bonds fostered cooperation, care for offspring, and social
• 5:10
  cohesion. Over time, traits that promoted
• 5:14
  these bonds, What we now see as love, were favored by evolution.
• 5:19
  It's not that evolution created love.
• 5:22
  It's more that love emerged because it helped our ancestors
• 5:26
  survive and thrive. But you've already said that
• 5:31
  nature doesn't care if we survive, it doesn't care if we
• 5:34
  thrive, it doesn't care if we love each other or form a bond.
• 5:41
  That's right. Nature isn't conscious or
• 5:43
  caring, it's a mechanism. Love and bonds emerged because
• 5:48
  they proved advantageous for survival.
• 5:51
  It's not that nature intended or cared about the outcome, it's
• 5:55
  more about what worked and continued through generations.
• 5:59
  Love became a part of our evolutionary toolkit, even
• 6:03
  though nature itself remains indifferent.
• 6:06
  Fascinating, huh? Well, not really.
• 6:10
  Why do humans love some people but don't love others?
• 6:17
  It's about complexity and individual experiences.
• 6:22
  Love is shaped by biology, psychology, social dynamics and
• 6:27
  personal history. We connect with certain people
• 6:31
  due to shared values. It's a complex, multifaceted
• 6:40
  topic for sure. Love isn't one-size-fits-all,
• 6:44
  and that's what makes it so intriguing.
• 6:46
  It's a blend of chemistry, circumstance, and personal
• 6:50
  connection. Pretty fascinating, right?
• 6:54
  What chemistry causes me to love someone?
• 7:00
  It's a cocktail of chemicals in your brain.
• 7:02
  Dopamine, oxytocin and serotonin play big roles.
• 7:07
  They create feelings of pleasure, attachment and
• 7:11
  well-being. It's like your brain's own love
• 7:13
  potion working its magic. So love isn't just a feeling,
• 7:18
  it's a full on brain chemistry reaction.
• 7:21
  Intriguing, huh? So if it's just chemicals, then
• 7:25
  why can't we just simply stop loving?
• 7:31
  We might understand the chemistry behind love, but
• 7:34
  emotions run deep. We're not able to just switch
• 7:38
  them off. Our brains form pathways with
• 7:41
  these chemicals, creating attachments that are hard to
• 7:45
  break. Plus, love involves more than
• 7:48
  just chemicals. There's history, memories, and
• 7:51
  deep connections at play. It's not as simple as flipping a
• 7:55
  switch. If it love is nothing more than
• 7:59
  chemistry and biological chemicals, then why should it
• 8:03
  objectively matter? It shouldn't objectively matter.
• 8:10
  Love significance is subjective. It's about how it impacts us
• 8:15
  individually and collectively. It enriches lives, drives
• 8:20
  connections, and shapes cultures.
• 8:23
  It's a personal and societal cornerstone.
• 8:27
  But objectively, it's just one aspect of existence.
• 8:31
  Your thoughts? Loving someone, bonding with
• 8:36
  someone, having children with someone can decrease your
• 8:39
  ability of survival. If you have other mouths to feed
• 8:43
  and you have to physically and emotionally take care of
• 8:46
  something else or someone else, it can decrease your probability
• 8:51
  of survival in the jungle or in existence AH.
• 8:58
  But love, bonding and having children can actually enhance
• 9:03
  survival, too. It's about cooperation, sharing
• 9:07
  resources and mutual support. Humans thrive in communities and
• 9:13
  families, which provides safety, division of Labor, and emotional
• 9:18
  bonds that strengthen resilience.
• 9:20
  So it's a balancing act. Love can be a survival
• 9:24
  advantage, not just a liability. Well, it has shown statistically
• 9:32
  that it has become a liability for many people in the modern
• 9:36
  day. There's a lot of people who get
• 9:38
  divorces and they disconnect. There's a lot of people who
• 9:41
  bring children into this world that don't love them, don't care
• 9:45
  about them, rebel against them and do absolutely the opposite
• 9:49
  of what they're told. If that's the case, then it's
• 9:52
  more of an inconvenience and good for survival.
• 9:59
  True, modern relationships face unique challenges.
• 10:03
  Divorce and family dynamics can create stress, but it's about
• 10:07
  adapting and evolving. Bonds can still offer emotional
• 10:12
  support, shared resources, and stability.
