Blablabla. Let's suppose, just for fun, that god WAS the 'first cause' of the universe, how do you make the leap to god still needs to be involved? Isn't god competent enough to make a universe that doesn't require his constant supervision? I think god WOULD be that competent and as I look around it appears he was. Buy Bull proves nothing other than the gullibility of man.
And on a psychological note, some scientists wonder if the mind continues to exist after death (Basically, heaven to us). The idea seems highly reasonable considering, there's number one, no way of proving it wrong, and number two, the mind being a non physical thing, like energy, which cannot be created or destroyed.
Also, there is a such thing as both, "nothing" and "present". They're both abstract ideas, however they do exist, just as our mind does. Nothing is exactly, 0 of anything. The present exists, but is constant, like time. You could say 3:54, or 3:54:35. Continuously breaking it down further and further forever gives us the present. Which is why, by saying the present doesn't exist, you're saying that time doesn't exist.
My view is that life, in itself, isn't meant to be complety analyzed, due to the difficulty of the task. It's impossible. I spend my time enjoying life, rather than trying to find reasons to why I'm here. We Christians live life to reach the afterlife. It's our belief. Atheists spent centuries trying to prove us wrong, and don't even know the purpose for our existence.
There is no such thing as "nothing",,,just as there is no such thing as the "present";those are words that we use to describe our day to day existence,,we are linear time beings,,spacial awareness is something that we do not master..don't believe me? try imagening an octosecond,,TIME is either very fast or very slow,,,neither extreme can we humans grasp...there is always been something in the universe whether quantum fluctuations or a singularity.only 500 characters to make a point aarrrrggggg!!
Sorry mark, you DO NOT have a theory!..YOU have a hypothesis...THEORY= A formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain OBSERVED phenomena which has been VERIFIED to some degree. Kuddos for trying to understand things .but I'm sorry to say that your understanding of theoretical physics is a bit skewd..matter only came to being after high energy condensed ,,quantum fluctuations gave rise to elementary particles bla bla bla bla z z z z z z z z z znooze bla bla bla,,
Cont. BLACK MATTER is said to have caused thed big bang by bringing matter and atoms together with it's gravitational pull causing the explosion. Right Now It is just a theory, However scientist are doing all they can to catch BLACK MATTER interacting with an atom to prove their theories, (Trace time of universe and how it came about).
I believe that time, space, and matter has came from god to make the universe. But scientist believes otherwise, recently I read how scientist discovered BLACK MATTER, which is matter that almost never collides with an atom or other matter.
Yeah, do you read "New Scientist"? I believe you would find it quite interesting in this matter. I watched a documentary on "BLACK MATTER" a short time ago. All I can say is, its awsome...
Very interesting trying to see someone who believes in a deity trying to be rational. When I was young (now 21 and moving forward) I tried like hell to justify it's existence but turned up no evidence. I followed that. I realized the god idea is full of fallacies. You seem to be acting the same way I did when I was young. I tried all those arguments. You should pay special attention to the comments about infinite time. They debunk you well. I would work on new theories after tossing them out.
Hello Mark, welcome to the logical fallacy, "Non Sequitur." Just because we don't understand it now doesn't mean that it was god(s) or something similar.
It is also illogical to assume that science can answer everything. Scientists should do all they can to find a physical and natural cause for something... that is their job, but should we make the assumption like cultures of lore that there is only one possible answer? Science has it's limits, it is not the answer for everything.
it is also illogical to think that humans can, with their limited perception of the universe, comprehend the workings of the universe.
It is like trying to look at the world through the eyes of microscopic organisms, it is limited and built upon the immediate surroundings of the said organism. All of our "theories" stem from understandings that we come up with BASED on our perception of the world, which, as I have said previously, is tremendously limited.
That is precisely why we use technology to change our perception, thus giving us a better understanding of of the universe. We can't see everything with our own eyes but we sure can make a machine do it for us. You don't yet know what technology is capable of, so it is illogical to assume we wont be able to comprehend the universe that said, we may fail.
hm, that's an interesting perspective. My view was "it is pointless to try and understand" and your view is "we can use a machine to try and understand but it may or may not work".
