Who created your god? Where is he now? What role does he currently play in world events? Does he still control the weather? How come he did so many "miracles" when our species knew nothing about nature and germs and mental illness, yet now that we are more informed he has gone brain-dead and silent? WHere is your god? All your convoluted arguments ring hollow, because your god has gone silent and he is powerless.
The big bang theory doesnt say that the big bang was the beginning of the universe (the word 'beginning' is absurd in this context btw, since time didnt exist yet), just that there is no way of saying how it was like before the big bang (since it was a singularity), and we could just as well speak of it as if it were the start, while in fact we dont know if thats true. There are some theories that explain why the universe exist, like that our universe is just a quantum bubble in a multiverse.
Kalam cosmological argument at best leads to impersonal deism, and that's if all premises are accepted without question. And maybe it's just me, but I found the contemporary gospel music distracting.
Okay, so I haven't watched any of your videos yet, but did you know the earth is rotating the wrong direction in your intro? Not the best start for someone trying to argue proofs for God's existence. If you already addressed this in another vide, forgive me for bringing it up. Now I will check out your vid.
@TheHonestTheist ..If the universe is finite ( which I agree with for what its worth ) it does indeed entail a beginning. However you use the word 'created' this is not a term that entails a creator except in the minds of those inclined to want a 'creator'. You could just say it had a beginning..doesn't necessitate a beginnerer :). We don't know the 'cause' and it is more honest to just say that...
@resonance10 "You could just say it had a beginning..doesn't necessitate a beginnerer"
In my opinion it does mean we need "something" as the cause though.
"We don't know the 'cause' and it is more honest to just say that..."
Just because you don't know, doesn't mean others don't. It's true that in terms of science and philosophy (and all methods dependent upon our own knowledge and intellect) cannot give us a true answer. But you are neglecting revelation, a knowledge of God given by God.
@TheHonestTheist "In my opinion it does mean we need "something" as the cause though." My point as i am sure you are aware was that there is no need of 'intentional agency' the anthropomorphizing of the unknown.
"It's true that in terms of science and philosophy (and all methods dependent upon our own knowledge and intellect) cannot give us a true answer". Please square that statement with this one: "But you are neglecting revelation, a knowledge of God given by God."
@TheHonestTheist Yes I was pointing out that my objection was not to the idea of a 'cause' but to the intentional 'creator' you originally claimed.
'square that statement'..by this i mean you say 'and all methods dependent upon our own knowledge and intellect' and then"'a knowledge of God given by God." what does 'knowledge' mean in this second context? What characterizes 'knowledge' in the first sentence that makes it different from 'knowledge' in the second sentence I have quoted from you?
@TheHonestTheist I think I know what resonance10 meant. I'll put it htis way. You did a thorough job of researching scientific evidence about the big bang, and steady-state models of the universe. Why do you rely on revelation or logical arguments to support the existence of god, and not on scientific evidence. I'm curious to know too, since you appreat to have devoted a lot of time and energy in your research. Kudos.
@TheHonestTheist There is nothing that support revelation is true. Culture groups only express the idea of revelation for things to which they have been exposed. If you revelation were true, I would expect that it would appear in non-related cultural groups.
@gangadhari108 You have refuted evolution in ten pages..? That tells anyone who knows the smallest amount about evolution that you are full of crap. Btw atheism does not require evolution and evolution does not require atheism.
The problem with your argument, which is basically the Kalam Cosmological Argument, is that you dishonestly label whatever the cause of the universe was "god." Why call it god? Why not call it, I don't know, the first cause? By labeling it "god" you are trying to sweep in a bunch of unestablished traits under the rug.
You say that God made the universe. The universe is finite. God therefore is infinite.
(1) If God is infinite and transcends time and space, how can he interact with matter?
(2) It is possible to create something from nothing. Research the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as applied to Leptons and the origin of the Big Bang.
Very nice argument though, you're one of the most intelligent and rational Theists I've ever encountered!
@afroman1419 Interesting Point. I'll give you the Catholic Perspective.
Essentially God transcends and is a part of time and space through the Holy Spirit and Jesus. God becomes a part of this world through Jesus and his life and death. The Holy Spirit is the medium (part of God) that interacts with people directly.
@UndergrndSound You can use this perspective to justify the existence of god but you would be unable to appeal to science as a reason for his existence. Also, since these arguments can be changed around slightly and used for virtually every other religious god in its respective mythology, what makes using only the christian god a better proof? If you can use these reasons to justify the christian god, then you can't say that any other religious god does not exist.
@afroman1419 Your point is very true... And would be wholly correct if this was the only basis I have for believing in God. And Science fails to do a lot of things that Reason and Logic can. So my point wouldn't pass a scientific test no, but on every other groudns yes. And I have other proofs to work with science.
Lets not forget the fact that the Christian Bible, (New Testament) is the only religious historical document that has the earliest date of being written. The Gospel of Mark
@afroman1419 Was written about 40-50 years after Jesus's death roughly. Its estimates but no other religion can claim it. So mythology goes out the window. Not only this, but the way the Gospel was written gives evidence to the fact that it was written on the basis of many witnesses to Jesus' life. To clarify: Gospel of Mark was written, for example, by gathering all the witnesses in a town Jesus was known to visit. They then share stories, and from their accounts they get a general account of
@afroman1419 What happened. Jesus did walk the earth. He was crucified for the reasons given in the Gospels. The question left is was he the Son of God? And we can't prove yes or no, because a theist can't prove that these miracles did happen from a written account. It is only proved through experience and first hand, personal witness. Likewise and atheist can't prove the opposite, as most theists will say God was the beginning point. That he started it all
HOW CAN YOU PROVE 50 BILLION YEARS AGO THE BIG BANG HAPPENED, OR 51 1/2 BILLION YEARS AGO, YOU HAVE NO PROOFE, THERE IS NOT ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE ABOUT 50 BILLION YEARS AGO OR ANY BILLION YEARS AGO.
Revelation 3:20 - Behold, I stand at the door and knock; If anyone hears and listens to and heeds My voice and opens the door, I will come into him and will eat with him, and he with Me.
He who overcomes, I will grant him to sit beside Me on My throne, as I Myself overcame and sat down beside My Father on His throne
Revelation 2:23 - And all the assemblies shall recognize and understand that I am He who searches minds and the inmost hearts, and I will give to each of you as your work deserves.
Revelation 1:18 - I am the First and the Last, And the Ever-living One [I am living in the eternity of the eternities]. I died, but see, I am alive forevermore; and I possess the keys of death and Hades (the realm of the dead).
Revelation 1:8 - I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, says the Lord God, He who is and Who was and Who is to come, the Almighty (the ruler of all).
I dont know what you believe but I believe the Bible that says, "In the beginning God prepared, formed, fashioned and created the heavens and the earth. "
@HairyHu - Listen, I believe in the Bible, and that it is the Word of God, it is alive, and able to pierce the inner thoughts of man. dividing the soul from the spirit- I'm into what God tells me through His Word- " It is written, man does not live by bread alone, but from every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
@3:22 You are wrong about that the oscillating universe being abounded by scientist. In fact, just now they found some possible evidence for it. Look it up. you'll be surprised.
The fact is, we do not know what caused the Big-bang. We do not even know if there was a Big-bang. All we know that lights from stars has red-shift proportional to their distance, and there is some microwave background radiation.
Does one believe the house they live in just created itself? that would be stupid to believe right. Does one believe the Mona Lisa just painted itself? that would be stupid to believe, that would be very stupid , very stupid and very foolish to believe. the same goes about Earth the universe and life as we know it, The Bible says ,"the fool in his heart has said there is no God."
@theageofgrace Is the universe a house or a painting? That is a deeply flawed comparison. Anyways no one believes that the universe created itself, many though believe that the universe had no beginning and ergo there is no need for a creator or creation. Anyways I say; "the fool believes the bible."
@theageofgrace The problem with your analogy is that we have seen people build houses and we can see people paint paintings. As far as I know, we've never seen someone create a universe, so you can't draw that comparison.
@leifey - I was simply stating that nothing can create itself, yes life on earth cannot create itself, there is obviously a designer behind everything we see and experience on earth and in the universe and the vastness of space.
@theageofgrace Do you have any evidence for this designer's existence? Or evidence that everything is designed? You used a flawed analogy to support an assertion. It's obviously not obvious or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
While it is be true that there was a moment where the whole universe was created (the Big Bang) that does not necessarily follow that there was nothing before that, or that the matter that formed the universe did not already exist. There may be evidence in quantum theory that only the state of the matter changed that brought along the Big Bang, but that that matter itself had existed as long as time, which formed along with the Big Bang. It's way beyond my experience, but that doesn't imply God
Assuming that the default state of everything is nonexistence and all that began needs to come into existence, then why is there a creator God as opposed to nothing? What is makes sense, a hyper intelligent, powerful, complex being just existing, or a singularity that would eventually break down into matter and energy? The big bang made the universe out of what can be termed nothing or everything as well. Really, all that it created was empty space, which seperated "things" from other "things".