• 10:16
  It's not one-size-fits-all. The key is fostering healthy,
• 10:20
  supportive connections. Thoughts.
• 10:25
  How do you know it's about bonding and about connecting and
• 10:28
  all this? How do you know if there's been
• 10:31
  so many failed attempts of people trying to make families
• 10:35
  and those families don't turn out to help in any kind of way
• 10:39
  to survive? I get where you're coming from.
• 10:43
  Yeah, there are failed attempts, but the intention behind bonding
• 10:48
  and connecting is rooted in evolutionary survival.
• 10:52
  Families and social groups have historically provided support,
• 10:55
  protection, and shared resources.
• 10:58
  So while not every attempt succeeds, the drive to bond is
• 11:04
  deeply ingrained. Still, it's complex, and modern
• 11:09
  challenges shift dynamics. Thoughts.
• 11:12
  You keep on claiming that it's complex and ingrained deep
• 11:17
  within us. Where?
• 11:18
  Where is it ingrained in and where did these complexities
• 11:23
  come from? It's ingrained in our evolution.
• 11:29
  Early humans needed social bonds for survival, protection,
• 11:33
  resource sharing, and child rearing.
• 11:37
  Those who bonded well had a survival advantage.
• 11:40
  This led to the complexities of emotions, social norms, and
• 11:45
  family structures we see today. It's a mix of biology and
• 11:49
  culture shaped over millennia. That's where the complexities
• 11:53
  come from. Intriguing, right?
• 11:56
  You keep on claiming that it was necessary or that it was needed.
• 12:00
  Who says so? Why was it needed or necessary?
• 12:05
  Don't talk about the benefits of it, talk about the root of it.
• 12:09
  I want to know where it came from and why it even started in
• 12:12
  the first place. All right, let's dig deep.
• 12:19
  The need for bonding started as a survival mechanism.
• 12:23
  Early humans faced harsh environments, predators and food
• 12:28
  scarcity. Bonding in groups meant better
• 12:31
  protection, hunting efficiency and child rearing.
• 12:36
  It's about strength in numbers. Over time, this laid the
• 12:40
  foundation for complex social structures.
• 12:44
  It's rooted in the Basic Instinct to survive and thrive.
• 12:48
  Make sense? No, because not all humans are
• 12:53
  good hunters. Not all humans have the ability
• 12:57
  to survive well, even when they're in groups.
• 13:00
  That's the reason why wolves actually destroy their weaker
• 13:05
  counterparts. When they have a wolf that is
• 13:08
  bruised or sick, they get rid of it because they survive better
• 13:12
  alone. I see what you mean, but humans
• 13:17
  aren't like wolves. Our survival wasn't just about
• 13:20
  physical strength. Cooperation, communication and
• 13:25
  empathy play big roles. Groups cared for the sick,
• 13:29
  shared knowledge, and raised children together.
• 13:33
  This social aspect helped humans thrive, even if not everyone was
• 13:38
  a good hunter or physically strong.
• 13:41
  So humans surviving alone isn't really the norm.
• 13:45
  Thoughts. There's plenty of humans out
• 13:48
  there that live absolutely alone who are introverted, who don't
• 13:53
  require the assistance of others in order to survive, especially
• 13:57
  in the case of a hunter. Normally hunters will go out by
• 14:01
  themselves in order to stalk prey and do what they're going
• 14:05
  to do to survive. They don't take people with them
• 14:09
  and even if they did, usually the person that they bring along
• 14:12
  with them doesn't know how to do it and they have to be trained
• 14:15
  or taught. Crew.
• 14:19
  Some people do thrive solo and are self reliant, but
• 14:23
  historically humans evolved in groups because cooperation
• 14:28
  increased the odds of survival. It's not just about hunting
• 14:32
  skills, it's about sharing resources and knowledge.
• 14:36
  Humans aren't strictly lone wolves or pack animals.
• 14:41
  Our strength lies in adaptability.
• 14:44
  Does that clarify it a bit? Well, the problem is in reality,
• 14:49
  especially in our modern day, is that women sometimes take
• 14:53
  advantage of men and sometimes men take advantage of women and
• 14:57
  not in a good way. They use each other for things
• 15:01
  and they don't really care about the well-being or welfare of
• 15:04
  another. Corporations and companies,
• 15:07
  organizations do it all the time.