Am I right? If I am correct, in the end we cannot be sure of anything. If we are not sure of it, it is only speculation which is, in turn, not an understanding it all. Also, technology is created based on human theory and thought so it is limited by those parameters. If we cannot conceive it, we cannot create it.
You ask a lot of questions that don't have answers just to confound the issues and make it appear that we have no choice but to accept a supernatural explanation. It's not the case. There's no answer to the question, "Why is there gravity?" then answer conveniently with, "God made gravity". Gravity is simply a property of matter. Matter bends space in such a way that other matter is affected. You might as well ask why is grass green and then answer, "God made green".
I just realized how awkwardly I phrased the preceding comment. What I meant to say is there's no answer to the question, "Why is there gravity?" because gravity is just a property of matter, in the same way that green is a property of chlorophyll. Putting forth questions with no answers, then plugging in your favorite deity as the only plausible answer, explains absolutely nothing.
Your dichotomy about time (either it is consecutive or eternal) ignores the possibility of the consecutive to branch or even traverse backward. You are assuming that time is a constant, which relativity holds not to be true.
If we cannot know how the rules governing the universe came into existence, how is it a logical conclusion to assert a consciousness -- an "infinite being" as you put it -- as the creator of the universe.
I would understand that explanation if it were presented as a mythological answer, but otherwise I don't see how you can come to that conclusion based on actual evidence.
Of course it's "mythological" as you put it. Or, as I would say, non-scientific. It is more logical to answer an inherently non-scientific question with a non-scientific explanation. Just because something is non-scientific does not mean that it is anti-scientific. Believers have faith in the supernatural AND science and experience... etc. Are you asserting that a person can ONLY have faith in science?
No, I am not asserting that. I AM asserting that supernatural explanations cannot be used as proof, nor are they exempt from rational thought.
I wouldn't have a problem with religion if theists accually accepted their dogma for what it is: it is based on a MYTH. I have a problem with theists claiming that faith is equivalent to fact.
I think its still a leap to think that it was a being that caused the transition between the two times states that you mentioned. I'm sure similar leaps were made to explain other unknowns.
3) Temporal Mechanics are confusing. Humans can only move in four dimensions, ergo thinking in five is tricky. Why, exactly, can the universe not be infinitely old? At first glance the idea seems logically impossible until you realize you're thinking too small, since we can only travel forward in time it appears to streatch on infinitely forward, but we can't go backwards so time started somewhere. (at your birth, but I digress)
an infinite number of moments could infact lead to this one. it's called a loop. i'm not saying that that is indeed the case, only pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.
And all you're doing is positing a series of insurmountable problems and then claiming that your magical explanation is the only exception to those rules. If there cannot exist an infinite number of moments to this one, then an "eternal" being could never have suddenly made the decision to begin creation, because there would have to have been an infinite number of moments prior to that decision that could not have been traversed.
Mark, "moment" is a human concept; look for "Planck time". The premise that an infinite number of moments cannot be traversed is false because Max Planck has shown time to be granular. So the false dichotomy of the "only two options" (3:20 in your video) you state is not valid.
"Moments" imply granularity as well. He was saying if the universe had lasted for ever it would be impossible for now to be reached, because an infinite amount of time would have to be traversed. The reason why he is wrong is because time did not exist before the universe existed. (we think) This is because time and space are fundamental parts of our universe, if there was no space, there would be no time. "Before" the universe is akin to saying south of the south pole.
Agreed. I like your south pole analogy. What I meant was Aleetheis' notion of infinitesimal "moments" (dt = 0) vs. the shorted span of time discernable (dt >= 5.4e-44 s, aka Planck time).
So, time began 8e60 Planck "moments" ago, assuming the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Infinity is not a factor here.
When I was a Christian I used to think that God existed forever. Do you hold this belief, and if so then how can it be that God managed to traverse all that infinite amount of consecutive moments in order to get to creation?
Alternatively, if the universe was caused by something in the "eternal now", as you call it, how can we be sure that this original uncaused cause was a being, a deity, rather than some other metaphysical law that governs the universe manifold?
Your cosmological argument can not apply. We know time and space are fundamentally codependent (or believe with a high degree of confidence based on evidence*) from the theory of general relativity. We also know that time and space had a beginning(*) from the Big bang theory.
