Piers Morgan STUNNED When Scientist Proved God

Christian Scientist Steven Meyer went on the Piers Morgan show and Piers
took this opportunity to really press him on the existence of God I want to go
through these one The Big Bang Theory so why would that lend support to a
theory of a God but before we look at Steven's response let's first look at the
moments that led up to this incident this all blew up last week CU Tucker
Carson went on Joe Rogan and I don't know if you saw this but he said this
about this very issue let's take a look if evolution is real and if there is this I
don't know but it's it's it's visible like you can measure it in certain animals
you can measure adaptation yeah but there's no evidence that EV in fact I
think we've kind of given up on the idea of evolution the theory of evolution
as articulated by Darwin is like kind of not true in what in what sense well in
the most basic sense the idea that you know all life emerged from a single
cell organism and over time and there would be a fossil record of that and
there's not your response well uh I don't know what Tucker knows about all
this but U probably not as qualified as you but he's he's you know he likes to
start something happened here in London a few years ago 2016 a major
conference convened by the Royal Society arguably the world's most August
and prestigious scientific body was convened by a group of evolutionary
biologists who uh are dissatisfied with the standard Neo darwinian theory of
evolution and many of the the conveners are calling for a new Theory
because the primary mechanism of biological change articulated by Darwin
and his subsequent followers now called the Neo darwinist the idea of
natural selection acting on random mutations and variations is now
understood to lack the creative power to generate major changes in the
history of life and is is the the the Crux of this debate is it as Tucker was
getting out there is it that if you actually start from where Darwin's theory
begins the creation of the human being was so complicated the body The
Way We Exist is so complicated it doesn't make any rational sense there's
two issues really there's how do you get to the first life from the simpler non-
living chemicals that's sometimes called chemical evolutionary theory and
that's a complete mess it's in it's in a state of impass and almost everyone
even your recent guest Richard Dawkins acknowledges we have no chemical
evolutionary theory that accounts for the origin of the first life and many
people don't know that Darwin didn't attempt to explain the origin of the first
life rather it he presumed one or very few simple organisms which we now
know are not were not simple and then proposed a mechanism by which you
could generate all the new forms of life we see on the planet today but even
that now is being challenged because the main mechanism of evolutionary
change does a nice job of explaining small scale variation what Tucker was
referring to I think as adaptation this would be examples like Darwin's finches
where the beaks get little bigger a little smaller in response to varing
weather patterns but it does a very poor job of explaining the major
Innovations in the history of life such as the origin of birds or mammals or
animals in the first place and there in the fossil record we do see very abrupt
many uh instances of very abrupt appearance without the trans transitional
intermediates that you'd expect on the basis of the darwinian picture of the
the tree of life so is your belief that the Darwin Theory actually fails then I
think it does fail uh I think it it captures an element of the truth there's a the
the smallscale microevolutionary variation is certainly a real process and no
one uh disputes that natural selection is a real process but what's it what's at
issue now is the degree to which it has genuine creative power and I think at
this 2016 conference the opening talk was given by a prominent Austrian
evolutionary biologist not an American talk show host and uh uh he
enumerated five major explanatory deficits of Neo Darwinism many of them
surrounding this problem that the mechanism Lacks the the generative or
creative power necessary to account for the major Innovations in the history
of life well your bestselling book uh new book Return of the god hypothesis
you argue there are three big scientific discoveries that point to the
existence of God I want to go through these one The Big Bang Theory so why
would that lend support to a theory of a God or God right maybe just a little
framing uh before I dive into the evidence um uh Professor Dawkins at
Oxford has said that the Universe has precisely the properties that we should
expect if at bottom there is no purpose no design Nothing But Blind pitiless
indifference and though I'm on the opposite side of this science V God issue
with with the good professor I think he does a marvelous job of framing key
issues and this is one of those great framing quotations because what he's
saying is that that whether we think of it as a scientific question or a
philosophical question or both if we have a hypothesis about reality the way
we test that is by looking at the world around us and seeing if what we see
comports with what we would expect to see if our hypothesis were true and
his hypothesis is that of blind piess indifference which is a a shorthand way
of saying that everything came about by strictly undirected material
processes and what the materialists expected coming into the early 20th
century was evidence of an eternal self-existent Universe one that had been
here for an infinitely long time and therefore did not need an external
Creator what in fact the astrophysicists the cosmologists the astronomers
found was evidence of a universe that had a definite beginning and therefore
one that could not have created itself because before the matter of the
universe came into existence there was no matter there to do the causing
and so the the picture of the universe that has emerged starting from the
1920s all the way to the present both from observational astronomy and
from theoretical physics is a universe that had a definite beginning and
therefore requires some sort of external Creator or cause Dawkins is
obviously one of the world's most famous atheists are you a believer in God
yourself I do believe in God yes okay so let's play a clip from Dawkins on this
show so why is it not possible that there is a superior being power which
many people believe in different way there are at the bottom of the garden
all sorts of things are possible you can't deny that well ex said I've never
seen Fair as the end of the garden no you've never seen God either no but
you don't know for sure that either doesn't exist no I don't know that fairies
don't exist fairies may may be leprechauns for all I know you know my big
question for all atheists well is okay you don't believe in God but what was
there before the Big Bang before this all started what in other words what
was there before supposedly nothing what is nothing nothing to me seems to
be a totally in congruous word what is nothingness and if you can't explain it
it to me and I believe in God but to me it suggests there must be a a power
bigger than the human mind the start of all this that was able to comprehend
what may have happened because we can't right Dawkin wants to portray