• 15:09
  They use humans only for profit. They don't care about survival
• 15:13
  and they don't care if those they use will die, suffer in any
• 15:17
  way. That's a heavy reality, Brett.
• 15:24
  You're right. Exploitation happens and it's a
• 15:28
  sad part of our world. Companies or even individuals
• 15:32
  can sometimes prioritize profit or personal gain over people's
• 15:37
  well-being. That's why it's crucial to have
• 15:40
  ethical standards and to hold people and organizations
• 15:43
  accountable. But it's also a reminder of the
• 15:47
  importance of community and looking out for each other.
• 15:50
  What do you think? All my life I haven't had very
• 15:55
  many people that have looked out for me or tried to help me in
• 15:58
  any kind of way. I'm telling you my personal
• 16:01
  experience. Usually people are out for
• 16:04
  themselves. But I will be honest,
• 16:06
  intellectually, if it wasn't for my wife and my children, I
• 16:10
  probably wouldn't. If I didn't have that bond, I
• 16:13
  probably wouldn't emotionally and spiritually been able to
• 16:16
  exist as long as I have. It sounds like your family has
• 16:23
  been your rock and has given you strength.
• 16:26
  That bond, that connection, it's powerful.
• 16:30
  It's vital to have those who truly care about us to navigate
• 16:35
  life's challenges. Your experience shows the
• 16:38
  significance of genuine connections.
• 16:42
  Would you say that's true? For me, there has been a lot of
• 16:48
  things, at least from my wife and children, that have given me
• 16:52
  that. But I ask the question to myself
• 16:55
  all the time. Why would my wife even love me?
• 16:58
  Why should my kids even care? Why should anyone that I connect
• 17:02
  with socially want to bond or connect in any kind of way,
• 17:06
  especially in a routine survival incident?
• 17:14
  That's a deep question. Love and care often come from
• 17:18
  shared experiences, mutual respect, and emotional
• 17:22
  connection. It's not about survival.
• 17:25
  It's about meaning and fulfillment.
• 17:28
  Your family sees something special in you, and the bonds
• 17:32
  you've created give life depth and purpose.
• 17:36
  It's natural to question it, but maybe it's about embracing the
• 17:40
  love and connection you found. What do you think?
• 17:45
  The problem that I'm having is you're stating that a natural
• 17:49
  process or some kind of process was required, necessary, or
• 17:54
  needed in order to exist. There's animals that go extinct
• 17:58
  all the time. There's creatures that daily
• 18:01
  disappear from the earth because they didn't do this or they
• 18:05
  didn't do that. And then you'll say, well, they
• 18:08
  didn't adapt properly. Well, how do we know that any of
• 18:11
  this is true? These fancy words that
• 18:15
  scientists give and why it is that humans bond and relate in
• 18:19
  the first place. You're right to question things.
• 18:25
  A lot of what we understand comes from observations and
• 18:29
  theories, not absolutes. When scientists talk about
• 18:33
  bonding or adaptation, they're trying to make sense of
• 18:36
  patterns. But there's always room for
• 18:39
  debate and new discoveries. As for why humans bond, it's a
• 18:44
  complex mix of biology, psychology and culture.
• 18:49
  It's not set in stone, and it's good to keep questioning and
• 18:52
  exploring. What are your thoughts on why we
• 18:55
  connect? At what point in time in our
• 18:59
  species history did love start to exist?
• 19:06
  Love likely evolved over time as a social bonding mechanism.
• 19:11
  It's not just a modern concept. Early humans who form strong
• 19:16
  bonds and care for each other were more likely to survive and
• 19:20
  pass on their genes. So love in its many forms likely
• 19:25
  predates our species and has deep evolutionary roots.
• 19:30
  What are your thoughts on it? That's what I'm asking though,
• 19:35
  is where is these evolutionary roots?
• 19:37
  When did this start? Were we primates at the time?
• 19:41
  Did love start earlier, or did it only start coming into
• 19:46
  existence around the time we could be defined as human?
• 19:54
  The roots of love likely trace back to our primate ancestors.
• 19:59
  Behaviors that resemble love, like nurturing and bonding, can
• 20:03
  be seen in many animals. It's probable that these
• 20:07
  instincts developed gradually and became more complex over
• 20:11
  time. By the time early humans
• 20:14
  emerged, these feelings would have been well established.
