A Naturally Eternal Universe is the only option that is Scientific and Logical

[KevZen2000]

Dhorpatan is right here. The universe has no beginning or end. If the universe, has a beginning, then you need some outside supernatural being.

[JackMorganUK1]

@Dhorptan non-existence should rage on forever, meaning the Universe is technically infinite in regard to the fact that it is still being made, and forever will be.

This can be observed by quantum physics, which states that things that are very small behave differently. I think this is how things behave in the void, and the only reason why atoms break the rules is because they are so small.

There you go, I'm done.

[JackMorganUK1]

@Dhorptan chain pattern would leave a spherical space where the void cannot get to. In here, time, space and the laws of physics form to keep the atoms left over from the explosions from disappearing or exploding.

From this, and the energy that was created from the explosions, the elements form, and from that, the Universe was created.

Now, if atoms are continually being created from these explosions, and the void is boundless in nature, the conflict between existence and (cont'd)

[JackMorganUK1]

@Dhorptan think about tilting my hand. In fact, there would be no space, so the platform, me, and the ball would be crushed into nothingness.

But what happens when an atom is split? It explodes. So, what if one day (or one instant), an atom popped into existence, due to there being no law to say it can't? It would be destroyed instantly, and explode. But, the explosion would create more atoms in its wake, meaning more explosions, and more atoms, and so on.

Eventually, the explosive (cont'd)

[JackMorganUK1]

@Dhorptan I have an alternative explanation as to how the Universe could be infinite.

First, a thought experiment. What is outside of the Universe? Many people would say "nothing", but what is "nothing"? What does it imply?

For instance, if I were to stand atop a platform outside of the Universe holding a ball, and I tilt my hand to let the ball fall out of my hand, what would happen? There is no gravity, so the ball wouldn't move. There is no time either, so I wouldn't be able to (cont'd)

[Xeletoph]

*con't* Change being the only constant we find in our universe, in and of its self suggests that any notion of eternity is absurd. Nothing that is changing constantly can be eternal, because change suggests beginnings and endings. The laws of thermodynamics suggest that is the nature of things in our universe to break down to entropy and disorder. This massive and constant destabilization of matter means that nothing in of or from this universe can be truly eternal or infinite.

[Xeletoph]

This doesn't work. If the universe were infinite, then the stars would also be infinite - the sky would be so bright that looking up at it would be scorch our retinas.

Space it self may indeed go far beyond the reaches of our universe. it may go on for 100's and zillions of light years; but even that falls short of a true eternity. Red shifted galaxies also suggest that the universe didn't always exist as it does now.

Examples from nature and cosmos show that change is the only constant.

[tolkien1138]

Even an eternal universe needs an explanation of its existence. The universe exists but not *necessarily* so, since it can be easily shown there are conceptually different universes (e.g. one where unicorns exist). The explanation for why this no-unicorn universe exists while the unicorn universe does not is not to be found in the necessity of the universe's own nature, ie in the way 2+2 cannot equal anything other than 4. Thus the universe is contingent & the explanation must be external to it.

[QPWimblik]

I have a different theory other than the big bag theorem, that this place is mealy electro mass in a 4 dimensional place. In this theory I explain expansion as 4 dimensional gravitational swing cause by globalistic black holes. The flaw is that there is as of yet no evidence of large extra dimensional space.

I think that Cosmologists will find evidence of large extra dimensional space when they can focus in on the black hole at the centre of the galaxy.

I will be proved right or wrong

[heavymetaldeath4life]

What about Lawrence Krauss's lecture on "Universe out of nothing"?

[residentatheist]

This would also mean that the universe is not expanding. To expand it would have to expand into something. I am told it is expanding into nothing. If nothing is something, than it isn't nothing anymore is it? :)

[SplinterInYourEye]

@Dhorpatan

I agree on the premise that the universe is likely eternal. However there are events that create energy/matter out of nothing. See Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles.

[residentatheist]

@SplinterInYourEye A vacuum is not "nothing". Nothing is much less than a vacuum in space. You can not get particles from nothing.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

Pretty good.

[buktomsin]

Warvideo= Metal retardation.