6:00 Ummm, you're a theist denying the creation of something from nothing on logical grounds?? 7:00 See 'Multiverse' again
This video basically took something Atheists didn't believe anyway, tried to convince them not to believe in it and then used Thomas Aquinas' 'proofs' to go from "I don't like the idea of something from nothing" (we never said it was) to "therefore MY PERSONAL GOD must have done it"
I recommend the excellent YouTube video 'The Universe is Huge'.
1:53 No, no-one who knows what they are talking about still believes the Universe is infinite. Is time like a Mobius strip? Is there a Multiverse that has existed forever? These are more pertinent questions. 2:10 No it isn't (see previous). 2:30-3:10 you're preaching to the converted. 3:20 Did you just make that up? Google 'Big Bounce'. No, it hasn't been "greatly dismissed", and research on this possibility continues today. 4:00-5:30 See 2:30-3:10. 5:30 See 'M Theory', Multiverse, previous, etc
Using the term "creation" alone is disingenuous. We have no reason to uphold that the universe was created, period. There are plenty models that account for the universe being created. Despite all that, any statement made regarding the universe before the big bang is speculative, as we have no idea what was happening then. Period. If you want to claim that Yahweh caused the Big Bang, then go ahead, but there is no way to validate that claim. We simply do not know.
Your a terrible orator. I couldn't stand anymore after 3 minutes. Plus you seem to be hiding a slight sarcastic smug stand off to all those who you address.. And playing music while your talking..Just, thumbs down..Thumsb down..
First of a you state to beieve the universe is finite but you make a mistake here: The matter in this universe is finite, but it is still expanding! What is it expanding in? What is there when there is no matter? Maybe empty space, but we do not know anything about it so you can never assume it is finite whitout some sort of proof or logical assumption...
don't think Christians or atheists have fully answered the question of life on earth but i would listen to Richard dawkins any day before i would listen to the likes of benny hinn and the rest of them money grabbing con artists.
we do not know thet the univers came into being it could have always existed in one way or another since time is part of the univarse before time there must be something.... look at quantom theory. the universe is not expanding it is only moving away from galactic cenrtral point (there is still the same ammount of atoms)
@WilkoPhilip space-time is in expansion. every point in the universe could be considered the "central point" as all things galaxies are moving away from each other (except those trapped in each other's gravity).
@greycloud24 that is exactly what i said but by saying expanding some people mean gaining more mass(atoms) which is clearly what this guy thinks when realy there is the same atoms(energy) and there is no proof otherwise therefore nothing is being created on coserved. (thermodynamics) and galaxies are moving away from other galaxies and some are being shot away form each outher.... this guy just dosent know all the facts.
You are making your argument based on the assumption that there needed to be a cause for the universes creation and there is no good reason to make that assumption, you are assuming that something can't come from nothing and there is no good reason to assume this. Everything constant and rule we know of came after the big bang, before the big bang anything was possible. Even if your assumptions were true, it does not prove an intelligent creator, it only proves a cause and something before big b
@TheHonestTheist Hi mate i hate to be picky but.... 6:45 His name is Stephen Hawking. It's a common mistake but I think this man has well earned his respect.
Starting out with "A very rough, unformulated, unstructured presentation of some arguments for the existence of God." doesn't really make it easier for you.
It's just another creationist atempt doing it all backwards all over again. Why do you think it's OK to start out with the solution and work your way backward this time when nobody outside the religious domain accepts that silly method before? Start investigating the universe WITHOUT preconceived idea about deities and there will be no god
Okay, around 6:00. This just bothers me so much. You say "something cannot come out of nothing" but it's possible for "something to create something out of nothing". Uh...what? You're getting mixed up in the philosophical language. What you REALLY want to say is that something can come from nothing ONLY if God caused it, because if it was caused by nothing then it's impossible. You are presupposing metaphysical causes beyond the universe (existence) without proper justification.
First, there is a problem with saying "the universe is finite" and then referring to the beginning of the universe. Yes, the universe has a beginning but that doesn't make it finite. And so too does time. The measure of time begins with the universe. So to say there was something "before" the measure of time is meaningless. It would be like saying something existed before God. Hence, I still hold that the premise "the universe is infinite" is true. Don't get confused in the language.
@ClaytonOT I don't know why this is such a common question as it has been answered so many times. Here are a few 1) If someone created God, then it would be God! 2) If God was created, He wouldn't be the creator! 3) If God needs a God then that God needs a God as so on for infinity, meaning nothing would ever get created as there is no ultimate creator. 4) The question is based on the false assumption that God is not eternal. 5) It is like asking who the bachelor is married to?
@ClaytonOT 1) God isn't in time, He created time and therefore must transcend it. 2) You can never wait an infinite amount of time anyway, that is philosophically impossible.
@TheHonestTheist For something to be considered as "existing", it must therefore not have existed at some point. You can't have a anything exist within a system without the possibility of non-existence at a previous point, as that is philosophically impossible, even if transcended from time itself. That is unless you want to argue that existence itself is an illusory possibility.
@jarrod1937 it is logically impossible for energy to have a begining. energy only comes from other energy, it cannot be created it cannot be destroyed it can only change forms. so although it may be philisophically impossible for something to exist now and not have existed before, it is logically and rationally impossible for energy to exist now and have not always existed.
Heh, on one hand it seems impossible for something to have always existed (the problem of an actual infinite) and on the other hand it seems impossible for something (ie.energy) to have not always existed.
Thinking about reality is enough to make one lose touch with reality.
@TheHonestTheist The real issue though is what creates this infinite regression itself, is it a problem of logic or definition of god itself? No matter what though, infinite regression popping up doesn't solve the problem as you seem to believe, it just shows there is a more fundamental conflict with what you believe, and thus should be explored further rather than dismissed.
You're also misunderstanding and misquoting the second law of thermal dynamics. Which states an increase in entropy with time, entropy should not be considered "decay".
@TheHonestTheist You are claiming such things as "God isn't in time" and "The question is based on the false assumption that god is not eternal" without the possibility ever really applying evidence for these statements. There's no definitive reason the universe needs a conscious creator to exists. Saying that it does because the common experience of humanity cannot comprehend the idea of something forming without creation, is not evidence that creation is needed.
You don't seem to be following this very well. He is arguing that a "something" is needed that fits the attributes that he is laying out because of the various arguments he gives. Gradually he is attempting to show that those attributes conform to man's traditional conception of God.
Therefore he doesn't need to prove that "God isn't in time" or that "God is eternal"
@TheHonestTheist Assuming that reality has to be formed in a way we can easily explain it is ego-centric. So is the belief that in a universe that is possibly infinite somehow humans, who make up a small part of it, are disproportionately important. The universe is constantly expanding and contains possibly limitless matter, but it clear only exists so humans can live without and be important just because we exist. Again, this ego-centric reasoning.
@TheHonestTheist If God is beyond space, time, and matter, then where are you getting your information that God exists? These are the foundations of the natural universe, we are unable to measure anything outside of that realm. And the only "evidence" people can legitimately claim for the existence of God is personal experience/revelation, which isn't scientifically valid.
@TheHonestTheist 1) First, kindly prove that time exists! Then show which kind of time is it. After that, we can start to talk about, that is it possible for something exist outside of time.
2a) What is an "amount of time"? What is "infinite"? 2b) there are a lot of things which philosophically imposible, like Zeno's paradox (Achilles can never overtake the tortoise ), but in real life he can.
@HairyHu - Time is the measure of changes, things around us are always changing. God is not in time for he says,"I am the same yesterday today and forever.
@theageofgrace 1.) So, you say there is no actual time!? Time is just a concept to measure changes.
2.) So God says He does not change. But God Incarnated in Jesus and became a man. He born as a baby and grown up to be a man. He died, BODILY resurrected, BODILY ascended to Heaven ... etc. Well somebody is lying.
Or you do not believe that Jesus was/is fully God?
@HairyHu - Gods character does not change, He is and was and will always be a loving father, and nothing can seperate us from the love of God. In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. He was presently originally with God. All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being. In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.
@theageofgrace I see! Now you changed your mind. Now, you say the ONLY God's CHARACTER dos not change! Well, this does not make God outside of time! In fact something has to be in time to be able to NOT to change. Since you said "time is the measure of changes" If God is not in time, how can He demonstrate that He does not change. Change without time is meaningless.
But, God became a man and He still is a man, so He is in time!
@theageofgrace "In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ)"
In the beginning is NOT before all time. Not to mention the temporal expression "beginning" has no meaning without time. But, have a look what the Bible says. Your quote of Jn. 1:1 is referring to Ge. 1:1 Where the word is "berasheet" Which comes from "resh" meaning head, so it says in the Head of things, just like rosh hashana = head of the year or rosh hodesh head of the month.
@HairyHu - Ok look I dont want to argue theology whos write and whos wrong, all I care about is when you die are you gonna stand before God ashamed or justified; by Jesus and what He has already finished on the cross - for all who call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved, who change their thoughts and ways. He says- The one who comes to me I will by no means cast out - John6:37
@theageofgrace Now, you threaten me with a God who's existence you have not proven, let alone what this God will or will not do. This is how you want to convince me about His existence? Or, you got nothing but empty threat to scare people to believe? May be that is why you believe, but it will not save you.