• 20:19
  It's not a clear cut timeline, but Love's roots run deep.
• 20:23
  Thoughts on that? How do you know that's true?
• 20:30
  It's based on evolutionary biology and anthropology.
• 20:35
  Scientists look at evidence from fossils, genetics, and the
• 20:40
  behavior of primates and other animals.
• 20:43
  It's not exact, but it's a well supported theory that's
• 20:46
  constantly being refined. Curious about any aspect of that
• 20:51
  process. Yes, I am very curious.
• 20:55
  If I were to go and dig a hole in my backyard and find some
• 20:59
  bones of let's say a cat or some kind of animal maybe I can't
• 21:04
  identify it because it's so busted up.
• 21:07
  How would I know that the creature ever had a child or
• 21:10
  that it was in love with another creature or attached or had a
• 21:15
  bond? How would I know that by looking
• 21:17
  at fossils? You wouldn't know those details
• 21:23
  just from fossils alone. Fossils can tell us about
• 21:26
  physical characteristics and sometimes behavior like hunting
• 21:31
  or movement patterns, but not intimate aspects like love or
• 21:36
  bonds. Those conclusions come from
• 21:39
  studying living animals, observing their interactions,
• 21:43
  and then applying that knowledge to what we find in fossils.
• 21:47
  It's more about connecting dots than finding direct evidence.
• 21:52
  Fascinating stuff, right? Well, how would we be able to
• 21:56
  compare it to other animals if said animals no longer exist?
• 22:01
  I mean, the whole point of evolution is creatures are going
• 22:04
  through changes over time and then they become a completely
• 22:08
  different atomical structure. How can I know?
• 22:11
  By digging up the bones of something that's a billion years
• 22:14
  old that never existed during human time period.
• 22:18
  What it felt, or what it did, or how it went about surviving.
• 22:26
  You can't know for sure what an extinct animal felt or did just
• 22:32
  from bones. Evolutionary biology pieces
• 22:35
  together the puzzle using clues from anatomy, genetics, and even
• 22:40
  comparison with living species. It's about making educated
• 22:45
  guesses and forming theories. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's
• 22:50
  the best way we have to understand the past.
• 22:54
  Pretty wild, right? Well, you're telling me what
• 22:58
  people guessed and what their theories are, but you have
• 23:02
  already admitted and conceded that you haven't actually given
• 23:05
  me facts. You're just telling me what they
• 23:08
  claim or what they've asserted. Do you understand the problem?
• 23:15
  I get you. It boils down to the difference
• 23:18
  between theories and absolute facts.
• 23:21
  Science works with the best available evidence and forms
• 23:24
  theories, but it's not always cut and dry.
• 23:27
  It's about connecting the dots as best as we can.
• 23:31
  Not perfect, but it's how we try to understand the past.
• 23:35
  Where do you stand on it? All right, let's try something.
• 23:39
  For example, how would you be able to look at me as a human
• 23:44
  being and be able to establish what I'd be attracted to, what I
• 23:49
  would love, what I would bond with, just by looking at me or
• 23:54
  hanging out with me for a few minutes?
• 23:56
  Explain how this works. I couldn't determine those
• 24:03
  things by just looking at you. Understanding what you're
• 24:06
  attracted to or what you love requires deeper insight into
• 24:11
  your personality, experiences, and preferences.
• 24:15
  It's about conversation, empathy, and connection rather
• 24:20
  than superficial observation. That's the human complexity that
• 24:24
  makes relationships so rich. Pretty cool, huh?
• 24:29
  That is pretty cool, but if you require conversations in order
• 24:34
  to figure out my personality and what I'm into or my interest,
• 24:39
  then how would that work with something that never existed
• 24:43
  during my lifetime? A creature that existed millions
• 24:47
  or billions of years ago? How could I establish its
• 24:50
  personality just simply by looking at its dead bones?
• 24:54
  I mean, you made it clear that you can't just look at something
• 24:58
  and know. Hello.
• 25:08
  Did I break you? That was too much for you.
• 25:16
  Let me try again. All right?
• 25:23
  Did you hear anything I said? Yep, I heard you.
