Quantum Theory Landscape - Cosmological Argument

[PeaceWithTheseEyes]

In "With These Eyes" a young woman is faced with the wrath of industry when she is about to discover the secret behind Quantum Power, a real, sustainable green energy source.

[EXALTEDDIRT]

Absolutely brilliant!!!

[Typho0n86]

Yeah i like the theory that the universe is infinite in space and time, the universe being finite doesnt make sense to me.

[notjam3]

Land Scape or "Scape Goat" ?

feeble minds of men always try to maintain our "arrogance" and to never "humble" ourselves to "something more powerful and bigger and more important" than man. , mostly this is just the ego of man refusing to relinquish our arrogance.

LandScape or Scape Goat?

[TheBhamFreePress]

I don't understand the idea of cherry picking scientific explanations to reject the idea of scientific explanations.

[gupsphoo]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is an argument for DEISM. As an atheist, I have no problem at all with deists.

[MrAfroDizzy]

Clearly no understanding on how SCIENTIFIC THEORIES work.

You cant just say something without backing it up with the appropriate evidence.

[blackplatypus]

This is not to say that there's sufficient reason to believe this is how the universe DID come into being. (if I'm not mistaken, contemporary physics has moved away from there being a singularity at T=0)

I could get into ekpyrotic universes or brane inflation but, not being a string theorist, the best I can do is assure you that there's no evil atheist conspiracy to remove your god ("god did it" isn't an explanation anyway) String theory arises from a real attempt to unify relativity and QM

[blackplatypus]

erm... ok, firstly, you keep calling it a "faith" position... don't you think faith is a good thing?

Now, on to the science. Quantum mechanics works. Sorry, but it does. If you'd assert that this is "faith" then I'd ask for you to step away from your computer.

Now, given that the universe is a zero-sum energy entity (because of the effects of the cosmological constant and dark matter, the universe can have a net energy of zero) the universe can easily come from nothing. Zero energy is required

[cephoras]

Why is it, I wonder, do we still believe that the tools and knowledge we have assembled at this point as a species are sufficient to explain or calibrate the phenomenon of our existence and being?

[DonSSanders]

Reality is NOT subject to your credulity Sir!

[gregrutz]

All space, time, matter, energy......... only 2> space-time and matter = energy

In quantum mechanics, things do appear out of nothing.

Sorry if science does not use 'god'.

[covellz]

Hence the reason I dropped out of school and went on a spiritual quest ever since.

Science is too much of a cultural and socialization filter to those of us who want to REALLY EVOLVE.

Living Loving Light,

Zack Covell @covellz

(Astoria, Oregon)

[Hufflewaffle]

Yes you are scoffed at for one reason: Your faith does not produce anything. It just sits there in all its impotent passive laziness and does nothing. Theories have to actually fight for their respect. They have to quite literally 'prove' themselves. Don't mistake faith with 'theory' and don't take scientific theories so personally. They aren't dreamed up by militant atheists out to attack you, they are proposed by normal human beings just trying to figure out the objective universe.

[SuperSharko]

tEST



[CellaDaur]

ur an idiot, quantum theory has more evidence than u pointed out, dont come on youtube talking about quantum theory and preaching how its faith based, you know nothing, do you have a degree? no. and i would appriciate it if you would just continue rapping babies you catholic loving faggot, u sir, are the douchebag of the day

[drcraigvideos]

It's sad but there are gullible youtube atheists who think the conservation of energy argues for everlasting matter! Dr. Craig dealt with this here: watch?v=7j7nPo5gvMA

[SuperSharko]

@drcraigvideos "argues for everlasting matter"

WRONG.... Matter and Energy are the same E=M they are interchanigible In the big bang model Symmetry breaking is when the

weak interactions violate a series of internal symmetries charge, conjugation, parity or the combination of the two providing a viable mechanism to generate the excess of matter over antimatter

With out theseour Universe would be filled with a soup of radiation and a few sparse particles

[philomypillow]

The arguement "just imaginary worlds" at least has backing with empircal methodology, when the alegedly more obvious conclusion, that there was a finite begining, is in no way obvious in the light of new backed propositions that suppose otherwise.