As for Jn. 6:37 , the Bible says something there and something else elsewhere. That is why you have 13 thousand denominations arguing about what the Bible says.
Umm. I can distinguish a bachelor and the concept marriage, but not God(s).
( 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 will ) at least will give you a better idea of what science has shown as of late.
There are beliefs, but the Greeks, Assyrians, or scatter tribal had "beliefs", all of which hold just as much merit as the dominating monotheistic religions of today.
They are not here because they are true, but because of demographic contiguous relationships.
@TheHonestTheist The point of this question is to make you think about the idea that nothing can come from nothing. If God can pop into existence somehow in order to create/explain the universe's existence, then why can't the universe just as well have always existed or simply come into being spontaneously?
All you are doing is adding an extra layer of complexity to the question of how the universe got here. You have added an invisible, magical being where none existed & there's no need for one
@TheHonestTheist See, but all you're doing is creating something out of nothing...you have put yourself in the same (actually worse, because you're positing something omnipotent, if it created the universe on its own) position as someone trying to determine a natural reason for the beginning of the universe. What good does that do? The universe had to start at some point, because we're here: we know that for certain. I don't see how proposing a supernatural reason is helpful.
@PATERcestLEmun "Not a single one of those are answers" None of them are supposed to be answers, rather, they are showing why the question is fallacious.
"Number 5 is completely irrelevant"
It is actually completely relevant, you just can't see how, although I'm not sure why.
We cannot imagine how God looks like e.t.c because our imagination is totally limited to what we see around us. Just look at the aliens we draw, they look like Lizards, Dinosaurs, or a mix of what we see around us. Since God is not any way Like anything in this Universe thus we cannot Imagine how he may look like, to do that is foolish.
We understand God as being ALL powerful, his power has NO comparison at all, ALL wise with no comparison like if we say God is 10^10 times wise than some Guy than the being we are talking about cannot be God. God cannot have a beginning or an end since if that is true for what we are talking about He Cannot be God. He is the very creator of Time and all things we percieve. He is not limited and thus his 'entire' self cannot be comprehended.
@IxxGODxxI cont.. the Indians and the greeks draw Gods that look and live like them. This whole Mythology nonsense is what I reject completely since God is not like us. He is NOT a Man and is not subject to things like hunger, thirst, sleep e.t.c He has no need to reproduce. That is a characteristic of living things here on this planet.
@IxxGODxxI We know God but we comprehend him in way different than how we comprehend other things around us. For me I do not believe that God is some Old man who looks like us (he grew Old). The African draw a God with big lips, the Mongols/Chinese with eyeys like theirs, the Olmecs a God that looks like them. The conept of Giving God a shape or form is making him limited, its putting him into our imagination. I am talking about God the being that has created this Universe and all within it...
God himself is not like anything in this Universe because he is not from the Universe, He is distinct, he is seperate. The universe has a beginning, it changes with time. It came into existance and according to science is moving towards disorder and thus will come an 'end' all life and all stars and everything will finish. God is never changing and not limited in anyway. He does not have a beginning and he does have an end . He is NOT like anything we can see or imagine.
@IxxGODxxI don't brush me with your bible mind set up. If God is the universe itself than we are Gods. Everything contains God himself, he is not distinct he is not seperate. The Idea of God that we have is that he is the very creator of what we call as time and space and he himself is beyond it. We cannot say that God is "here" or "there". He is not physically present within the Universe. The images we make and ideas we develop are limited to what we see and experience ...
@angrynutrients the laws that we know and apply to us and our universe, be it thermodynamics or conservation of energy e.t.c. God is not a part of the universe and he is not this Universe itself, therefore to apply our most limited understanding of our universe, to limit God which is itself defined as what cannot be made limited or does not have a shape or form and this is because he is the creator and Not the creation and thus different from the creation. To do this doesn't make sense.
@MatrixOfDynamism I'm just saying that using the law of thermodynamics to try and prove the existence of god is fruitless due to the fact we have new energy from the sun. And to apply physics to god doesn't make sense because god and the idea of god doesn't make sense. For someone eternal and unchanging he sure seems to change his mind about everything a hell of a lot.
@MatrixOfDynamism First he creates the universe with the rules that sinning means no heaven without a sacrifice, then he decides to change the rules so you can just ask for forgiveness, but rather than just snapping his fingers he decides to create an incarnation of himself, then sacrifice himself, then go to heaven (Which is cheating because it isn't a real sacrifice if you can save yourself that quickly) So he change his mind about the rules for getting into heaven.
@angrynutrients well I agree with you 100% that this shows that God is changing mind. But I have to tell you Bible is not the only book that is claimed to be from God. There are others as well that are supposed to be Direct revelation from God. How to find which is real? Use reasoning. It is for reasons like the one you gave me here that I do not accept that the Redemption is from the truth. Mankind has been around for a looong time. It doesn't fit to make sacrifice now.
Anyone who listens to this sort of dribble, like "How can something be there, if it wasn't there before - it's impossible", is more stupid than the idiot who's telling you such babbble.
This guy tries to look and appear honest, and even puts it in his name. But that DOESNT in any way make him intelligent. HE states so much as fact, when he doesnt have a deep understaniding about what he's saying. HE htinks he can dismiss the existence of God, by using ONE quote form Stephen Hawking.
Everyone watching this: Spare yourself. It's just a variation of the Kalam cosmological argument. FUCKING YAWN. Something can't come from nothing, but God can? OK, if you want to call the beginning of the universe God, you still have to show that it's your God -- one that answers prayers, cares how and with whom you have sex, and knows every thought in your head, so on.
cont...theoretically possible. If we granted your premise that the universe needed a cause, I do not understand why it needed to be immaterial or any of thee other qualities you claimed. Regardless, even if we did grant all your premises, we've narrowed down the options to a somewhat never ending list.
circle has no beginning and no end, there are no points on the circle, which is wrong. Even if your premise were true, time itself could simply have existed in a different form before the big bang. Also, Steven hawking does not say time did not exist, rather time is pointless before that moment. Furthermore, it is unproven that something cannot come from nothing. Indeed, there are virtual particles which are just that. It's not proven, and I wouldn't ask you to accept the claim, but it is...cont
The universe as it is now is finite (in terms of beginning). The claim that it cannot have existed forever is simply not based on any evidence or fact, otherwise you would win the nobel prize. The universe in it's current state is indeed exerting the anthropic principle, but it wasn't before the big bang (at least there is no reason to believe so). With the infinite argument, I think your point was that if time is infinite, there would not be a now. This is however saying that since a.......cont
Mr.TheHonestTheist please stop making videos you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you're misinforming the public.A universe being finite or infinite has nothing to do with the beginning and the issue is undecided among cosmologists at present.Actually analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology (meaing it could be both unbounded and infinite)
seek the lord with faith but the wicked search for a sine :"if my people ,who are called by my name,will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will i hear form heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 chronicles 7:14 humble your selfs and seek our redeemer Jesus and apart form our selfish ways
There is a way that seems right to a man ,but in the end it leads to death. proverbs 14:12
You keep bandying about the word "creation" when the word presumes a creator. You're right, the universe as we know it had a "beginning," but that doesn't mean there was nothing before it. We don't know what was before this universe, and we have no way of investigating it, so we call it the "beginning." You can't assume that there was nothing before the Big Bang.
You've dug yourself a hole with the 'the universe needs a creator because there needs to be a 'first cause' but using that logic the first cause must also have had a cause. You can't say 'there must have been a first cause, and that first cause must have been a god' because you are only jumping to conclusions based on your personal experience in this universe... Saying god don't need a first cause because he is god is not an answer...
In today's news: "Child abuse claims sweep Catholic Church in Europe"
SHAME on the idiocy of Christianity and all it's crap and myth based nonsense, ancient scripture based morality that keeps failing and imaginary relationships with an invisible and completely useless God . Aren't we humans going to wake up to reality soon? Aren't we smarter than that?
No wonder 98% of Iranians are Muslims...we humans are just too easy to brainwash into all this ancient shit.
A metaphor to use to demonstrate the universe is finite.... Say our existence on earth here and now is dominoe "X" and holding to the infinite universe theory, there are infinite dominoes before dominoe "X" We can see very well that we never would have reached dominoe "X" because the infinite dominoes prior would never have finished collapsing therefore reaching dominoe "X" we wouldnt exist yet if the universe were actually infinite.
M Theory. Possibility of a multiverse with several universes in floating around in the bulk forever budding off creating new universes. m-branes with universes on each could have collided creating our own big bang. Merely mathematical elegance at this point, but quite contrary to limitations of your views of a finite universe. "It didn't create itself because it couldn't have existed before itself...or have been created from nothing."
A fundamental misunderstanding of the universe is not understanding that the universe is not a thing, it is the totality of existance. Even if no matter, time or space existed before the big bang, the potential for those things to exist would have been there infinitely, and that would have been something.
When theists propose an infinite god, they really propose an infinite universe, because under the definition that the universe is everything, that would include god.
You say that it is an established fact that the universe had a beginning, but the big bang is not proof of that. The big bang was a great reformation of the universe, not the beginning. Like shaking an etch-and-sketch clean. Not knowing what happened before the singularity is not the same thing as there being nothing.
