Cosmogony - Origin of the Universe

[CharlesU87]

@TheLivirus no, remember God is omniscient and all-knowing so it having feeling of loneliness is an absurd notion to begin with..

[cacasarq]

glacial cosmogony is a very good theory. look for it...

[nyancyplusmarven]

you said "everyone agrees" that the universe had a beginning, but i dont. interesting video

[TheLivirus]

I'm sorry but I find this rather rediculous. All you do is to carefully choosing your words as to make the god-option sound more appealing, which doesn't make it even a tiny bit more likely. Reality is what it is.

[whey80]

Only reason can create itself.

[whey80]

@whey80

only consiousness create reasons, accidents dont :-)

[Potatoflesh]

"It either popped out of nowhere..."

The Big Bang in no way infers that something came out of nowhere. Rather, the Big Bang was the rapid expansion of something that already existed. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

[skyedude0709]

So, life had to happenb. it'sthe law ofaverages. it is not a miracle, because a miracle DEFIES Probability, Life, by the law f probability, had to happen on at least one planet.

[skyedude0709]

People saay-how can the miracle of life happen w/ out god?

I say- how can it not?

There are billions of trillions of planets out there, around trillions of suns, and EACH ONE has the chance for it to happen. There probably are other plaets, too, with life.

And to you christians- the bible DOES NOT extinguish the chance of life in other planets, what the Vatican is calling "Our Extraterrestrial Brothers."

[SkullVodka]

"Does god really exist?" Of course not. Grow up.

[SkullVodka]

You religious nutjobs are hilarious, in a very sad way.

[REALGREYBLUE]

I believe that the very nature of things teaches us things about it's maker. I like to call Good the Code-Master. the DNA inventor.

[REALGREYBLUE]

We assume the code-master has their own code-master but perhaps we do not grasp eternity backwards because we were born. We know we had a beginning so we assume our inventor must have too.

[nato2004]

@REALGREYBLUE WELL PUT!!!!!!!!!

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@REALGREYBLUE That is an interesting concept. So what does the nature of child cancer & genetic deformities tell you about our maker (the "good the code-master")

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@REALGREYBLUE Don't tell me, your good code-master isn't responsible for that bit of lovely code writing, eh?

No, that is all somehow all our doing as a result of free-will & original sin, yes?

I guess when it get to this part of your theory, it stops sounding all-scientific & gets back to reliance on superstition & myth, but that's a more accurate description of the source of your beliefs in this area, wouldn't you agree?

[REALGREYBLUE]

Take our Sun. It's pitched in the right spot. Our Earth if it was a small degree that way we freeze If it was a small degree the other way we burn. Tell me there is no intellegence behind all things and I'll say you don't see that?

[opterigon]

But when the Sun expands in the future, the earth will no longer be in its present 'Goldilocks zone'. The fact that life evolved here, where the conditions for life have happened to be right for a limited window of time, is not of itself evidence of intelligence.

What seems obvious to you isn't necessarily the case, and saying 'we all know everything seems to have a purpose' isn't true. I for one do not think everything seems to have a purpose. You're assuming, not investigating.

[biggbaddjohn]

"But when the Sun expands in the future, the earth will no longer be in its present 'Goldilocks zone'. "

As Predicted by the bible (not necessarily by sun expansion)...

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10

You & the bible in perfect agreement, imagine that :-)

[opterigon]

But sun expansion is what I was talking about, not just any general destruction of the Earth.

So on this matter there is no 'perfect' agreement.

Not that the idea of agreeing with bits of the bible causes me grief. The bible's ambiguities and contradictions are so extensive as to allow every single person on Earth to agree with *bits* of it. I see that as a weakness not a strength.

[biggbaddjohn]

contradictions ??? I hear a lot of folks say that, but they never give examples. what are your top 3 bible contradictions ???

[opterigon]

1) The instruction to take an eye for an eye becomes 'turn the other cheek'.

2) The biblical God commands 'thou shalt not murder' after wiping out almost all life on earth with a flood.

3) 1 Chron 21 has 'the Lord' telling David to take the census. 2 Samuel 24 has Satan telling David to do this.

The bible *abounds* with contradictions and contradictory values.

[biggbaddjohn]

#3 these 2 passages are in total harmony. as a matter of fact, the 2 verses could have been written on the same page and they would be complimentary of each other.

something like this- "God got mad at Isreal, so he moved David against them by allowing Satan to provoke David into numbering Isreal."