To assert there must be a creator because the universe needs a first cause assumes that time always existed as it does now. Based on current scientific understanding of the universe, this is not the case. "Before" the universe makes no sense, there was not time until the universe was created.
So, the universe could be its own first cause, or some other naturalistic phenomena as g0at originally states due to the non-existence of time/space 'before' the universe. But, the idea of God is not on a level playing field because you are making an additional assumtion.
Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. You need to show a need for God to be there and not just assert it.
Because at the end of the video you make this assertion you commit a logical fallacy known as Argument for ignorance. In this setting its commonly known as the Transcendentalist argument. God is required to create the universe because the alternative is not conceivable. This reasoning does not make the claim true however, thus the fallacy is commited.
That all said, I enjoyed your video. I like to see those who are willing to think things out rationally. I await your counter argument for the points brought up in the comments. Thanks.
Blablabla. Let's suppose, just for fun, that god WAS the 'first cause' of the universe, how do you make the leap to god still needs to be involved? Isn't god competent enough to make a universe that doesn't require his constant supervision? I think god WOULD be that competent and as I look around it appears he was. Buy Bull proves nothing other than the gullibility of man.
blackestjake 9 months ago
And on a psychological note, some scientists wonder if the mind continues to exist after death (Basically, heaven to us). The idea seems highly reasonable considering, there's number one, no way of proving it wrong, and number two, the mind being a non physical thing, like energy, which cannot be created or destroyed.
AlmightyCheddar 1 year ago
Also, there is a such thing as both, "nothing" and "present". They're both abstract ideas, however they do exist, just as our mind does. Nothing is exactly, 0 of anything. The present exists, but is constant, like time. You could say 3:54, or 3:54:35. Continuously breaking it down further and further forever gives us the present. Which is why, by saying the present doesn't exist, you're saying that time doesn't exist.
AlmightyCheddar 1 year ago
My view is that life, in itself, isn't meant to be complety analyzed, due to the difficulty of the task. It's impossible. I spend my time enjoying life, rather than trying to find reasons to why I'm here. We Christians live life to reach the afterlife. It's our belief. Atheists spent centuries trying to prove us wrong, and don't even know the purpose for our existence.
AlmightyCheddar 1 year ago
There is no such thing as "nothing",,,just as there is no such thing as the "present";those are words that we use to describe our day to day existence,,we are linear time beings,,spacial awareness is something that we do not master..don't believe me? try imagening an octosecond,,TIME is either very fast or very slow,,,neither extreme can we humans grasp...there is always been something in the universe whether quantum fluctuations or a singularity.only 500 characters to make a point aarrrrggggg!!
recordingbean 1 year ago
Sorry mark, you DO NOT have a theory!..YOU have a hypothesis...THEORY= A formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain OBSERVED phenomena which has been VERIFIED to some degree. Kuddos for trying to understand things .but I'm sorry to say that your understanding of theoretical physics is a bit skewd..matter only came to being after high energy condensed ,,quantum fluctuations gave rise to elementary particles bla bla bla bla z z z z z z z z z znooze bla bla bla,,
recordingbean 1 year ago
I disagree with this argument about cause and effect. This is just the law governing our universe. If there is a multi-verse, it can be just eternal.
lifeisfair123 3 years ago
dude that is one sick ass oscar
AlecLuffjoy 3 years ago
Rip another phone book, nub.
lemonycheese 3 years ago
In the name of God... the cause is seen behind you, in the fish tank, warm air. If heaven existed you wouldn't fit in it!
trot223 4 years ago
Cont. BLACK MATTER is said to have caused thed big bang by bringing matter and atoms together with it's gravitational pull causing the explosion. Right Now It is just a theory, However scientist are doing all they can to catch BLACK MATTER interacting with an atom to prove their theories, (Trace time of universe and how it came about).
ManSuave 4 years ago
I believe that time, space, and matter has came from god to make the universe. But scientist believes otherwise, recently I read how scientist discovered BLACK MATTER, which is matter that almost never collides with an atom or other matter.
ManSuave 4 years ago
Yeah, do you read "New Scientist"? I believe you would find it quite interesting in this matter. I watched a documentary on "BLACK MATTER" a short time ago. All I can say is, its awsome...
TubeMan50 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vary well said brother, God Bless you!
