Singularities are an application of general relativity where it does not apply. The theory is not constructed to handle quantum mechanics (evidenced by the need to create a theory of quantum gravity uniting the two). You need to incorporate quantum mechanics before you go claiming the existence of singularities. And so far every theory of quantum gravity we propose is singularity free. Basically, once you fix relativity to work in these situations, you don't get singularities.
Black holes are collapsed stars that eventually reach zero size and infinite density, which is known as a singularity. So if you are going to question the existence of singularities you are also (questioning empirically) verified black holes because they are synonymous.
@BreakoutLuceal This is flat wrong. No one questions the existence of black holes. Relativity is an incomplete theory that leads to logical absurdities like singularities when it is inappropriately applied. Quantum mechanics does not allow things like 'infinite density zero-size' to exist. You are only applying half of what is necessary to understand black holes. You can't do that.
You would also be assuming that it is evidence of a possible past eternal universe. you can't go from A to Z like that. You have to provide evidence or it just becomes your own belief. On the other hand, we have a large amount of evidence showing the universe could not possibly be eternal in the past.
Now, this does not mean that every singularity is the big bang, which I think you are confusing with black holes. However, the point is no one’s questioning the existence of singularities anymore than they are questioning the existence of black holes unlike quantum gravity which is questionable and is in its infancy. This could very well be the first time quantum gravity reveals that a singularity is possible in this particular situation regarding the big bang.
You are going away from the original point I made about this guy's claim.
I will grant you that the BB singularity has different interpretations in the way its used and then you can claim I am mainly assuming a point in the form of a singularity. However, it doesn't mean its evidence that something could of preceded that point whether its infinite or not.
Singularities are at the center of every black hole ,according to basic cosmological principles. Its another way to justify the big bang singularity, so no one's questioning the existence of singularities (except you of course).
As far as quantum theory is concerned, (as you even alluded) we do not know enough about quantum mechanics to even be contemplating the non-existence of singularities (Especially when we have all this evidence for the existence of singularities).
The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity. This theorem has also been shown to be 8 decimals accurate. While the theorem could turn out to be wrong, the empirical evidence for the big bang, along with the extreme ( 5 decimals) accurracy of Einstein's general relavity, strongly legislate against this possibility.
The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity. This theorem has also been shown to be 8 decimals accurate. While the theorem could turn out to be wrong, the empirical evidence for the big bang, along with the extreme ( 5 decimals) accurracy of Einstein's general relavity, strongly legislate against this possibility.
The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity. This theorem has also been shown to be 8 decimals accurate. While the theorem could turn out to be wrong, the empirical evidence for the big bang, along with the extreme ( 5 decimals) accurracy of Einstein's general relavity, strongly legislate against this possibility.
there's one other thing i can never understand with this argument, the idea that a God was a first cause is a complete contradiction to the argument they originally tail about there being a first cause. Saying the universe needs a first cause is saying that God needs a first cause - backfiring completely on the original statement.
I know that I am a sinner and need Your forgiveness. I believe that You died on the cross for my sins and rose from the grave to give me life. I know You are the only way to God. So now I want to quit disobeying You and start living for You. Please forgive me, change my life and show me how to know You. In Jesus' name. Amen.
@demonbourne Call upon Jesus and get proof yourself. Ask man people in world. They have miracles and love. Just go and seek yourself. Jesus christ is truth! seek the truth!
@demonbourne ask many people in world! Jesus christ is real. that is all proof i need to tell you. seek Jesus and repent of all sins. God love you forever and everyone in Jesus. Jesus christ is way, truth, and life. Jesus is way home. Build your relationship with Jesus. God bless in Jesus!
@bass109 People believe the sun revolves around the flat earth on the back of elephants. People believe in fairies. People believe god knocked up his own mother. People are stupid and gullible. Lots of them believing something doesn't make it true, it makes it harder for me to sidestep the retardation.
@bass109 Jesus was to rid the world of the wicked, Odin was to rid the world of ice giants. Well you don't see any ice giants do you? Odin is the one true god! LOL Same logic!
Either way you look at it, it all must be taken on faith... We were not there when it all came into being... So we are only going off of what we see... I for one believe that everything that is, or ever that there ever was in the universe, has been and always will be... I do not believe God created everything, but like a sculptor and his clay... Took what was already around him and organized it into what we now have(Earth) This is my opinion... So take it as you will.
time had to come into existence. think of it like this, you line up a bunch of dominos. without a first mover, the dominos would never move. they would sit till for all eternity (which youd only be able to calculate "all eternity" with time). in order to have time, you need movement. movement measures time or time measures movement. the first domino must be struck in order to start time. like the 0's on a stop watch. until you hit start, the stop watch remains on 0 (no time)...
@deliveryboy1 Except time is not a linear thing that is the same everywhere/time in the universe and has a "start". Time isn't an independant dimension... A joke between me and my mate: need more time? I think I saw some under that table there! Time and space are intertwined (hence spacetime). And spacetime is being created and warped to my understanding. So your dominoes are suddenly elongating/shortening and creating new dominoes... Does your arguement still apply then?