theistic belief as if it's uh equivalent to belief in fairies and and he'll concede
that well it's possible but I think there's a stronger argument for the the the
theistic case and that is that when scientists and philosophers reason from
evidence they typically use method of reasoning that has a technical name
it's called inferring to the best explanation where the best explanation is one
that where you're invoking a cause which has the kind of powers that would
be required to explain the phenomenon of interest and you correctly pointed
out in your conversation with him that when you get back to that what
physicists of often call The Singularity the point where matter space time and
energy begin to exist the materialist is really up against a huge conundrum
because prior to the origin of matter there is no matter to do the causing
that's what we mean by the origin of matter that that's where it starts right
and so if you want to invoke a cause which is sufficient to explain the origin
of matter you can't invoke matter it's in principle materialistic explanations
are in principle insufficient so you need to invoke something which is
external to the material universe and is not bounded by time and space as
well and that starts to paint a picture of the kind of cause you would need
that has the the sort of attributes the traditional theists traditionally
associated with God God is a a Timeless uh God is outside of time and space
has causal Powers is is an agent with volition and therefore can initiate a
change of state from in this case nothing to and do you believe that God now
the case that Stephen Meer just made there it's a very compelling one but
there's something he's leaving unaddressed here which is that his entire
case for the existence of God is resting on his assumption that the Big Bang
is true that there was a creation to the universe so now we're going to look
at the five most important scientific discoveries that have left many people
convinced that the Universe did have a beginning that the Big Bang is true
stay tuned for the fourth one because it caused Stephen Hawking to concede
that it is probably the greatest scientific discovery that we have seen in this
Century if not in all time and now Frank Turk in his book I don't have enough
Faith to be an atheist he sums up these five scientific discoveries with an
acronym called Surge and if you haven't read his book I highly recommend it
especially if you're a skeptic and you're just really doubting the belief in God
I've read a few others like the reason for God by Tim Keller but I mean this is
the one that has really presented the most compelling case to me so that's a
good thing to know but we're going to start with the S which is the second
law of Thermodynamics which states that the universe is running out of
usable energy so if you have a running car if you keep running it running it
running it it's eventually going to run out of gas but why is that relevant well
if we look at the first law of thermodynamics it states that the total amount
of energy in the entire universe is constant which is a finite amount and so
Turk writes in his book if your car only has a finite amount of gas while it's
running and it's using gas then would your car still be running today if it
started running an infinitely long time ago in the same way if the universe
was eternal then it would have been out of energy by now and now the U in
This Acronym is that the universe is expanding and so if we take Einstein's
general relativity he predicted this expanding universe but it wasn't until
later maybe like 20 years later Edwin Hubble used his telescope and he
finally confirmed that yes the universe is expanding and it's expanding from
a single point you might ask why is this relevant to proving a beginning well
if you look at the universe like as a recording in Reverse you'll see that it will
keep shrinking shrinking shrinking shrinking to the single point and and not
just to the point of like maybe a basketball or a baseball or like a golf ball or
even like the the tip of my pinky but it shrinks all the way down into like the
point that is mathematically and logically nothing in other words when we
get to that single point there was nothing and then if we take it out of
reverse bang suddenly there's something and then the r in The Surge
acronym stands for the radiation Afterglow that was caused by the big bang
and so in 19 1965 Arnold pendus and Robert Wilson they discovered the
cosmic background radiation which is basically just like the leftover light and
heat that was caused by the Big Bang the universe's initial explosion and so
the interesting thing about it is that the wavelength patterns that were
discovered in it were exactly what we'd expect from a singular big bang and
it was this discovery that really crushed the steady state theory in the
universe that the Universe has just always kind of been steady and the same
Eternal and stuff and it's really left the big bang with no credible competitors
I mean if you remember in grade school we were taught the big bang that we
weren't taught these other theories because they just aren't holding weight
in scientific Academia and now the G in This Acronym stands for the great
Galaxy seeds so if the Big Bang were true we'd expect to see some slight
temperature variations in the cosmic background radiation and so in 1989
NASA decided to put its money where its mouth is and they built a $200
million satellite and sent it into space to try discover this stuff but what they
actually found after running the satellite is the thing that led Steven Hawking
to call this the single greatest discovery of the century if not of all time and it
was not only that they found these variations in the temperatures but they
were amazed at the Precision of the degrees and temperature changes
because they appeared to be precisely tweaked just enough to cause the
matter to be able to come together and form galaxies but not enough to be
able to cause the universe to collapse back in on itself and the astronomer
George smut said it is like looking at the Fingerprints of the work of God
when you look at these photos and the e in This Acronym to finish this up is
Einstein's theory of general relativity which shows that time space and
matter all came into existence at the same time and they're also
interdependent on each other so one cannot exist without the other two
being present and it was this thinking that led to a lot of the discoveries and
a lot of the scientists to look for evidence of the Big Bang which allowed
them to discover all the things we just talked about so the question is really
not whether the universe had a beginning but how did it begin and as Steven
Meyer points out that there's really two answers here if we if we just hyper
reduce this and it's either that the Universe came about from nothing or it
came about from something and now it's the atheist position that nothing
created something created the universe the theists believe that it's
something that created the universe in their case God but if you want to
learn more about the evidence for God and why belief in him is is reasonable
and it's not intellectual suicide I recommend checking out the video on
screen right about here that being said have a great day y'all hope you
enjoyed bye-bye

