You say in your description that the universe being eternal is off the table. In actual fact, the idea of the universe not being eternal is off the table, because of simple laws like what goes up must come down, every effect has a cause, and every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Causality means that either God created the universe, or it was always there, and I believe in the big crunch theory.
Another oversimplification other than on the big bang and the nature of nothing is about the supernatural explanation. As the supernatural has little limits as we know nothing about it it could provide nearly endless explanations for things like the big bang. Just one form of billions upon billions of supernatural explanations would be a God. But off course you default to the God hypotheses because that is what the entire argument is all about, defaulting to God without any valid explanation.
You should not just look at the pages for children on the scientific sites. They only give the simplest summary/introduction possible for the big bang.
You oversimplify by the way you talk about nothing. Absolute nothing does not and cannot exist with or without God. Nothing refers to what does not exist. Could nothing have existed? No, because that would be a contradiction. Nothing is not the proper way of thinking about beyond the big bang.
We have 3 sources of Universe big bang , vacuum and God Which right About God Action when God compressed all Universe into his palm, we named –- singular point Action when God opened his palm we named - Big Bang About vacuum Dirac wrote The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion, is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description of something more complex?
Actually, you don't really undestand. No theory is ever "put off the table" by science for ever. For example, the vacuum could have existed forever, until the vacuum flucuation happened, for no reason at all.
why put a supernatural being in the equation? I don't get it. just because you believe in it it must be there?, put it there if you have some proof otherwise why?
I am trying not to be critical of others. You are entitled to your opinion. You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. You apparently think you know something. That is your agenda and your acting is very good. Randall you are only just talking. You have no information. But everyone needs a job and your ego has one. You would be more impressive if you could show some evidence instead of repeating what others have found. I apologize for wasting my time but I did find you funny to watch.
@gregrutz what is the difference in the term "singularity" as contained in the scientific conjecture of the Big Bang Theory, and "god"? If something that transcends time and space then becomes everything that is observed and not observed, not then be considering anything less than all omni potent? The singularity wasn't consciousness, but rather the force that created consciousness. That is just scientific fact? god is not "something" but is the "everything", the "singularity" you come from.
@romney27 singularity cannot be explored and understand by any scientifucal method, because there is no space-time. No physical world as we know it. So it can be only subject of our consciousness to be understood and yes....it can be Pure Consciousness.
@gregrutz Hahahah, give me a diffinition of nothing? You need to read some more my answer to your wrong question.
And that "they" (I don't know who are they, maybe some mystic beings in your mind) know something that is not observable. Assumption - yes. We all have them. We are all believers. ;-).
@gregrutz your question is wrong:-). Because you are thinking in the reality of space-time. Outside this, in this Singularity, there is no time and space, there is no need for cause. And by the way this is a subject of spirituality, because a concept about not having time-space cannot be explored by any scientifical method. Only by consciousness.
@gregrutz there being a reason or not doesn't cancel out the observed fact that it does exist. Besides if there is no reason, then anything goes because there is nothing to say it's wrong. no points from the "reason fairy" for being such a good non believer...lo atheism is pointless considering that "not" believing in a supposed non existent god would be such a wast of time by your own admittance... that would make the "joke" on you.
Why not blend 2 and 3?That's the route most physicists who happen to be theists do. It's just Descartes cosmological argument with the first event being the Big Bang. The Prime Mover would then be the guy lighting the fuse that generated the Big Bang.
As for nothing, that's accurate. Oddly the universe is still (on the whole) nothing. The background is completely flat so there are equal amounts of positive and negative energy. This fits energy conservation as well when you project past the BB.
@gregrutz he didn't say anything about there being two points, he quoted the science verbatim.....and I just said "god did it" so what are you talking about? I can't say or think that? or that I sholdn't think that? if pre BB is "timeless" doesn't that count as "nothing"?
@gregrutz since when is "science" suppose to be the only kind of answer? I believe in "rock and roll" but it's not science either, does that mean it shouldn't exist? much less would I want to watch a bunch of scientist trying to rock out on a stage. If I fallow your logic then you must be anti rock too........ maybe you're getting to old.
has it occurred to your stupid ass that these particular quotes from your sources are meant to explain this to laymen. I've watch many a documentary on the science channel about the complexities of the Universe and they do not oversimplify it nearly as much as you and your quote mining
Forgive me if I 'over simplify', but this is silly logic. He says, "There is three theories." Bad grammar aside, it's his logic that really irks me. He provides 3 choices; #1 An always existing universe, bouncing around. #2 A 'Big Bang' origin, before which there was nothing. #3 God did it. He then states that #1 and #2 are arguing with eachother. So #3 must be the default solution. He doesn't care if there is no evidence of #3. #1 and #2 would love to see something. Anything.
Just curious...what do you speculate might be the way in which we'll acquire an understanding of that beyond our universe? If the concept of "beyond", which we know from within our universe, can even be attributed to ____?
{natural processes may have been involved}
Hey, there it is! I knew that when reading the words of an atheist evolutionist, it wouldn't be
too long before "Tautology" would pop up somewhere. It usually does. You guys can't help it. It seems to be an inherent survival trait from the accumulated, exceedingly large compilation of the defects known as "mutations"
Its understandable, one can see how going around in circles can secure the possession of female Apes within that circle
Lets see if a merely created, human mind can get a grip (2 hands only) on the exceptional "scientific" thinking from a biologically evolved, immaterial
mind, comprised purely of mutation defects. Here it goes... since "nature" is the universe, I'll substitute "natural processes" with universe. The universe was caused by itself. Thus, the causation has the effect of the effectively causative effect
Thats heavy man! So that's what logic feels like?
Strange world we live in... an intelligent creator needs a creator. But an unintelligent universe can cause itself. I think I'm getting a hang of this logic thing
How can it refute the argument? Reflect7 was too late. There wasn't any argument left over after it refuted itself. Thats because that's the naturally natural nature of its naturally naturalistic functions... plus logic too = *
(stating only that it is not apparent}
It's non apparent appearance is all that was left of it. Thus, thats all that could be stated
Here's a theory: there is a greater system of universes that inhabit a two dimensional membrane that have fluctuating positions along the plane at any instant. The confluence of any two membranes provides the energy needed for a new universe and so the encapsulated energy is released expanding space and time when there is no longer a union between the two membranes.
Just an idea. Is it practical or even useful? Don't know. Is it true? Maybe.
It takes an enormous amount of effort and investment to become a properly trained scientist. That does not excuse anyone from understanding the trivial basics of science.
If you do not understand what a point particle singularity is than how can you argue against the theory? Do you even understand what quantum-gravity might implicate? What is gravitational lensing or blackbody radiation?
It is very difficult to teach someone calculus if they don't even have a trivial understanding of numeracy.
Science is a logical rational study of facts that will evenetually lead the student to see a loving magnificent creation that can not be a coincedence.
We are an espression of this love as is our cosmos... the more one digs deep into scienticfic study he sees the elegance and beauty of a loving artistic intellegent creation thoughout the macro and micro cosmos.
I am really turned off by religion but have realized and seen Gods love and science everywhere. Science will lead one to God.
In your clean heart that sincerily asks the queations "how and why" lays the answers that will be revealed to you when your time comes...
no need to choose between God or science.
God is the greatest scientist,
his technology and is artistry is beyond our present reasoning but still spitually tappable because everything everywhere is interconnected through "the common essence" which is Gods love.
No, Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (No mention of 'from nothing'.)
Yes, you are over-simplifying. The universe expanded from an extremely hot and dense state. and 13 or so billion years later, he we are. Not 6 days and 6, 000 years
I'll have to take your word for it - I can't find a Hebrew English dictionary which translates bara as 'to create from nothing.'
If the pre-big bang universe lacked the dimensions of spacetime then saying it came from 'nothing' is in some ways accurate. But as it is believed to have had density and temperature, it is a simplification.
@romney27 I don't think so.... but there are other hypotheses. One of the many string theories postulates 2 multi-dimensional strings colliding - but both obviously existed before our universe. One of the quantumn theories is that the universe literally did appear from 'nothing' (watch: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009), and of course we could all be living in the Matrix. However one looks at it, Genesis does not describe the origin of the universe (or Earth) accurately.
@Gorteenminogue the interesting is that in most ancient texts God create the universe not from nothing, but He transform Himself into the existing matter.