It's the same thing with different details listed.

Besides that, you just made up the part about what the LORD said, cause he SAID absolutly nothing in either passage.

STRIKE 1 !!!

[biggbaddjohn]

#1 no contradiction here either. eye for an eye represents justice. even after Jesus instructed us to love our enemies, eye for an eye is still justice.

We as Christians are admonished not to take advantage of our right to justice. Not because justice is bad or passed away, but because we are following the example of Christ.

We prove that we r saved by forgiving people from our hearts just as our Heavenly Father does.

Strike #2

[biggbaddjohn]

#2 Guess What !!!! God has the right to judge his creation whenever he sees fit. You might as well get used to that notion.

Besides that, "the whole earth was filled with violence..." Had God not stepped in, this place would have become a literal hell on earth.

I have done a ton of research on the flood and it looks to me like we humans had a corrupted gene pool problem. but that is a total other discussion.

Well, that makes strike 3

since these were not actual contradictions, what r ur nxt 3

[opterigon]

Lol!

1) So we blind the other guy at the same time as turning the other cheek. I see...

2) I don't believe in your god. The only thing I'm getting used to is your poor excuses for blatant contradictions, like a god who kills and forbids killing.

3) There was no 'allowing Satan to provoke'. It was 'the Lord told' + 'Satan told'. You don't wriggle out of that one.

It always amuses me how people with no argument are so keen to award themselves victory. Perhaps they realise no one else will.

[fendz1]

well look at it this way, why would we exist anywhere else. it makes sense that we would live in the perfect environment for us to actually survive.

There could be infinitely many planets that are that small degree off, and therefore cannot maintain life as we know it.

As for the sun, that situation happens very often. When gas clouds collapse into them selves it produces something like the sun and rarely is it not in the middle.

[REALGREYBLUE]

The Author of our way of existing. You can call it time & chance or natural selection but code calls for someone to "write" it.

[fendz1]

I also do admit that there could be an intelligent; however, I do see one problem. It is the same problem that the cosmological argument has. What if the situation not so finite. and idea of intelligent design regresses forever. Something would have had to create that which created us, because they too would be to "perfect" to no be created by intelligent design. But then what created the first one?

Please write back. I mean this as a talk of minds and not as a criticism, and gain understanding

[REALGREYBLUE]

Well well well I guess this is the stuff hope faith and love comes from. But as said in THE END we will either know it all or not exist anymore and know nothing ever again.

[REALGREYBLUE]

I agree. It either is bang or it is let there be light. We "know" it cam into existance and we "know" everything seems to have a purpose. I suppose the things we dont "know" will be revieled over time. Time. Interesting how time is diffrent depending on where you are at in the Universe. t sems obvious to me that it is measured out. Like as if someone or something had a ruler a meauring line. I mean it's almost far fetched the persicness of some things.

[opterigon]

No. The options are not 'The universe popped out of nowhere for no reason' or 'a god created it'. There is another option: a simple 'we don't yet know'.

I like the answer 'we don't yet know'. It's not arrogant or cocksure. It doesn't require any assumptions about what you would like to be the case. It's just honest.

You keep talking in absolutes, reflect7. "It's either this or that". No grey areas, no subtlety, no genuine enquiry, which is why your conclusions are so simplistic.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

Hey I was just strolling by here.

"Opterigon" - Something did it or it did itself. Please specify a third plausible alternative. :)

[opterigon]

JonathanMcLatchie, please could you first explain how that has anything to do with my own comment relating to the specific false dichotomies I objected to from reflect7.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

The law of causation states that everything which has a beginning has a cause. Therefore the only feasible explanations are a supernatural, eternally existing master architect or it popped into being by itself. Can you please suggest a third conceivable hypothesis?

[opterigon]

1 of 2

Before I address your quite separate point, I will clarify that my objection to reflect7's dichotomy is his use of the phrase "for no reason". If the universe did 'pop out of nowhere' this would definitely not have been 'for no reason'. In phrasing his 'options' this way, reflect7 attempts to prejudice his audience to infer that 'god created it' is the only reasonable 'explanation'.

I find that disingenuous.

[opterigon]

2 of 2

a) Quantum physicists suggest that some particles pop into existence with no apparent cause, in seeming contravention of the law you cite.

b) I don't share your view that supernatural explanations are feasible.

c) An alternative to 'god did it' and 'no good reason' would be 'a good reason we don't yet know'. Just as Early Man didn't know why stars shine, the universe's origin isn't currently within our grasp. Premature conclusions may seduce, but I'd rather not know than be wrong.