The source material was infinite in order to be consistant with the first law of thermodynamics.
Almost not atheist believe that the current universe is infite, specially considering the age of the universe has been determined.
The philosophy that there is not such thing as a infinite number is just a philosophy not a scientific fact
Why supernatural? Space and timeless perhaps but why does this some how make it supernatural? And your just shifting the question not answering it. What caused this supernatural thing to suddenly cause
@liesandtricks Our visible universe is about 13.7 billion years old. To say it's infinite is a false statement. However, we might be part of a multi-verse with other universes existing. Big Bang might be the effect of a super massive black hole transitioning it's energy into a Big Bang when reaching some unknown critical condition - perhaps gravity itself breaks down at some energy level.
1) The universe IS infinite, spacially. Time, however, is different. It's worth mentioning.
2) Please never say 2nd law of thermo states "everything tends toward decay." Why is it SO hard to state "The entropy of the universe always goes up." Do you not see the difference between the 2? It's not that hard. Entropy =/ decay. So don't say it is!
3) I don't know ANY scientists who claim the universe comes from nothing.
4) If you're going to make arguments, please don't use strawman arguments:(.
"i can't imagine something in the universe that can create something from nothing for no reason". you just explained why i have a hard time believing in a god.
i have read many different hypothesis on what might have been the case "before" time existed and the big bang occured. some of this is from super string theory others from M theory. none of which is credible as it cannot be tested. however time itself and the idea of "before" has no meaning "before" the big bang.
Forever means "for a limitless time," according to Webster. Also, there was God before.
Decay defined by Webster means to fall into ruin. Molecules favor lower energy states. We would eventually have a universe that consists of the lowest energy molecules possible. DNA would follow this model also. Mutations are not generally favorable. People point to things like sickle cell anemia, but the truth is that it is a debilitating disease that causes resistance to malaria.
fact is that scientific theories explain and predict how a very large number of observed facts occur. a scientific theory is an explanation for many facts. some simple facts, evolution occurs, the theory of evolution explains how and why it occurs. the theory of gravity explains the fact that objects attract each other. the theory of thermodynamics explains how radio-isotope dating works, etc.
@r13xas In terms of repeating Big Bang we do actually make real experiments on how the physics is at the early stages of our universe.
For example, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Europe is a huge experimental facility involving 10,000 scientists/engineers and 100s of universities. The experiments will help enable further understanding of the very first fraction of a second of how our universe started. Costing US$ 9 billion it's the most expensive facility in science ever created.
You need to summarise your argument at the beginning, because you're asking people to listen to something fairly vague that goes for a while.
For example, at the outset I don't know whether you're simply setting out to "prove" that there's a consciousness behind creation, or trying to "prove" more than that - that your particularly god (as set out in say the bible) is real. The former's one thing, which I certainly don't actively oppose. The latter is a much, much bigger leap.
To work on the oscillatory argument, look up Penrose, Hawkings, and Ellis and how they disprove it, and I think it was Richard Tolmon who pointed out that the osciallatory Universe also follows the second law of thermodyanmic problem of entropy. So, entropy is a problem to both Oscialltory and eternal Universe models.
LOL, you studied the 2nd law of TD, skipping the 1st.
That's funny, you are using a as reference a book that states that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed ... to support "creation" .. F A I L
energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, furthermore, when we speak of "creation" we're not speaking of creation out of nothing, but creation as shaping the already eixsiting energy into its present form as a Universe. The Universe, if we can call it a Universe, existed before the Big Bang in a state where the laws of Physics were symmetrical and equal, until something caused it to end its symmetry, create a Universe as we see it today, any more nonsense?
the universe IS a closed system, if anything will be discovered will be added to the universe as we know, because the universe is everything that exists by definition.
The energy existed before the big bang (as you said and i agree) so i can't see any non-sense in what i said, i can see many nonsenses in the video though.
The Universe is a closed system? midn proving that? There is no evidence for that, and it's still undecided, to say with extreme precision that your claim is true would be unscientific.
Also, no the Universe is not everything that exists by definition, and to say it's all that exists would also be unscientific and contradictory to philsophical evidence and proof. It's obvious the Universe is not all that exists, because before the Universe existed, energy existed...
Nice video mate! God bless :)
lukehase 6 months ago
Who created your god? Where is he now? What role does he currently play in world events? Does he still control the weather? How come he did so many "miracles" when our species knew nothing about nature and germs and mental illness, yet now that we are more informed he has gone brain-dead and silent? WHere is your god? All your convoluted arguments ring hollow, because your god has gone silent and he is powerless.
kadene2 7 months ago in playlist the honest Thiest
Any examples of anything that is immaterial that exists? Immaterial=nonexistant.
VideoHarassment 7 months ago
people could spend years trying to prove gods existance but even if they manage. which god?
TMeerkat8 7 months ago
The big bang theory doesnt say that the big bang was the beginning of the universe (the word 'beginning' is absurd in this context btw, since time didnt exist yet), just that there is no way of saying how it was like before the big bang (since it was a singularity), and we could just as well speak of it as if it were the start, while in fact we dont know if thats true. There are some theories that explain why the universe exist, like that our universe is just a quantum bubble in a multiverse.
bommobiel 9 months ago
Kalam cosmological argument at best leads to impersonal deism, and that's if all premises are accepted without question. And maybe it's just me, but I found the contemporary gospel music distracting.
BigIdeaSeeker 9 months ago
Okay, so I haven't watched any of your videos yet, but did you know the earth is rotating the wrong direction in your intro? Not the best start for someone trying to argue proofs for God's existence. If you already addressed this in another vide, forgive me for bringing it up. Now I will check out your vid.
BigIdeaSeeker 9 months ago
@TheHonestTheist ..If the universe is finite ( which I agree with for what its worth ) it does indeed entail a beginning. However you use the word 'created' this is not a term that entails a creator except in the minds of those inclined to want a 'creator'. You could just say it had a beginning..doesn't necessitate a beginnerer :). We don't know the 'cause' and it is more honest to just say that...
resonance10 10 months ago
@resonance10 "You could just say it had a beginning..doesn't necessitate a beginnerer"
In my opinion it does mean we need "something" as the cause though.
"We don't know the 'cause' and it is more honest to just say that..."
Just because you don't know, doesn't mean others don't. It's true that in terms of science and philosophy (and all methods dependent upon our own knowledge and intellect) cannot give us a true answer. But you are neglecting revelation, a knowledge of God given by God.
TheHonestTheist 10 months ago
@TheHonestTheist "In my opinion it does mean we need "something" as the cause though." My point as i am sure you are aware was that there is no need of 'intentional agency' the anthropomorphizing of the unknown.
"It's true that in terms of science and philosophy (and all methods dependent upon our own knowledge and intellect) cannot give us a true answer". Please square that statement with this one: "But you are neglecting revelation, a knowledge of God given by God."
resonance10 10 months ago
@resonance10 "My point as i am sure you are aware was that there is no need of 'intentional agency' the anthropomorphizing of the unknown"
The point you are referring to doesn't mention an agent, just a cause.
"square that statement"
What do you mean?
TheHonestTheist 9 months ago
@TheHonestTheist Yes I was pointing out that my objection was not to the idea of a 'cause' but to the intentional 'creator' you originally claimed.
'square that statement'..by this i mean you say 'and all methods dependent upon our own knowledge and intellect' and then"'a knowledge of God given by God." what does 'knowledge' mean in this second context? What characterizes 'knowledge' in the first sentence that makes it different from 'knowledge' in the second sentence I have quoted from you?
resonance10 9 months ago
Respond to this video... Thanks for actually engaging btw :)
resonance10 9 months ago
@TheHonestTheist I think I know what resonance10 meant. I'll put it htis way. You did a thorough job of researching scientific evidence about the big bang, and steady-state models of the universe. Why do you rely on revelation or logical arguments to support the existence of god, and not on scientific evidence. I'm curious to know too, since you appreat to have devoted a lot of time and energy in your research. Kudos.
castelgandalf 4 months ago
@TheHonestTheist There is nothing that support revelation is true. Culture groups only express the idea of revelation for things to which they have been exposed. If you revelation were true, I would expect that it would appear in non-related cultural groups.
MyContext 7 months ago
@gangadhari108 You have refuted evolution in ten pages..? That tells anyone who knows the smallest amount about evolution that you are full of crap. Btw atheism does not require evolution and evolution does not require atheism.
resonance10 10 months ago
The universe can't be infinite, it is a flat universe therefore it can't be infinite.
gimmepassword 10 months ago
if we grant that the universe began, how can there a or any thing before we had things?
what is this "thing" beyond the natural? is it a thing?
turbopro10 10 months ago
The problem with your argument, which is basically the Kalam Cosmological Argument, is that you dishonestly label whatever the cause of the universe was "god." Why call it god? Why not call it, I don't know, the first cause? By labeling it "god" you are trying to sweep in a bunch of unestablished traits under the rug.
teoeo 11 months ago
How can something before time create time?
logicalmind4 1 year ago
You should watch the Root of all Evil by Richard Dawkins.