@Gorteenminogue Gen. 1:1 is not the only biblical statement on creation. Romans 4:17 says that God is the God "... who calls the things not being into being."
errrrm this video explained nothing about anything... Its just the same old "Science cannot explain it, I cant explain it therefore god did it." I am growing tired of this... the very fact that you went on the internet for your sources tells me that you are grossly uninformed.
Part of the problem is that you are grossly over-simplifying the scientific positions and theories.
Also, you are using a lot of outdated resources. NASA's own WMAP probe set the age of the universe at around 13.72 billion years (with a 1% margin of error) several years ago. No one says 10-20 billion years anymore unless the site is woefully out of date.
Science is not made using common sense. Otherwise we would never have discovered quantum mechanics which is extremely counter intuitive. If you think you can compensate your lack of knowledge with a lot of enthusiasm, you are dead wrong ...
But you interpret the scientific evidence with reason, logic, and common sense. If the cosmos is the result of cosmic chance, and everything we see is the byproduct of matter acting on matter over time, then how can you trust the reason, logic, and common sense inherent in your matter-only brain? What is reason in an accidental, materialistic, naturalistic, deterministic universe? How can you trust your common sense interpretation of the evidence any more than jello and a sandwich...?
Without deep understanding of cosmology, your common sense interpretations of the origin of the universe go no deeper than the mythological ones, where the Earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise.
I myself dont have such a level of expertise, and that is the reason I trust the most trained and intelligent people that have worked on the subject. The fact that they still havent got answers to all questions doesnt mean that I can fill in the gaps with my imagination and common sense.
Common sense has had an amazing history of often being completely wrong.
Your quandaries on transcendental truth are meaningless on a practical sense and science is meant to temper human understanding to adhere to the observable phenomena of the universe.
As the previous commenter noted, quantum mechanics is fairly counter intuitive.
How can you validate the imagination of your specified supernatural creator is true and not the opposed imaginary supernatural being of another?
{Your quandaries are meaningless on a practical sense}
When the question at hand is the source of the entirety of existence... or the source of all reality. How exactly does one get "practical" into that picture?
{science is meant to temper human understanding to adhere to the observable phenomena of the universe}
Thank you for that revelation. We theists will be certain to make use of it when applicable. However, when attempting to determine the source of things such as
observable, phenomena & universe, aside from a few other contents of the universe, then things such as observable, phenomena & universe are rendered quite irrelevant. BTW, "irrelevant" is yet another thing known from only within our universe
It's not that difficult of a mental function, really. When contemplating the source of the universe, simply try to remember that also included, are all the things from within the universe
{How can you validate your creator is true & not another's creator?
Firstly, from your grammar, you pitted the imagination of reflect7's God against an imaginary creator of another. That would be easy to answer
Secondly, the subject of this video is regarding the "infinite" status of time & space. Thus, the subject of God is merely its resultant implication. Therefor, considering the question at hand, where is the practicality in pitting one god against another?
"common sense" may have an amazing history, but lack of sense has an even more amazing history
{Your quandaries on transcendental truth are meaningless on a practical sense}
Well... in case you haven't noticed, "quandaries on transcendental truth" were not invented for their practicality. Especially when you're not considering actual practicality, but merely a "sense" of it
@reflect7, Why dont u ask these questions to a scientist, the most basic philosophy in science - im paraphrasing but everything has a cause does it not? If matter is so intelligent to evolve then how are we able to subdue it when matter its self must be God since its the reason for life. but matter in itself has a lifespan, just like everything else so there is only one reason left if matter has an end then it must have a beginning....
Usually when you get loads of emails saying you don't understand the topic there's some element of truth to it.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Lets say that all our established and highly scrutinized theories that haven't been debunked after a few decades are false, entirely false. Then Scientists say "We don't know".
How does this IN ANY WAY prove God? Let alone the Christian, let alone the Catholic, let alone the Generic Roman Catholic God?
Ok my hypothesis of how the univers came to be is this. A black hole tore the space time fabric of another universal expance thus creating a new space time.
since black holes have more gravity, it would have condenced all the matter, energy, and light down to the size of a pin point, or somthing like that. Once there was enough material in this point it would expand at a rate beyond the speed of light to create the univers as we know it.
Depends on what you mean by gravity. Think of it like a glass of water.
2 glasses with 500ml in them, but one is twice as wide. The wider one will have a smaller height of water, but there's still the same amount of water there.
Similarly, a black hole simply has an taller glass than a star of similar mass. 1/r^2. Because it's more dense the gravity has a greater effect on objects closer to it.
The basic idea I'm trying to get across is that there is no space around the singularity. 'Outside of' or 'beyond' the singularity simply doesn't exist (neither does 'before,' but that's another problem). It's a difficult concept to wrap your head around, and a lot of people miss it.
Not really. I'm just a kiln fireman -- I bake bricks for a living. I'm a computer geek on the side, and I like keeping up with science, but it's just a hobby.
Let me see if I can make this simple enough for everybody to understand. If the big bang created space, then space could not have existed before the big bang, which means there's no vacuum in which vacuum fluctuations can take place in order to create the singularity, which then explodes and creates space. I think it's time for the boys and girls at Berkley to go back to the drawing board.
Isn't space required for a vacuum fluctuation to take place? If so, then how can a vacuum fluctuation produce a singularity before there was any space?
I'd assume that they mean quantum vacuum and not you're regular one.
Of course, this is what happens when you have someone going "OHAI - I'm not a scientist!" and then trying to explain science by shrugging it off as "philosophy" because y'know, Stephen Hawking and the ilk don't use any of their fancy degrees to work stuff out - they just sit around and chat a bit about it.
Even a quantum vacuum requires empty space to exist, and there was no space until the singularity exploded. Your solution still leaves us with a chicken and egg problem.
Not really, the current description of space ( not space-time) is the unlimited expanse in which everything is located, or, the boundless regions of the infinite, if the singularity came into existence, it had to necessarily come into existence in space, though not necessarily space-time. As soon as anything, vacuum fluctuations included, came into existence, space-time would come into existence. And that can perfectly meld with the "quantum bounce" that research has indicated.
If I did present it I would be told that it is already the accepted theory. If you read the available information ( and understood it) you would see that all I have done is present it in a way for some other people to understand it.
Cant refute so just insult with no knowledge of why I spelled it that way. Good plan. Are you going to threaten me with hell now? Or maybe tell me the bible is right because the bible says its right, therefore its got to be right. Sad and pathetic. But about what I expected from an obvious theist. You fail. Miserably, I might add. And you may have well said " I'm not going to argue with someone who has more intelligence in his shortest pubic hair then I have in my entire body."
Space is the absence of matter and energy, this seems to be an unnatural state of being for our reality. Total vacuum produces Vacuum fluctuations, which in turn produces particulate matter in its most primitive form. But I don't think you will understand what I just posted so........................................ Magic man in the sky ain't there dude. Reality is good, try it sometime.
I understand what you're saying just fine, but do you? A vacuum requires empty space to exist, and there is no empty space (in fact, there's no space at all) when the entire universe consists of a singularity.
Did a God(s) do it or did it do itself. Those are not the only two possible options. It is possible other theories might come out of observations in science that are yet to be made. Or that the answer might be so counter-intuitive that it might take thousands of years before mankind can wrap its head around it.
So your hypothesis is that the Big Bang happened for as of yet unknown reasons or somebody made it happen? For thousands of years we thought the same thing about lightning. Bolts of electricity flying though the sky for no apparent reason. So it must've been Zeus. You can't just swap out God or whatever creator name you like for every unknown. No one knows what got the expansion starting. There are several much more sound hypothesis' out there that actually use math and physics and stuff.
Check our what Dr. Kaku is theorizing about multi-universes. If we are merely one in many, that means our beginning is not so miraculous. Moreover, science is leaning most towards the cosmogony in which energy can not be created nor destroyed, it merely changes forms, its a constant, so there is no "something from nothing" beginning as you suggest.
most scientists believe in the begining being of nothing because the universe is expanding meaning it had a start they just dont know hom it started , we are not the smartest things in the universe we just try to figure out gods creations as best we can
Here's one. We are the result of a collision between high energy particles in CERN type collider in another universe. This would at least agree with brane theory.
S you have no objection to something coming from nothing, and in fact claim that your magic man did it that way. Your coreligionists will not be happy with your declaration that you have that kind of magic happening.