=D

[MonochromaticEarth]

I love your videos but you are forgetting one thing, religious people will only claim that the laws we know and understand about gravity/logic/reason/creation do not apply to god. god didn't give us the ability to understand therefore we will not. how can we refute the "rules don't apply to god" argument?

[SPR4GOD]

I think I will make a response to this when I find more time. Don't expect it soon.

[Obesedragons]

@landofjello

Lmao.

I'm not a logician and I have logic.

Fucking roaches have logic.

That's not an argument haha

[Landofjello]

Hey here is an argument for god, I know its off topic, but I thought I would show you anyways so you can tell me what you think:

The argument takes the form of TAG but with a modus ponens approach...

1) Logic requires a logician, you cant have logic without a logician

2)Logic is trancendant

3) Trancendant logic requires a Trancendant logican.

4) A trancendant mind fits one of the many definitions of what a god is

[knightd00b]

@Landofjello One of the biggest problems I have with this argument for god is that "god" as he is described in the major religions does not maintain logical continuity with himself. He is ascribed so many human emotions and characteristics that he becomes illogical and violates the laws of logic. Such as Jesus being man and god. or the trinity - A not equalling A.. And a perfect being by definition has no needs or desire to do anything. Only beings inside of time are motivated to accomplish.

[Kaopsis]

@Landofjello Logic is a property of existence as it could not exist independently of the constituents of the universe. If A doesn't exist, then it couldn't be A

[Landofjello]

@Kaopsis Hmm ok, the arguement seems to extend from a kind of decarte reasoning: Thinking, therfore thinker:: Logic, there for logician. I think what you are saying is that logic is more descriptive than precriptive

[bamboo4tameshigiri]

Sometimes, you just overthink the living shit of stuff.

[eyallev]

big words, some of them made sanse, I won't call this a "one two" pounch aginst god. if said correctly, yes, this can counter most cosmological arguments for god.

Mind you, you are only addressing a god that is "greatest concivable being" (as mentioned several times by WLC, and others), but what if they are wrong?

what if god is differant in nature? what if having imperfections are a part of being god.

[knightd00b]

@eyallev Then it's not god...

[eyallev]

@knightd00b than it's not the god you think of.

isn't zeus a god? isn't Ra a god? isn't budda a god? (actully, budda is not a god, he's more of a prophit).

many religions of differant views of god, not all of them hold god to be "the greatest concivable been".

just because the univ' could not have been created by one "type" of a god, doesn't mean it couldn't have been created (or is part of) a differant "type" of god; to claim other wise is basiclly strawmaning the argument.

[knightd00b]

@eyallev It's not that - It's that people's philosophies became more refined over time. As knowledge of the laws of logic became more prevalent, philosophers began to apply those to "god/gods". An imperfect god would either be non-omnipotent or non-omniscient and therefore not god and is a dependent being. Older cultures did not make these connections & their gods were imputed very human characteristics. Socrates did (allegedly) and was stoned for it.

[eyallev]

@knightd00b the main rule that a god has to fill is "the creator". I don't see how being perfect is a requierment for being a (the) creator. In fact, several religions have the creator dying in the process of creating the univ'.

Yes, the idea of god and creation is somewhat silly, but we are talking about proving it wrong, and being silly, is not a good (enought) argument.

[knightd00b]

@eyallev You cannot "prove" something wrong. You can disprove a hypothesis as being impossible or unlikely. What are you saying exactly? It is very simple - All of the religions cannot be true at the same time, that would be a logical impossibility. Therefore one could be true or all could be false. So, are you going to build a case for a specific one or are you going to go against all modern mainstream apologetics & philosophy and hold to the mysterious imperfect god idea?

[eyallev]

@knightd00b

"what are you saying, exactly"

well, I'm glad you asked. I am saying that all (or at least, most) religions are EQUALLY RIGHT (and before you repeat your line from the last comment that they are mutally exclusive, let me repeat that, and explaine).

They are equally right, as they are all, equally wrong.

what I mean is that there is no way to tell which is MORE RIGHT, and there for none should be seen as more wrong over any other.

[eyallev]

(cont ...) and in a sea of religions, the best place to stand, is on dry land (sorry, ran out of the 500 letter for a comment).

