Of course..there MUST be problems with the video
Problems with the video:
1) The argument misrepresents the way we determine whether objects are designed. He asserts that "because [he] has never seen coral been designed" therefore the universe and human beings should not be assumed we are designed either. Only because we know how a watch is designed, that we know there is a designer.
This is a pretty poor argument, as what the critic is doing is presenting differences of the analogy. So the watch has to be intelligently made. Did you know that coral itself has a process in which it needs to be made too. Possibly not human made, but naturally made, right? Can one assert that there is a complex process behind the coral being made? Is this process within the scope of God's intelligence? Y/N?
To point out that something as complex as coral is not humanly intelligently made does NOT refute the fact that an intelligent supreme being may be the maker.
How is a poor explanation? He's simply explaining the differences b.etween a watch, or your example, a computer monitor, and something that's undergone natural forces, like corral have. That's the whole effing point! There are differences in natural objects and man made objects, which is why the analogy of a watchmaker or a monitor-maker by theists is so effing ridiculous.
And the other point which you even brought up is the other part of the whole friggin point. Coral is made through a natural process, WHICH!!!! then makes God unnecessary, because there's a natural explanation available for coal, that doesn't f@#%ing exist for f@#$ing watches and f@#$ing computer monitors.
How you can't see the logic to this rebuttal makes me want to commit suicide by poking red hot pokers through my eyes into my brain in a swirling scrambled eggs fashion.
2) Complexity and design are independent of each other. Again he points to something man-made (a ball) vs something naturally occuring (the rock)... Although it is true that in a human sense complexity and design are independent of each other, how does this refute the presence of God behind the complexity of everything?
It's a sleight of hand by the critic who uses a man-made object vs a natural object to show complexity and design are independent of each other. But that's not the argument. The argument is that complexity and design of even the UNIVERSE is evidence that points to a creator. These complexities are the natural processes that produce what we can observe. Even the rock is pretty complex by its own regard. How did random molecules just come together at that particular density? Is there a natural process behind how rock is formed? Is this process void of complexity? Perhaps we should define what is complex or not.
So, according to you, it's true that complexity and design are independent of each other, but somehow it's sleight of hand???
Where are my pokers!?!
Seriously, just read the red highlighted part a few times, and tell me honestly that you don't see the problem with that, or the need to gouge my eyes out, because then you go on to say that the complexities are a product of a natural process, which is the same refutation and logic used to refute the first point in the teleological argument, up there in the 1st point, which is that there is no design by a designer but instead a natural process that produced us and everything.
Ahhhh!!!!! I feel like i'm going crazy even having to point this out.
3) Complexity is unnecessary for an omnipotent God. The critic asserts that because God is so omnipotent.. being able to make a clock without gears.. shouldn't an omnipotent God be able to make humans without organs? The critic asserts that, because things are so complex, it makes no room for an omnipotent God.
This is really reaching here. The critic puts his own thought, behaviour, and agendas into God's own mind. The critic uses his own psychology to speak on God's behalf. The critic thinks that an all powerful God is foolish to rely on the complexity of organs and cellular structures to keep people alive. Another sleight of hand by the critic, since the critic cannot speak for God. It is an unknown why God does certain things, but the unknown is not evidence of an absent God.
SO your answer is God works in mysterious ways.....
The old classics never get old.
You missed the point entirely. The point was that if someone was as smart, wise and as powerful as God is claimed to be, then he as a master designer, like even the lesser master designers here on earth, would not have included inefficient and oft time useless and unnecessary parts to the finished product that they are claimed to have designed.
It's actually a very strong point...which only leaves you the wiggle room of "God works in mysterious ways" which is the biggest cop out ever, since it's a sure sign that the person saying it doesn't have a goddamned clue and sticks this place-holder response until they they can either move some goal-posts or wait for some scientific knowledge to leech onto as if it was the answer to that particular question all along!.
4) Infinite regression of God is illogical. The critic here states that a God who is able to produce complex things must be complex himself, therefore who is God's creator??
The critic even provides the counter argument that God may be eternal - but that's just an assumption - the critics says.
Absolutely brutal. The critic here is committing logical fallacies and conveniently dodging them with careful semantics. The notion of God NEEDS to be eternal. Not assumed. What kind of God is NOT eternal? The whole purpose of a being who existed before time IS EVIDENCE to his eternal character.
Absolutely spot on, IF you actually understood the argument's logic. By the way, just for a larff.....exactly which logical fallacy or fallacies did the guy commit?
Show me a simple being that can make complex things using thought and design.....not instinct now, but actual thoughtful design.
I bet you can only think of humans thus far. WELL, according to you, you concede that intelligent beings such as ourselves can design complex things such as computer monitors and space shuttles and large particle colliders. I mean you'd agree that they're complex things right? However, you and your kind, also claim that we and the universe were ALSO created in the way that we create what we create, because we are complex and the universe is complex and that things THAT complex MUST have been designed, because it works so well, and is so 'fine-tuned'.....remember??
So, the argument in rebut AND its logical regressive path can be charted from that asserted claim as supported by its own inference(that the universe is complex fine tuned, ergo must have come from a creator) that a complex thing would need a complex designer, especially one that was able to create a whole universe. It just means that this creator is also a complex being because a simple being couldn't have thought up, designed and built such a complex thing.
But, as the argument goes, if a watch is complex and needs a complex creator, and the universe is complex and needed a creator, then a complex being like God, would logically raise the question, (and that's the magic word here big guy...LOGICALLLY) who designed the designer and who or what created the creator, because that creator would have to be even more complex, and on and on into an infinite regression.......that's called logic and that's how formal logic is applied to bullsh!# claims in order to show just how full of bullsh!# they really are.
5) I don't know what purpose is or can't assume purpose exists, therefore a designer who pre-supposes purpose cannot be logical.. Wow talk about your own circular argument here.
The critic asserts that since he doesn't know his purpose, or even thinks purpose can exist, therefore he rejects the notion of a purpose driven designer. But how did he reach that conclusion that purpose cannot be attained? He doesn't state that at all. He just says "I don't really see how we can distinguish what purpose is, or even if we can assume a purpose exists"...
The argument is that a purpose exist BECAUSE a designer exists. The critic uses HIS unknown purpose to refute the existence of a designer. Well to use the critic's own language, I could say "I know my purpose! So therefore God DOES exist!" Oh I wonder what Sharpshooter would say about that.
I make the SAFE assumption that there is purpose in life because there is a very safe bet that God exists. Just look at all the evidences presented by scholars who have done their due diligence in the field. William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, to name a few.
The critic in this video does not provide logical responses to the argument of complexity and design because I believe he misunderstands it altogether, or has a shallow understanding of the complexity of nature and its processes.
I don't even want to bother with the last point.....it's pointless, and I know that my purpose
in life isn't to beat my head against the wall, which is what would happen if I tackled anymore of this.
And no, the author did not fail to provide logical responses to the teleological argument, he in fact present very logical argument. The problem lies in the fact that you don't know what 'logic' is, what its fallacies are, and have got a grasp on even a shred of a piece of a sliver of formal logic in that bible-soaked brain of yours,
God luv ya, dajusta. It would take a being of infinite patience and time to explain and teach you how logic and science operates. Of that i am a full believer.