@reflect7, No it does not say from nothing or use the word bara saying he created it from nothing is obvious my NKJ does not say from nothing, I've looked at every english translated Bible and none of them say "from nothing" or "bara"
well, basically-- you trying to mix philosophy, mythology and science.
which is a no-no.
Because space is the absence of matter, it IS a vacuum.
Closed system vacuums pull from thecenter, since space is an open system, it has no center-that's the vacuum fluctuation-generating an energy which is trapped in the vacuum effects crunch.
since energy cannot be destroyed, it reacts outwardly as a hot gas, cooling over time.
You're silly. Everybody knows that the universe was created from the decomposing corpse of the frost giant Ymir. His brains became the clouds, his bloood the oceans and rivers, his skull the sky, his decomposing flesh the earth. The maggots that fed off his rotting flesh were turned into dwarves. I mean, C'mon! Everybody knows this. LOL
Amen brother....ima crayashonist too. i thoughts we were sapposed to blame darwin for coming up with the "origin of the universe theory", not this other "cosmolgy theory" lets stick with the program please. people are gonna think we're making this up or sum thing.
Actually philosophy is the seeking of knowledge while science is the seeking of knowledge about the natural world. Science is thus part of philosophy.
"And therefore don't think it terms of what makes sense, but what evidence and theory suggests."
There is no evidence concerning the origin of the universe. That is why many scientists actually reject cosmonogy as not being science but an other branch of philosophy. (metaphysics I would suggest)
Also: Scientists look at both: what makes sense and what the evidence suggests. If what the evidence suggests is different to what is initially seen as making sense, it then doesnt make sense anymore since it doesnt fit the evidence.
thats why they are wrong alot of the time because they are doing the best they can without being omnipotent , they dont know all information and are theorizing what may be , sometimes they get it right but mostly it is lacking
There is no "faith" in the scientific explanation. But more importantly there is no claim about a beginning. There is only a beginning of our understanding of the universe. "Infinity" has *NOT* been taken off the table. The current theories don't cover anything before the start of the big bang. That's not the same as saying it was a beginning or that there was not anything (infinite or not) before it.
Most believers are guilty of projecting modern scientific knowledge onto the bronze-age bible. It is wrong to do so.
If one takes the literal account of creation in Genesis then it is obvious that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around the earth. Don't believe me? READ IT.
In other parts of the old testament, the earth is flat, the earth & sky rest on pillars, the sky is a solid dome and has windows and doors....
(continued) Rain/Hail/Snow/Wind are kept in storage chambers in the sky, the sun and moon can be stopped in the sky, the moon shines w/ it's own light, Stars can fall to earth or be shaken via storms or earthquakes, not to mention that plants were created before the sun was created.
The story of creation and the vision of the universe as described in the Bible is 100% WRONG.
A fantasy may be popular, but popularity doesn't make the fantasy true. The bible is mythology.
Evolution is not a fantasy. In the words of a humorous scientist, "We got the fossils. We win."
There is only a problem among those individuals that demand a literal interpretation of Genesis, something which makes no sense as these people don't demand a literal interpretation in other areas of the bible.
A God must be proven to exist before any credit can be given to it. So if one could prove the existance of a God, and that this God created the universe, then yes, Science would exept it.
Christianity is approx. 2,000 years old and no Christian has been able to prove the Christian God exists. Paganism has been around since the very beginning of our species and no Pagan has been able to prove their Pagan Gods exist.
It's likely that God(s) exist only as concepts in the human mind.
Wrong. Heres the problem: u obviously don't know the scientific method. In order to perform the scientific method, something has to be observable, measurable, and repeatable. which means, u cannot prove history using the scientific method, because history is not observable, measurable, or repeatable. For u to ask for scientific methods proving the veracity of Scripture is like saying "i want u to prove scientifically George Washington was our first president."
U can't do that because his presidency is not observable, measurable, or repeatable. U dont use the scientific method in order to prove scientific events. U use the evidentory method, which is the method we use in a courtroom. Well if u apply THAT method, what do you look for? SO GLAD U ASKED. heres what u ask. 1. Do u have internal consistency in what is written? 2. Do u have corroberation in wat is written? 3. Do u have reliability in what is written?
well? let's see. 3 languages, 3 continents, 40 authors, 66 books, 1500 years! If u look up the word corroberation in the dictionary, there oughta be a picture of the Bible right next to it. Look up internal consistency! All of these authors who dont even kno each other, and they tell one story, the story of the glorious GOD redeeming mankind, in this world for His own honor and glory and Namesake. all telling the same story, in different parts, using names,dates..
They use places, so that u kno exactly who they are talking about, exactly when theyre talkin about it, and exactly where they were when they were talking about it. So the question is this: if we're lookin for internal consistency, corroberation, and reliability, is it actually the intelligent person that doubts the testiments, new and old, or is it the intelligent person who says "I choose to believe the Bible"?
I choose to believe because it is a reliable collection of historical documents
written down by eye witnesses during the life time of other eye witnesses that report supernatural events which took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim to be divine rather than human in origin. now, that's a sufficient answer to your statement(s) and whoever else had a similar mindset. Furthermore....I tried it. It definitely and positively worked for me. :-)
'The first cosmogony has been taken off the table."
Not true. Just because the universe expanded from a point doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to that expansion. In fact, many scientists (the proponents of loop quantum gravity, for example) are still arguing for that first cosmogony.
I'm with you on getting criticized for failing to understand or making it too simple. However those that make this criticism never seem to take the time to teach me the complexity I seem to be missing. Great vid bro!
Its the observable cosmos and we haven't observed it all yet. Nor have we observed what was around before what we can and can't see. Either way if a cause needs a cause what caused god?
Good stuff! Randall, have you ever read Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem? I'm meeting with a group of men from church on Friday mornings and we are going throught that whole book this year. It's excellent and thought provoking... much like your videos are. Thanks for doing what you do.
Yeah I think it's wrong to assume that God can't have created the world and the universe because it's a physical world. That seems to be a big factor for nonbelievers. God couldn't have made things so similar, it must have evolved, they seem to know what he could have and would have done awefully well to not even believe in him. Still, anyone who hasn't existed everywhere at some point in time cannot know if there is a God, so there could be one, logically, they must admit. They can try prayer.
The first one has never been taken "of the table". On the contrary; Science has many hypothesis like Multiple Universe existing besides our Own. And Universe existing before Our own. Stephen Hawking explains this with the Einstein Equation E=MC2; Meaning Either Energy or Matter existed before our Universe. Research like the Large Hadron Collider could begin to answer some of the physics. Science will however never claim these hypothesis as fact. That wouldn`t be science; that would be faith.
"Stephen Hawking explains this with the Einstein Equation E=MC2; Meaning Either Energy or Matter existed before our Universe."
Then please explain how, out of nothing, the energy or matter existed. Where did it come from? Why is it here? Where is it going to.
And please don't insult me by saying that it simply was. As nothing is the creator of nothing, it has never and will never create anything, as even the Hadron Collider itself shows. I say that, because, the Hadron Collider has a creator.
I watched your video, and, disagreed with several things which you said; however, I won't go into any of those things here. I don't think it would be of any real value.
I go back to what I said before, that's that God is the only one who understands God, and the understanding that we have of Him is that which He has given to us by revelation.
I don't know where God came from; but as I stated before, even if I did and told you, it would be impossible for me to prove it and you wouldn't believe.
Why would anyone try to worship him? How do you know what he as given to you by "revelation"? There are many conflicting claims about what god has "revealed" in many conflicting holy books. There are even many people who study the same book and come out of it with different understandings of it, all supposedly because god is impossible to understand.
However, I understand him perfectly. He's imaginary. It's very simple.
God is very possible to understand. But to understand Him, it would require you to have faith, it would require for you to seek for Him to help you to do so by faith.
All false teachings about God come from not understanding God, not understanding His Word, by His revelation. I can't explain Him to you, and you can't receive anything I that I'm saying of and about Him to you, outside of His revealing it. I can't speak, you can't understand, outside of Him.
Which one is the true teaching and which one is the "false teaching"? Both of them can't be true. Obviously, something is wrong with your understanding, which you received by "His revelation", which clearly demonstrates that "His revelation" is not a very good way to gain understanding.
But I imagine I could try to explain that to you, all day long, and it would merely be an exercise in futility. I will say this, then, I'm done here.