[Shreken4]

I wish people would come to realize there are some things that we lack the ability to understand. There are things so complex we would never begin think about them. People believe in 'gods' as a way of coping with the fact they will 'NEVER' know why/how. This man needs to stop 'trying' to sound smart, and actually back up what he's talking about. You say it can't be science, because it can't be created in a lab, but there can be god when it can't be seen?

[JonathanMcLatchie]

Shreken4 - Please understand that we are NOT anti-science. Actually, evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent. For science to work one must assume a degree of unifomity in nature. The problem for evolutionists is that such uniformity only makes sense within the scope of the Biblical worldview as it reflects God's self-consistent nature. So in order to make scientific progress, one has to 'borrow' from the Biblical worldview - which predicts uniformity.

[IfYthenZ]

JonathanMcLatchie, on what do you base your assertion that 'evolutionists can only do science if they are inconsistent'?

And on what do you base your assertion that uniformity in nature only makes sense within a biblical worldview? I do not accept the bible and yet uniformity in nature makes sense to me. And would not so-called 'miracles' be considered, by definition, inconsistent with natural uniformity?

The biblical worldview is anathema to science. Science certainly does not borrow from it.

[JonathanMcLatchie]

Operational science these days is running loops round the Big Bang model. There are so many foundational problems associated with it that I could not possibly cover them all here. However, take the horizon problem. Even assuming the big bang timescale, there has not been enough time for light to travel between widely separated regions of space. So, how can the different regions of the current cosmos have such precisely uniform temperatures if they have never communicated with each other?

[JonathanMcLatchie]

Also, consider the - hypothetical - monopoles. Proponents of the Big Bang model hold that the high temperature conditions of such an event should have created magnetic monopoles. Even assuming the big bang time scale, monopoles should have existed to this very day, as they are are predicted to be stable. However, as yet, they remain to be found. This would suggest that the universe was never particularly hot, which has devastating implications for the big bang hypotheses. Thoughts?

[reflect7]

Drdirs, what about the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy (total disorder) increases with time? Of course, we can extrapolate back and find that at one point the total entropy must have been 0 (maximum order) and so the Universe definitely had a finite beginning. Thoughts?

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@reflect7 I'm curious, your response sounds very scientifically based as you discuss the entropy of a closed system as stated in the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Does your reliance on scientific knowledge extend to the age of the universe?

Just curious considering Randall Niles is part of any organization that believes in a young earth as well as taking every word of the bible literally.

[j2hsieh]

thanks for your videos.

could you explain the reason which God created this world ?

[reflect7]

I can't, but the Bible says that God created the cosmos for his glory and humankind for relationship.

[LetReasonPrevail1]

@reflect7 I'm curious. Your response that "the bible says that god created the cosmos" indicates that your belief in a creator god, yaweh, is based upon reliance on the veracity of scripture.

However, this video would imply that your belief in said creator god is instead founded upon the validity of the cosmological argument and its related proofs.

Which is it?

[TheLivirus]

@reflect7 So god was suffering from loneliness, so he created mankind to keep him company? If I were him I'd create other divinities to keep me company instead. He'd probably find such relationships more challanging. But judging from his fixation with himself as the ONLY GOD, appearently he got some form of superiority complex. I guess he finds it comforting to look down on mankind rather than having relationships with divinities on his own level.

[drdirs]

"everybody agrees now that the universe, the cosmos, had a beginning"

No, not everyone agrees. Specifically, if EVERYTHING has a beginning, then there is no first cause. Strict causality can NOT account for existence. Not all things have a beginning. It's counterintuitive, but TRUE. The disagreement is over which things could be eternal.

[drdirs]

Or rather, the object of study is what things must be eternal. God is not a necessary component in creation theories. In fact he only adds unknowns.

[crexy101]

Which ever way you look at it something got created out of nothing. Either the universe just 'happened' or God created it,,, but what created God??

[reflect7]

I just posted a new video on this, "Who Created God?" Check it out. Just type "Who Created God Randall Niles" into the search tool above. I'd love to read your response. Thanks.

[IssyMae]

I agree with this guy's logic. I need to check out his other stuff.

[comodocomodos]

There is a very big difference between what science and religion say and that's understandable. If science says, for example, bacteria cause TB, then it has to identify the bacterium. It just can't say "something must have done it" or "there must be a reason." Same for God and the Universe.