Podcasts about teleological

Send us a textDo you know an atheist, agnostic, or any believer with doubts? Join Dan and Archie as they discuss the Teleological (or "Intelligent Design") argument in this episode of Holy Spirit Soapbox.  This is part 2 of 2.Music by Alex Grohl "Catching Rays" via https://www.pixabay.comVisual Art Credit: https://www.canva.comFor more information and to check out our other episodes, visit us at https://holyspiritsoapbox.buzzsprout.com/ or search "Holy Spirit Soapbox" on YouTube.For more information and to check out our other episodes, visit us at https://holyspiritsoapbox.buzzsprout.com/ or search "Holy Spirit Soapbox" on YouTube.

Send us a textDo you know an atheist, agnostic, or any believer with doubts? Join Dan and Archie as they discuss the Teleological (or "Intelligent Design") argument in this episode of Holy Spirit Soapbox.Music by Alex Grohl "Catching Rays" via https://www.pixabay.comVisual Art Credit: https://www.canva.comFor more information and to check out our other episodes, visit us at https://holyspiritsoapbox.buzzsprout.com/ or search "Holy Spirit Soapbox" on YouTube.

In podcast, J. Warner Wallace examines several objections to the argument for God's existence from the appearance of design in biological organisms. Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins admit biological molecular machines “appear” to be designed. Can this appearance be explained by purely natural forces?

In this podcast, J. Warner Wallace examines the evidence for design (teleology) in biological organisms. Even atheists such as Richard Dawkins admit biological molecular machines “appear” to be designed. Can this appearance be explained by purely natural forces?

In S5E9 I sit down with the incomparable Peter Mark Adams to discuss energy healing, visionary experiences, his work with sacred symbols and images, the Hagia Sophia and much more! Peter:https://petermarkadams.com/ For all things Ike be sure to visit:https://ikebaker.com SUPPORT ARCANVM FOR $5/MONTH: https:patreon.com/arcanvm FOLLOW on Facebook: https://facebook.com/@arcanvvm FOLLOW on IG: @a.r.c.a.n.v.m #spirituality #healing #esoteric --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/arcanvm/support

Eliezer Yudkowsky and Stephen Wolfram discuss artificial intelligence and its potential existen‑ tial risks. They traversed fundamental questions about AI safety, consciousness, computational irreducibility, and the nature of intelligence. The discourse centered on Yudkowsky's argument that advanced AI systems pose an existential threat to humanity, primarily due to the challenge of alignment and the potential for emergent goals that diverge from human values. Wolfram, while acknowledging potential risks, approached the topic from a his signature measured perspective, emphasizing the importance of understanding computational systems' fundamental nature and questioning whether AI systems would necessarily develop the kind of goal‑directed behavior Yudkowsky fears. *** MLST IS SPONSORED BY TUFA AI LABS! The current winners of the ARC challenge, MindsAI are part of Tufa AI Labs. They are hiring ML engineers. Are you interested?! Please goto https://tufalabs.ai/ *** TOC: 1. Foundational AI Concepts and Risks [00:00:01] 1.1 AI Optimization and System Capabilities Debate [00:06:46] 1.2 Computational Irreducibility and Intelligence Limitations [00:20:09] 1.3 Existential Risk and Species Succession [00:23:28] 1.4 Consciousness and Value Preservation in AI Systems 2. Ethics and Philosophy in AI [00:33:24] 2.1 Moral Value of Human Consciousness vs. Computation [00:36:30] 2.2 Ethics and Moral Philosophy Debate [00:39:58] 2.3 Existential Risks and Digital Immortality [00:43:30] 2.4 Consciousness and Personal Identity in Brain Emulation 3. Truth and Logic in AI Systems [00:54:39] 3.1 AI Persuasion Ethics and Truth [01:01:48] 3.2 Mathematical Truth and Logic in AI Systems [01:11:29] 3.3 Universal Truth vs Personal Interpretation in Ethics and Mathematics [01:14:43] 3.4 Quantum Mechanics and Fundamental Reality Debate 4. AI Capabilities and Constraints [01:21:21] 4.1 AI Perception and Physical Laws [01:28:33] 4.2 AI Capabilities and Computational Constraints [01:34:59] 4.3 AI Motivation and Anthropomorphization Debate [01:38:09] 4.4 Prediction vs Agency in AI Systems 5. AI System Architecture and Behavior [01:44:47] 5.1 Computational Irreducibility and Probabilistic Prediction [01:48:10] 5.2 Teleological vs Mechanistic Explanations of AI Behavior [02:09:41] 5.3 Machine Learning as Assembly of Computational Components [02:29:52] 5.4 AI Safety and Predictability in Complex Systems 6. Goal Optimization and Alignment [02:50:30] 6.1 Goal Specification and Optimization Challenges in AI Systems [02:58:31] 6.2 Intelligence, Computation, and Goal-Directed Behavior [03:02:18] 6.3 Optimization Goals and Human Existential Risk [03:08:49] 6.4 Emergent Goals and AI Alignment Challenges 7. AI Evolution and Risk Assessment [03:19:44] 7.1 Inner Optimization and Mesa-Optimization Theory [03:34:00] 7.2 Dynamic AI Goals and Extinction Risk Debate [03:56:05] 7.3 AI Risk and Biological System Analogies [04:09:37] 7.4 Expert Risk Assessments and Optimism vs Reality 8. Future Implications and Economics [04:13:01] 8.1 Economic and Proliferation Considerations SHOWNOTES (transcription, references, summary, best quotes etc): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/3st8dts2ba7yob161dchd/EliezerWolfram.pdf?rlkey=b6va5j8upgqwl9s2muc924vtt&st=vemwqx7a&dl=0