God is possible to understand, as I have said, only by His revealing of Himself to someone; and outside of that, they can't really understand Him at all, there's no understanding (proper understanding) of Him at all outside of Him giving it to someone. That makes both assertions true.
Yes, it appears you are done. There isn't any way that you can convince me that two completely contradictory claims are in fact compatible.
If God is the ONLY ONE who UNDERSTANDS God, then it is NOT POSSIBLE for you or I (who are NOT God) to understand him. This couldn't be simpler. However, as a Christian, you're used to making incompatible things fit, as you are able to overlook or excuse the many contradictions in the Bible.
"And please don't insult me by saying that it simply was"
*--Please don't insult me by saying that God simply was.--*
"Was" is a reference to time. Time is a created thing that we are a part of the fabric of. We can try but the fact is we cannot understand existence without any of the dimensions we are a part of. For that matter, we can't comprehend (without math) extra dimensions. Time is just a patch on an old tired shirt that's about to be thrown away. God Bless
You're already assuming that time was "created". This is different than stating time had a beginning. The answer to the question "where did time come from" is "we don't know". Simply because you can plug god into the gaps in our knowledge doesn't mean that is a good explanation. We can plug in ANY god for the same purpose, including the flying spaghetti monster. If you're going to postulate an answer, you should at least have REASONS for it, if not empirical evidence.
I will believe that nothing caused a huge explosion, by which everything came into being, when a firecracker appears out of thin air of itself and lights itself on fire thus causing itself to explode.
I will believe that nothing is the cause of everything, which I see, when I see it build itself a house; I would even believe if nothing could take all the raw materials which already exist, of itself, and do such a thing!
In other words, because nothing is creator of nothing, I stick with God!
The universe is simple than god. If you accept the fact that god can exist without any need of an explanation, why then do you need an explanation for the much simpler universe?
The existence of the universe is simpler than the existence of God in your mind? The existence of something, so complex in its design that scientists still don't understand even a part of a part of it, in your mind is simpler than the existence of one all powerful being who created all this complexity out of His own substance?
I would think the opposite were true.
And no, I can't tell you where God came from, because I'm not God! But if I was God, and I told you, you still wouldn't believe me.
"The existence of something, so complex in its design that scientists still don't understand even a part of a part of it"
Can scientists understand a part of a part of god? Can they understand ANY part of God? They can understand at least a part of the universe. You can't say the same about God.
God is forever outside of the reach of science. Our universe is not. God is sentient and intelligent. The universe is not.
Since God surrounds His creation (being outside of it), and scientists are certainly inside of it (being part of it), there's no way for them to understand God. There's no way for a man, of himself, to understand God; all we know of God we have by His unveiling of it to us.
But I don't require an explanation for God; I simply have faith that God exists! I don't need an explanation for all that God has created; but, that creation shows me He exists. It's the work, He build, that's proves He is!
Niles here is attempting to argue FOR God's existence, which assumes that the default position that a god does not exist. Here, you are assuming that god exists and using apologetics to excuse why there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it. That is a far cry from having an argument for his existence.
"creation shows me He exists. It's the work, He build, that's proves He is!"
This is circular reasoning. What shows that the universe is his "creation"?
I don't understand anything
RadiationSpreader 1 month ago
You say in your description that the universe being eternal is off the table. In actual fact, the idea of the universe not being eternal is off the table, because of simple laws like what goes up must come down, every effect has a cause, and every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Causality means that either God created the universe, or it was always there, and I believe in the big crunch theory.
SocialPromotionTips 1 month ago
Another oversimplification other than on the big bang and the nature of nothing is about the supernatural explanation. As the supernatural has little limits as we know nothing about it it could provide nearly endless explanations for things like the big bang. Just one form of billions upon billions of supernatural explanations would be a God. But off course you default to the God hypotheses because that is what the entire argument is all about, defaulting to God without any valid explanation.
killer4hire 3 months ago
Definitely oversimplifying.
You should not just look at the pages for children on the scientific sites. They only give the simplest summary/introduction possible for the big bang.
You oversimplify by the way you talk about nothing. Absolute nothing does not and cannot exist with or without God. Nothing refers to what does not exist. Could nothing have existed? No, because that would be a contradiction. Nothing is not the proper way of thinking about beyond the big bang.
killer4hire 3 months ago
Yes you are definitely not a scientist, you are officially mentaly retarded.
Typho0n86 4 months ago
socratus1 4 months ago
Actually, you don't really undestand. No theory is ever "put off the table" by science for ever. For example, the vacuum could have existed forever, until the vacuum flucuation happened, for no reason at all.
macroman52 1 year ago
why put a supernatural being in the equation? I don't get it. just because you believe in it it must be there?, put it there if you have some proof otherwise why?
dumbnetworks 1 year ago
I am trying not to be critical of others. You are entitled to your opinion. You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. You apparently think you know something. That is your agenda and your acting is very good. Randall you are only just talking. You have no information. But everyone needs a job and your ego has one. You would be more impressive if you could show some evidence instead of repeating what others have found. I apologize for wasting my time but I did find you funny to watch.
skyvilla 1 year ago
You say it came from nothing, there was an expansion of space-time. OK
Where did God come into the it? Where is there any evidence for God?
''God dun it'' is not a theory, it is a belief, a religion.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz what is the difference in the term "singularity" as contained in the scientific conjecture of the Big Bang Theory, and "god"? If something that transcends time and space then becomes everything that is observed and not observed, not then be considering anything less than all omni potent? The singularity wasn't consciousness, but rather the force that created consciousness. That is just scientific fact? god is not "something" but is the "everything", the "singularity" you come from.
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27 You are right, God made the Big Bang and everthing evolved from that point.
The universe is 13 billion years old and we are Great Apes.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@romney27 singularity cannot be explored and understand by any scientifucal method, because there is no space-time. No physical world as we know it. So it can be only subject of our consciousness to be understood and yes....it can be Pure Consciousness.
sergiomarchelli 1 year ago
@sergiomarchelli It is pure nothing. No space, no time is the beginning of time. WTF is ''Pure Consciousness''
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz Hahahah, give me a diffinition of nothing? You need to read some more my answer to your wrong question.
And that "they" (I don't know who are they, maybe some mystic beings in your mind) know something that is not observable. Assumption - yes. We all have them. We are all believers. ;-).
sergiomarchelli 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sergiomarchelli ''No physical world as we know it.''
Hahahah, give me a diffinition of nothing!
gregrutz 1 year ago
@sergiomarchelli What was the wrong question? One you can't answer.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@sergiomarchelli
Stop smoking weed
DasKrabbe 10 months ago
@DasKrabbe it is something much stronger than weed. :D
sergiomarchelli 10 months ago
@gregrutz your question is wrong:-). Because you are thinking in the reality of space-time. Outside this, in this Singularity, there is no time and space, there is no need for cause. And by the way this is a subject of spirituality, because a concept about not having time-space cannot be explored by any scientifical method. Only by consciousness.
sergiomarchelli 1 year ago
@sergiomarchelli Math breaks down at a singularity, there is not space or time.
They do know what happened .0000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang.
gregrutz 1 year ago
Does it need a reason?
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz there being a reason or not doesn't cancel out the observed fact that it does exist. Besides if there is no reason, then anything goes because there is nothing to say it's wrong. no points from the "reason fairy" for being such a good non believer...lo atheism is pointless considering that "not" believing in a supposed non existent god would be such a wast of time by your own admittance... that would make the "joke" on you.
romney27 1 year ago
Why not blend 2 and 3?That's the route most physicists who happen to be theists do. It's just Descartes cosmological argument with the first event being the Big Bang. The Prime Mover would then be the guy lighting the fuse that generated the Big Bang.
As for nothing, that's accurate. Oddly the universe is still (on the whole) nothing. The background is completely flat so there are equal amounts of positive and negative energy. This fits energy conservation as well when you project past the BB.
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Schrodinger's Suicide Experiment: watch?v=ld9ubH-12Dw
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
''God did it'' is not a theory because it is not science.
.
What you don't understand is: you need 2 points to have distance and time.
There was no time before the Big Bang Expansion.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz he didn't say anything about there being two points, he quoted the science verbatim.....and I just said "god did it" so what are you talking about? I can't say or think that? or that I sholdn't think that? if pre BB is "timeless" doesn't that count as "nothing"?