I would say it's the cumulative arguments of why God does not exist.
And im only posting this cause there needs to be two sides to every story and this is the best of them all.
zacharylansing 1 year ago
You say that God made the universe. The universe is finite. God therefore is infinite.
(1) If God is infinite and transcends time and space, how can he interact with matter?
(2) It is possible to create something from nothing. Research the Heisenberg uncertainty principle as applied to Leptons and the origin of the Big Bang.
Very nice argument though, you're one of the most intelligent and rational Theists I've ever encountered!
afroman1419 1 year ago
@afroman1419 Interesting Point. I'll give you the Catholic Perspective.
Essentially God transcends and is a part of time and space through the Holy Spirit and Jesus. God becomes a part of this world through Jesus and his life and death. The Holy Spirit is the medium (part of God) that interacts with people directly.
UndergrndSound 10 months ago
@UndergrndSound You can use this perspective to justify the existence of god but you would be unable to appeal to science as a reason for his existence. Also, since these arguments can be changed around slightly and used for virtually every other religious god in its respective mythology, what makes using only the christian god a better proof? If you can use these reasons to justify the christian god, then you can't say that any other religious god does not exist.
afroman1419 10 months ago
@afroman1419 Your point is very true... And would be wholly correct if this was the only basis I have for believing in God. And Science fails to do a lot of things that Reason and Logic can. So my point wouldn't pass a scientific test no, but on every other groudns yes. And I have other proofs to work with science.
Lets not forget the fact that the Christian Bible, (New Testament) is the only religious historical document that has the earliest date of being written. The Gospel of Mark
UndergrndSound 10 months ago
@afroman1419 Was written about 40-50 years after Jesus's death roughly. Its estimates but no other religion can claim it. So mythology goes out the window. Not only this, but the way the Gospel was written gives evidence to the fact that it was written on the basis of many witnesses to Jesus' life. To clarify: Gospel of Mark was written, for example, by gathering all the witnesses in a town Jesus was known to visit. They then share stories, and from their accounts they get a general account of
UndergrndSound 10 months ago
@afroman1419 What happened. Jesus did walk the earth. He was crucified for the reasons given in the Gospels. The question left is was he the Son of God? And we can't prove yes or no, because a theist can't prove that these miracles did happen from a written account. It is only proved through experience and first hand, personal witness. Likewise and atheist can't prove the opposite, as most theists will say God was the beginning point. That he started it all
UndergrndSound 10 months ago
HOW CAN YOU PROVE 50 BILLION YEARS AGO THE BIG BANG HAPPENED, OR 51 1/2 BILLION YEARS AGO, YOU HAVE NO PROOFE, THERE IS NOT ONE SCRAP OF EVIDENCE ABOUT 50 BILLION YEARS AGO OR ANY BILLION YEARS AGO.
theageofgrace 1 year ago
Revelation 3:20 - Behold, I stand at the door and knock; If anyone hears and listens to and heeds My voice and opens the door, I will come into him and will eat with him, and he with Me.
He who overcomes, I will grant him to sit beside Me on My throne, as I Myself overcame and sat down beside My Father on His throne
theageofgrace 1 year ago
Revelation 2:23 - And all the assemblies shall recognize and understand that I am He who searches minds and the inmost hearts, and I will give to each of you as your work deserves.
theageofgrace 1 year ago
Revelation 1:18 - I am the First and the Last, And the Ever-living One [I am living in the eternity of the eternities]. I died, but see, I am alive forevermore; and I possess the keys of death and Hades (the realm of the dead).
Revelation 1:8 - I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, says the Lord God, He who is and Who was and Who is to come, the Almighty (the ruler of all).
theageofgrace 1 year ago
Comment removed
theageofgrace 1 year ago
I dont know what you believe but I believe the Bible that says, "In the beginning God prepared, formed, fashioned and created the heavens and the earth. "
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@theageofgrace The Bible says: " Bereshit barah Elohim at hashamayim v'at haeretz"
Nothing about "prepared, formed, fashioned"
Do not twist the Bible!
HairyHu 1 year ago
@HairyHu - How in any way shape or form have I threatened you?
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@theageofgrace You must be joking! Don't you remember what have you written?
OK let me remind you:"all I care about is when you die are you gonna stand before God ashamed or justified; by Jesus ..."
HairyHu 1 year ago
@HairyHu - Listen, I believe in the Bible, and that it is the Word of God, it is alive, and able to pierce the inner thoughts of man. dividing the soul from the spirit- I'm into what God tells me through His Word- " It is written, man does not live by bread alone, but from every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@3:22 You are wrong about that the oscillating universe being abounded by scientist. In fact, just now they found some possible evidence for it. Look it up. you'll be surprised.
The fact is, we do not know what caused the Big-bang. We do not even know if there was a Big-bang. All we know that lights from stars has red-shift proportional to their distance, and there is some microwave background radiation.
HairyHu 1 year ago
Does one believe the house they live in just created itself? that would be stupid to believe right. Does one believe the Mona Lisa just painted itself? that would be stupid to believe, that would be very stupid , very stupid and very foolish to believe. the same goes about Earth the universe and life as we know it, The Bible says ,"the fool in his heart has said there is no God."
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@theageofgrace Is the universe a house or a painting? That is a deeply flawed comparison. Anyways no one believes that the universe created itself, many though believe that the universe had no beginning and ergo there is no need for a creator or creation. Anyways I say; "the fool believes the bible."
RAWRimaTroll 1 year ago
@theageofgrace The problem with your analogy is that we have seen people build houses and we can see people paint paintings. As far as I know, we've never seen someone create a universe, so you can't draw that comparison.
leifey 1 year ago
@leifey - I was simply stating that nothing can create itself, yes life on earth cannot create itself, there is obviously a designer behind everything we see and experience on earth and in the universe and the vastness of space.
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@theageofgrace Do you have any evidence for this designer's existence? Or evidence that everything is designed? You used a flawed analogy to support an assertion. It's obviously not obvious or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
leifey 1 year ago
Comment removed
theageofgrace 1 year ago
While it is be true that there was a moment where the whole universe was created (the Big Bang) that does not necessarily follow that there was nothing before that, or that the matter that formed the universe did not already exist. There may be evidence in quantum theory that only the state of the matter changed that brought along the Big Bang, but that that matter itself had existed as long as time, which formed along with the Big Bang. It's way beyond my experience, but that doesn't imply God
bernlin2000 1 year ago
Assuming that the default state of everything is nonexistence and all that began needs to come into existence, then why is there a creator God as opposed to nothing? What is makes sense, a hyper intelligent, powerful, complex being just existing, or a singularity that would eventually break down into matter and energy? The big bang made the universe out of what can be termed nothing or everything as well. Really, all that it created was empty space, which seperated "things" from other "things".
Coquipirate 1 year ago
6:00 Ummm, you're a theist denying the creation of something from nothing on logical grounds?? 7:00 See 'Multiverse' again
This video basically took something Atheists didn't believe anyway, tried to convince them not to believe in it and then used Thomas Aquinas' 'proofs' to go from "I don't like the idea of something from nothing" (we never said it was) to "therefore MY PERSONAL GOD must have done it"
I recommend the excellent YouTube video 'The Universe is Huge'.
05swanbe 1 year ago
1:53 No, no-one who knows what they are talking about still believes the Universe is infinite. Is time like a Mobius strip? Is there a Multiverse that has existed forever? These are more pertinent questions. 2:10 No it isn't (see previous). 2:30-3:10 you're preaching to the converted. 3:20 Did you just make that up? Google 'Big Bounce'. No, it hasn't been "greatly dismissed", and research on this possibility continues today. 4:00-5:30 See 2:30-3:10. 5:30 See 'M Theory', Multiverse, previous, etc
05swanbe 1 year ago
Hehe, good good :o)
05swanbe 1 year ago
I'm writing this to make sure it doeesn't come up with 'pending approval' before I accept your friend request :D
05swanbe 1 year ago
Res, non verba .
globalarte 1 year ago
God is imaginary [.]
globalarte 1 year ago
aNOTHER DIMWIT ATTEMPT TO USE a Middle Ages kALAM model ... Nyet, no, FAIL ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
FAIL !!!
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
Using the term "creation" alone is disingenuous. We have no reason to uphold that the universe was created, period. There are plenty models that account for the universe being created. Despite all that, any statement made regarding the universe before the big bang is speculative, as we have no idea what was happening then. Period. If you want to claim that Yahweh caused the Big Bang, then go ahead, but there is no way to validate that claim. We simply do not know.
ekzrated 1 year ago
Your a terrible orator. I couldn't stand anymore after 3 minutes. Plus you seem to be hiding a slight sarcastic smug stand off to all those who you address.. And playing music while your talking..Just, thumbs down..Thumsb down..
ihatelumberjacks 1 year ago
First of a you state to beieve the universe is finite but you make a mistake here: The matter in this universe is finite, but it is still expanding! What is it expanding in? What is there when there is no matter? Maybe empty space, but we do not know anything about it so you can never assume it is finite whitout some sort of proof or logical assumption...