This podcast is focused on Self-Awareness. Self-Awareness happens in three dimensions. These dimensions are Psychological, Teleological, and Spiritual. Psychological Self-Awareness is your awareness of the inner workings of your mind. Teleological Self-Awareness is your awareness of your higher purpose, destiny, and what your life is really about. And, Spiritual Self-Awareness is your awareness of your spiritual dimension, your Soul, or spiritual essence of you who is experiencing life through you, and why. Psychological Self-Awareness is the foundation of Self-Awareness, and Spiritual Self-Awareness represents a significantly higher order of Self-Awareness.  This podcast explains these three Dimensions of Self-Awareness and how they complement each other. In simple terms, Self-Awareness is about finding who you are, what your life is about, and who is experiencing you and your life? The goal of this presentation is to explain these dimensions and how they complement each other. More specifically, we cover the following topics:- Three Dimensions of Self-Awareness (Psychological, Teleological, and Spiritual Self-Awareness)- Psychological Self-Awareness (Understanding the Inner Workings of Your Mind)- Teleological Self-Awareness (Finding your Life Purpose and Destiny)- And, Spiritual Self-Awareness (Knowing who is Experiencing this Life Through You)This podcast is produced by Aion Farvahar, who is a Life and Spirituality Mentor, and a Psychoshamanic and IFS Self-Leadership Practitioner. For more information about Aion Farvahar or Celestial Twin Life Mentorship visit:- Celestial Twin Website (https://celestialtwin.com/)- About Aion Farvahar (https://celestialtwin.com/linkinbio/)- Celestial Twin YouTube Channel (https://www.youtube.com/c/CelestialTwin/) Reference Links:- Psychological Inner Work (https://youtu.be/NVIEYXMFwjw)- What is Life? (https://youtu.be/MH1fkhXj3c8) - Finding Your Life Purpose (https://youtu.be/Lbjl1RwA9Q0)- Awakening your Soul (https://youtu.be/ywBYFsMTd64) Background Music:CC-BY by Artist: Meydän, Track: Away, Artist's Website (https://soundcloud.com/meydansound/)   Disclaimer:The ideas presented here are based on personal perspectives, experience, or research, and are not meant to reflect any scientific or academic argument. No part of this podcasts may be reproduced or used without written permission from Celestial Twin Life Mentorship or Aion Farvahar (https://celestialtwin.com/). Use of brief quotations is permitted, if providing a clear attribution and link to the original post. Blessings!  

In this final episode on the teleological argument, I look at a number of objections that have been raised against the argument and demonstrate why none of them successfully undermine it. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

Having previously established four levels of fine-tuning in the universe, I set out to explain the cause of that fine-tuning. I explore chance and physical necessity and conclude that both are inadequate. The only adequate explanation also happens to be the best explanation: design. Who or what is the source of that design? I conclude that it must be a personal agent and necessary being like God. Finally, I conclude with six tips for sharing the teleological argument with others. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I provide a number of examples for the last two levels of fine-tuning: the physical constants and our local solar system. Both exhibit jaw-dropping levels of fine-tuning that beg for an explanation. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I begin my mini-series on the teleological argument by defining what scientists mean when they describe a feature of our universe as "fine-tuned," give examples to show that most scientists affirm the reality of fine-tuning, and then explore two levels of fine tuning (the initial conditions of our universe, natural laws).Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

The teleological argument - or design argument - for God's existence hold that that there is evidence of design in the universe, and this design is best explained by theism. I summarize the argument and respond to a couple of common objections in this 1-N-Done episode. Next week, I'll begin a mini-series on the argument that goes into more detail. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.comEmail: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.comFacebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieveTwitter & Gettr: @thinking2believParler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

Many atheist claim the problem of teleological suffering and evil is a slam dunk against the existence of a loving God.  If an animal unintentionally evolved to where it must infect, eat the eyes of or kill a human host to reproduce, then that is just part of the world we have to live with.  But if a "god" intentionally created such parasites and the suffering they cause, he either isn't much of a god or certainly isn't a very nice one, they say.  Christian and atheist philosophers have gone round after round on this issue, essentially drawing to a stalemate.  But how does the Bible address such questions?  In this podcast, we study the scriptures for exactly that answer.

In this episode of the Sense & Signal Leadership & Sensemaking podcast, co-host Dan Tarker delves into how non-teleological thinking can help leaders navigate the metacrisis. He spends time defining what the meta crisis is, investigating the concept of moloch as defined in the Bible and Allen Ginsburg's poem Howl, and how these concepts inform our response to global crises like the war between Israel and Hamas. He then provides a history of John Steinbeck and Ed Rickett's trip on the Western Flyer that resulted in the book "The Log From the Sea of Cortez" and the 14th chapter where they present their ideas on non-teleological thinking. After defining non-teleological thinking, he connects it back to the metacrisis and complexity theory to begin to lay a foundation for non-teleological thinking as a sense making tool in our complex times. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/daniel-tarker/message

Biology is unique among the sciences in its apparently absolute dependence on language that implies a goal, direction, or intention. Does this mean that biology IS goal-oriented, or directed? If so, that has huge philosophical and theological implications!? Our deep-dive into Intelligent Design got us wondering why so many people embrace that worldview. Not just […]

If you can please consider supporting the channel Paypal: www.paypal.me/TomJump Patreon: www.pateron.com/TJump Church of the BPW: churchofthebestpossibleworld.org Start your own church today!