God or no god, no one can explain how something came from nothing. Big bang- what caused that. Quantum fluctuations- what caused that? Membranes-what caused that? An eternal universe? How can that be!
@frogman360 I have no idea what the fricken answer would look like, I'm no scientist and I don't claim to be. But I do know that they learn more every day, years ago we didn't have half the knowledge we do now so who says there isn't room for learning more, You can question the origin of things all day it doesn't mean anything, did you ever stop and think that maybe some things are ACTUALLY a little difficult to study? yet you go rambling off like whered the big bang come from??? -
@frogman360 Like your some sort of genius, maybe you could actually give the people working on it some time instead of demanding answers as if there gonna find the answers to some of the worlds biggest questions. Furthermore it's incredibly ignorant to state things like "something came from nothing" as if that even somewhat explains the big bang or whatever theory you were so eloquently describing, great research bro, keep up the hard work
Your not understanding the fundamental problem here. Science can not answer the question of existence. Not now, not ever. If you believe that, you must believe that universe is eternal. That is what I was complaining about. The big bang was not the beginning. Quantum fluctuations were not the beginning. I am not saying there is a theory that is correct. I am saying that there will never be one.
@lucretius I'm not sure i get your time argument. "Causing time"? that would simply be another phrase for time being set into motion wouldn't it?
You seem to be suggesting that time needs to be pre-existent in order to come into existence within itself (as you might phrase it) .
No, when time begins it begins "within" THAT MOMENT, and thus within time. This is the meaning of phrase "the beginning". The first cause is not outside of time or before it, it is immanent.
Huh, interesting. So since space can never have a value of 0, then neither can time. But doesn't the concept of time mandate a start beginning by definition?
@tipsdaturtle Erm Yikes! Ha if you wanna learn about relativity (not relatively, which is how i spelt it before for some strange reason :S ), just read online! But time itself is "relative". If i had to go like even into any detail I would have to read myself!
@lumosknight No scientist believes (at least not officially) that the big bang "created the universe". What they believe is that it created THIS FORM of the universe. There is a big difference. Obviously, the singularity that the universe as we see it today formed from was, in fact, the universe before the big bang, so the big bang didn't create the universe as the universe existed as a singularity before the big bang occurred.
The universe is uncaused hahahah, are you mad? everything within in our reality or within the universe is caused intelligently, why would the universe only be different?
@rocha333 No, planets and stars are not caused intelligently. We see them form in space (at least, the stars we can see for sure). They form by way of physical laws, not intelligent forces. Same as land slides and tornadoes here on earth. Physical laws control these things, not intelligent beings. Why should the universe be any different? Your problem is that you try to super-impose what you choose to see on the universe. The truth is that we don't know how the universe formed.
Lol! The Christians and Muslims use the Cosmological argument to prove their god! Such a weak counter argument, and I thought he was going to pose a challenge....
bad video. You should tried to do more search first. Specially on that case of the big bang and quantum phisics. What the hell is your reference to that? xDD
So it kills our sense of ego and pride that we require God's revelation. So it irks us that we cannot get God on a telescope or under an electron microscope, Worse things can happen. I'll take revelation because I find Jesus Christ believable. I don't know how else to say it in a paragraph. Someone as wonderful as Jesus is to me belieavable. I daon't think anyone WOULD imagine a person like Jesus even if they COULD. The revelation is believable.
You don't really refute Aquinas. You talk about things which annoy you about ie, his god versa some other's god. I don't consider that a major refutation. Whoever's god there was a will and power and decision to move. If we cannot test divine revelation, too bad for us. It is not unreasonable. Other problems seem onlyu limitations of human language. Too bad for us. Revelation not unreasonable because we're limited. Nice music in backround - Rachmoninov.
best thing is not question it, it will drive you insane if all you strive to do is disprove or prove a being(or whatever you wanna call it) that by all definitions of itself is unprovable either way, its an infinite argument. believe what you believe through looking at your personal evidence and the feelings that evidence gives you. if your wrong: ask god for mercy/don't waste your life. basically find a happy medium. do everything that feels good that won't ultimately hurt you or others.
god would be an uncaused cause. . . ok you just said assuming the universe "just" exists. there you go. god just exists. we're saying the same thing. christians crossed a line when they started using god as a way to say how we were created, just as atheists did when they said we have no purpose. if there is anything history has shown us, its that we cannot possibly know everything. because everything itself is too big of a concept to grasp.
all gods are the same idea. i would like to know when humans first evolved to believe in a god, because we might find out why people started wanting to have faith.
Perhaps someone can help me understand the hostility toward the concept of a "first cause". Science has proved that we live in an expanding universe and science has attached an age to this expanding universe. The premise of an age is that at one point it did not exist. Did the law of cause and effect not apply before this aged, expanding universe started?