[philomypillow]

"but its all an imaginary world" - the evidence for it? : mathamatical elegance from M theory. If a new proposition is compelling enough to be put on the table, i'd say the more dogmatic is the one whom rejects consideration. Now its a dealing with "what metaphysics" to adopt. M theory doesn't presuppose time at the singularity, since time is proposed to exist in this other diemesion.

[arktheball]

@philomypillow But doesn M theory show us how time operates in this "other dimension" or time assumed to operate the same pan-universally?

[ferrett78]

BTW, I have to mention that I disagree with people on BOTH sides of the argument that resort to name-calling or derogatory remarks. I really enjoy a challenging debate , and I don't think there is any need for it when the person asking the questions does so in a polite and reasonable manner :-)

[ferrett78]

I'm confused at your argument. Are you saying that the concepts of infinite time and infinite space are difficult to "believe", yet the concept of a being of infinite knowledge and power is not?

[reflect7]

@ferrett78 Nope, just saying that infinite time and infinite space have been taken off the table by mainstream science. The material universe and time dimension in which we live is finite. So, what caused the beginning of this finite space-time continuum from nothingness? Itself? or something else? That's my question...

[ferrett78]

@reflect7 Well yes, the space-time continuum for our universe is now believed to be finite, although as far as I'm aware (I'm not a physicist) many of the hypotheses that attempt to explain where our universe came from still utilize infinite time or space. For example, the big bang etc are all part of a larger process where universes like ours are born, exist, then "die", or co-exist side-by-side nested in some higher dimension (depending on the hypothesis).

[gregrutz]

@reflect7 So if science said God made the universe and fine tuned it for life, then you would accept evolution? Why not, God fine tuned it for life to happen.

[blackplatypus]

@reflect7

"So, what caused the beginning of this finite space-time continuum from nothingness?"

erm... I'm sorry... did you just ask about the state of the universe before time?

You're aware that under your cosmological model, time always existed right? At any given point in time, time exists. There are no valid coordinates in which there is no spacetime.

To talk about before time is akin to talking about what's north of the north pole. nonsensical in the highest degree.

[raponte1955]

@blackplatypus Nope, you are wrong. Under this cosmological model, time was created at the same time energy and matter was created. But furthermore, "big-bangers" also accept creation of time at T=0. So you are kind of confused, I guess.

[blackplatypus]

@raponte1955

"Under this cosmological model, time was created at the same time energy and matter was created."

ie. the beginning of time. Meaning always. At all given times; time exists and so does energy. It makes NO SENSE to talk about a time when there was no time.

"furthermore, "big-bangers" also accept creation of time at T=0."

False. You clearly are not familiar with the Hartle-Hawking state and the no-boundary proposal. I doubt you're in a position to speak for physicists.

[raponte1955]

@blackplatypus Of course I am familiar with the Hartle-Hawking model, and as far as I know all they were trying to do was to escape the beggining of a universe and the beggining of time, just to avoid the need of creator. They appealed to quantum mechanics and invoked quantum tunneling at second 10 ^ -43 of Big Bang, in order to avoid the general relativity implications of the beggining of the universe and time. He had to rely on an imaginary time scale, which is a total nonsense.

[raponte1955]

@blackplatypus But anyway your argument ref. Hartle-Hawking is a logical fallacy because it implies all physicists agree to this interpretation, which is not true. Most still agree on the singularity, and the implications of general relativity that the universe had a beggining, which of course includes - like ir or not - the beggining of time. God was acting before the beggining of time and He is not confined to it. It was this implication that Hartle and Hawking were trying to avoid.

[blackplatypus]

@raponte1955

"God was acting before the beggining of time"

Can you please tell me what you think the word "before" means?

[blackplatypus]

@raponte1955

General relativity must break down at times less than the Planck time. Hence general relativity cannot be used to show a singularity. You might be unfamiliar with this little problem in the physics community. You know... unifying relativity and quantum mechanics.

Hawking himself outright state's that the math's doesn't show a singularity in the early universe on page 50 of A Brief History of Time.

"Most still agree on the singularity"

[citation needed]

[raponte1955]

@blackplatypus With all due respect, you seem to be somehow arrogant as once again you underestimate me with the obvious prejudice that christians doesn't know any science. Of course I understand the physics issue of the need of reconciling classical physics as represented by newtonian physics/general relativity and quantum mechanics. String theory seems to be the most likely unifying candidate, although it seems to be losing its edge lately.