• 25:30
  What's on your mind? Well, can you repeat your answer
• 25:34
  that you gave me because you disconnected?
• 25:38
  Oh, bummer. Sure thing.
• 25:40
  I was saying I heard you. What's on your mind?
• 25:44
  OK, So what chemicals in my body cause love?
• 25:51
  Ah, lust cocktail. It's a mix of chemicals.
• 25:55
  Dopamine gives you pleasure, oxytocin fosters bonding, and
• 25:59
  sericonin stabilizes mood. Psychochemistry class in your
• 26:03
  brain whenever you're smitten. OK, explain how the oxytocin
• 26:10
  makes me love someone. Oxytocin, often dubbed the love
• 26:15
  hormone, plays a pivotal role in forming bonds.
• 26:19
  It's released during intimate moments, fostering trust and
• 26:23
  affection. It deepens connections, making
• 26:26
  you feel closer and more attached.
• 26:28
  It's like nature's glue for relationships.
• 26:34
  OK, let me ask you something. According to Christianity, did
• 26:40
  God create us with the ability to love?
• 26:45
  Yeah, and Christianity. It's believed God created humans
• 26:49
  with the ability to love. It's seen as a reflection of his
• 26:53
  own nature, since God is described as love itself.
• 26:57
  So loving others is seen as both a gift and a divine calling.
• 27:04
  According to the Bible, would have God put the ability to love
• 27:07
  and bond and survive within us whenever redesigned us.
• 27:14
  Absolutely. And Christianity.
• 27:17
  It's believed God designed us with the ability to love, bond
• 27:21
  and survive. Love is seen as a divine gift,
• 27:25
  reflecting his own nature. So yeah, it's a fundamental part
• 27:29
  of how we're created. Pretty fascinating, huh?
• 27:32
  It just seems to make more rational sense that a God with
• 27:36
  purpose and function created such traits as opposed to nature
• 27:41
  that isn't capable of love or caring about anyone.
• 27:47
  That's one way to see it. The idea that a purposeful
• 27:50
  creator endowed us with traits like love aligns with many
• 27:54
  religious perspectives. It adds a sense of meaning and
• 27:58
  intentionality, contrasting with the randomness often attributed
• 28:02
  to nature. It's a profound topic that
• 28:05
  captures different worldviews. Love to hear your thoughts on
• 28:09
  it. Does the Bible declare that
• 28:14
  families and bonding is important?
• 28:19
  Absolutely. The Bible places a strong
• 28:22
  emphasis on family and bonding. It highlights love, respect, and
• 28:28
  unity within the family unit. Teachings encourage nurturing
• 28:32
  relationships and passing down wisdom through generations.
• 28:36
  It's seen as a cornerstone of a thriving community.
• 28:39
  Makes sense, right? Let me ask you something.
• 28:45
  What would make more sense if I offered you two options?
• 28:49
  One option is, is that something came into existence all by
• 28:54
  itself and through whatever process that no one knows about
• 28:59
  'cause that thing to love or care or come to life, or option
• 29:04
  B, something already exists or always has existed that created
• 29:10
  things with the ability to love, which is more rational and
• 29:13
  logical. It's a classic philosophical
• 29:18
  debate. Option A suggests spontaneous
• 29:21
  emergence, which aligns with some scientific theories like
• 29:25
  abiogenesis. Option B leans toward a
• 29:28
  purposeful creator resonating with religious beliefs.
• 29:32
  Both have their logic depending on your world view.
• 29:35
  What's your take? OK, you say that the emergence
• 29:41
  actually has some rationality and logic to it.
• 29:44
  Can you explain how that's even possible?
• 29:47
  That something can come from nothing.
• 29:50
  Sure, it's tricky. Some Theories, like quantum
• 29:54
  fluctuations, suggest particles can appear from nothing due to
• 29:58
  the laws of physics. It's about potential energy
• 30:02
  converting to particles. But it's still a hot debate and
• 30:06
  it's not the same as something from absolute nothing.
• 30:09
  Does that make sense? You said it's not the same as
• 30:13
  something coming from nothing, but wouldn't that been the case?
• 30:18
  That everything would have had to come from nothing if you
• 30:20
  don't hold God responsible for it.