I know that I am not alone in my conclusions because Sir Bernard Lovell raised many of my own thoughts. When addressing the concept of an expanding universe he said, If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning" . We are forced to conclude either the beginning was CAUSED or NOT CAUSED.
There are so many holes in your presentation, I hardly know where to begin. You seem quite intelligent but your video betrays your young years (only 21), inexperience, incomplete scientific and philosophical education and lack of understanding. You have some knowledge but very little wisdom. I suggest you look up the meaning of the term, "To beg the question." Further, it is disingenuous to misrepresent the cosmological argument, and then debunk your misrepresentation.
I think your video is very good. I am struggling a bit though. If space-time was originally compressed into a singularity, it must have been composed of energy - energy that was used for expansion and the creation of matter. Why is it errant to question where that energy came from? You seem assured, but physics has no testable, verifiable answer. That is why we are now getting inflation cosmology and other explanations to help explain the origin of the universe. Am I missing something? Thanks!
Singularity: A single point (the smallest possible physically meaningful point being a Planck Length) that is of infinite density.
Quantum fluctuation: A result hinted at by the uncertainty principle that tells us that the energy of background space is not constant at zero, but fluctuates around some non-zero value. This is verified by the Casimir Effect.
10^-32 seconds. This is a number... didn't pass basic math?
Can you be an atheist and believe in a first cause? I would say yes though the first cause has to be a non self aware something. I heard Richard carrier; a historian (i think) use the phrase "the sea of random potential". I would say this is the law of physics and "i don't know"....your thoughts are?
The philosophical problems of an infinite universe (or an infinite interrelated multi-verse) are far more formidable.
Let x be a given moment in an infinite span of time extending backward. There must necessarily be an infinite amount of time that precedes x. an infinite amount of time cannot be exhausted which means that the time required to reach x can never elapse.
It is impossible to reach any moment in the history of the universe and therefore the universe cannot be.
Ofcourse there is the additional question of the character of the first cause (God) apart from his capacity as first cause, but as the first cause his actions are not "prior to" but within that first moment (which we might call the Big Bang)..
@lucretius1 : You bring up assertions so if you don't mind I'd like to ask a few questions. 1-infinite density? how did they arrive to this as being possible? 2-A field is still a field and a law a law, does the casimir effect account for their creation or is it assumed that they just are? By the way, a law is observable and does not create anything that science has observed (at least that I am aware of), so how does it fit in to the first cause argument? Thanks for your video and explanations!!
Inflation: An era during the Big Bang of rapid expansion due to the release of potential energy trapped in the inflaton field.
These things are very well defined. IF you took some simple physics courses instead of throwing in the towel when a big word comes your way you might learn a thing or two instead of remaining a simpleton.
@geilanderable singularity is not known, it is hypothetical but some scientists are looking for evidence that will remove the singularity, its called revisioning like they do with all theories. do you not think they know about quantum fluctuations? they happen today. 10-32 second is because they are talking about huge or very small amounts of time, it is math, it is the ONLY thing concrete in reality, 2+2 is ALWAYS 4.
@geilanderable there is a saying in my country: ignorance is bold. so are you. you wish you had the intelectual capability to understand the physics behind the big bang. read, if your small mind can follow, steven weinberg's first three minutes. scientific cosmology is not made by iliterate morons like you.
@geilanderable Ignorance does not trump science. Rather than saying science doesn't know what it's talking about, why not admit the truth, that YOU don't know what they're talking about? Go get an education or at least try to look up what these things are that you are struggling to understand. It'll do you good.
@geilanderable : This is actually a reasonable statement. Maybe not so much the demon part but the part about scientists stretching very far to make their points sound correct. As the video even stated, investigations that had been done before quantum mechanics on the BBT was done via Einsteins theory which now is under question. So how can we know that new theories won't face the same fate after new discoveries? Science has become more faith based then science would like to admit
It is just the pride of people like the maker of this film.
Some questions are just not valid
The same question you can ask: imagine that there was nothing? This question is just not valid.
Also imagine a infinite plain surface. Like a large (3D) sphere. What is the beginning of the surface of this sphere. The surface is NOT infinite What is the end? You see this questions is also not valid. Only in ANOTHER dimension (3 D) there is a beginning. Like the atmosphere in the earth.
OOooooh, wait, if the universe existed prior to the singularity being formed, then why do we not apply this same reasoning of scrutinizing the existence of that of which no greater can be said or thought and stop there? Truly, Aquinas' argument was for that of a deistic god, a sort of god posed and used by Einstein, but in order to avoid a chain of infinite regress, at some point we need to have a beginning, whatever it may be.
This guys science is a little old, but he's still basically right. Time does appear to have a beginning. Whatever may exist outside of our universe wouldn't be bound to the constraints of time - words like "eternal" and "infinite" wouldn't even really apply.
The problem is with the word "exist". what does it mean to even exist 'outside' of space and time. It holds no meaning in that context. The same goes for causation. It has no effect outside of a spacio-temporal description. The idea is that there is no such thing as existence outside of space/time. That's an illusory concept which cannot even be formulated with a proper language.