Here is a video you might like.
w w . youtube . com / watch ?v = Bhmn JrNA23 s
Add a W and remove the spaces.
motoruler 4 years ago
Very interesting trying to see someone who believes in a deity trying to be rational. When I was young (now 21 and moving forward) I tried like hell to justify it's existence but turned up no evidence. I followed that. I realized the god idea is full of fallacies. You seem to be acting the same way I did when I was young. I tried all those arguments. You should pay special attention to the comments about infinite time. They debunk you well. I would work on new theories after tossing them out.
malachitransfer 4 years ago
Hello Mark, welcome to the logical fallacy, "Non Sequitur." Just because we don't understand it now doesn't mean that it was god(s) or something similar.
Measapon 4 years ago
It is also illogical to assume that science can answer everything. Scientists should do all they can to find a physical and natural cause for something... that is their job, but should we make the assumption like cultures of lore that there is only one possible answer? Science has it's limits, it is not the answer for everything.
G40BikeClub 4 years ago
I meant, cultures of yore... not lore. I suppose both could make sense in a way...
G40BikeClub 4 years ago
it is also illogical to think that humans can, with their limited perception of the universe, comprehend the workings of the universe.
It is like trying to look at the world through the eyes of microscopic organisms, it is limited and built upon the immediate surroundings of the said organism. All of our "theories" stem from understandings that we come up with BASED on our perception of the world, which, as I have said previously, is tremendously limited.
xJosebx 2 years ago
That is precisely why we use technology to change our perception, thus giving us a better understanding of of the universe. We can't see everything with our own eyes but we sure can make a machine do it for us. You don't yet know what technology is capable of, so it is illogical to assume we wont be able to comprehend the universe that said, we may fail.
Measapon 2 years ago
hm, that's an interesting perspective. My view was "it is pointless to try and understand" and your view is "we can use a machine to try and understand but it may or may not work".
Am I right? If I am correct, in the end we cannot be sure of anything. If we are not sure of it, it is only speculation which is, in turn, not an understanding it all. Also, technology is created based on human theory and thought so it is limited by those parameters. If we cannot conceive it, we cannot create it.
xJosebx 2 years ago
awesome...
mmakram 4 years ago
genius
ItalianSafety 4 years ago
You ask a lot of questions that don't have answers just to confound the issues and make it appear that we have no choice but to accept a supernatural explanation. It's not the case. There's no answer to the question, "Why is there gravity?" then answer conveniently with, "God made gravity". Gravity is simply a property of matter. Matter bends space in such a way that other matter is affected. You might as well ask why is grass green and then answer, "God made green".
iconoclastic23 4 years ago
I just realized how awkwardly I phrased the preceding comment. What I meant to say is there's no answer to the question, "Why is there gravity?" because gravity is just a property of matter, in the same way that green is a property of chlorophyll. Putting forth questions with no answers, then plugging in your favorite deity as the only plausible answer, explains absolutely nothing.
iconoclastic23 4 years ago
Your dichotomy about time (either it is consecutive or eternal) ignores the possibility of the consecutive to branch or even traverse backward. You are assuming that time is a constant, which relativity holds not to be true.
socratesone 4 years ago
If we cannot know how the rules governing the universe came into existence, how is it a logical conclusion to assert a consciousness -- an "infinite being" as you put it -- as the creator of the universe.
I would understand that explanation if it were presented as a mythological answer, but otherwise I don't see how you can come to that conclusion based on actual evidence.
Vinifera7 4 years ago
Of course it's "mythological" as you put it. Or, as I would say, non-scientific. It is more logical to answer an inherently non-scientific question with a non-scientific explanation. Just because something is non-scientific does not mean that it is anti-scientific. Believers have faith in the supernatural AND science and experience... etc. Are you asserting that a person can ONLY have faith in science?
G40BikeClub 4 years ago
No, I am not asserting that. I AM asserting that supernatural explanations cannot be used as proof, nor are they exempt from rational thought.
I wouldn't have a problem with religion if theists accually accepted their dogma for what it is: it is based on a MYTH. I have a problem with theists claiming that faith is equivalent to fact.
Vinifera7 4 years ago
I think its still a leap to think that it was a being that caused the transition between the two times states that you mentioned. I'm sure similar leaps were made to explain other unknowns.