What about design? Does the universe show design at all? Could it be physical necessity or chance?

Battle4Freedom (2023) Sys. Theology Chapters 9&10 - The Existence & Knowability of GodWebsite: http://www.battle4freedom.comNetwork: https://www.mojo50.comStreaming: https://www.rumble.com/c/Battle4FreedomStreaming LIVE on RUMBLE @ https://rumble.com/v2wsvgt-battle4freedom-2023-sys.-theology-chapters-9-and-10-the-existence-and-knowa.htmlBattle4Freedom (2023) Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrinehttps://a.co/d/8qwRimrChapters 9-10Chapter 09: The Existence of GodA. Humanity's Inner Sense of GodB. Believing the Evidence in Scripture and NatureC. Traditional "Proofs" for the Existence of God 1. Cosmological argument 2. Teleological argument 3. Ontological Argument 4. Moral ArgumentD. Only God Can Overcome our sin and Enable us to be persuaded of His ExistenceChapter 10: The Knowability of GodA. The Necessity for God to Reveal Himself to usB. We Can Never Fully Understand GodC. Yet we can know God trulyAOG: Dr. Jason Lilse, Biblical Science Institute, God and sciencehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12238265/Humans-DID-live-dinosaurs-scientists-say.htmlHumans DID live with dinosaurs: New analysis of the fossil record suggests our ancestors briefly coexisted with the prehistoric giants

Has our planet been finely crafted to sustain life, or does it merely appear that way? In this episode, Barry Cooper examines a classic, logical argument for God's existence. Read the transcript: https://simplyputpodcast.com/the-teleological-argument/

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for January 10, 2023 is: teleological • tel-ee-uh-LAH-jih-kul • adjective Teleological (and its less common variant teleologic) is a philosophical term meaning "exhibiting or relating to purpose or design especially in nature." // Their teleological theory on the origin of human beings was heavily challenged. See the entry > Examples: "Hegelianism—at least as [Søren] Kierkegaard understood it ... —treated history as an intelligible process by which humanity progressed toward a state of spiritual freedom. ... To Kierkegaard, this sweeping teleological view left no room for human agency." — Christopher Beha, Harper's, 27 Apr. 2020 Did you know? Perhaps teleological was destined to serve a role in English. The word, along with its close relative teleology, comes to us by way of New Latin, from the Greek root telos, meaning "end or purpose." Both entered English in the 18th century, followed by teleologist in the 19th century. Teleology has the basic meaning of "the study of ends or purposes." A teleologist attempts to understand the purpose of something by looking at its results. A teleological philosopher might argue that we should judge whether an act is good or bad by seeing if it produces a good or bad result, and a teleological explanation of evolutionary changes claims that all such changes occur for a definite purpose.

Katilaw na mo sa perfect nga kape? NAA DIRI — Atong imaginon! Look who's back, mga Uwak! You heard it right! Mga Murag Korek is back at muraging and koreking with a new season at hand! Serving Episode 1 of Season 2—The Perfect Coffee is Nigh: Forda Imagine ang mga Fersons sa Ethereal Coffee! Atangi ning mga maka-palpitate nga mga notes: · Coffee as more than a sensorial experience · Aristotelian quality · Perfection vs Excellence · Coffee as the creator of relationships and movements · Coffeeshops as a marker of intellectual progress · Whut? The perfect coffee is decaf? · JESUS CHRIST! The perfect coffee! · AI-made coffee · Teleological coffee · Schrodinger's coffee · Zero · Quantifying the “super-duper ultimate perfect high-quality coffee” · Perfection exists in a vacuum, demands a perfect arbiter, and cancels itself · Perfection as longing · Amahan moments: teaching non-harmful perfection to your kids (aron di mag-igit-igit ang bata) · The danger of “okay lang dili perfect” · Dawata nga dili ikaw ang mag-revolutionize sa world! · Illustrating perfection · Competing with GOD · The perfect coffee goes to . . . Lot 38 Presents: Mga Murag Korek. Forda comeback ang mga fersons! #podcast #bisaya #cafe #davaocafe #davaocoffeeshop #bisayapodcast #cebuanopodcast #pottery #philippines #philippinepodcast

In this segment of Laurie's series on DC Schindler's The Politics of the Real, she focuses on Schindler's critique of liberal rights and his proposal for theorizing positive rights using teleological thinking. … More Redefining Rights: Positive, Teleological Right (Politics of the Real, 5)