Geertpieter 1 year ago 2
don't think Christians or atheists have fully answered the question of life on earth but i would listen to Richard dawkins any day before i would listen to the likes of benny hinn and the rest of them money grabbing con artists.
liverpool211000 1 year ago
"The universe is finite"
Finite in it's current form, yes. That is all we can say. We can't begin to talk about whether reality is finite or infinite. We simply do not know.
RPFS2008 1 year ago
we do not know thet the univers came into being it could have always existed in one way or another since time is part of the univarse before time there must be something.... look at quantom theory. the universe is not expanding it is only moving away from galactic cenrtral point (there is still the same ammount of atoms)
WilkoPhilip 1 year ago
@WilkoPhilip space-time is in expansion. every point in the universe could be considered the "central point" as all things galaxies are moving away from each other (except those trapped in each other's gravity).
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24 that is exactly what i said but by saying expanding some people mean gaining more mass(atoms) which is clearly what this guy thinks when realy there is the same atoms(energy) and there is no proof otherwise therefore nothing is being created on coserved. (thermodynamics) and galaxies are moving away from other galaxies and some are being shot away form each outher.... this guy just dosent know all the facts.
WilkoPhilip 1 year ago
thirdly im sick of you human relating shit
read my comments on the second video to understand what im talking about.
beenjimotion 1 year ago
secondly the universe is not in a current state of decay
decay doesnt even exist
there is only evolution
beenjimotion 1 year ago
first of all
thet big bang theory is retarded i dont want to go into it
if you start me then i will be explaining for ever
the point is that it shouldnt be taken into acount its not valid
beenjimotion 1 year ago
You go a long way to make a point which does no one any good.
blinker071 1 year ago
Something "crated" the universe??
EddieCurrentFan 1 year ago
You are making your argument based on the assumption that there needed to be a cause for the universes creation and there is no good reason to make that assumption, you are assuming that something can't come from nothing and there is no good reason to assume this. Everything constant and rule we know of came after the big bang, before the big bang anything was possible. Even if your assumptions were true, it does not prove an intelligent creator, it only proves a cause and something before big b
XKaliber2097 1 year ago
Do you agree with Darwin?
tony9422 1 year ago
@tony9422 I think we evolved yes.
TheHonestTheist 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist Hi mate i hate to be picky but.... 6:45 His name is Stephen Hawking. It's a common mistake but I think this man has well earned his respect.
stramster1 11 months ago
Starting out with "A very rough, unformulated, unstructured presentation of some arguments for the existence of God." doesn't really make it easier for you.
It's just another creationist atempt doing it all backwards all over again. Why do you think it's OK to start out with the solution and work your way backward this time when nobody outside the religious domain accepts that silly method before? Start investigating the universe WITHOUT preconceived idea about deities and there will be no god
aNdYmAtTeR 1 year ago
Okay, around 6:00. This just bothers me so much. You say "something cannot come out of nothing" but it's possible for "something to create something out of nothing". Uh...what? You're getting mixed up in the philosophical language. What you REALLY want to say is that something can come from nothing ONLY if God caused it, because if it was caused by nothing then it's impossible. You are presupposing metaphysical causes beyond the universe (existence) without proper justification.
stealspell 1 year ago
First, there is a problem with saying "the universe is finite" and then referring to the beginning of the universe. Yes, the universe has a beginning but that doesn't make it finite. And so too does time. The measure of time begins with the universe. So to say there was something "before" the measure of time is meaningless. It would be like saying something existed before God. Hence, I still hold that the premise "the universe is infinite" is true. Don't get confused in the language.
stealspell 1 year ago
Who made god?
ClaytonOT 1 year ago
@ClaytonOT I don't know why this is such a common question as it has been answered so many times. Here are a few 1) If someone created God, then it would be God! 2) If God was created, He wouldn't be the creator! 3) If God needs a God then that God needs a God as so on for infinity, meaning nothing would ever get created as there is no ultimate creator. 4) The question is based on the false assumption that God is not eternal. 5) It is like asking who the bachelor is married to?
TheHonestTheist 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist Why did god wait an infinite amount of time to create the universe? Was he preparing Hell for people who asked such questions?
ClaytonOT 1 year ago
@ClaytonOT 1) God isn't in time, He created time and therefore must transcend it. 2) You can never wait an infinite amount of time anyway, that is philosophically impossible.
TheHonestTheist 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist For something to be considered as "existing", it must therefore not have existed at some point. You can't have a anything exist within a system without the possibility of non-existence at a previous point, as that is philosophically impossible, even if transcended from time itself. That is unless you want to argue that existence itself is an illusory possibility.
jarrod1937 1 year ago
@jarrod1937 it is logically impossible for energy to have a begining. energy only comes from other energy, it cannot be created it cannot be destroyed it can only change forms. so although it may be philisophically impossible for something to exist now and not have existed before, it is logically and rationally impossible for energy to exist now and have not always existed.
greycloud24 1 year ago
@greycloud24
Heh, on one hand it seems impossible for something to have always existed (the problem of an actual infinite) and on the other hand it seems impossible for something (ie.energy) to have not always existed.
Thinking about reality is enough to make one lose touch with reality.
RPFS2008 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist The real issue though is what creates this infinite regression itself, is it a problem of logic or definition of god itself? No matter what though, infinite regression popping up doesn't solve the problem as you seem to believe, it just shows there is a more fundamental conflict with what you believe, and thus should be explored further rather than dismissed.
jarrod1937 1 year ago
You're also misunderstanding and misquoting the second law of thermal dynamics. Which states an increase in entropy with time, entropy should not be considered "decay".
jarrod1937 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist You are claiming such things as "God isn't in time" and "The question is based on the false assumption that god is not eternal" without the possibility ever really applying evidence for these statements. There's no definitive reason the universe needs a conscious creator to exists. Saying that it does because the common experience of humanity cannot comprehend the idea of something forming without creation, is not evidence that creation is needed.
mrmil100 1 year ago 2
@mrmil100
You don't seem to be following this very well. He is arguing that a "something" is needed that fits the attributes that he is laying out because of the various arguments he gives. Gradually he is attempting to show that those attributes conform to man's traditional conception of God.
Therefore he doesn't need to prove that "God isn't in time" or that "God is eternal"
periechontology 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist Assuming that reality has to be formed in a way we can easily explain it is ego-centric. So is the belief that in a universe that is possibly infinite somehow humans, who make up a small part of it, are disproportionately important. The universe is constantly expanding and contains possibly limitless matter, but it clear only exists so humans can live without and be important just because we exist. Again, this ego-centric reasoning.
mrmil100 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist Then how is he eternal?
05swanbe 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist If God is beyond space, time, and matter, then where are you getting your information that God exists? These are the foundations of the natural universe, we are unable to measure anything outside of that realm. And the only "evidence" people can legitimately claim for the existence of God is personal experience/revelation, which isn't scientifically valid.
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist 1) First, kindly prove that time exists! Then show which kind of time is it. After that, we can start to talk about, that is it possible for something exist outside of time.
2a) What is an "amount of time"? What is "infinite"? 2b) there are a lot of things which philosophically imposible, like Zeno's paradox (Achilles can never overtake the tortoise ), but in real life he can.
HairyHu 1 year ago
@HairyHu - Time is the measure of changes, things around us are always changing. God is not in time for he says,"I am the same yesterday today and forever.
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@theageofgrace 1.) So, you say there is no actual time!? Time is just a concept to measure changes.
2.) So God says He does not change. But God Incarnated in Jesus and became a man. He born as a baby and grown up to be a man. He died, BODILY resurrected, BODILY ascended to Heaven ... etc. Well somebody is lying.
Or you do not believe that Jesus was/is fully God?
HairyHu 1 year ago
@HairyHu - Gods character does not change, He is and was and will always be a loving father, and nothing can seperate us from the love of God. In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. He was presently originally with God. All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being. In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@theageofgrace I see! Now you changed your mind. Now, you say the ONLY God's CHARACTER dos not change! Well, this does not make God outside of time! In fact something has to be in time to be able to NOT to change. Since you said "time is the measure of changes" If God is not in time, how can He demonstrate that He does not change. Change without time is meaningless.
But, God became a man and He still is a man, so He is in time!
HairyHu 1 year ago
@theageofgrace "In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ)"
In the beginning is NOT before all time. Not to mention the temporal expression "beginning" has no meaning without time. But, have a look what the Bible says. Your quote of Jn. 1:1 is referring to Ge. 1:1 Where the word is "berasheet" Which comes from "resh" meaning head, so it says in the Head of things, just like rosh hashana = head of the year or rosh hodesh head of the month.
go next.
HairyHu 1 year ago
cont.
So to have a "head" you must have a body! The head is part of the body. Without the body the head is meaningless!
The Bible does not teach about a God outside of time, but an infinite God in time and space.
HairyHu 1 year ago
@HairyHu - Ok look I dont want to argue theology whos write and whos wrong, all I care about is when you die are you gonna stand before God ashamed or justified; by Jesus and what He has already finished on the cross - for all who call upon the Name of the Lord will be saved, who change their thoughts and ways. He says- The one who comes to me I will by no means cast out - John6:37
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@theageofgrace Now, you threaten me with a God who's existence you have not proven, let alone what this God will or will not do. This is how you want to convince me about His existence? Or, you got nothing but empty threat to scare people to believe? May be that is why you believe, but it will not save you.