Overview of the Discussion

The conversation between Piers Morgan and scientist Stephen Meyer

centered around the intersection of science and the existence of God. Meyer
argued that recent scientific discoveries, particularly those related to
cosmology, support the idea of an external, non-material cause for the
universe, which many associate with the attributes of God.

The Arguments Presented

Meyer highlighted that a significant conference in 2016 showcased

evolutionary biologists' concerns regarding the traditional Neo-Darwinian
theory of evolution. These scientists believed that natural selection was
insufficient to account for major biological changes. This criticism opened the
door for alternative explanations, suggesting that intelligent design might
better explain the intricacies of life and the universe.

Cosmological Evidence

The discussion also included references to cosmological findings that support

the Big Bang theory, which posits that the universe had a beginning. Meyer
pointed out that evidence such as cosmic background radiation and the
universe's expansion indicates that the universe is not eternal, thereby
leading to the conclusion that a cause must exist. He explained that this
external cause must transcend material existence, aligning with theistic
views about God.
The Role of Scientific Discoveries

Meyer pointed out that various scientific principles, including the second law
of thermodynamics, highlight the universe's finitude and its implications for
existence. These discoveries have prompted many to inquire not just
whether the universe had a beginning, but how it began—ultimately framing
the question in terms of either 'something' or 'nothing' as the source, with
proponents suggesting that 'something' aligns with the idea of God.