[knightd00b]

@eyallev I think you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There are many religions that noone follows or believes anymore and there are those that are knowingly made up as jokes as well. What you are saying essentially is that because there is no indisputable evidence for or against than we should believe all things? To me, it makes more sense to trust your reasoning and the evidence available at the time. I choose not to believe things that there is no evidence for.

[eyallev]

@knightd00b the thing is, that many believers do so BECAUSE they saw enought evidance for themselves. So saying "I will not believe until I see enought evidance" does not put you part from the believers. The differance is that you have a "higher threshold for evidance" (and they are more golible).

I have a good story/example about this, but 500 letters are not enought for it.

YOU don't have to believe what *I* believe, but unless you can show me an internal error with it, let me keep it

[knightd00b]

@eyallev The truth is closer to the fact that MOST believers are indoctrinated into their particular religions and they cannot reproduce any evidence for their belief systems. The evidence is mostly experiential and not enough for me. You believe what you want. There is much more accurate and relevant information recorded during the Salem Witch trials in the 1600's than for the New Testament, yet I do not believe the women murdered were actually witches capable of conjuring sorcery.

[SiriusMined]

Calling the universe "god" is pointless anyway, because it doesn't imbue the universe with any supernatural power or consciousness. Hence, it is useless as a concept.

[eyallev]

@SiriusMined well, one view of the univ' that I kinda like (not that I support it, but it's an interesting view of it):"reality is the imagination of god". just like you can imagine having a talk with someone, and guessing what he'd say, god is running a "simulation" of the univ' in his mind. he is THAT smart.

yea, not too unlike a brain in a vet idea, or "the matrix". basiclly an idea that can't be countered, and doesn't really lead you anywhere. but interesting none the less (or not...)

[SiriusMined]

I once asked a creationist what "God" created the universe from. They told me "the stuff that was there before the universe". *facepalm*

So, he had no problem with pre-universe matter/energy existing....but was against the Big Bang...

The stupid cannot be charted

[mattmar826]

Would you agree that because of our subjective perspective, we cannot know anything absolutely objectively?

[knightd00b]

@mattmar826 Yes, and that is what science claims. We know nothing absolutely, we have to deal with the fact of our subjective experiences.

[dewinthemorning]

Can 'nothingness' exist? If it 'exists', it is something, not 'nothing'. If you say 'nothing' is in a state of non-existence rather than in a state of existence, then if it can be in any state, it is something. So, there is no such thing as 'nothing', let alone somebody making matter out of it!

By 'nothing' scientists mean quantum vacuum, from which fluctuations of particles-antiparticles could create singularities/Big Bangs, from which universes later develop, our universe is one of them.

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

This is interesting and all but I think you need sources to go on.

[ViciousDave4Life]

In other words, the universe has always existed, yet it's always expanding. What started this space and time universe is not known, nor will it ever be known. Before the big bang, the universe was smaller, how did the universe become of everything, we will probably never know. For all we know, the universe could be a small marble for giants. It's unknown.

[dewinthemorning]

@ViciousDave4Life There is a very good book (among many) which can give you good explanations - "From Eternity to Here" by Sean Caroll. There's "The Grand Design" by Hawking and Mlodinov.

Yes, the universe is expanding, it will end up so expanded and diluted, it will be, I think in physics they call it 'de Sitter's space'. I think this is the quantum vacuum, so the universe is returning from where it started, caused by fluctuations from this vacuum. The theory is that other universes appear

[SteveArpo]

@ViciousDave4Life Like your marble universe. With what's coming out these days theories such as that sound nearly as plausible. What if this universe is just one of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion universes filing trillions and trillions and trillions of buckets full of universes. How can it be said that humans could in any way be relevant to anything?

[ViciousDave4Life]

@SteveArpo Exactly, you got what I meant exactly.

[Handymancinema]

So what would you say that nothing is?

[dewinthemorning]

@Handymancinema There is no such thing as 'nothing'! The concept of nothing is useful to us in our communication and thoughts, but it is only a concept, which we have created in language - for ex. "There is nothing in that box". Then we have taken this concept/abstraction, and view it as an existing entity, which it is not.

Also, our dendency to make antynomes - full-empty, somewhere-nowhere, something-nothing. Does something like 'nowhereness' exist? No, it's just an abstraction we make.