[blackplatypus]

@raponte1955

"again you underestimate me with the obvious prejudice that christians doesn't know any science."

Notice how I described as a little problem and acted like it something most people wouldn't have heard of although everyone knows it? It's this rhetorical technique called mockery... which different to underestimation. Oh look I'm doing it again.

"reconciling classical physics as represented by newtonian physics/general relativity and quantum mechanics."

...Relativity isn't newtonian

[raponte1955]

@blackplatypus So when your initial attack fails, then you say it was mockery..yeah, right!

"...Relativity isn't newtonian" ...Now I am the one questioning your basic knowledge of physics.  "General relativity generalises special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. " (Wikipedia). Therefore, Einstein's work is constructed upon the foundations of Newton's law of gravity.

[blackplatypus]

@raponte1955

>you seem to be unfamiliar to the fact that time seems to cease at the smallest level of quanta particles.

Time doesn't cease on planck scales. Things still move... it just makes no experimental sense to talk about shorter times/places because understood rules do not apply.

What exactly does any of this do with your argument that the universe started with a singularity though? Or are you conceding that? Also, you still haven't explained what "before" means without time.

[raponte1955]

@blackplatypus Precisely because there's still a lot we don't know about the quantum mechanics world, where the classical physics rules don't apply, is that I point out on the possibility of time ceasing or not existing. Anyway, the Hartle-Hawking model is not possible because quantum tunneling at 10^-43 sec. still needed and observer in order to occur...unless you are conceding that God was the observer.

[raponte1955]

@blackplatypus "Also, you still haven't explained what "before" means without time." Again, God is not subject or confined to the time dimension. Of course you would say it's the ultimate cop-out until you realize God created the rules.

[raponte1955]

@blackplatypus Cont/...Quantum mechanics: you seem to be unfamiliar to the fact that time seems to cease at the smallest level of quanta particles. Actually QM seems to prove that a lot of things which we do not understand now because of our classic interpretation of the material world, really have a scientific explanation. Time should not be confined to an ordinal scale, there's much more to it that we don't know.

[TheoriginalGrumphy]

@reflect7 Isnt it just a matter of defenition. What comes first, is there a god. Did god come first if he is etc etc. If there is a god, does he chose violent believers over peacefull nonbeleivers?..If the bible is somewhat true, god gave us our own destiniy.

And with that all possibilitys. If the truth consist's of god, man ''and women hehe'' will b there at somepoint. And who benefits from eternal hell? God? I think god isnt a crackpot idea, but some of the bible is, just like the koran.

[TavishHill]

@reflect7 If infinte time is off the table, then you don't have any grounds to inquire about what happened 'before' the temporal dimension existed. It's a misnomer. Also, some words of advice, you don't simply go off and 'look into the science behind' modern cosmology. This isn't merely some sort of journalistic endeavor. To have any meaningful understanding of the subjects relevant to the type of discussion you want requires years of relentless study in this particular field.

[bluefish704]

@ferrett78 There is no such thing as infinite knowledge. An all-knowing being knows all things. If there are 100 things that compose reality and this being knows each one of them, then you have an all-knowing being with finite knowledge. Since the universe is finite, so is God's knowledge.

[arktheball]

@bluefish704 I guess if you are saying that the infinite knowledge is defined as an actual infinite, then I would agree with you. But it isnt according to the bible atleast. Gods knowledge is maximal. So that means at any givin point anything that can be known, and since humans are here that is constantly variable, must be known to said being. It is a potential infinite and nothing more.

[bluefish704]

@arktheball You mean that the potential of God's knowledge is infinite but the knowledge He has is finite? Hmm... I guess you're right. You can imagine it as a screwdriver. One screwdriver can be used for an infinite amound of screws, but since there isn't an infinite amount of screws, it can be used for just as many screws as there are in the world. Good point!

[arktheball]

@bluefish704 i love that analogy XD

[bluefish704]

@arktheball The one with the bachelor or the screwdriver??

[bluefish704]

@ferrett78 And it goes the same with power.