As for Jn. 6:37 , the Bible says something there and something else elsewhere. That is why you have 13 thousand denominations arguing about what the Bible says.
HairyHu 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HairyHu - And the Word (Christ) became flesh and dwelt among us.
theageofgrace 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist
Umm. I can distinguish a bachelor and the concept marriage, but not God(s).
( 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009 will ) at least will give you a better idea of what science has shown as of late.
There are beliefs, but the Greeks, Assyrians, or scatter tribal had "beliefs", all of which hold just as much merit as the dominating monotheistic religions of today.
They are not here because they are true, but because of demographic contiguous relationships.
Fastlan3 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist Your answer is based on the false assumption that God exists and you know what his attributes are.
FreePlay 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist The point of this question is to make you think about the idea that nothing can come from nothing. If God can pop into existence somehow in order to create/explain the universe's existence, then why can't the universe just as well have always existed or simply come into being spontaneously?
All you are doing is adding an extra layer of complexity to the question of how the universe got here. You have added an invisible, magical being where none existed & there's no need for one
crazyoldhen 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist See, but all you're doing is creating something out of nothing...you have put yourself in the same (actually worse, because you're positing something omnipotent, if it created the universe on its own) position as someone trying to determine a natural reason for the beginning of the universe. What good does that do? The universe had to start at some point, because we're here: we know that for certain. I don't see how proposing a supernatural reason is helpful.
bernlin2000 1 year ago
@TheHonestTheist Not a single one of those are answers. Number 5 is completely irrelevant.
PATERcestLEmun 10 months ago
@PATERcestLEmun "Not a single one of those are answers" None of them are supposed to be answers, rather, they are showing why the question is fallacious.
"Number 5 is completely irrelevant"
It is actually completely relevant, you just can't see how, although I'm not sure why.
TheHonestTheist 10 months ago
@IxxGODxxI cont... 3
We cannot imagine how God looks like e.t.c because our imagination is totally limited to what we see around us. Just look at the aliens we draw, they look like Lizards, Dinosaurs, or a mix of what we see around us. Since God is not any way Like anything in this Universe thus we cannot Imagine how he may look like, to do that is foolish.
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
@IxxGODxxI cont.. 2
We understand God as being ALL powerful, his power has NO comparison at all, ALL wise with no comparison like if we say God is 10^10 times wise than some Guy than the being we are talking about cannot be God. God cannot have a beginning or an end since if that is true for what we are talking about He Cannot be God. He is the very creator of Time and all things we percieve. He is not limited and thus his 'entire' self cannot be comprehended.
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
@IxxGODxxI cont.. the Indians and the greeks draw Gods that look and live like them. This whole Mythology nonsense is what I reject completely since God is not like us. He is NOT a Man and is not subject to things like hunger, thirst, sleep e.t.c He has no need to reproduce. That is a characteristic of living things here on this planet.
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
@IxxGODxxI We know God but we comprehend him in way different than how we comprehend other things around us. For me I do not believe that God is some Old man who looks like us (he grew Old). The African draw a God with big lips, the Mongols/Chinese with eyeys like theirs, the Olmecs a God that looks like them. The conept of Giving God a shape or form is making him limited, its putting him into our imagination. I am talking about God the being that has created this Universe and all within it...
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
@IxxGODxxI cont...
God himself is not like anything in this Universe because he is not from the Universe, He is distinct, he is seperate. The universe has a beginning, it changes with time. It came into existance and according to science is moving towards disorder and thus will come an 'end' all life and all stars and everything will finish. God is never changing and not limited in anyway. He does not have a beginning and he does have an end . He is NOT like anything we can see or imagine.
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
@IxxGODxxI don't brush me with your bible mind set up. If God is the universe itself than we are Gods. Everything contains God himself, he is not distinct he is not seperate. The Idea of God that we have is that he is the very creator of what we call as time and space and he himself is beyond it. We cannot say that God is "here" or "there". He is not physically present within the Universe. The images we make and ideas we develop are limited to what we see and experience ...
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
dont fuckng msg me you cult follower GTFO
superjewninja 1 year ago
Entropy: It only applies to systems where no new energy is entering an area or ecosystem.
If you want to use the law of thermodynamics then would god not be in a constant state of decay?
angrynutrients 1 year ago
@angrynutrients the laws that we know and apply to us and our universe, be it thermodynamics or conservation of energy e.t.c. God is not a part of the universe and he is not this Universe itself, therefore to apply our most limited understanding of our universe, to limit God which is itself defined as what cannot be made limited or does not have a shape or form and this is because he is the creator and Not the creation and thus different from the creation. To do this doesn't make sense.
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
@MatrixOfDynamism I'm just saying that using the law of thermodynamics to try and prove the existence of god is fruitless due to the fact we have new energy from the sun. And to apply physics to god doesn't make sense because god and the idea of god doesn't make sense. For someone eternal and unchanging he sure seems to change his mind about everything a hell of a lot.
angrynutrients 1 year ago
@angrynutrients when did he change his mind?
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
@MatrixOfDynamism First he creates the universe with the rules that sinning means no heaven without a sacrifice, then he decides to change the rules so you can just ask for forgiveness, but rather than just snapping his fingers he decides to create an incarnation of himself, then sacrifice himself, then go to heaven (Which is cheating because it isn't a real sacrifice if you can save yourself that quickly) So he change his mind about the rules for getting into heaven.
angrynutrients 1 year ago
@angrynutrients well I agree with you 100% that this shows that God is changing mind. But I have to tell you Bible is not the only book that is claimed to be from God. There are others as well that are supposed to be Direct revelation from God. How to find which is real? Use reasoning. It is for reasons like the one you gave me here that I do not accept that the Redemption is from the truth. Mankind has been around for a looong time. It doesn't fit to make sacrifice now.
MatrixOfDynamism 1 year ago
Einstein's Relativity: Time Dilation
Einstein's Relativity: Time Dilation
Einstein's Relativity: Time Dilation
Einstein's Relativity: Time Dilation
Einstein's Relativity: Time Dilation
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
Anyone who listens to this sort of dribble, like "How can something be there, if it wasn't there before - it's impossible", is more stupid than the idiot who's telling you such babbble.
This guy tries to look and appear honest, and even puts it in his name. But that DOESNT in any way make him intelligent. HE states so much as fact, when he doesnt have a deep understaniding about what he's saying. HE htinks he can dismiss the existence of God, by using ONE quote form Stephen Hawking.
DURR !
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
THEHONESTTHEIST - you are babbling.
Why dont you go and check out this video, then tell me that you know ANYTHING about time and space ? And I mean ANYTHING:
Einstein's Relativity: Time Dilation
AnnoyingTypoSyndrome 1 year ago
Everyone watching this: Spare yourself. It's just a variation of the Kalam cosmological argument. FUCKING YAWN. Something can't come from nothing, but God can? OK, if you want to call the beginning of the universe God, you still have to show that it's your God -- one that answers prayers, cares how and with whom you have sex, and knows every thought in your head, so on.
tekproxy 1 year ago
cont...theoretically possible. If we granted your premise that the universe needed a cause, I do not understand why it needed to be immaterial or any of thee other qualities you claimed. Regardless, even if we did grant all your premises, we've narrowed down the options to a somewhat never ending list.
logicalmind4 1 year ago
circle has no beginning and no end, there are no points on the circle, which is wrong. Even if your premise were true, time itself could simply have existed in a different form before the big bang. Also, Steven hawking does not say time did not exist, rather time is pointless before that moment. Furthermore, it is unproven that something cannot come from nothing. Indeed, there are virtual particles which are just that. It's not proven, and I wouldn't ask you to accept the claim, but it is...cont
logicalmind4 1 year ago
The universe as it is now is finite (in terms of beginning). The claim that it cannot have existed forever is simply not based on any evidence or fact, otherwise you would win the nobel prize. The universe in it's current state is indeed exerting the anthropic principle, but it wasn't before the big bang (at least there is no reason to believe so). With the infinite argument, I think your point was that if time is infinite, there would not be a now. This is however saying that since a.......cont
logicalmind4 1 year ago
Guess work. You don't know what you are talking about.
illywacker1 1 year ago
please subscribe me
videakias3000 1 year ago
do you have a clue what you're talking about?