[xStrelok]

How long till a theist commenter comes along and tells us that the universe cannot be infinite because it would take an infinite amount of time for the past to catch up to the present (assuming the unstated premise of the a-series of time)? ;)

[residentatheist]

That is what I have been saying for years. The universe has to be eternal because you can't get something from nothing. To get something from nothing would require a supernatural event (magic). The supernatural doesn't exist so the universe had to have always existed. :) The Big Bang was a large cosmic event but It was not the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang was not a supernatural event and was not capable of getting something from nothing.

[ZZzzzzzWhat]

The abrahamic religious scriptures are a clear example of how arrogant and self-centered the human beings can be. Not only there's the need to point out an extraordinary antropo-morphologic creator to justify our 'special' creation, there is also the ridiculous need for that extraordinary antropo-morphologic creator to create an entire universe to serve our needs.

"Created in perfect being's image"? how arrogant can we be?

[xStrelok]

How do some interpret "expansion from a hot dense state" as "coming from nothing"?

Existence (aka world) is necessary, because existence cannot be contingent, else the only cause of existence would be nothing, which has no causal property; nothing is equivalent to "not anything". Whether existence only encompasses one universe, physical things, or also non-physical things, does not matter to me. Something must be, so all cosmogony is rudimentary (when made a philosophical issue).

[NeoPsiTom]

Within pantheism, the Tao is like, "The Vacuum of Totality'. /watch?v=1BSiZQqlg5E

[johnnyringo27]

Great video Dhorpatan. Your videos are ever evolving and informative. I thank you.

[TheCopaceticMan]

You should add in an addendum to specify that the universe would not necessarily have to exist in this state as it is now.

In the past, and future, the state could be very different from how it is now.

[Vire70]

Well reasoned points. It is worth mentioning though that whilst the universe logically needs to be eternal to account for its existence, it does not need to have remained the 'same', ie physical laws. It's plausible (perhaps even probable) that prior to the BB the universe existed just the same, but in a completely different physical 'state' (likely one that is incomprehensible to us, and out of reach for study in any case)

[SteveArpo]

This one is one of your best.

[WarVideo]

The big bang theory says that the universe was created out of nothing.

[Dhorpatan]

@WarVideo

No. The Big Bang theory breaks down and becomes invalid at the planck scale. I.E the Quantum level. The Big Bang theory is based on the geometric theory of gravitation known as General Relativity. This model does not account for quantum scales/effects.

[strangestdude]

@Dhorpatan I think you're overthinking pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism is normally a conception of the interconnectedness of anything that exists. They normally don't claim that the universe is perfect (and the other things you assert the concept of God entailing), naturalistic pantheists simply conceptualize the magnificence and magnitude of the universe as God. Basically they change the word universe for God, nothing more.

[StubbornProgrammer]

@Dhorpatan One of the reasons I'm more comfortable with scientific investigation (as opposed to the alternatives) is that many of it's theories do clearly define things they may not explain, but do not preclude further explanation.

With many religious "explanations" one often ends up at "well you just can't know that" with no possible room for advancement.

[SuperFinGuy]

@Dhorpatan Not true, according to the theory of general realtivity the universe should collapse (not expand) without a balancing outward force. Expanding models are not predicted by GR at all, they were proposed as ad hoc solutions by Alexander Friedmann.

And how can you say that the big bang breaks down at the quantum level when it is based on the so called Planck epoch and on the hypothetical Higgs quantum field?! According to them the BB singularity spontaneously came up from nothing.

[Jasonator1000]

@Dhorpatan I was agreeing with you on ex nihilo creation not making sense.

This primacy of consciousness business however wasn't very convincing. Subjective and objective could simply be a relative term. What is objective to us may be subjective to God. What we think is objective in a dream is subjective when we wake up. And then of course there could be things that are in the mind and yet objective anyway like mathematics.

[Jasonator1000]

@Dhorpatan Who says that the universe couldn't be subjective to God's mind? Perhaps Plato was right and the only really REALLY objective knowledge we have is akin to mathematics or logic. I mean if we haven't solved the brain in a vat problem we can't say with 100% certainty that the external world is objective anyway.