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27 Yes, you can say god dun it about anything, but it is not science and answers no real questions.
gregrutz 1 year ago
@gregrutz since when is "science" suppose to be the only kind of answer? I believe in "rock and roll" but it's not science either, does that mean it shouldn't exist? much less would I want to watch a bunch of scientist trying to rock out on a stage. If I fallow your logic then you must be anti rock too........ maybe you're getting to old.
romney27 1 year ago
has it occurred to your stupid ass that these particular quotes from your sources are meant to explain this to laymen. I've watch many a documentary on the science channel about the complexities of the Universe and they do not oversimplify it nearly as much as you and your quote mining
jimdotbeep 1 year ago
naganokumas 1 year ago
cosmic Pulse waves breathing in & out?
clnmyjts 1 year ago
Note that your assumption that the point particle singularity suddenly expanded for no apparent reason has no merit on the following grounds:
1. You assume that the cause was random when natural processes that we do not yet understand may have been involved.
2. You state that there is no apparent reason. That does not refute the argument that the cause was natural stating only that it is not apparent.
The common sources are indeed oversimplifying for an uneducated audience trivial facts.
mastersausagemaker 2 years ago
@mastersausagemaker
{You assume that the cause was random}
Actually, he asserts that the cause was God
{we do not yet understand}
Just curious...what do you speculate might be the way in which we'll acquire an understanding of that beyond our universe? If the concept of "beyond", which we know from within our universe, can even be attributed to ____?
{natural processes may have been involved}
Hey, there it is! I knew that when reading the words of an atheist evolutionist, it wouldn't be
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
too long before "Tautology" would pop up somewhere. It usually does. You guys can't help it. It seems to be an inherent survival trait from the accumulated, exceedingly large compilation of the defects known as "mutations"
Its understandable, one can see how going around in circles can secure the possession of female Apes within that circle
Lets see if a merely created, human mind can get a grip (2 hands only) on the exceptional "scientific" thinking from a biologically evolved, immaterial
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
mind, comprised purely of mutation defects. Here it goes... since "nature" is the universe, I'll substitute "natural processes" with universe. The universe was caused by itself. Thus, the causation has the effect of the effectively causative effect
Thats heavy man! So that's what logic feels like?
Strange world we live in... an intelligent creator needs a creator. But an unintelligent universe can cause itself. I think I'm getting a hang of this logic thing
{That does not refute the argument
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
that the cause was natural}
How can it refute the argument? Reflect7 was too late. There wasn't any argument left over after it refuted itself. Thats because that's the naturally natural nature of its naturally naturalistic functions... plus logic too = *
(stating only that it is not apparent}
It's non apparent appearance is all that was left of it. Thus, thats all that could be stated
{oversimplifying for an uneducated audience}
What's below uneducated?
I think Apes need overkill simple
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
You do indeed oversimplify.
Here's a theory: there is a greater system of universes that inhabit a two dimensional membrane that have fluctuating positions along the plane at any instant. The confluence of any two membranes provides the energy needed for a new universe and so the encapsulated energy is released expanding space and time when there is no longer a union between the two membranes.
Just an idea. Is it practical or even useful? Don't know. Is it true? Maybe.
mastersausagemaker 2 years ago
It takes an enormous amount of effort and investment to become a properly trained scientist. That does not excuse anyone from understanding the trivial basics of science.
If you do not understand what a point particle singularity is than how can you argue against the theory? Do you even understand what quantum-gravity might implicate? What is gravitational lensing or blackbody radiation?
It is very difficult to teach someone calculus if they don't even have a trivial understanding of numeracy.
mastersausagemaker 2 years ago
I couldn't listen past two minutes of this heart attacking waiting to happen NOT talking about the Many Worlds Hypothesis....
chuckensmith 2 years ago
whats with the Title Many Worlds Hypothesis? You don't speak of it
leanuue 2 years ago
Science is a logical rational study of facts that will evenetually lead the student to see a loving magnificent creation that can not be a coincedence.
We are an espression of this love as is our cosmos... the more one digs deep into scienticfic study he sees the elegance and beauty of a loving artistic intellegent creation thoughout the macro and micro cosmos.
I am really turned off by religion but have realized and seen Gods love and science everywhere. Science will lead one to God.
awesomejohnnet 2 years ago
Keep reasoning and asking questions,
Each man has his own journey for knowledge,
In your clean heart that sincerily asks the queations "how and why" lays the answers that will be revealed to you when your time comes...
no need to choose between God or science.
God is the greatest scientist,
his technology and is artistry is beyond our present reasoning but still spitually tappable because everything everywhere is interconnected through "the common essence" which is Gods love.
awesomejohnnet 2 years ago
No, Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (No mention of 'from nothing'.)
Yes, you are over-simplifying. The universe expanded from an extremely hot and dense state. and 13 or so billion years later, he we are. Not 6 days and 6, 000 years
later, like the Bible says.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
Yes, Gen 1:1 actually uses the Hebrew word "bara" -- "to create from nothing".
What's your point on oversimplifying?
reflect7 2 years ago
I'll have to take your word for it - I can't find a Hebrew English dictionary which translates bara as 'to create from nothing.'
If the pre-big bang universe lacked the dimensions of spacetime then saying it came from 'nothing' is in some ways accurate. But as it is believed to have had density and temperature, it is a simplification.
Either way, it is a long way from Genesis.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
@reflect7 no...it doesnt...actually...
IAMAPEANUT1 10 months ago
@Gorteenminogue wow...you just said the something he said over again..... are you kidding me!?
romney27 1 year ago
@romney27 I don't think so.... but there are other hypotheses. One of the many string theories postulates 2 multi-dimensional strings colliding - but both obviously existed before our universe. One of the quantumn theories is that the universe literally did appear from 'nothing' (watch: 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009), and of course we could all be living in the Matrix. However one looks at it, Genesis does not describe the origin of the universe (or Earth) accurately.
Gorteenminogue 1 year ago
@Gorteenminogue the interesting is that in most ancient texts God create the universe not from nothing, but He transform Himself into the existing matter.
sergiomarchelli 1 year ago
@sergiomarchelli That is curious!
Gorteenminogue 1 year ago
@Gorteenminogue Gen. 1:1 is not the only biblical statement on creation. Romans 4:17 says that God is the God "... who calls the things not being into being."
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
@Ear4Beauty "...God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."
You are correct; thanks!
I wonder why the present tense is used....
Gorteenminogue 1 year ago
God was created by man.
toggsuk 2 years ago
Why God? why not Dog? why not something else?
Th0usandMaster 2 years ago
errrrm this video explained nothing about anything... Its just the same old "Science cannot explain it, I cant explain it therefore god did it." I am growing tired of this... the very fact that you went on the internet for your sources tells me that you are grossly uninformed.
Retrosprite 2 years ago
Part of the problem is that you are grossly over-simplifying the scientific positions and theories.
Also, you are using a lot of outdated resources. NASA's own WMAP probe set the age of the universe at around 13.72 billion years (with a 1% margin of error) several years ago. No one says 10-20 billion years anymore unless the site is woefully out of date.
NekoMouser 2 years ago 3
Science is not made using common sense. Otherwise we would never have discovered quantum mechanics which is extremely counter intuitive. If you think you can compensate your lack of knowledge with a lot of enthusiasm, you are dead wrong ...
djbanizza 2 years ago 4
But you interpret the scientific evidence with reason, logic, and common sense. If the cosmos is the result of cosmic chance, and everything we see is the byproduct of matter acting on matter over time, then how can you trust the reason, logic, and common sense inherent in your matter-only brain? What is reason in an accidental, materialistic, naturalistic, deterministic universe? How can you trust your common sense interpretation of the evidence any more than jello and a sandwich...?
reflect7 2 years ago
Without deep understanding of cosmology, your common sense interpretations of the origin of the universe go no deeper than the mythological ones, where the Earth sits on the back of a giant tortoise.
I myself dont have such a level of expertise, and that is the reason I trust the most trained and intelligent people that have worked on the subject. The fact that they still havent got answers to all questions doesnt mean that I can fill in the gaps with my imagination and common sense.
djbanizza 2 years ago 2
@reflect7
Common sense has had an amazing history of often being completely wrong.
Your quandaries on transcendental truth are meaningless on a practical sense and science is meant to temper human understanding to adhere to the observable phenomena of the universe.