Majoofi 1 year ago
Mr.TheHonestTheist please stop making videos you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and you're misinforming the public.A universe being finite or infinite has nothing to do with the beginning and the issue is undecided among cosmologists at present.Actually analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology (meaing it could be both unbounded and infinite)
SonytoBratsoni 1 year ago
/watch?v=mITRKCDel44
lafyguy 1 year ago
seek the lord with faith but the wicked search for a sine :"if my people ,who are called by my name,will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will i hear form heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land. 2 chronicles 7:14 humble your selfs and seek our redeemer Jesus and apart form our selfish ways
There is a way that seems right to a man ,but in the end it leads to death. proverbs 14:12
he is the door and seek and you shall find
lafyguy 1 year ago
You keep bandying about the word "creation" when the word presumes a creator. You're right, the universe as we know it had a "beginning," but that doesn't mean there was nothing before it. We don't know what was before this universe, and we have no way of investigating it, so we call it the "beginning." You can't assume that there was nothing before the Big Bang.
leifey 1 year ago
Please present a hypothesis that is observable and testable. FAIL. Try again.
redcloak676 1 year ago
You've dug yourself a hole with the 'the universe needs a creator because there needs to be a 'first cause' but using that logic the first cause must also have had a cause. You can't say 'there must have been a first cause, and that first cause must have been a god' because you are only jumping to conclusions based on your personal experience in this universe... Saying god don't need a first cause because he is god is not an answer...
XChillX42 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In today's news: "Child abuse claims sweep Catholic Church in Europe"
SHAME on the idiocy of Christianity and all it's crap and myth based nonsense, ancient scripture based morality that keeps failing and imaginary relationships with an invisible and completely useless God . Aren't we humans going to wake up to reality soon? Aren't we smarter than that?
No wonder 98% of Iranians are Muslims...we humans are just too easy to brainwash into all this ancient shit.
ThinkingBetter 2 years ago
A metaphor to use to demonstrate the universe is finite.... Say our existence on earth here and now is dominoe "X" and holding to the infinite universe theory, there are infinite dominoes before dominoe "X" We can see very well that we never would have reached dominoe "X" because the infinite dominoes prior would never have finished collapsing therefore reaching dominoe "X" we wouldnt exist yet if the universe were actually infinite.
116Phanatic 2 years ago
What i find deeply illogical, is that you immediately jump to a who question and skip the what question.
ask yourself, What created the universe, instead of who. Because the who question excludes a lot of possibilities.
"i can't imagine something in the universe that can create something from nothing for no reason" __argument from incredulity == logical fallacy
1imax111 2 years ago
M Theory. Possibility of a multiverse with several universes in floating around in the bulk forever budding off creating new universes. m-branes with universes on each could have collided creating our own big bang. Merely mathematical elegance at this point, but quite contrary to limitations of your views of a finite universe. "It didn't create itself because it couldn't have existed before itself...or have been created from nothing."
I could say the same thing about God.
perchedeagle2 2 years ago
A fundamental misunderstanding of the universe is not understanding that the universe is not a thing, it is the totality of existance. Even if no matter, time or space existed before the big bang, the potential for those things to exist would have been there infinitely, and that would have been something.
When theists propose an infinite god, they really propose an infinite universe, because under the definition that the universe is everything, that would include god.
Raptor302 2 years ago
You say that it is an established fact that the universe had a beginning, but the big bang is not proof of that. The big bang was a great reformation of the universe, not the beginning. Like shaking an etch-and-sketch clean. Not knowing what happened before the singularity is not the same thing as there being nothing.
The source material was infinite in order to be consistant with the first law of thermodynamics.
Raptor302 2 years ago
Almost not atheist believe that the current universe is infite, specially considering the age of the universe has been determined.
The philosophy that there is not such thing as a infinite number is just a philosophy not a scientific fact
Why supernatural? Space and timeless perhaps but why does this some how make it supernatural? And your just shifting the question not answering it. What caused this supernatural thing to suddenly cause
liesandtricks 2 years ago
@liesandtricks Our visible universe is about 13.7 billion years old. To say it's infinite is a false statement. However, we might be part of a multi-verse with other universes existing. Big Bang might be the effect of a super massive black hole transitioning it's energy into a Big Bang when reaching some unknown critical condition - perhaps gravity itself breaks down at some energy level.
ThinkingBetter 2 years ago
i didn't say that it wasn't. black hole would be one theory , though virtual partials would be another
liesandtricks 2 years ago
1) The universe IS infinite, spacially. Time, however, is different. It's worth mentioning.
2) Please never say 2nd law of thermo states "everything tends toward decay." Why is it SO hard to state "The entropy of the universe always goes up." Do you not see the difference between the 2? It's not that hard. Entropy =/ decay. So don't say it is!
3) I don't know ANY scientists who claim the universe comes from nothing.
4) If you're going to make arguments, please don't use strawman arguments:(.
Ripley747 2 years ago 2
God is just what stupid people use to replace common sense.
Eggroll42 2 years ago
"i can't imagine something in the universe that can create something from nothing for no reason". you just explained why i have a hard time believing in a god.
i have read many different hypothesis on what might have been the case "before" time existed and the big bang occured. some of this is from super string theory others from M theory. none of which is credible as it cannot be tested. however time itself and the idea of "before" has no meaning "before" the big bang.
greycloud24 2 years ago
How do you define "forever" if there was nothing before?
The "decay" bit also gets me. How are we to truly know what "decay" is, if everything we know of it comes from our perspective?
LAFighter 2 years ago
@LAFighter
Forever means "for a limitless time," according to Webster. Also, there was God before.
Decay defined by Webster means to fall into ruin. Molecules favor lower energy states. We would eventually have a universe that consists of the lowest energy molecules possible. DNA would follow this model also. Mutations are not generally favorable. People point to things like sickle cell anemia, but the truth is that it is a debilitating disease that causes resistance to malaria.
boulderreed 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
♥*¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨)
(¸.´♥ (¸.•*´¨) Love ♥ Peace ♥ Respect
cosi66 2 years ago
Gosh this video is stupid. When do these creationist fanatics get educated?
Fact is...we know from multiple data that this universe is 13.7 billion years old.
Fact is...we know that life on this planet has evolved from primitive single celled organisms to homo sapiens.
Fact is...we know that humans have existed approx. 0.0002 billion years.
Fact is...we know other hominids have existed prior to humans.
Fact is...we KNOW Genesis is a MYTH.
Ignorance is bliss for creationists.
ThinkingBetter 2 years ago 2
Wow. I feel sorry for you =D
Some of those "facts" you listed above, even anti-christian scientists know are theories.
Fact is...God exists.
Get over it.
CandlelightCinema 2 years ago
fact is that scientific theories explain and predict how a very large number of observed facts occur. a scientific theory is an explanation for many facts. some simple facts, evolution occurs, the theory of evolution explains how and why it occurs. the theory of gravity explains the fact that objects attract each other. the theory of thermodynamics explains how radio-isotope dating works, etc.
greycloud24 2 years ago
@CandlelightCinema
Fact is, you have no idea what a scientific theorie is
Fact is, god dosent exist, hes made up
Fact is, you're a total fucking mentaly castrated retard
Get over it
maxthecat122 2 years ago
Fact is...he doesn't
AlyKid2k8 2 years ago
You don't know what a fact is then.
Raptor302 2 years ago
What fact are there? We cannot prove either one..no one was there to record it or repeat it...
r13xas 2 years ago
@r13xas In terms of repeating Big Bang we do actually make real experiments on how the physics is at the early stages of our universe.
For example, the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Europe is a huge experimental facility involving 10,000 scientists/engineers and 100s of universities. The experiments will help enable further understanding of the very first fraction of a second of how our universe started. Costing US$ 9 billion it's the most expensive facility in science ever created.
ThinkingBetter 2 years ago
You need to summarise your argument at the beginning, because you're asking people to listen to something fairly vague that goes for a while.
For example, at the outset I don't know whether you're simply setting out to "prove" that there's a consciousness behind creation, or trying to "prove" more than that - that your particularly god (as set out in say the bible) is real. The former's one thing, which I certainly don't actively oppose. The latter is a much, much bigger leap.
anonleft 2 years ago
3:30:
To work on the oscillatory argument, look up Penrose, Hawkings, and Ellis and how they disprove it, and I think it was Richard Tolmon who pointed out that the osciallatory Universe also follows the second law of thermodyanmic problem of entropy. So, entropy is a problem to both Oscialltory and eternal Universe models.
ogirv101 2 years ago
LOL, you studied the 2nd law of TD, skipping the 1st.
That's funny, you are using a as reference a book that states that energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed ... to support "creation" .. F A I L
ChristianIce 2 years ago
@ChristianIce:
energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system, furthermore, when we speak of "creation" we're not speaking of creation out of nothing, but creation as shaping the already eixsiting energy into its present form as a Universe. The Universe, if we can call it a Universe, existed before the Big Bang in a state where the laws of Physics were symmetrical and equal, until something caused it to end its symmetry, create a Universe as we see it today, any more nonsense?
ogirv101 2 years ago
@ogirv101
the universe IS a closed system, if anything will be discovered will be added to the universe as we know, because the universe is everything that exists by definition.
The energy existed before the big bang (as you said and i agree) so i can't see any non-sense in what i said, i can see many nonsenses in the video though.
ChristianIce 2 years ago
@ChristianIce:
The Universe is a closed system? midn proving that? There is no evidence for that, and it's still undecided, to say with extreme precision that your claim is true would be unscientific.
Also, no the Universe is not everything that exists by definition, and to say it's all that exists would also be unscientific and contradictory to philsophical evidence and proof. It's obvious the Universe is not all that exists, because before the Universe existed, energy existed...
ogirv101 2 years ago