Causation requires Space and Time. The universe IS space and time. Therefore causation requires the universe. Basic IF/THEN statement. If that is the case then how can the universe be caused when it is the universe that is required for causation to occur in the first place?
He just said there was a first mover, to what the first cause is up to everyone's own philsophical implications, teleological and ontological arguments go along side with this argument and usually work with each other to prove the ultimate truth. Teleological arguments have been embraced by prominent figures from Newton to Einstein (no appeal to authority, just pointing out). Views are diferent, Newton a Christian and Einstein a Deist, the thing is that Atheism is wrong.
...A single (half a dimension, really) of time needs a cause. If two or more dimensions of time existed within our universe, then it would not require a cause, but, seeing as that is not the case, our time needs a cause.
Despite all this, you seem to believe that the universe always existing is more likely than God. I fail to see how a universe that has always been could explain the fine-tuning of the universe for complex life.
Fine-tuning is an illusion. Life fine tuned itself for the universe, not the other way around.
It's a bit like if you buy a powerball loto ticket, and someone else wins. You would see this as nothing special. If YOU won however: "Holy crap it's a miracle!" When the only difference is perspective. You only assume that life is the 'purpose' of the universe because you have the perspective of a living being, there's no objective reason to assume the universe was made for us.
If my entire life depended upon winning the next 60 lotteries in a row, and, somehow, I did it on the first try, no one would assume I won completely by chance. There had to be some agent insuring that I would win.
But that's just it. Life EVOLVED. It's not like winning the lottery, it's like hitting 1 correct number a week until you have 60 weeks worth of accumulated correct numbers. Decent with variation is random, but natural selection is NOT. Life fits this universe perfectly the way a water fits in a vase perfectly. You see the water in the vase and declare "Look how perfectly the vase was shaped for the water!" when it's obvious that it's the other way around.
Evolution has nothing to do with the discussion. Life could not exist at all, even with evolution, if one of any 140+ characteristics of the universe differed by any degree whatsoever.
First of all it's not 140, it's more like 30 constants the universe is based on, and they are mostly interconnected. 'Changing' one (impossible, but let's say it's not for argument's sake) would force another to change.
Secondly, life evolved in this universe because it has the laws it had. You can't say that there is no other arrangement of constants in which life, or something like life wouldn't evolve there as well. To insist otherwise is pure assertion.
The list of 140 has been compiled by astronomer Hugh Ross. The 30 most commonly sited constants are the ones you are referring to. If any variable were different at the moment of creation, life could not exist. I do know this because it is hard to imagine life of any kind existing in a universe without stars or galaxies. Your assertion that "something like life" could have evolved in a different universe contradicts all current science and logic.
"Because it is hard to imagine..." I rest my case. Argument from personal incredulity fails. The fact is you don't know what could have happened in universes with different physical laws. You're just relying on intuition, and we all know how fallible intuition is when it comes to scientific concepts. "The earth is OBVIOUSLY flat. The sun OBVIOUSLY circles the earth. Life is OBVIOUSLY created. Atoms are OBVIOUSLY solid. The universe is OBVIOUSLY created...."
Instead of picking apart my sentences and misquoting me, why don't you provide some evidence that life (or something like it) would be possible without galaxies, planets, stars, or even atoms.
Sorry but "because it is hard to imagine" is an exact quote and it's my precise point. Your entire argument rests upon the fact that you can't imagine the equivalent of life existing any other way than it does.
In another universe where the constants are different there could be ANYTHING. Infinite variability of the constants would be infinite possibility. Your argument is still pure assertion. No atoms? Oh darn, why not something similar... why not something BETTER? You can't imagine that!
I would love to see some evidence to back this pure assumption. There is NOTHING "better" than an atom. There is either an atom, or there isn't. There is no wild card.
Wow... You've got balls of steel to ask for evidence in this situation. YOU'RE the one saying that in all the possible universes other than this one, with unknown physical laws and unknown consequences of those totally different setups, that something as special as life is impossible. I repeat, there could be ANYTHING if the laws of reality were randomized, and your saying 'nuh-uh, there are either atoms or there aren't' is just unimaginative and stupid assertion on your part.
Unlike what you may read in science fiction books, there is no alternative to an atom as a building block of the universe. Theoretical universes with varying laws have been shown to produce nothing but disorder. There is no "alternate dimensions" where theoretical living creatures not made of matter can exist. As the anthropic principle states, the only type of universe in which intelligent life can exist is in our own.
Google "strangelet" and find out that we already know a NON TRADITIONAL atom that exists in THIS unvierse.
You say that it's been 'shown'... Where, by who? How many simulations did they run and by what parameters did they vary the constants? Was this actual research or just napkin math?
How is it that you are willing to insist atoms are impossible in any other universe when we know atoms exist, yet you believe in god with no evidence?
They are made of quark if I am not mistaken. While the hypothetical particle could produce quark stars, they are not a substitute for atoms by any means. As for the experiments, I would suggest Sir Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind.