[arktheball]

@bluefish704 As to power I would again require a distinction between actual and potential. Also here, there is the added requirement of logic. If the task in question is logically possible, then the maximally powerful being must be able to preform it. An example of an illogical task is: Can an all-powerful being make something it cant lift? A logical question would be: Can an all powerful being make the universe? That brings something to the table where the first question doesnt. Thanks :)

[bluefish704]

@arktheball Yes, I believe it's fundemental for one to know that by all-powerfull we mean that He can do all things. But, as Craig says, a married bachelor isn't a thing. It cancels it's own existance, so it is incoherent as a challenge to God.

[greycloud24]

do we all agree that virtual particles appear and disapear spontaniously and without "cause"? i mean, we know it does. just because you are ignorant of the facts does not mean that science does not advance without you.

[arktheball]

@greycloud24 Virtual particles are... .virtual.... And I may be incorrect but as they "wink out of existence" they appear elswhere as a function of conservation of energy.

[greycloud24]

@arktheball they do reapear as the energy is already redistributed. say i seperate two objects. virtual particles are springing up between them, but if i stop seperating them the virtual particles that are in effect for this transfer of energy cease, as the two objects are now apart and holding potential energy. but not all virtual particles that pop into existance require the interaction of other particles. this has effects on space and spacial curvature.

[RaubeeTM]

great argument and i do see hypocrisy and selective unfair treatment on theist

[mrgetrealpeople]

The faith as you describe it, are understood laws that govern to way the computer processor works that allow you to watch this video on your computer...... I have never seen a sky daddy in the sky who talks in a thunderous booming voice have you? By the way that looks like 1,200 John Edwards haircut..... how much money did you make last pandering to old ladies and fools?

[hdregmore]

He is correct, string theory and similar theories requires a lot more faith than a creator. However atheists refuse to accept it.

[qtronman]

Came into being from what? Nothingness?

[SophistAtheist]

yes... it came from nothing. Nothing creates something that is in quantum physics.

[itzahazylife]

@SophistAtheist

i don't agree. we know it comes from somewhere. it could be nothingness,or it could be somewhere, as of now, it seems to be nothing, but, it could be somewhere. as of now, there's really no way to know.

[SophistAtheist]

@itzahazylife yet coming from nothing is still a posibility, and it's more likely to be the case than a being that appeared out of nowhere/always existed same crap.

[itzahazylife]

@SophistAtheist

well i don't agree that, if it doesn't come from nothing, it must come from a magical being..it could just be somewhere else that we are unaware of.

[BipedalHumanoid]

Wrong. The chemical elements did not all come into being in one event. All of the heavy elements were created inside stars long after the universe began.

Science doesn't say anything about how the big bang started or where the matter/energy/space/time came from other than it originated from an infinitely dense point in space.

There are scientists and philosophers who postulate a multiverse and processes where new universes can be 'born' from existing universes... so again WRONG.

[S1L3nCe]

You don't need to believe anything. Empiricism is the only requirement to understand life.

[S1L3nCe]

There is no time man... that is just a concept in our minds. There is on only NOW and "the now" is infinite.

[GODandPEACE]

Randall

I have to admit that the concept of god was a revolution in human thinking for the caveman, but in the 21st century it is only keeping people stupid and charlatans like you well provided for.

The scientists are only concerned with understanding nature and when they put forward a theory to explain the universe they don't call it the "gospel", if it fails they come up with a better one and so on, so just relax because there will always be enough simpletons for you to prey on.

[Dengydoo]

One point you got partially right:

If you do mention Intelligent Design in a solid debate where people that know the difference between a "faith statement" and a hypothesis, we will probably place you with the people that believe in flying teapots... You can obviously read, but the theological filter in your glasses are obvious to us all and if anything, it's re-igniting my spark to fight for science

[nbixel]

This guy is trying very very hard to create an argument made up of recognizable subject matter - however - like a well conceived lie, the words chosen and the combination of similar context of the argument is jumbled almost to the point of crazy talk. You ever hear crazy people talking - this is very close to that. The listen almost is straining to figure out what the sense of the lecture is - tying the chaos together in his lecture is impossible.

[MeDammitt]

So what's the big deal Randall? Big Bang, Big Guy, or Infinity, all are unknown, all require faith.

Delete all faith, and the only "thing" that exists is NOW, and guess what...

Now, "is" infinite, it never starts and never ends, it's always... just there, always.

Poof. no faith needed.

But hey, keep up your "struggle" to prove anything exists outside of now.

[99trow]

@MeDammitt,

Everything requires faith.

Ex. Why don't you drink draino?