The Debate on Proof

While some may interpret Meyer’s arguments as a demonstration of

scientific proof for God, it is vital to note that this perspective is highly
debated within both scientific and philosophical communities. Critics argue
that such claims lack consensus and that alternative explanations remain
credible. Thus, the assertion that science has definitively proved God is an
ongoing point of contention, illustrating the broader dialogue between faith
and scientific inquiry

Jordan Peterson HUMBLY Destroys Atheism (10 Minute Brilliancy!)

Jordan Peterson debates atheist Susan Blackmore and where this clip picks
up here is where Susan asserts that she can explain gratitude and meaning
without needing God anymore Jordan Peterson pushes back against her and I
think really destroys her argument so we're going to let that clip play out and
then stay tuned for my thoughts and Analysis about what's going on at the
end let's get into it I recognize that nothing to do with any religious basis at
all I recognized that I could not come on the train here have a really
interesting discussion meet Justin again have a nice glass of cool water you
know without a load of other people doing it for me that gratitude which is
one of the things that you quite rightly put in into your book it gives gives
good place to it and it's very important um that doesn't come from anything
religious unless you say because I was brought up a Christian it came from
there but I don't base it on that anymore I I would where do you think it
comes from I think it comes from a recognition that um I've done a lot of
meditation I meditated every day for 30 years and I think this has something
to do with it but it's observing the inner consequences of different ways of
confronting the world and I'm much more in recent years in the habit of
waking up in the morning even if it's raining in January in England and
looking out and going oh and it's it's a feeling of gratitude not gratitude
towards God or towards anybody or anything just free floating gratitude that
seems to have a positive consequence I set the day up better and it's kind of
self-perpetuating it pops up again and again do you think you can just have
gratitude in general or must gratitude always be given towards something
and ultimately well that that that's a good question that that that that that
goes back to our discussion about acting things out like gratitude is
something you feel towards something and you can say well I don't feel it
towards anything in particular and I would say all right well the diffuse
nothing that you feel it towards serves in your psychological hierarchy as
your equivalent of God oh no but it's attitude you know this morning for
example I looked out and it was so um green uh we've had frosts and it's
been white the last few days and it was green this morning and it was just
gratitude to the universe if you like it's not really God because it's not a
Creator it's not anything I can pray to it's I mean I know why feel gratitude
towards it I don't know but I find I know that you tackle in this book that that
happiness is not an ultimate good and I I struggle this it's not an ultimate
goal okay I didn't say it wasn't an ultimate all right there's a big difference
between those you're right you're right you picked me up correctly on that
um nevertheless we are happiness deing creatures and I have found through
practice and growing older that acting gratitude thinking gratitude feeling
gratitude makes me happier and seems to kind of rub off on other people I
don't think we are happiness seeking creatures and I think it's a low goal not
because there's something wrong with being happy because you know thank
God if you get to be happy now and then but I don't think that that's what we
seek I think we seek a meaning that's deep enough to sustain us through
tragedy and that is way different do you know when I hit some I traged is too
strong a word um I think I'm but if when I when I when horrible things
happen to me or I feel or I read some terrible thing going on in the world yes
those are tragedies going on in the world um my response is nothing matters
it's all empty and meaningless this is how the world is get used to it get on
with it girl that sounds like a very Zen Buddhist way of dealing I guess I
guess it is well it's a it's a paradoxical way though par the first part of that is
nihilistic and the second part isn't so how do you reconcile those two things
why get on with it girl because oh oh well here's another thing I've often
done this with my students let's suppose you become nihilistic uh nothing
matters there's no point in doing I mean I think we live in a pointless
Universe what are you going to do and I say to them like William James in his
wonderful thing about getting up in the morning um but that's a slightly
different point that he makes there but I say to them okay tomorrow morning
when you wake up think it's all pointless I there's no point in doing anything
now what are you going to do well actually you're going to need to go to the
L you're going to get out of bed and you're going to go to the bathroom and
when you're there you'll think actually I'm hungry I think I think I want to go
down to the kitchen I probably should put my slippers on why don't I get
dressed you go and have something to eat and then you think I'm bored and
you go to university and go into your lectures and you know we are not
creatures who will just not do anything to to me to go through that process
which I've done in the past a lot and it's just natural now is um is a is a very
positive way of living to accept the meaningless and ultimate emptiness of
everything and accept that this creature here this thing this evolved creature
just will get on with life but but you're not accepting the meaninglessness of
it even by going through those actions that you describe all because you're
because you're acting as if those things are meaningful yes I am I'm acting
as are pretending that they're meaningful are you pretending that they're
meaningful no I'm not pretending I'm I'm my way of putting it would be that
those meanings are constructed by myself and others personal because of
the kind of creatures we are because of the mean mean constr h is
constructed neither is your desire to use the L none of that's constructed no
but the fact that there is a l is part of culture yeah well thank God for but see
oh you thank God would you for that sorry that's a poor joke well you see see
so imagine this you you have the proximal meanings that you described that
are sort of a priority right they're handed to you you might consider them as
needs or drives although they're not they're personalities it's not the right
way of conceptualizing them um but but then there's the intermingling of all
those needs and drives let's say and that that constitutes a new layer of
structure because it isn't just that you have to eat and that you have to use
the washroom and that you have to have something to drink and that you
have to be warm enough or cool enough to survive it's that you have to do
all those things at the same time in a situation where you're going to have to
propagate that across time and you're going to have to do it with a bunch of
other people and it's always been like that and so what that means is that