Atoms are possible in other universes as long as that universe is nearly identical to ours. I believe in God because of the evidence coming from the anthropic principle. What atoms have to do with it, I am not sure.
"Not a substitute for atoms." True enough, as far as life as we know it is concerned, they cannot be sustained by strangelets. But that's not my point. You say that nothing like an atom could exist in any universe with different fundamental laws, and I gave you an example of something like an atom that theoretically can exist in our very own universe. If more than one 'atom like' structure can exist in this universe, how can you possibly say something equivalent is impossible in others?
Furthermore, you quotemine and use ad hominems. May I also remind you that the multiverse follows the naturalistic fallacy and the inverse gambler's fallacy, it also follows the appeal to probability fallacy. Your argument is based of bare assertion fallacies as well, momoseth2 has some validity you don't, you're just making logical fallacies and acusing others of doing so.
"The fact is you don't know what could have happened in universes with different physical laws"
You made countless fallacies there. First of all you don't know either, you don't have any empirical evidence for these universes, and you're making an appeal to nature. for life to exist (more importantly to evolve and adapt), you need DNA, which is only possible through our parameters. The existance of matter itself is precise to 1:10^10^123 (Roger Penrose). This number can't even be written.
You, apparently aren't paying attention to the argument. He's the one postulating the other universes, not I, so I'm using his own argument against him. Secondly I'm not claiming to know what can happen in these alternate universes... he is.
Sorry the TWO fallacies that you list as 'countless' (you must be HORRIBLE at math) are not fallacies if you had the reading comprehension to keep up with what had been said.
And as for DNA, being required for life... you left out a "AS WE KNOW IT."
He isn't postulating other Universes, he's making refrences to hypothetical Universes and how the probability and statistics of the fine tuning of our parameters applies to them. Furthermore, yes you did assume that life COULD exist in other Universes, and taking his view is a logical fallacy in the first place. Furthermore, how else do we know DNA? Do you have empirical evidence of life arising through rock particle DNA? It's a chemical format allowed by our laws of Physics, wow.....
You have to be more specific if you're going to accuse the whole argument of being a fallacy, just because YOU say so doesn't make it true, this is called a bare assertion fallacy (just because you say it is true, it is true). Prove to me that it's a strawman argument. You're denying the claim that the Universe is fine-tuned? Are you making the assumption that DNA can arise in another form without empirical evidence, and the evidence and common sense going against your logic?
You're very good at missing the points people try to make. DNA is required for life as we know it. Saying it's required for any form of self replication with variation (in any possible set of variations of laws of physics) is pure assertion on your part.
He states that the anthropic principle demonstrates that ours is the only possible universe in which life can exist, when it state nothing of the kind.
This is the pattern of theists everywhere: Make shit up, pretend you know it's true.
Yes all of life requires DNA to exist, I don't understand your objection though? So you're saying that life could exist with DNA in another Universe? You're missing the point, I don't believe in 'other' Universes, there is no empirical evidence from which we can even bring to point into it. It doesn't matter, the laws of Physics are precisely tuned to create existance. I'm not just talking about chemical composition or laws, I'm talking about existance itself.
But again, you misrepresent or misunderstand my point.
It's possible that in this universe with our current physical laws, that a life like 'species' of something could exist, independent of DNA, capable of self replication with variation. This is all that is required for evolution, and evolution makes amazing things possible.
Don't think this is possible? We are just a few years away from making nanomachines capable of this very thing.
If two 'life-like' things exist in this universe...
So you're saying it is possible? You're going beyond knowledge here, if it were possible you would have evidence for it, but you have no iota of evidence for your claims. There is a possibility that there is a flying spaghetti monster plotting a massive attack on Earth from Mars, anything is possible. Evolution is caused by DNA, it isn't a fundamental law of Physics, you're making an erroneous mistake. Nano-machines can't evolve on their own, lmfao, and it was man-made, not nature made. LOL
You seem confused here... I'm not the one saying that in any possible universe, ours is the only one that can support life... you are. You're the one saying something is impossible, yet you have no support for your claim.
I define life as anything self replicating with variation. Since we know there are two possible kinds of life in our universe, it stands to reason that other universes with other laws of physics could have one ore more as well.
Why is it relevant that nanomachines are man made? That doesn't change the fact that when they become capable of self replication they will be considered a life-form by most definitions of life.
Evolution is NOT caused by DNA, evolution can occur in any environment where there is replication with variation and heredity.
There are many computer applications which use evolution to find solutions to problems, do these programs require DNA?
The First Cause argument was never intended to explain WHO created, that the universe WAS created.
If singularities do not exist, what are black holes? New string theories now explain quantum gravity back to the moment of creation. Hawkings's and Penrose's space time theorems now show conclusively that the universe did have a beginning.