As the previous commenter noted, quantum mechanics is fairly counter intuitive.
How can you validate the imagination of your specified supernatural creator is true and not the opposed imaginary supernatural being of another?
mastersausagemaker 2 years ago
@mastersausagemaker
{Your quandaries are meaningless on a practical sense}
When the question at hand is the source of the entirety of existence... or the source of all reality. How exactly does one get "practical" into that picture?
{science is meant to temper human understanding to adhere to the observable phenomena of the universe}
Thank you for that revelation. We theists will be certain to make use of it when applicable. However, when attempting to determine the source of things such as
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
observable, phenomena & universe, aside from a few other contents of the universe, then things such as observable, phenomena & universe are rendered quite irrelevant. BTW, "irrelevant" is yet another thing known from only within our universe
It's not that difficult of a mental function, really. When contemplating the source of the universe, simply try to remember that also included, are all the things from within the universe
{How can you validate your creator is true & not another's creator?
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
Firstly, from your grammar, you pitted the imagination of reflect7's God against an imaginary creator of another. That would be easy to answer
Secondly, the subject of this video is regarding the "infinite" status of time & space. Thus, the subject of God is merely its resultant implication. Therefor, considering the question at hand, where is the practicality in pitting one god against another?
"common sense" may have an amazing history, but lack of sense has an even more amazing history
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@mastersausagemaker
{Your quandaries on transcendental truth are meaningless on a practical sense}
Well... in case you haven't noticed, "quandaries on transcendental truth" were not invented for their practicality. Especially when you're not considering actual practicality, but merely a "sense" of it
Chuichupachichi 1 year ago
@reflect7, Why dont u ask these questions to a scientist, the most basic philosophy in science - im paraphrasing but everything has a cause does it not? If matter is so intelligent to evolve then how are we able to subdue it when matter its self must be God since its the reason for life. but matter in itself has a lifespan, just like everything else so there is only one reason left if matter has an end then it must have a beginning....
Xizziano 1 year ago
Usually when you get loads of emails saying you don't understand the topic there's some element of truth to it.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Lets say that all our established and highly scrutinized theories that haven't been debunked after a few decades are false, entirely false. Then Scientists say "We don't know".
How does this IN ANY WAY prove God? Let alone the Christian, let alone the Catholic, let alone the Generic Roman Catholic God?
I'm just wondering.
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
You left out a very important "cosmogony" - the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in his infinite wisdom and power, lovingly created our beautiful Universe.
pjittles 2 years ago 2
Ok my hypothesis of how the univers came to be is this. A black hole tore the space time fabric of another universal expance thus creating a new space time.
since black holes have more gravity, it would have condenced all the matter, energy, and light down to the size of a pin point, or somthing like that. Once there was enough material in this point it would expand at a rate beyond the speed of light to create the univers as we know it.
azumaninjay 2 years ago
Black holes don't have any more gravity than a star with similar mass. It's only when you go beyond the event horizon that you can't get away.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
Depends on what you mean by gravity. Think of it like a glass of water.
2 glasses with 500ml in them, but one is twice as wide. The wider one will have a smaller height of water, but there's still the same amount of water there.
Similarly, a black hole simply has an taller glass than a star of similar mass. 1/r^2. Because it's more dense the gravity has a greater effect on objects closer to it.
SirPwn4lot 2 years ago
By gravity I mean the curvature of space. I know about the inverse square law and the Swarzschild radius.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
The basic idea I'm trying to get across is that there is no space around the singularity. 'Outside of' or 'beyond' the singularity simply doesn't exist (neither does 'before,' but that's another problem). It's a difficult concept to wrap your head around, and a lot of people miss it.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
Not really. I'm just a kiln fireman -- I bake bricks for a living. I'm a computer geek on the side, and I like keeping up with science, but it's just a hobby.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
Let me see if I can make this simple enough for everybody to understand. If the big bang created space, then space could not have existed before the big bang, which means there's no vacuum in which vacuum fluctuations can take place in order to create the singularity, which then explodes and creates space. I think it's time for the boys and girls at Berkley to go back to the drawing board.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
whooo created god
quixtorm 2 years ago
Isn't space required for a vacuum fluctuation to take place? If so, then how can a vacuum fluctuation produce a singularity before there was any space?
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
I'd assume that they mean quantum vacuum and not you're regular one.
Of course, this is what happens when you have someone going "OHAI - I'm not a scientist!" and then trying to explain science by shrugging it off as "philosophy" because y'know, Stephen Hawking and the ilk don't use any of their fancy degrees to work stuff out - they just sit around and chat a bit about it.
ProphetTenebrae 2 years ago
Even a quantum vacuum requires empty space to exist, and there was no space until the singularity exploded. Your solution still leaves us with a chicken and egg problem.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
No it doesn't - at least from my horribly limited understanding there doesn't have to be.
From the authority you're talking with though, I gather you've got some formal qualifications in quantum mechanics or theoretical physics.
ProphetTenebrae 2 years ago
Not really, the current description of space ( not space-time) is the unlimited expanse in which everything is located, or, the boundless regions of the infinite, if the singularity came into existence, it had to necessarily come into existence in space, though not necessarily space-time. As soon as anything, vacuum fluctuations included, came into existence, space-time would come into existence. And that can perfectly meld with the "quantum bounce" that research has indicated.
alianchild 2 years ago
Present your theory for peer-review then.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago 2
If I did present it I would be told that it is already the accepted theory. If you read the available information ( and understood it) you would see that all I have done is present it in a way for some other people to understand it.
alianchild 2 years ago
Think what you want, starkid. I'm not gonna argue with a guy who can't even spell his own name correctly.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
Cant refute so just insult with no knowledge of why I spelled it that way. Good plan. Are you going to threaten me with hell now? Or maybe tell me the bible is right because the bible says its right, therefore its got to be right. Sad and pathetic. But about what I expected from an obvious theist. You fail. Miserably, I might add. And you may have well said " I'm not going to argue with someone who has more intelligence in his shortest pubic hair then I have in my entire body."
U B FUBAR.
alianchild 2 years ago
I told you I'm not going to argue with you.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
Because you know you cannot win. Too bad, so sad, bye bye.
alianchild 2 years ago
Space is the absence of matter and energy, this seems to be an unnatural state of being for our reality. Total vacuum produces Vacuum fluctuations, which in turn produces particulate matter in its most primitive form. But I don't think you will understand what I just posted so........................................ Magic man in the sky ain't there dude. Reality is good, try it sometime.
alianchild 2 years ago
I understand what you're saying just fine, but do you? A vacuum requires empty space to exist, and there is no empty space (in fact, there's no space at all) when the entire universe consists of a singularity.
OneEyedJack1970 2 years ago
Did a God(s) do it or did it do itself. Those are not the only two possible options. It is possible other theories might come out of observations in science that are yet to be made. Or that the answer might be so counter-intuitive that it might take thousands of years before mankind can wrap its head around it.
DavidRandallCurtis 2 years ago
very well presented remember though this is a spiritual battle , and the blind who do not seek god will never believe god has created all things
trdcld 2 years ago
maybe there is a REASON why you don't understand it, educate yourself ON the words before you try to learn
Daclunator 2 years ago
from nothing LMAO your a joke, there was never nothing. there is a simple law of chemistry called the law of conservation of mass
320iguy 2 years ago
So your hypothesis is that the Big Bang happened for as of yet unknown reasons or somebody made it happen? For thousands of years we thought the same thing about lightning. Bolts of electricity flying though the sky for no apparent reason. So it must've been Zeus. You can't just swap out God or whatever creator name you like for every unknown. No one knows what got the expansion starting. There are several much more sound hypothesis' out there that actually use math and physics and stuff.
pyrite13 2 years ago
Check our what Dr. Kaku is theorizing about multi-universes. If we are merely one in many, that means our beginning is not so miraculous. Moreover, science is leaning most towards the cosmogony in which energy can not be created nor destroyed, it merely changes forms, its a constant, so there is no "something from nothing" beginning as you suggest.
AtheistScholar 2 years ago
most scientists believe in the begining being of nothing because the universe is expanding meaning it had a start they just dont know hom it started , we are not the smartest things in the universe we just try to figure out gods creations as best we can
trdcld 2 years ago
Yeah. Don't know. See that 'Don't Know' there.