VietN123 4 years ago
Oh, and thanks for all the nice things said about my fish tank.
Aleetheis 4 years ago
Thanks so much for all the great comments. I will try and respond soon.
Aleetheis 4 years ago
1) I like your fish.
2) What you have is a hypothesis, theorem are supported by empirical evidence ;)
dkeough722 4 years ago
3) Temporal Mechanics are confusing. Humans can only move in four dimensions, ergo thinking in five is tricky. Why, exactly, can the universe not be infinitely old? At first glance the idea seems logically impossible until you realize you're thinking too small, since we can only travel forward in time it appears to streatch on infinitely forward, but we can't go backwards so time started somewhere. (at your birth, but I digress)
dkeough722 4 years ago
an infinite number of moments could infact lead to this one. it's called a loop. i'm not saying that that is indeed the case, only pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.
stickhorse1134 4 years ago
And all you're doing is positing a series of insurmountable problems and then claiming that your magical explanation is the only exception to those rules. If there cannot exist an infinite number of moments to this one, then an "eternal" being could never have suddenly made the decision to begin creation, because there would have to have been an infinite number of moments prior to that decision that could not have been traversed.
iconoclastic23 4 years ago
"I don't have the luxury of experiencing the transition of time, space, and matter from nothing."
Who says there was such a transition? Why do you leap to the conclusion that "nothing" is the default state that must be transitioned from?
iconoclastic23 4 years ago
time is really in our heads, its just a measurement.
chaostra 4 years ago
Mark, "moment" is a human concept; look for "Planck time". The premise that an infinite number of moments cannot be traversed is false because Max Planck has shown time to be granular. So the false dichotomy of the "only two options" (3:20 in your video) you state is not valid.
Nice aquarium in the background.
leporidus 4 years ago
"Moments" imply granularity as well. He was saying if the universe had lasted for ever it would be impossible for now to be reached, because an infinite amount of time would have to be traversed. The reason why he is wrong is because time did not exist before the universe existed. (we think) This is because time and space are fundamental parts of our universe, if there was no space, there would be no time. "Before" the universe is akin to saying south of the south pole.
enclave2k1 4 years ago 3
Agreed. I like your south pole analogy. What I meant was Aleetheis' notion of infinitesimal "moments" (dt = 0) vs. the shorted span of time discernable (dt >= 5.4e-44 s, aka Planck time).
So, time began 8e60 Planck "moments" ago, assuming the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Infinity is not a factor here.
leporidus 4 years ago
Ahh I see what you're saying. I did not think of moments as change in time as you are describing. Your point stands.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
Hi Mark,
When I was a Christian I used to think that God existed forever. Do you hold this belief, and if so then how can it be that God managed to traverse all that infinite amount of consecutive moments in order to get to creation?
Cheers.
corridorofpower 4 years ago
Alternatively, if the universe was caused by something in the "eternal now", as you call it, how can we be sure that this original uncaused cause was a being, a deity, rather than some other metaphysical law that governs the universe manifold?
corridorofpower 4 years ago
Your cosmological argument can not apply. We know time and space are fundamentally codependent (or believe with a high degree of confidence based on evidence*) from the theory of general relativity. We also know that time and space had a beginning(*) from the Big bang theory.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
To assert there must be a creator because the universe needs a first cause assumes that time always existed as it does now. Based on current scientific understanding of the universe, this is not the case. "Before" the universe makes no sense, there was not time until the universe was created.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
So, the universe could be its own first cause, or some other naturalistic phenomena as g0at originally states due to the non-existence of time/space 'before' the universe. But, the idea of God is not on a level playing field because you are making an additional assumtion.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
Occam's Razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. You need to show a need for God to be there and not just assert it.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
Because at the end of the video you make this assertion you commit a logical fallacy known as Argument for ignorance. In this setting its commonly known as the Transcendentalist argument. God is required to create the universe because the alternative is not conceivable. This reasoning does not make the claim true however, thus the fallacy is commited.
enclave2k1 4 years ago
That all said, I enjoyed your video. I like to see those who are willing to think things out rationally. I await your counter argument for the points brought up in the comments. Thanks.
enclave2k1 4 years ago