Does quantum mechanics lend a escape hatch away from the cause of the universe? Just as the axe pre-existed in the form of iron and wood couldn't the universe have pre-existed in some form before the Big Bang? If everything must have a cause why must God be excluded? To answer these many other common objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument Asher John of The Carpenter's Desk join us!Links and citation:William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics 3rd EditionRichard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 2006), p. 77.)Andrew Loke, The Teleological and Kalam Cosmological Arguments Revisited https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-94403-2 (book, free legitimate download available)Andrew Loke, God and Ultimate Origins https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-57547-6Record a question and stand a chance to be featured on SAFT Podcast: https://www.speakpipe.com/saftpodcastResources to begin learning Kalam Cosmological Argument and apologetics:Reasonable Faith: www.reasonablefaith.orgWilliam Lane Craig; On Guard (book)William Lane Craig; Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics 3rd Edition (book)Library database https://apologetics315.com/?s=kalam+cosmological+argumentWilliam Lane Craig, James Sinclair, Chapter 3: The Kalam Cosmological Argument (Pages: 101-201), Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (chapter, book)EQUIP, a self-learn apologetics platform by Reasonable Faith https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/Kalam Cosmological Argument Part 1 (animated video; English) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0Kalam Cosmological Argument Part 2 (animated video; English) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vybNvc6mxMoThe Carpenter's Desk https://www.youtube.com/@TheCarpentersDeskEp #65- Making Sense Of 'CAUSE' And 'NOTHING' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNXRQQNae5MWilliam Lane Craig and CosmicSkeptic Discuss The Kalam Cosmological Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOfVBqGPwi0Watch the video podcast here (https://youtu.be/h1TWdUV4Z3U)Interested to join our voluntary team as Graphic Designer? Reach out to us at ankit@saftapologetics.comEquipping the believer defend their faith anytime, anywhere. Our vision is to do so beyond all language barriers in India and beyond!SAFT Apologetics stands for Seeking Answers Finding Truth and was formed off inspiration from the late Nabeel Qureshi's autobiography that captured his life journey where he followed truth where it led him. We too aim to be a beacon emulating his life's commitment towards following truth wherever it leads us.Website: https://www.saftapologetics.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/saftapologetics/Blog: blog.saftapologetics.comFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/saftapologetics/Newsletter: http://www.sendfox.com/saftapologeticsTwitter: https://www.twitter.com/saftapologetics/Is there a question that you would like to share with us?Send us your questions, suggestions and queries at: info@saftapologetics.com

For a Halloween special, Alec and Nick take up Søren Kierkegaard's frightening text “Fear and Trembling” as a starting point to discuss fear as it relates to philosophy, music, film, and life. Discussing the chilling crisis of faith during Abraham's binding of Isaac and the subsequent “Teleological suspension of the ethical”—the conversation evolves into a broader exploration of universal vs. situational fear, affects of fear vs. the motivations of fear, and the administration and control of fear in everything from the music of Scott Walker, Kubrick's The Shining, Krzysztof Penderecki, climate protesters actions toward paintings, alien surveillance, Sasquatches on the beach, and more. Ultimately, the discussion arrives at tautologies or “degree zeros” of existential fear—from John Cage confronting his own circulatory system in an anechoic chamber, to capitalism and environmental collapse in Lars “TCF” Holdus' new blogpost “Undoing nihilism.” 

It seems almost intuitive that the universe and everything within is intelligently designed, but Charles Darwin's theory of Evolution By Natural Sections turned the argument on its head. Join us as we discuss the Teleological Argument, or the Argument from Design, in this latest series on topics related to the Philosophy of Religion. Open Door Philosophy on Twitter @d_parsonage or @opendoorphilOpen Door Philosophy on Instagram @opendoorphilosophyOpen Door Philosophy website at opendoorphilosophy.comContact us via email at contact@opendoorphilosophy.com 

There are many famous examples of unintelligent design in nature, but what about malevolent design? Some natural systems are aimed at producing suffering: they cause suffering by acting in accordance with their natural purpose, function, or design plan. Why would we infer a benevolent, omnipotent designer from malevolent design? The fact that predation – a … Continue reading CA99 – Teleological Evil →

Philosophers Seth Hart and Matthew K. Minerd defend the reality of teleology in nature, especially biology, and the ramifications of this fact for ethics and the debate on God's existence. 

Q & A (at Bhaktivan, Kansas on April 22, 2022 •Definition and Problems of Teleological Inherence•Nitya-siddha-prema Coming to Us•Guru-bhakti and Krishna-bhakti•Jiva Goswami´s Affinity for Sakhya

Welcome to the Reformed Classicalist. This is the audio format of Matt Marino's lectures, classes, and sermon series found on YouTube and elsewhere. Find out more, at https://www.reformedclassicalist.com

Teleological Argument vs. the Presuppositional (Transcendental) Argument for the existence of God. #fullarmourradio #podcast #presuppositional by John O'Roark More info about this ministry at https://www.fullarmourminstries.org