[Jasonator1000]

@Dhorpatan Space-time breaks down at the Planck scale. There's no universe without space-time. So yes, the Big Bang model does show that the universe began to exist.

[Dhorpatan]

@Jasonator1000

Spacetime does not break down since spacetime is not an entity. Spacetime is a mathematical model. How many times must you be told this?

[Jasonator1000]

@Dhorpatan It doesn't matter how many times you say something if it isn't true. Einstein showed that space-time is an entity since it has physical properties such as the ability to be curved in the presence of energy or mass.

And as for your statement that space-time is a mathematical model, if space-time isn't defined by math then it doesn't exist. Physically speaking the mathematical description of space-time simply is space-time, since there is no way to tell the two apart.

[Dhorpatan]

@Jasonator1000

I feel the same way. It doesn't matter how many times you spout your garbage, it still isn't true.

Einstein didn't show that spacetime is an entity, since the curvature is conceptual, not concrete. You can keep crying that space is an entity till you're blue in the face. Doesn't change reality or logic.

It is a FACT that spacetime is a mathematical model. That makes it conceptual.

[Jasonator1000]

@Dhorpatan If you move the stuff defining the space then you move the space. Objects moving as though space was curved underneath them is the same thing as space actually being curved, because that is the only possible way to define space anyway.

[Dhorpatan]

@Jasonator1000

The moving of the space would still only be conceptual/epistemic, not ontological. You are a quack, so you refuse to make the fundamental distinction between abstractions and concretes. Which is to your advantage, since you are an Occultist, so you need to blur the line between the real and the imaginary. Between the actual and the conceptual.

[Jasonator1000]

@Dhorpatan "moving of the space would still only be conceptual/epistemic"

That's like saying that the properties of the particles in motion aren't really there, but are just concepts.

"Between the actual and the conceptual."

Conceptual is a kind of actual. Duh! Your concepts actually exist. If they don't then you don't actually have them, in which case there's nothing going on in your head right now as you speak those words. Though if that was true it would actually explain a lot.

[iconoclastic23]

@WarVideo Incorrect. The Big Bang Theory states that the universe was once in a hot, dense state and then began a period of rapid inflation. That's not exactly the same as saying, "was created out of nothing."

[WarVideo]

@iconoclastic23 so the nthe b ig ban g theory does not explain the creatiuon of the universe?

[xStrelok]

@WarVideo

Yes. The Big Bang more or less has to do with the evolution of the universe. To think of it as an absolute beginning would be incorrect.

[iconoclastic23]

@WarVideo The Big Bang Theory has nothing to do with the creation of the universe. It's an explanation of how the universe came to be in its current state, and it's one of the most voluminously evidenced theories in all of science.

[tattooskin72]

@WarVideo Perhaps you should learn about what you are critiquing before hand.

[CaptainSmallFoot]

@WarVideo

BB is a theory attempting to describe/explain the observable expansion of the universe; it is not an attempt to explain the source of the universe. Much like the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how the observable phenomenon of evolution lead to the diversity of species found on earth; however, is not an attempt to explain the origin of life. Don't get your fields of science confuzzled, WarVideo.

[WarVideo]

@CaptainSmallFoot expanded into what?

[CaptainSmallFoot]

@WarVideo

Bit of a silly question, don't you think? Expanded into its present state. The origin of the universe isn't part of BB. There are several working models which explain how our universe COULD have come to exist, whether it be a bleed-through from another universe, the result of quantum effects, product of a white hole, or simply has always existed in some form or another, and its present condition just so happens to benefit you and me. Sadly, there's no way to confirm any (yet).

[CaptainSmallFoot]

@WarVideo

It should be noted, as Dhorpatan alluded, BB isn't applicable at the moment of the event of its own namesake..the Big Bang. Since this occurred at the quantum level, the cause/effect relationship we are so accustomed to at the macro level did not exist, as this is a product of the universe, not the other way around. This makes it very difficult for us to isolate a model candidate as being the most likely, and doubly difficult to develop and test a theory from one of our models.

[argh523]

@WarVideo It only describles how the universe became what it is today from the time it started. It doesn't make any statement about how it started. What we know about physics breaks down at that point.

[WarVideo]

@argh523 I think logic and respect for reality breaks down at that point.