Time cannot be uncaused because that would imply infinite time has pasted. Infinity cannot be applied to nature, as an infinite amount of something cannot exist
Creationists have this propensity of cherry picking from science as they do from their bibles. They "believe" in BB but not the Evolution, although Evolution is a proven scientific Theory, while BB is just a hypothesis. The "beginning" of the Universe, as we know it, may have never occured, because we do not know anything about the first fraction of a second before BB.
regelemihai - So what if the universe did have a beginning. There is nothing in any rule books that says that whatever caused the universe was indeed a god. There is nothing that says that whatever created the universe was anything more than a natural order of events outside our time/space of which we have no way of knowing right now or perhaps ever. I don't see why saying that god was the first cause, without proving he is indeed a first cause adds anything to our knowledge.
Not to mention that modern Quantum mechanics does NOT,in fact,negate that the universe had a beggining.The Borde-Guth-Vilenken theorem demonstrates that in a nice way.
And modern physicists can't say whether or not the universe is eternal or not,as the breakdown of physics at the Planck time restricts our knowledge of what happened before,and truth of the matter is we can't test or observe it.
Plus,the galactic red-shift+nucleosynthesis of light particles+Cosmic Microwave background radiation
This is your immaculate argument that dispotues the first cause hypothesis?
I'm sorry to tell you, but it's not a new one, nor an inovative/revolutionary one. It's a rather bland argument that has already been addressed before.
If you're assuming the universe is eternal you're implying that actual infinites exist which is both a mathematical and logical impossibilty.
That's why the universe couldn't have "just existed before."
How is this a mathematical or logical impossibility?
If you think infinity is something mathematically impossible; I'd recommend you learn some basic set theory. Similarly, I'd like you to extrapolate about the "logical impossibility" instead of just asserting it via fiat.
Maybe you should've told the same to David Hilbert who postulated this theory. Or maybe he's inferior too?
An infinite number of past events cannot exist. The infinite is an abstract concept that be envisioned in out minds, but it can't have a tangible physical reality.
"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." -Hilbert
Hilbert died in 1943, before cosmology even really got going. It has since been demonstrated via computer simulations that naked singularities CAN exist under the correct conditions in physical reality, and to the satisfaction of Stephen Hawking (who had bet against it being correct.) I'm not claiming to be smarter than Hawking, just that some people showed even HE can be wrong. He is a human, not a god. Just like Hilbert.
Agreed, however his theory about infinites is a mathematical axiom. Physics change as a function of empirical evidence. Mathematic principles stand firmly. The fact that he died in 43 says nothing about the veracity of his observations.
He also played a key role in the formulation of the general relativity together with Einstein.
His Hotel Paradox about infinities exploits a basic paradox in set theory. And, believe it or not, there are questions in set theory involving infinities whose answer depends on which formulation of set theory you choose. The question "Does a cardinality exist between the rationals and the reals?" is one such question. It just shows that our set theory is limited. Not that real infinities don't exist.
I am glad that you at least make the attempt to understand the long standing philosophic arguements. It is true that either there is an eternal god or some is "thing" in the universe that has power exist in itself. Possibly a cadre of eternal subatomic particles yet undiscovered. Please understand that first cause arguements are made in conjuction with the asciety arguement. Now then. "There are no singularities." But then you say "the universe existed before the singularity." uh?
Fantastic, finally someone on Youtube logical enough to see the impossibilities of god and the big bang as being almost inherently equally flawed. There is no need for a beginning of everything. Redshift is merely a reflection of whats happening locally not universally.Because it looks like it's expanding does not warrant the notion that it was ALWAYS doing so.What possible reason would the universe have for disappearing up its own black hole!? Hurray for steady state and the plasma universe!
"a finite size, never zero" could this size be, in terms of our calculating ability, negative? Our concept of maths itself allows for negatives, could our model of the universe also use this concept?
Our concept of math also allows for zero it's self, as well as infinitly small numbers. Negative space seems unlikly at best; but I'm no expert, anyway.
but that zero is not 'nothing' it is a perfect balance between the negitive and positive. hence the question. I am not wondering if there will be negative matter as such, simply a kind of matter that goes further back than we currently count as zero, in terms of calculation.
you said below "It is simpler that the universe self-exists because we know it exists". More specifically, I believe you stated that time must self-exist because causality is a consequence of time. So you would agree that it is simpler to say that time self-exists rather than to say something created time. So then time is the only thing immune from the law of causality. But then time would have to "cause" physical matter (either directly or indirectly) for the universe to exist as we know it.
But time itself does not cause anything. It is a franework within which things are said to "cause" other things, but never is it a causative agent itself. Therefore, we are still left with the question of the "prime mover". Otherwise the universe would not contain things which we know time itself cannot create. . . what say you???
Problems With The First Cause Argument? Stop trying to argue with the first cause argument. Only natural phenomena requires first cause. God is not natural. God is unnatural. That is why you cannot aplly physical laws to Him. Why would anyone in their right minds apply physical laws to a non-physical being?