Episode 148 – Truth and Proof – Part 8 – Purpose and Design Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: That’s the whole story. Here now is my final conclusion: Fear God and obey his commands, for this is everyone’s duty. God will judge us for everything we do, including every secret thing, whether good or bad. Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12, verses 13 and 14, New Living Translation ******** Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re excited to be with you as we continue our series we’ve called “Truth and Proof.” This series is all about helping our listeners think carefully about their faith. Specifically, we want people to understand that the Christian faith is not a belief system that requires its followers to abandon their brains when they surrender their hearts to Jesus. Far from it. Jesus told his followers that they were supposed to love God with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind. Yet, all too often today we are told that we must choose between faith and reason or between faith and science. But that’s a false dichotomy. And today to help us explore the solid foundation of logic and reason that supports Christianity we have RD Fierro in the studio. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. RD, on Anchored by Truth, we often cover the fact that the world’s demand is not only unnecessary but it is also unreasonable, don’t we? RD: We certainly do and the reason we do is because that demand gets circulated almost continuously in the popular culture and media. And even many Christians are taken in by it. The idea that people must abandon their confidence in logic, reason, and science if they want to be faithful Christians is practically a pillar of every show that purports to discuss issues that pertain to the origin of the world and cosmos. It’s become such a staple of modern philosophy that it serves as a great illustration of the old aphorism that if you tell a lie often enough people will begin to accept the lie as the truth. Our culture has completely lost sight of the fact that some of the greatest minds of the last 2,000 years – including scientists who founded major branches of modern science were devout Christians. Gottfried Leibnitz and Sir Isaac Newton who invented calculus were Christians. So, was Johann Kepler who articulated the major laws of planetary motion. Ditto for Robert Boyle who is regarded as the first modern chemist and the founder of modern chemistry. And Carolus Linnaeus who is credited with establishing the modern taxonomic system was also a Biblical creationist. The list goes on and on. VK: The point is that many people today regard Christians as being almost simple minded. But nothing could be further from the truth. RD: I agree. 10, 20, or 30 years ago we lived in a culture that readily accepted Christianity even if some individuals did not. 50 years ago you would even find some support for the Christian world view taught in grade schools and high schools because the truth of Christianity was widely accepted. But those days are long behind us. Our broader culture is not only not receptive to Christianity, but also it is outright intolerant of it. And some elements of our society are vehemently hostile. We have entered one of those periods of history where Christians can no longer be complacent. The opposition to Christianity enters every home, every day if in no other way through the internet and the so-called mainstream media outlets. Arguments against the validity of Christianity are all around us. If we do not actively prepare to counter them, first within our homes and then in our communities, the fabric of our society will continue to erode. VK: But the good news is that it does not have to be that way, does it? We have the truth on our side. But we must equip ourselves to be able to present that truth. It is not up to us to change anyone’s heart. That’s God’s job. Our job is just to be able to witness to the truth in gentle and respectful ways. RD: Yes. The good news is that the truth is on our side – and that’s what we have been reviewing in this series. We called this series “Truth and Proof” because the first task we undertook was to demonstrate that absolute truth exists. And then we have proceeded to show the lines of reasoning that support the proof of that truth. VK: And many of the ideas that we have been discussing fall within the larger umbrella of what is termed apologetics. Simply put, apologetics is a defense of the Christian faith. And thus far in our series we have gone over two apologetic approaches: a metaphysical approach to apologetics and a cosmological approach to apologetics. And anyone who would like to review those approaches in detail can simply listen to earlier versions of the “Truth and Proof” series on their favorite podcast app. Today’s lesson is the 8th in this series and we anticipate that there will be two more episodes in this series after todays. That will make a total of 10 episodes in the Truth and Proof series. So, today we want to move on to another apologetic approach – the teleological approach. RD: Right. In our last couple of lessons we discussed the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It’s the first of the commonly used arguments, but probably not the one used the most in the media, in books, or in casual conversation. The argument most likely to be used is the Teleological Argument – better known as the argument from “Intelligent Design.” “Teleological” comes from the Greek word telos, meaning “end, or purpose.” “In brief, the teleological argument reasons from design to an intelligent Designer: • All designs imply a designer. • There is great design in the universe. • Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe. In his Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics Norman Geisler put it this way: “Any time we have seen a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind of a designer. Watches imply watchmakers; buildings imply architects; paintings imply artists; and coded messages imply an intelligent sender. VK: Geisler went on to say, “the greater the design, the greater the designer. Beavers make log dams, but they have never constructed anything like the Golden Gate Bridge. A thousand monkeys sitting at typewriters for millions of years would never produce Hamlet by accident. Shakespeare did it on the first try. The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.” RD: Well, having written a few things myself I’m not sure if Shakespeare necessarily did it on the first try but it certainly didn’t take him millions, thousands, or hundreds of years. The point is that only an intelligent being can form letters into words, words into sentences, sentences into paragraphs, paragraphs into books, books into libraries. Yet, the complexity of Hamlet is miniscule when compared to the genetic code. The genetic code, which is really the genetic message, contained in one amoeba equals the information in 1,000 sets of encyclopedias. There is no such thing as simple life! We see evidence of incredibly sophisticated and complicated design in the micro-universe of the genetic code, but we also see it in the macro-universe of the solar system, the stars, and the galaxies. VK: There is a principle that is sometimes referred to as the anthropic principle. The Greek word, “anthropos, means human being. The anthropic principle states that the