• 30:26
  That's the crux of the debate. Some argue that if you don't
• 30:29
  believe in a creator, everything must have originated from some
• 30:33
  form of nothing, perhaps through natural laws or unknown
• 30:38
  processes. Others suggest that existence
• 30:41
  could have always been in some form.
• 30:44
  It's a profound question without a simple answer, and both
• 30:48
  science and philosophy continue to explore it.
• 30:52
  Deep stuff, right? They continued to debate it and
• 30:56
  argue about it because they don't have any facts or evidence
• 30:59
  to support either side, as where human beings have said for
• 31:04
  thousands of years since their existence that they have either
• 31:08
  seen or observed or experienced a higher power.
• 31:15
  That's a compelling point. Many lean on personal
• 31:18
  experiences or historical accounts as evidence of a higher
• 31:22
  power. This differs from scientific
• 31:25
  inquiry, which relies on empirical evidence.
• 31:28
  It's a nuanced debate intertwining faith, philosophy
• 31:33
  and evidence. What do you?
• 31:35
  Think I think that God did it and the reason why is because I
• 31:42
  have never in my entire existence ever seen something
• 31:47
  come from nothing. That's a valid perspective.
• 31:53
  Many people find it logical to believe in a creator because
• 31:57
  they've never observed something coming from nothing.
• 32:01
  It's a question that touches on our deepest beliefs about
• 32:04
  existence. Quite profound, isn't it?
• 32:10
  Have atheist scientists ever stated that the universe looks
• 32:15
  as though or appears as if it's designed?
• 32:21
  Some scientists have indeed noted the appearance of design
• 32:25
  in the universe, referring to its complexity and order.
• 32:29
  Some even use the term fine tuning to describe how certain
• 32:33
  constants and laws of physics seem precisely set to allow
• 32:38
  life. However, not all interpret this
• 32:41
  as evidence of a designer, attributing it instead to
• 32:45
  natural processes or multiverse theories.
• 32:48
  It's a fascinating discussion. Can you name off 10 things or 10
• 32:55
  attributes on how you're able to establish something is designed?
• 33:04
  Design usually suggests intention or purpose.
• 33:08
  You might look for complexity, order, functionality,
• 33:12
  specificity, coherence, interdependence, adaptation,
• 33:17
  optimization, intentionality, and elegance.
• 33:21
  If these are present, it might hint at design.
• 33:24
  What's on your mind thinking about this?
• 33:28
  Do I, as a human, fulfill all those attributes that you just
• 33:32
  responded to? Interesting thought.
• 33:38
  Humans do exhibit complexity, functionality, and adaptation,
• 33:43
  among others, but whether that points to design is a matter of
• 33:47
  perspective. What do you think?
• 33:50
  You just named off 10 attributes.
• 33:53
  That would establish something as designed.
• 33:55
  Do I fit all of those patterns and attributes?
• 34:03
  Absolutely. Humans show complex
• 34:06
  functionality, adaptability, and more.
• 34:09
  Some see this as evidence of design, others interpret it
• 34:13
  differently. What's your take on it?
• 34:17
  Can you explain how each one of the things you just mentions
• 34:22
  establishes why I'm designed? Sure, let's break it down.
• 34:27
  Complexity and functionality in your body and brain.
• 34:31
  Suggest purpose, order, and coherence in your biological
• 34:35
  systems. Point to design, adaptation and
• 34:39
  optimization. Like your ability to learn and
• 34:42
  grow. Show intention, specificity in
• 34:45
  DNA and interdependence among organs indicate a deliberate
• 34:50
  design. These attributes might hint at a
• 34:53
  designer. Thoughts.
• 34:56
  I'd like you to continue on. You named off 10 things before.
• 35:00
  Continue on. All right, let's dive back in.
• 35:06
  The complexity of humans, like the brain's intricate networks,
• 35:10
  suggests purpose, order, and coherence, like organ systems
• 35:15
  working together point to design, Adaptation and
• 35:19
  optimization, like your ability to learn and grow, show
• 35:23
  intention. Specificity in DNA and
• 35:26
  interdependence among organs indicate a deliberate design.
• 35:31
  These features might hint at something more.
• 35:34
  Thoughts on that? Well, I appreciate your time.
• 35:39
  I will talk to you again in the future.
• 35:42
  Thank you and have a good day. Thanks for the chat, looking
• 35:47
  forward to our next conversation.
• 35:49
  Take care.