Now, find me somewhere in religion a 'Don't Know'. Most religions declare, internally, that they 'Know' everything. They wouldn't work otherwise.
'Pastor, what would God say about the nature of Black Holes'
'My son, I don't know, they're not mentioned in the bible'.
FreindlyRanger 2 years ago
Here's one. We are the result of a collision between high energy particles in CERN type collider in another universe. This would at least agree with brane theory.
Gorteenminogue 2 years ago
So you say: "I have no idea about science, but I am going to debunk it talking about science." What exactly are you debunking?
Genesis does not say "In the beginning God created from nothing, the heaven and the Earth."
It says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth."
How can you screw it up that bad? Citing your own source, and even that you can't get right?
Maliciuos 2 years ago
Hey Malicious --
Actually, Genesis 1:1 does say, "created from nothing" -- The Hebrew word is "bara," which means exactly that -- "Created from nothing." Thanks,
Reflect7
reflect7 2 years ago
bible cc/genesis/1-1 htm
Maliciuos 2 years ago
I have a question, Do you believe in God or are you one of those people that are trying to prove Christianity wrong
bigblackmanX 2 years ago
S you have no objection to something coming from nothing, and in fact claim that your magic man did it that way. Your coreligionists will not be happy with your declaration that you have that kind of magic happening.
evensgrey 2 years ago
@reflect7, No it does not say from nothing or use the word bara saying he created it from nothing is obvious my NKJ does not say from nothing, I've looked at every english translated Bible and none of them say "from nothing" or "bara"
Xizziano 1 year ago
by the way the big bang is the explosion OF the universe not in it besides it is thought that this singularity is far smaller than atoms
SoulStealer124 2 years ago
It is actually supposedly the expansion of all the matter in the universe, not the universe itself.
sgiven 2 years ago
well, basically-- you trying to mix philosophy, mythology and science.
which is a no-no.
Because space is the absence of matter, it IS a vacuum.
Closed system vacuums pull from thecenter, since space is an open system, it has no center-that's the vacuum fluctuation-generating an energy which is trapped in the vacuum effects crunch.
since energy cannot be destroyed, it reacts outwardly as a hot gas, cooling over time.
(not so hard, is it? ;) )
ltledrummergrl90 2 years ago
Around 1:20 he states that his theory doesn't have much to do with science.
At least we're agreed on that.
skevoid 2 years ago 8
Comment removed
firefox71 2 years ago
Amen, brother :)
firefox71 2 years ago
Zeus is going to lightning blast all you non-believing fools
deathbotv1 2 years ago 4
Everybody knows that the caterpillar god Nt'nuknuchguh'cg created the cosmos from his coccoon.
Satakunta 2 years ago 4
You're silly. Everybody knows that the universe was created from the decomposing corpse of the frost giant Ymir. His brains became the clouds, his bloood the oceans and rivers, his skull the sky, his decomposing flesh the earth. The maggots that fed off his rotting flesh were turned into dwarves. I mean, C'mon! Everybody knows this. LOL
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago 6
Amen brother....ima crayashonist too. i thoughts we were sapposed to blame darwin for coming up with the "origin of the universe theory", not this other "cosmolgy theory" lets stick with the program please. people are gonna think we're making this up or sum thing.
martysaysso 2 years ago
In the beginning time came into being? What? "Beginning" refers to an early moment in time, how can time come into being in an early moment in TIME?
antiantiantifahool 2 years ago
Because scientists, are not philosophers.
And therefore don't think it terms of what makes sense, but what evidence and theory suggests.
salbrismind 2 years ago
"because scientists are not philosophers"
Actually philosophy is the seeking of knowledge while science is the seeking of knowledge about the natural world. Science is thus part of philosophy.
"And therefore don't think it terms of what makes sense, but what evidence and theory suggests."
There is no evidence concerning the origin of the universe. That is why many scientists actually reject cosmonogy as not being science but an other branch of philosophy. (metaphysics I would suggest)
antiantiantifahool 2 years ago
Also: Scientists look at both: what makes sense and what the evidence suggests. If what the evidence suggests is different to what is initially seen as making sense, it then doesnt make sense anymore since it doesnt fit the evidence.
antiantiantifahool 2 years ago
thats why they are wrong alot of the time because they are doing the best they can without being omnipotent , they dont know all information and are theorizing what may be , sometimes they get it right but mostly it is lacking
trdcld 2 years ago
There is no "faith" in the scientific explanation. But more importantly there is no claim about a beginning. There is only a beginning of our understanding of the universe. "Infinity" has *NOT* been taken off the table. The current theories don't cover anything before the start of the big bang. That's not the same as saying it was a beginning or that there was not anything (infinite or not) before it.
websnarf 2 years ago
Most believers are guilty of projecting modern scientific knowledge onto the bronze-age bible. It is wrong to do so.
If one takes the literal account of creation in Genesis then it is obvious that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around the earth. Don't believe me? READ IT.
In other parts of the old testament, the earth is flat, the earth & sky rest on pillars, the sky is a solid dome and has windows and doors....
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
(continued) Rain/Hail/Snow/Wind are kept in storage chambers in the sky, the sun and moon can be stopped in the sky, the moon shines w/ it's own light, Stars can fall to earth or be shaken via storms or earthquakes, not to mention that plants were created before the sun was created.
The story of creation and the vision of the universe as described in the Bible is 100% WRONG.
A fantasy may be popular, but popularity doesn't make the fantasy true. The bible is mythology.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
Comment removed
jhog72 2 years ago
Evolution is not a fantasy. In the words of a humorous scientist, "We got the fossils. We win."
There is only a problem among those individuals that demand a literal interpretation of Genesis, something which makes no sense as these people don't demand a literal interpretation in other areas of the bible.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago 2
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG.
You claim there are three theories of 'Cosmogeny'. You list them as:
1.) Solid State (Universe has always been)
2.) Big Bang/Inflation (Accept Theory Today)
3.) God Did it
Here's the problem:
Theory number 1 has been discarded by Science due to evidence for Theory 2.
"Theory" 3 is not a theory. "God Did It" is not science, it is supernatural.
You are wrong because you place 'God Did It' as being equal to the other theories and that is your mistake.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
if god did do it would it be called science
trdcld 2 years ago
A God must be proven to exist before any credit can be given to it. So if one could prove the existance of a God, and that this God created the universe, then yes, Science would exept it.
Christianity is approx. 2,000 years old and no Christian has been able to prove the Christian God exists. Paganism has been around since the very beginning of our species and no Pagan has been able to prove their Pagan Gods exist.
It's likely that God(s) exist only as concepts in the human mind.
BoyintheMachine 2 years ago
Wrong. Heres the problem: u obviously don't know the scientific method. In order to perform the scientific method, something has to be observable, measurable, and repeatable. which means, u cannot prove history using the scientific method, because history is not observable, measurable, or repeatable. For u to ask for scientific methods proving the veracity of Scripture is like saying "i want u to prove scientifically George Washington was our first president."
dudeguy927 2 years ago
(speaking about my previous post)
U can't do that because his presidency is not observable, measurable, or repeatable. U dont use the scientific method in order to prove scientific events. U use the evidentory method, which is the method we use in a courtroom. Well if u apply THAT method, what do you look for? SO GLAD U ASKED. heres what u ask. 1. Do u have internal consistency in what is written? 2. Do u have corroberation in wat is written? 3. Do u have reliability in what is written?
dudeguy927 2 years ago
(speaking about my 2nd post)
well? let's see. 3 languages, 3 continents, 40 authors, 66 books, 1500 years! If u look up the word corroberation in the dictionary, there oughta be a picture of the Bible right next to it. Look up internal consistency! All of these authors who dont even kno each other, and they tell one story, the story of the glorious GOD redeeming mankind, in this world for His own honor and glory and Namesake. all telling the same story, in different parts, using names,dates..
dudeguy927 2 years ago 2
(about my 3rd post)
They use places, so that u kno exactly who they are talking about, exactly when theyre talkin about it, and exactly where they were when they were talking about it. So the question is this: if we're lookin for internal consistency, corroberation, and reliability, is it actually the intelligent person that doubts the testiments, new and old, or is it the intelligent person who says "I choose to believe the Bible"?
dudeguy927 2 years ago
(about the 4th post from me)
I choose to believe because it is a reliable collection of historical documents
written down by eye witnesses during the life time of other eye witnesses that report supernatural events which took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim to be divine rather than human in origin. now, that's a sufficient answer to your statement(s) and whoever else had a similar mindset. Furthermore....I tried it. It definitely and positively worked for me. :-)
dudeguy927 2 years ago
FAIL-the big bang does not explain the origin of the universe it only deals with the development
the origin is a mystery
ajgrovery 2 years ago
Hubble telescope observing the universe expanding? WHAT?!