If I believe in a Creator of things, this creator had to be causeless. If you want to say that there is a loop of cause and effect, then the loop itself is causeless. You see, from this, one can realize how it is likely that the
fundamental truth of all existence and nonexistence is without cause
thus without reason and indeed, if it is without reason, it is without
any particular meaning. So at its core existence has no meaning. Is this what you are saying?
Living things like us and animals seem to be the only things that need a 'meaning'. Ask a Galaxy what it 'Means' by existing. Pointless, but yet it still exists. I meant that the Big Bang theory , while it looks like we must have come out of a singularity, could merely be what it looks like in our bubble of expansion, we could equally be in a larger perhaps truly infinite multiverse where some bubbles expand and other areas contract.
if anything, preceeded it. Is that unappealing? Certainly, but those are the facts as best we know. Appealing to previous universes, or multiverses, is little more than mathematical alchemy until tested, and that is a problem. What would be the signature of a prior incarnation of this universe? Can information survive a 'bounce', or would any such survival ultimately lead to something akin to a heat death? It's a problem that may be inherently unsolvable, hence scientifically irrelevant.
Sorry, I do not see your "loop". God alone has the power to exist. All other things derive their existence from God. Where is the "loop" you refer too?
Thanks! Believe it or not, your video SERIOUSLY helped solidify my belief in God creating the universe. Furthermore the facts you have presented will be of the utmost benefit in a paper I am writing to demonstrate the probability of his existence. Way to work outside the box man! CHeers.
You do realize that the Big Bang theory has never been prove, that even if it has been proven doesn't exclude a God-cause. Do you also know that the theory, itself, was originally thought of by a Catholic Bishop cosmologist? I find that anti-theists utilize science all the time to vindicate their atheism, even though science never makes a claim one way or the other.
YOU FAIL TO EXPLAIN HOW SOMETHING CAN CREATE ITSELF. If a painting cannot paint itself, why must we, in your words, "...just not argue that the universe gave rise to what we see today..." What a leap of faith!
You have painted yourself into a corner that you are denying is there.
You are saying the Universe created itself...period.
This blind faith in the universe's ability to be it's own creator, lacks basic logic, and makes IT "god."
Paintings cannot paint themselves because this is a known empirical fact. God very well could self-exist. My problem doesn't lie with that statement. It is simpler that the universe self-exists because we know it exists. I am utilizing Occam's Razor. I take it as axiomatic that there was something in the beginning, and that that thing was self-sustaining. I see this resulting from logical necessity.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is funny how people claim that we (religious people) can believe in anything. It requires even more faith to believe that from nothing we got Bach or Beethoven's Ninth. That dwarfs my belief of a super natural being. Hey! What seems more rational? A cretor. Or a super BANG that says from nothing we got everything and I mean EVERYTHING.
"Or a super BANG that says from nothing we got everything and I mean EVERYTHING."
what "bang" are you talking about? some new theory or something?
if you are talking about the "standard big bang" theory it certainly doenst say all came from nothing. it says all came from a singularity. whether real singularities exist or not, thats another question. however a bb singularity would entail infinite energy, which certainly aint nothing but pretty much, at least potentially, everything. EVERYTHING!
The premise that "the universe has a cause because everything that there is in the universe has a cause" looks like a fallacy of composition since one is ascribing a property of what is inside (part of) the universe to the universe as a whole.
good observation, Abdulmelik2007. imagine, in its modern form its coming from a professional philosopher - dr craig. one would not expect a professional to come up with informal fallacies.
It also goes for the argument from design. If in fact there is a realm beyond the universe, we can't use our observations within the universe to make assertions about the whole universe. It is like atoms trying to make predictions about biological systems.
You claim that an eternal universe is absurd but an eternal invisible man is perfectly reasonable? You're confused.
Yes, all agnostics are atheists unless they call themselves "agnostic theists." There are a few out there and you can't get more irrational than that. They're basically saying "I cannot know if "fill in the blank god" exists but I'm going to believe in it anyway."
Agnostics cannot know and therefore have no belief in any god. That makes them atheists by default.
Some will say that occams razor actually favors existence of "god". I don't know as I have not extensively looked at occams razor. I myself am a deist so I believe in a first mover but I am always open to different ideas and searching for answers. Your video brings up some very good points.
The problem with requiring God to have a mover is that it's God! If God exists, which isn't very likely but if he or she exists it is an absolute fallacy to reuire God to have a first mover otherwise he or she wouldn't be God. Now if the universe is infinitely regressing who's to say there isn't an infinite consciousness out there observing. Theists believe in someone they can't see while atheists believe the universe just is. It's both a leap of faith because they're is no evidence for either.
The entire argument, that there must be a prime mover, is a fallacy. It's a fallacy precicely because the theist must explain where the prime mover came from, and so on and so on.