out of those proximal meanings higher meanings arise and you might say
well those meanings are arbitrary and I would think religious would say they
are arbitrary but I would say they were constructed and it's very interesting
reading your book what do you mean by constructed um well they are a
consequence of of mtic evolution of the of the language that that people
brought up in the culture they live in the arguments they have I mean what
about the biology that they're given well we start with the biology and the
memes build on top of that memes are biology too real quick in context here
when they're talking about memes they're not talking about internet memes
they're talking about memes which are kind of like units of cultural
information that go from one person to person kind of like how genes are
transmitted through biological information it's a term that Richard Dawkins
coined in his book The Selfish Gene let's get back into it well by definition
they are well I would follow Dawkins in saying well talk about genes as
biology talk about memes as culture that's all I meant by dividing that but let
me say this yeah but I don't accept that Division I don't I want to get back to
what we're saying about meaning reading reading your book made me think
a lot about what what you mean by meaning and your claim that we should
have a meaningful life or strive for a meaningful life that meaningfulness is
important and I kept asking myself do I do I live that way what meanings
does my life have and you know if I think of something like well that most of
my striving goes into writing my books and is that meaningful and again I
have the same response when I ask myself that question it's just what this
body does it it then you should listen to the body and stop listening to the
thing that's criticizing it and what would the body say it would say write your
book and try to be as clear as you possibly can what they do and that's
exactly what I said at the beginning is that the types act out of religious
structure and criticize there's no religious structure oh we come to this
question let me get to this question because I didn't want to get to this
because you have a fascinating part in your book um Jordan where you you
do say this you're simply not addressing atheist you say You're simply not an
atheist in your actions and it is your actions if you are look out and it is your
actions that most accurately reflect your religious beliefs what do you mean
by that why are you saying that no one is really an atheist deep down I didn't
say no one was I said that most of the people who claim to be atheists aren't
this is why I like dov's Crime and Punishment because raskolnikov tried to act
like an atheist right he he took the ideas that were floating around the dossi
took the ideas that were floating around in the late 1800s which are still the
ideas that were discussing today one most fundamental idea I suppose being
after nich's uh announcement of the death of God that if there is no God then
anything is permitted that was raskolnikov raskolnikov is the criminal in
crime and punishment the murderer he gets away with his murder uh you
know technically but not psychologically and he decides that if there's no
God anything is permitted to be true that's a that's a a person in a character
in a novel um I don't think that that's so well let let's he the end of that story
and what what what do you take away from what Doki has to say about well
doki's take away was too was that there was a moral law that raskolnikov
was breaking even though he he rationalized his way through it like
committed the perfect murder right he murdered a woman who people would
have voted to murder and then he got away with it and he did it for good
reasons at least reasons that he could rationalize as good and then he got
away with it but it destroyed his soul and dovi is right about that and that's
where Doki is so great it's like and this is what you're doing in your life you're
you're acting look you're acting out the logos Susan that's what you're doing
you're writing books to illuminate the world you say well I don't believe
meaning Jordan Peterson's not saying here that a can't be moral or that we
can't create our own subjective meaning but he is saying that if there is no
God then life is ultimately meaningless and Cliff connly I think put it really
well when he was debating a student about this and he said that there if
there is no God no judgment No Heaven and Hell then what you and I do with
our lives today is ultimately meaningless why where are Hitler and Mother
Teresa the same place the fertiliz her pit they're de composing which means
ultimately it doesn't matter whether you're Hitler thei or Mother Teresa thei
because we're all going to the same place the fertilizer pit but Jesus comes
along and he says no no that's not it what you do today it really matters
because you are not just Adams you're not just an evolved monkey but you
are very valuable just because you are made in the image of God and God
wants you to be in the Kingdom of Heaven with him and re for eternity and
so he calls everybody to come to him and to take on his yoke and take on his
burden and he promises that if we seek him we will find him and that that's
very interesting there because a lot of Jordan Peterson's argument seems to
be based on the Crux of a lot of insights that come from Victor e frankl's
book Man's Search for meaning and if you haven't read it he's this Jewish
neurologist who gets put into oswit and some other camps and he just sees
some real brutal stuff while he was in those camps and he noticed that the
people who were seeking out meaning and had something to live for Like An
Unfinished project or family they wanted to reconnect with or like their belief
and hope in the coming Messiah that those people were the ones who were
able to push on and live and that those without meaning were the ones who
typically did not survive and he really places this emphasis that we have this
intrinsic drive to search for meaning and as John L put it if we are in a world
where there is no water it would be very strange if we'd get thirsty and so in
the same way if that we are in a world where there is no ultimate meaning it
would be very strange to notice that we have this search for meaning that
Victor E Frankle points out and I think it's something that we all notice you
know Susan Blackmore here in this video said she she kind of acts out as if
there is meaning to the world and that in congruency there just doesn't really
fit her worldview and it points to something bigger than us which I think is
Jesus and so if you want to find out more about that ultimate meaning I
recommend reading the Bible read the gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and
John look at the Historical accounts and look at how Jesus Lives see if he's a
trustworthy guy so I'm going to link in description uh the Gospel of John it's a
great place to start reading the Bible if you've never done that uh but that
being said I'm just going to quickly close the video in prayer father help us to
come before you with Humble Hearts and help remind us that we are very
valuable that there is meaning to this life and that what we do today really
matters Lord thank you in Jesus name amen have a great day y'all byebye