universe was fitted from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. If there were even the slightest variation in the conditions of the universe, even to a small degree, no life of any kind would exist. In order for life to be present there is an incredibly restrictive set of demands that must be present in the universe – and they are. All of our empirical observations tell us this. Not only does the scientific evidence point to a beginning of the cosmos, but it points to a very sophisticated high tuning of the universe from the very beginning that makes human life possible. For life to be present today, an incredibly restrictive set of demands must have been present in the early universe. RD: And this evidence of design is well recognized by scientists. Astrophysicist Robert Dicke said “that in fact it may be necessary for the universe to have the enormous size and complexity which modern astronomy has revealed, in order for the earth to be a possible habitation for living beings.” Astronomer Alan Sandage states that “the world is too complicated in all of its parts to be due to chance alone. I am convinced that the existence of life with all its order in each of its organisms is simply too well put together. Each part of a living thing depends on all its other parts to function. How does each part know? The more one learns . . . the more unbelievable it becomes unless there is some kind of organizing principle – an architect.” Likewise, the mass, the entropy level of the universe, the stability of the proton, and innumerable other things must be just right to make life possible. VK: Even Stephen Hawking who was not a friend of Christianity said “There may only be a small number of laws, which are self-consistent and which lead to complicated beings like ourselves who can ask the question: What is the nature of God?” And Albert Einstein seems to have almost anticipated Hawking’s question when he wrote “The harmony of natural law . . . reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.” RD: And writer, broadcaster, professor, “astrobiologist,” cosmologist, and physicist Paul Davies – who typically indicates his religious belief as “undecided” – wrote in 1989, “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. . . . It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe. . . . The impression of design is overwhelming.” VK: But understandably and predictably just because the universe contains an abundance of evidence of being designed there are those who don’t accept the testimony of the evidence. The arguments against intelligent design come from those who don’t believe in an intelligent designer. For them the answer to the question of how things came to be as they are is, of course, evolution. One point of Charles Darwin’s work was to establish that random purposeless natural processes can substitute for intelligent design. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that he was convinced that natural selection was the main mechanism responsible for the evolution of life from simple forms to complex forms. RD: And writer and Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins begins his book The Blind Watchmaker with the statement “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” His book’s title challenged the work of William Paley (1743-1805) who used the analogy of a watchmaker to support the teleological argument for the existence of God which argues from the evidence of design to the necessity of a designer. Paley built on the arguments of Socrates, Plato, Philo, and Aquinas, and believed that the complexity of the world implies a great designer. Paley studied the physical world for evidence of purpose. He concluded that a designing intelligence was responsible for the features of the natural world, and he identified this intelligence with the God of Christianity. His argument for design was published in 1802 as Natural Theology: Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of Nature, and his work remains a foundational pillar of the debate over “Intelligent Design.” VK: Dawkins and Tufts philosopher/sociologist Daniel Dennett are among the most visible, most vocal, and most angry of the atheists who have in the last few decades led an attack on the existence of God. Dawkins’ attitudes are summarized in this statement recorded in the April 9, 1989 New York Times: “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane.” Some people have observed that as a scientist Dawkins is mediocre but as an apologist for atheism he is unparalleled. So, that opens up the question why do so many prominent scientists resist and reject God? RD: Simply put, scientists in our day and age have a profound bias toward materialism. In other words in their world view the only thing that exists is matter. Now this is not true of all scientists by any means. There are many fine, competent scientists who are not only outstanding scientists in their fields but also strong Biblical creationists. But, in this case, the exception identifies the rule. And one of the most amazing things about this situation is that science itself, that is the objective pursuit of the acquisition of knowledge about our universe through disciplined study, does not require that they be philosophical materialists. But most are either by individual bias or indoctrination through our education system. And even more amazingly many of them recognize this bias and the fact that is unnecessary for scientific purposes. Why don’t you read that quote from Harvard evolutionary biologist and geneticist Richard Lewontin: VK: Lewontin wrote: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failures to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” RD: So, let’s compare Lewontin’s statement with the statement we heard earlier from the opening of Richard Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins said “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” So, Dawkins acknowledges that the evidence for design exists in nature. He just doesn’t like the conclusion that the evidence leads to. So, Dawkins observes the evidence, acknowledges where it leads, but then changes direction because he doesn’t like the destination. Lewontin simply says out loud the forbidden truth that this change of direction isn’t necessary according to the rules of science. Rather, it comes about because the individual persons – or persons – just don’t like the thought that the presence of design also means the presence of a Designer. So, instead of acknowledging that Designer the materialist, the scientist, adopts conventions and rules that exclude, in Lewontin’s words, “a Divine Foot in the door.” VK: Yikes. I don’t know whether that’s sad, scary, or both. RD: Probably both, but at a minimum the one thing that such an a priori commitment is not is “scientific.” And a great many scientists have recognized this. For instance Michael Denton who is a British-Australian author and biochemist wrote a book in 1985 entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis was published the year before Dawkins Blind Watchmaker. Well, those books set off a sort of chain reaction of other books where the debate about the presence of design in nature received a lot of attention. In effect, what we saw in several publications was an extended presentation of the teleological argument for the existence of God. VK: For instance, in 1991 Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson wrote a book called Darwin on Trial. Johnson’s book was so compelling that the debate about design in nature and supernatural Designer was forever changed. Johnson wrote “In brief, what makes me a ‘critic of evolution’ is that I distinguish between naturalistic philosophy and empirical science, and oppose the former when it comes cloaked in the authority of the latter.” Johnson’s critics retreated into the defensive posture of “specialized scientific knowledge” inaccessible to a legal scholar, but many of these were the same champions of evolution who had previously argued for its simplicity. Johnson answered the critics in 1995 with Reason in the Balance, subtitled “The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education.” RD: And Johnson quickly gained support from biochemist Michael Behe who wrote Darwin’s Black Box in 1996. Behe explained the intricate interactions of cellular components and molecular mechanisms, showing that biological systems are irreducibly complex. This means that systems are “composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” Behe asserted that any irreducibly complex system cannot be produced by slight, successive modifications of a precursor, because any precursor to the system would be, by definition, non-functional. VK: So, when Behe [BEE-HEE] pointed out that irreducibly complex systems could not be produced by a series of minor changes in a biological organism he was effectively pointing out that Darwin criticism of his own theory was valid. In The Origin of Species Darwin wrote a chapter entitled “Difficulties of the Theory.” It happened to be chapter 6. In that chapter Darwin offered some comments on the evolution of the eye which have been widely quoted since he wrote them. Darwin said this about his own theory. Now, remember, this is Charles Darwin talking about his own conclusion that the eye could have evolved through a Darwinian type series of steps. Darwin wrote: “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” RD: Darwin went on, of course, to give an explanation of how he thought it could have happened. But Behe took Darwin’s argument apart by showing that Darwin speculated on how the eye and vision might have happened but Darwin never considered the most fundamental question, i.e., how did vision happen? Darwin looked only at the anatomy – which was all he could look at because 19th century science had no knowledge of biochemistry as we have it today. But in his book Behe, went through the dozens of biochemical changes that are involved in a photon of light striking the retina and this enabling the brain to form an image. After walking us through the very complicated biochemistry of vision Behe says this: “To Darwin, vision was a black box, but after the cumulative hard work of many biochemists, we are now approaching answers to the question of sight. . . . Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. . . . Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level. So is the fossil record. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, nor those of population biology, nor the traditional theory for rudimentary organs or species abundance. . . Until recently, however, evolutionary biologists could be unconcerned with the molecular details of life because so little was known about them. Now the black box of the cell has been opened, and the infinitesimal world that stands revealed must be explained.” VK: So, what Behe was pointing out was that the appearance of design in nature wasn’t just apparent in the anatomical structures that we can see, that Darwin could see, but in the very molecular chemistry that comprises those structures. Again, design isn’t just present in the big structures of the universe – the stars and galaxies – but in the very tiniest ones as well. And how can you have design anywhere at any level without a Designer? You can’t. RD: Right. And if vision is a dramatic example of a biological system that can’t arise in the absence of design the clotting system that is present in blood is even more dramatic. For a clot to form over a cut and stop an animal from bleeding to death even more biomolecular steps are involved than in vision. But the clotting system only works a system. Miss one step and clots never form. The blood clotting system was designed. It had to be. It could not arise in an evolutionary fashion because any animal that didn’t have the entire system would die before it could randomly pass along any of its genes. VK: Well, before we close for today let’s mention one more book that participated in the design debate. A mathematician and philosopher William Dembski published his book The Design Inference in 1998. Dembski saw a possible flaw in Behe’s work. So, he strengthened the concept of irreducible complexity to include a minimal complexity condition, stating that “this condition says that the system cannot be simplified and still retain the level of function needed for selective advantage.” Dembski defined intelligent design as the science that studies signs of design, and he notes that intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark or signature – what he calls specified complexity. RD: Right. Dembski and others have looked for signs ranging from the microscopic to the telescopic. As we mentioned at the start of today’s episode, not only do biological systems show the signs of intelligent design, but also the universe in general displays the “anthropic principle” – that the cosmos is precisely designed for the emergence and sustenance of life, and especially human life, on earth. In the simplest terms, “the cosmos gives evidence of design.” VK: The irresistible conclusion from this line of reasoning is that the evidence of design is present throughout the universe. It’s present in the cosmos. It’s present in the cell. It’s present in our consciousness. You cannot have design anywhere without a Designer. And in the universe doesn’t just have design in a few places. It has it everywhere. RD: Right. Biochemist, atheist, and co-discoverer of DNA, the late Francis Crick, began studying biochemistry in the 1940’s as a way to disprove the existence of God. But, in fact, what he discovered was that there was an irreducibly complex information system at the heart of all life. Crick was a phenomenal scientist but he wrong about God. His materialistic presuppositions prevented him from acknowledging the very truth that his own work pointed out. But this shouldn’t surprise us. Romans, chapter 1, verse 20, has been pointing out this problem with human nature for 2,000 years. VK: That verse says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Crick believed there is no God, but God has the final word. Psalm 14, verse 1 says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Well, we hope everyone will join us next time as we continue this fascinating discussion about the arguments and evidence that demonstrates that there is a firm basis in logic and reason for our Christian faith. This sounds like a time to go to God I prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer for all those around the world who suffer for their faith. We should all take time to regularly pray for God’s mercy and favor to be with them. ---- PRAYER FOR PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New Living Translation) Ecclesiastes, Chapter 12, verses 13 and 14, New Living Translation