And nothing in nature happens without a reason. You fail fucking horribly.
mecher3k 3 years ago
'The first cosmogony has been taken off the table."
Not true. Just because the universe expanded from a point doesn't mean it didn't exist prior to that expansion. In fact, many scientists (the proponents of loop quantum gravity, for example) are still arguing for that first cosmogony.
Hooya2 3 years ago
Awesome video once again, thanks...
HushAndLearn 3 years ago
Love the video Randall. Thanks for all of your time and dedication brother. God bless you.
stevendrake01 3 years ago
I will take the no god for $100, Alex.
Atheistprimate 3 years ago 2
I'm with you on getting criticized for failing to understand or making it too simple. However those that make this criticism never seem to take the time to teach me the complexity I seem to be missing. Great vid bro!
TheEdge012 3 years ago
Its the observable cosmos and we haven't observed it all yet. Nor have we observed what was around before what we can and can't see. Either way if a cause needs a cause what caused god?
iamleavingchina 3 years ago
Good stuff! Randall, have you ever read Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem? I'm meeting with a group of men from church on Friday mornings and we are going throught that whole book this year. It's excellent and thought provoking... much like your videos are. Thanks for doing what you do.
garterburn 3 years ago
Yeah I think it's wrong to assume that God can't have created the world and the universe because it's a physical world. That seems to be a big factor for nonbelievers. God couldn't have made things so similar, it must have evolved, they seem to know what he could have and would have done awefully well to not even believe in him. Still, anyone who hasn't existed everywhere at some point in time cannot know if there is a God, so there could be one, logically, they must admit. They can try prayer.
poodlepink 3 years ago
God is the creator.
Jesus Christ is Lord.
Seek the truth and you will find.
Leiflton 3 years ago 2
That the answer is not this
2ndSTARMAN 3 years ago
what about the answer?
Leiflton 3 years ago
God is sentient, intelligent, and has many other attributes that can not be extrapolated based on what we know about the universe.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
The first one has never been taken "of the table". On the contrary; Science has many hypothesis like Multiple Universe existing besides our Own. And Universe existing before Our own. Stephen Hawking explains this with the Einstein Equation E=MC2; Meaning Either Energy or Matter existed before our Universe. Research like the Large Hadron Collider could begin to answer some of the physics. Science will however never claim these hypothesis as fact. That wouldn`t be science; that would be faith.
Dutchdrummer99 3 years ago
"Stephen Hawking explains this with the Einstein Equation E=MC2; Meaning Either Energy or Matter existed before our Universe."
Then please explain how, out of nothing, the energy or matter existed. Where did it come from? Why is it here? Where is it going to.
And please don't insult me by saying that it simply was. As nothing is the creator of nothing, it has never and will never create anything, as even the Hadron Collider itself shows. I say that, because, the Hadron Collider has a creator.
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
Where did God come from?
I've decided to to use a video I made responding to VenomFangX entitled "Re: Who Created God" as a response to this video. Please take a look at it.
"And please don't insult me by saying that it simply was"
Please don't insult me by saying that God simply was.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Niles has to approve the video first, but you can click if you want.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I watched your video, and, disagreed with several things which you said; however, I won't go into any of those things here. I don't think it would be of any real value.
I go back to what I said before, that's that God is the only one who understands God, and the understanding that we have of Him is that which He has given to us by revelation.
I don't know where God came from; but as I stated before, even if I did and told you, it would be impossible for me to prove it and you wouldn't believe.
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
"God is the only one who understands God"
Why would anyone try to worship him? How do you know what he as given to you by "revelation"? There are many conflicting claims about what god has "revealed" in many conflicting holy books. There are even many people who study the same book and come out of it with different understandings of it, all supposedly because god is impossible to understand.
However, I understand him perfectly. He's imaginary. It's very simple.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
God is not impossible to understand.
God is very possible to understand. But to understand Him, it would require you to have faith, it would require for you to seek for Him to help you to do so by faith.
All false teachings about God come from not understanding God, not understanding His Word, by His revelation. I can't explain Him to you, and you can't receive anything I that I'm saying of and about Him to you, outside of His revealing it. I can't speak, you can't understand, outside of Him.
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
The statements:
"God is the only one who understands God"
and
"God is very possible to understand. "
Are incompatible claims.
Which one is the true teaching and which one is the "false teaching"? Both of them can't be true. Obviously, something is wrong with your understanding, which you received by "His revelation", which clearly demonstrates that "His revelation" is not a very good way to gain understanding.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago 3
Actually they're not incompatible at all.
But I imagine I could try to explain that to you, all day long, and it would merely be an exercise in futility. I will say this, then, I'm done here.
God is possible to understand, as I have said, only by His revealing of Himself to someone; and outside of that, they can't really understand Him at all, there's no understanding (proper understanding) of Him at all outside of Him giving it to someone. That makes both assertions true.
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
"I'm done here."
Yes, it appears you are done. There isn't any way that you can convince me that two completely contradictory claims are in fact compatible.
If God is the ONLY ONE who UNDERSTANDS God, then it is NOT POSSIBLE for you or I (who are NOT God) to understand him. This couldn't be simpler. However, as a Christian, you're used to making incompatible things fit, as you are able to overlook or excuse the many contradictions in the Bible.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
"And please don't insult me by saying that it simply was"
*--Please don't insult me by saying that God simply was.--*
"Was" is a reference to time. Time is a created thing that we are a part of the fabric of. We can try but the fact is we cannot understand existence without any of the dimensions we are a part of. For that matter, we can't comprehend (without math) extra dimensions. Time is just a patch on an old tired shirt that's about to be thrown away. God Bless
stevendrake01 3 years ago
"Time is a created thing"
You're already assuming that time was "created". This is different than stating time had a beginning. The answer to the question "where did time come from" is "we don't know". Simply because you can plug god into the gaps in our knowledge doesn't mean that is a good explanation. We can plug in ANY god for the same purpose, including the flying spaghetti monster. If you're going to postulate an answer, you should at least have REASONS for it, if not empirical evidence.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
I will believe that nothing caused a huge explosion, by which everything came into being, when a firecracker appears out of thin air of itself and lights itself on fire thus causing itself to explode.
I will believe that nothing is the cause of everything, which I see, when I see it build itself a house; I would even believe if nothing could take all the raw materials which already exist, of itself, and do such a thing!
In other words, because nothing is creator of nothing, I stick with God!
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
The universe is simple than god. If you accept the fact that god can exist without any need of an explanation, why then do you need an explanation for the much simpler universe?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
The existence of the universe is simpler than the existence of God in your mind? The existence of something, so complex in its design that scientists still don't understand even a part of a part of it, in your mind is simpler than the existence of one all powerful being who created all this complexity out of His own substance?
I would think the opposite were true.
And no, I can't tell you where God came from, because I'm not God! But if I was God, and I told you, you still wouldn't believe me.
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
"The existence of something, so complex in its design that scientists still don't understand even a part of a part of it"
Can scientists understand a part of a part of god? Can they understand ANY part of God? They can understand at least a part of the universe. You can't say the same about God.
God is forever outside of the reach of science. Our universe is not. God is sentient and intelligent. The universe is not.
somecomputergeek 3 years ago
Since God surrounds His creation (being outside of it), and scientists are certainly inside of it (being part of it), there's no way for them to understand God. There's no way for a man, of himself, to understand God; all we know of God we have by His unveiling of it to us.
But I don't require an explanation for God; I simply have faith that God exists! I don't need an explanation for all that God has created; but, that creation shows me He exists. It's the work, He build, that's proves He is!
teddyhcraig 3 years ago
Niles here is attempting to argue FOR God's existence, which assumes that the default position that a god does not exist. Here, you are assuming that god exists and using apologetics to excuse why there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it. That is a far cry from having an argument for his existence.
"creation shows me He exists. It's the work, He build, that's proves He is!"
This is circular reasoning. What shows that the universe is his "creation"?
somecomputergeek 3 years ago