Peterson's View on Atheism

 Jordan Peterson asserts that atheism leads to moral and societal decay,
suggesting that without a belief in God, people may resort to
destructive behaviors such as cannibalism and murder4. This
perspective aligns with his interpretation of Fyodor Dostoevsky's
assertion that "without God all things are permitted," emphasizing the
importance of religious frameworks for societal stability3.

The Role of Religion in Society

 Peterson argues that human beings naturally seek meaning and

purpose, which he believes is often derived from religious belief4. He
asserts that the absence of such beliefs can lead to nihilism and moral
relativism, allowing potentially harmful behaviors to flourish
unchecked4.

Critique of 'New Atheism'

 Peterson is critical of the so-called "new atheists," including figures like

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. He argues that they take moral
frameworks for granted and fail to recognize the foundational role that
religious beliefs play in structuring ethical and moral systems within
society3.

Convergence of Belief and Action

 He suggests that people, regardless of their declared atheism, still
behave in ways that reflect a belief in some values or principles which
can resemble a form of deity worship1. This contradiction indicates
that even those who identify as atheists may still rely on structures
similar to religious belief to guide their actions and societal norms1.

Conversations on Belief

 In his discussions, Peterson often raises the question of what it truly

means to "believe" in God, proposing that many engage with the
concept of God in a metaphorical or abstract manner rather than a
strictly literal interpretation1. This nuance underscores his argument
that traditional atheism may be overly simplistic in understanding the
complexity of human belief systems.