In episode 2 out of 4 of this special crossover series, Pastor Jay Lee continues in sharing 3 classic arguments for the existence of God. This second argument is the Teleological argument. This comes from the Greek word "telos" which means "purpose" or "intentionality." We explore themes of order, natural laws, computer systems, simulation theory and meaning in life. **** If you would like to leave Pastor Jay a message or support the podcast, visit: dailysabbath.com

Rev. Ian Cummins

Arguments For God? - The Teleological Argument Hey, welcome to the Atheism UK podcast. This week we look at another classic theist argument, The Teleological Argument which suggests that the world displays elements of intelligent design. This idea goes under a number of names such as the 'argument from design' which is again an argument for the proof of gods existence, or at the very least proof that the universe and everything in it was designed by a cosmic creator. The word Teleological is derived from two Greek words, telos meaning purpose or goal and logos meaning reason or explanation, in other words, Teleology is concerned with the reason for the purpose of things. More information: The Atheism UK Website: https://www.atheismuk.com/ Driven Beyond Belief: The Teleological Argument Or The Argument From Design https://www.drivenbeyondbelief.com/on-the-existence-of-god-the-teleological-argument/ Video Version On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AyaDMlIx3w

You won't find it on the commercial soundtrack, but the music leading up to Holdo's sacrifice represents the culmination of profound thematic transformation rarely heard in all of Star Wars. Highlights: How the Desperation motif spawned from the Tension motif (after various iterations). Desperation motif is heard in its final form as the three subplots come to a head and finishes right as Holdo rams into the Supremacy. Frank Lehman's "Thematic Transformation and the Limits of Leitmotivic Analysis" Basic vs. advanced ways that leitmotifs tend to undergo transformation in Star Wars The shelf-stable analogy of preserving precious leitmotifs for future use... and how that isn't the case here Teleological genesis: when a theme develops from a motivic fragment and culminates in a final instance, never to reoccur. Speculation, philosophical questions, and who cares about thematic transformation anyway? Also in these minutes: silence! Where we are in the soundtrack: "Holdo's Resolve" -- it's not on the commercial soundtrack. https://youtu.be/3rIBFn3oU7c Sources and References: Buhler, James. 2000. "Star Wars, Music and Myth." In Music and Cinema. Wesleyan University Press. https://academic.csuohio.edu/kneuendorf/c49415/Buhler00.pdf Darcy, Warren. 2001. "Rotational Form, Teleological Genesis, and Fantasy-Projection in the Slow Movement of Mahler's Sixth Symphony." University of California Press https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/ncm.2001.25.1.49 Lehman, Frank. 2019. "Thematic Transformation and the Limits of Leitmotivic Analysis." Talk given at Society for Music Theory, 2019 https://youtu.be/4ZBCNK0PYrk -- 2021. Complete Catalogue of the Musical Themes of Star Wars: https://franklehman.com/starwars/ Schneller, Tom. 2014. "Sweet Fulfillment: Allusion and Teleological Genesis in John Williams's Close Encounters of the Third Kind." https://www.academia.edu/6928980/Sweet_Fulfillment_Allusion_and_Teleological_Genesis_in_John_Williams_s_Close_Encounters_of_the_Third_Kind Svejda, Jim. 2018. "John Williams Discusses “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” and “The Post.” KUSC Interviews. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/john-williams-discusses-star-wars-the-last-jedi-and-the-post/id616808075?i=1000403320805 Connect with Star Wars Music Minute: Watch us on YouTube: youtube.com/starwarsmusicminute Twitter: @StarWarsMusMin and @chrysanthetan Instagram: @starwarsmusicminute and @chrysanthetan Email podcast@starwarsmusicminute.com Submit anonymous questions/comments for the show with this quick form. Want more? Check out Chrysanthe's Patreon for weekly practice/composing/music analysis livestreams.

Design evinces a Designer. Wednesday night teaching by Pastor Darryl Hall of Lifewell Church

In this episode, the 10th of the '25 Days of 5 Minute Philosophy' series, we're going to be looking at the Teleological Argument, an argument for God's existence which infers an intelligent designer from the observation of design in the universe. Enjoy! If you'd like to request an episode, or even do an episode yourself, please contact me on Instagram (@fiveminutephilosophy) or Twitter (@fiveminutephil1).

In this part of the series Pastor Bill teaches about the Teleological Argument which addresses a very important question: What is more logical, that there is a Designer or there is no Designer?

I think the common reading of the new Joker film is, “Look how society grinds down a person and eventually causes some to snap.” But the better question is - why do some snap and others don't? It should be noted that when Arthur kills the 3 men who attack him on the subway, he does it in self defense and rage. It's only later that he begins to buy into the larger poetic causal narrative that others concoct in an attempt to make sense of the killings. In this sense what creates the Joker is not the contingent circumstances of his life, but rather his interpolation into an ideological structure or meta narrative. In the same way Hitler had lots of bad things happen to him and we say, “If only he had not been rejected from art school…” "If only he had a better upbringing…" and so on. But we could make that argument for anyone -- everyone faces hardships and rejection. It was rather Hitler's fascination with a poetic vision of a non antagonistic whole, unified society that drove him. That vision (of a unified society, obviously not his other goals) should inspire us as well -- we should strive to bring about a future in which the poor are not forgotten and overlooked, but we should always be on the lookout for rationalizing the existence of problems within our society as the effect of a cause that stems from a particular people group as Nazis did with the Jews. We must be careful not to scapegoat. Our fight is not against flesh and blood but against powers and principalities. Whether in this presidency or the last, we easily think, “If only this administration were out, then we could set things straight.” But what if the antagonism is not contingent to the current “bad actors” but rather is constitutive of human life itself? Again my point is, we shouldn't merely critique the person in power (though we should call a spade a spade, we should oppose oppressive speech and acts, and there are better and worse ways of governing), but rather we should each think hard about the underlying narratives that drive us. The stories we tell ourselves about ourselves are usually not true. As Slavoj Zizek contends: it's false to think that without God, bad people would not do good things. On the contrary, it's actually only something like God or some other poetic meta narrative that can make good people do bad things. This is what we saw on 9/11. If you perceive yourself as an instrument of God, then of course you can employ whatever means necessary to reach the end you feel called towards. This is what Kierkegaard referred to as the teleological suspension of the ethical -- that God's plan trumps human morality. In other words, it's possible that God could call you to do something that you would never be able to reconcile with humanity's notion of right and wrong, like being called to sacrifice one's own son. Therefore a leap of faith is required.  Personally, I'm more and more convinced that the underlying temptation and super-egoic imperative for each of us is: To have it all. We run ourselves ragged fearing we'll miss out. Fearing we'll be seen as less than. Fearing we'll let others down. We see this temptation (to have it all) in the biblical garden story. We desire to be like God. That is: we desire a non antagonistic existence. We desire to lack nothing.  I pray that we might each take a second to stop, breathe, and experience grace for who we already are -- lacking, imperfect beings -- remembering that Jesus himself did not count equality with God as something to be grasped. We need communities in which we can lay bare our struggles and imperfections with others. I'd argue that Story Night is one such community. AA is another. My fear is this: now that this Joker movie exists -- if poorly understood -- it may become the poetic narrative which downtrodden citizens may find themselves in the grips of and will use to justify acts of violence.  We too must be very careful in the way we see ourselves as instruments of some higher vision. Ultimately, I am for giving one's self to a higher goal, but we must take extremely seriously what that higher goal is.  We should search earnestly, just as Soren Kierkegaard did, for, "the idea for which I can live and die." And if we find it, pursue it with fear and trembling -- seeking justice, loving truth, and walking humbly with our G(g)od.