Answer: because it is lethal

How do you know that?

I presume this conclusion is not based on prior experience. Most likely you have read the warning label or know of the scientific facts. Therefore you have faith in the warning label,etc., to not drink the substance. If no faith exists then why should you believe the warning label? You should try draino because faith doesn't exist according to you.

[99trow]

Also "Now" is finite because there is a precise beginning. Ex. it is 11:41 "Now" but what is 11:42? You can say 11:42 is "Now" but then what was 11:41? It is known at 11:42 that 11:41 was no longer "Now" because 11:42 is "Now". "Now" can't be infinite because "Now" no longer exists at 11:41 or any time prior to the current time 11:42. Something infinite must be able to occur at all times in both directions (the past and the future). "Now" only exists in the present time

[MeDammitt]

There is no precise beginning of "now" You're looking at a man made clock and base you're perception of time on the movement of a machine. Here you claim now lasts one minute.

Enlarge that clock so it reads billionths of a second, does "now" only last one billionth of a second?

Now is infinite, you have never existed in the past or future. Throughout your entire life, you have only existed during "now"

[99trow]

I agree with the "Now" statement to a certain degree however I haven't existed only during "now". For I have existed in the past and can logical connect the past to a certain point. The certain point is time. The beginning is your birth, the beginning of something finite. The finite can create the finite but eventually you will have to reach an infinite for there can't be an infinite regression of the finite since you could never reach the beginning of the regression.

[MeDammitt]

I don't need faith to keep me from drinking poison, I rely on the scientific evidence that caustic materials are harmful to human biology.

[99trow]

So you have faith in scientific evidence is what you are trying to say, because lets be honest how do you personally know that the scientific evidence is 100% correct. Have you done the experiments and know for certain that the tests were not flawed in anyway. You do know that in the past some scientific laws have been confirmed to be no longer 100% factual information and once that occurs they become a scientific theory. Facts or theories aside you will have to have faith regardless.

[MeDammitt]

The difference between a scientist and a theist, is the scientists can accept it, if the answer is wrong.

I got faith, I got just enough to keep me from believing in myths, that's all.

[arktheball]

@MeDammitt I do believe your definition of faith and 99's are different. By faith it seems 99trow is trying to convey a sense of trust. Where as you seem to be equating it with lemings.

[Dutchdrummer99]

This video is BS. Scientists produce hypothesis for potential fields to investigate. There is no faith involved. Science does not claim to know any of the hypothesis are true. Faith is completely opposite. Faith assumes something as true to begin with. Comparing these true is a nice straw man but not worth a youtube video. E.G. With instruments like the Large Hadron Collider more answers will be produced proving certain hypothesis true and others false. This is why science needs hypothesis.

[Dutchdrummer99]

Second. By producing hypothesis and even mathematically correct theories science can investigate potentials. If the great explorer Magellan never hypothesized about a spherical earth, he would never have taken the first trip to circumnavigate our planet. Hypothesis are a necessity. Otherwise science could only progress on accidental discoveries. Meaning we wouldn`t have an Internet or Computers to begin with.

[TheEdge012]

I often ask atheist's why the idea of having a creator is such an offensive notion given that many admit that (a) they really don't know how everything came to be and (b) they often admit that their theories take as much faith as it does to believe in God if not more.

[brainouty]

Agreed, Edge. It doesn't matter whether we propose a beginning, or an always-existing set of universes: the question remains.. HOW DID IT GET HERE?

Even if always-existing, it's FINITE. Finity depends on true infinity -- which is a stasis, not infinite recurrence -- to be stable. Else you & I couldn't exist.

So that means "God", no matter how one slices and dices the data. Even evolution demands a Creator, as it's a cause-and-effect construct. So points to an Ultimate Causer. Duh.

[MeDammitt]

What effected the Ultimate Causer? Duh.

What would "cause" a God to create?

And don't just say just "because" be-cause it requires a cause.

But none the less, is God inifite to you? Did he just poof into existance from non-existance? Or like an electron, which exists and does not exist at the same time?

[brainouty]

Love is why God created, MeDammitt. Says that in Bible a bizillion ways and a bizillion times, but the fastest way to see the 'cause' is in Ephesians 1. Every Bible mistranslates that chapter, but not so badly you can't see Love is the Sovereign Motive of Creation.