Atheism requires no faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Atheism doesn't put forth any beliefs...it only tells you what we DON'T believe.
nice very logical
qwertclyde1092 4 months ago
Singularities are an application of general relativity where it does not apply. The theory is not constructed to handle quantum mechanics (evidenced by the need to create a theory of quantum gravity uniting the two). You need to incorporate quantum mechanics before you go claiming the existence of singularities. And so far every theory of quantum gravity we propose is singularity free. Basically, once you fix relativity to work in these situations, you don't get singularities.
questioningthecosmos 5 months ago
@questioningthecosmos
Black holes are collapsed stars that eventually reach zero size and infinite density, which is known as a singularity. So if you are going to question the existence of singularities you are also (questioning empirically) verified black holes because they are synonymous.
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@BreakoutLuceal This is flat wrong. No one questions the existence of black holes. Relativity is an incomplete theory that leads to logical absurdities like singularities when it is inappropriately applied. Quantum mechanics does not allow things like 'infinite density zero-size' to exist. You are only applying half of what is necessary to understand black holes. You can't do that.
questioningthecosmos 4 months ago
@questioningthecosmos
You would also be assuming that it is evidence of a possible past eternal universe. you can't go from A to Z like that. You have to provide evidence or it just becomes your own belief. On the other hand, we have a large amount of evidence showing the universe could not possibly be eternal in the past.
BreakoutLuceal 4 months ago
@questioningthecosmos
Now, this does not mean that every singularity is the big bang, which I think you are confusing with black holes. However, the point is no one’s questioning the existence of singularities anymore than they are questioning the existence of black holes unlike quantum gravity which is questionable and is in its infancy. This could very well be the first time quantum gravity reveals that a singularity is possible in this particular situation regarding the big bang.
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
@questioningthecosmo
You are going away from the original point I made about this guy's claim.
I will grant you that the BB singularity has different interpretations in the way its used and then you can claim I am mainly assuming a point in the form of a singularity. However, it doesn't mean its evidence that something could of preceded that point whether its infinite or not.
BreakoutLuceal 4 months ago
Singularities are at the center of every black hole ,according to basic cosmological principles. Its another way to justify the big bang singularity, so no one's questioning the existence of singularities (except you of course).
As far as quantum theory is concerned, (as you even alluded) we do not know enough about quantum mechanics to even be contemplating the non-existence of singularities (Especially when we have all this evidence for the existence of singularities).
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are overlooking many things here:
The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity. This theorem has also been shown to be 8 decimals accurate. While the theorem could turn out to be wrong, the empirical evidence for the big bang, along with the extreme ( 5 decimals) accurracy of Einstein's general relavity, strongly legislate against this possibility.
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
you are overlooking many things here:
The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity. This theorem has also been shown to be 8 decimals accurate. While the theorem could turn out to be wrong, the empirical evidence for the big bang, along with the extreme ( 5 decimals) accurracy of Einstein's general relavity, strongly legislate against this possibility.
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
you are overlooking many things here:
The Space-Time Theorem of General Relativity clearly shows that space, time, and matter all had a concrete beginning at the Big bang in the form of a singularity. This theorem has also been shown to be 8 decimals accurate. While the theorem could turn out to be wrong, the empirical evidence for the big bang, along with the extreme ( 5 decimals) accurracy of Einstein's general relavity, strongly legislate against this possibility.
BreakoutLuceal 5 months ago
thx this helped me alot very detailed
should have more views
xDreaminggg 5 months ago
there's one other thing i can never understand with this argument, the idea that a God was a first cause is a complete contradiction to the argument they originally tail about there being a first cause. Saying the universe needs a first cause is saying that God needs a first cause - backfiring completely on the original statement.
xdora1995 6 months ago
Are you saying that finite things such as space and time are infinite?
prosandkhans 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dear Lord Jesus,
I know that I am a sinner and need Your forgiveness. I believe that You died on the cross for my sins and rose from the grave to give me life. I know You are the only way to God. So now I want to quit disobeying You and start living for You. Please forgive me, change my life and show me how to know You. In Jesus' name. Amen.
bass109 8 months ago
Jesus is lord, call upon Jesus christ! Jesus has all power in universe and more.
bass109 9 months ago
@bass109 Prove it.
demonbourne 8 months ago
@demonbourne Call upon Jesus and get proof yourself. Ask man people in world. They have miracles and love. Just go and seek yourself. Jesus christ is truth! seek the truth!
bass109 8 months ago
@bass109 He's not answering. Got anything... real?
demonbourne 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@demonbourne ask many people in world! Jesus christ is real. that is all proof i need to tell you. seek Jesus and repent of all sins. God love you forever and everyone in Jesus. Jesus christ is way, truth, and life. Jesus is way home. Build your relationship with Jesus. God bless in Jesus!
bass109 8 months ago
@bass109 People believe the sun revolves around the flat earth on the back of elephants. People believe in fairies. People believe god knocked up his own mother. People are stupid and gullible. Lots of them believing something doesn't make it true, it makes it harder for me to sidestep the retardation.
demonbourne 8 months ago
@demonbourne Callout to Jesus, God love you forever when you seek Jesus! Love you!
bass109 8 months ago
@bass109 Jesus was to rid the world of the wicked, Odin was to rid the world of ice giants. Well you don't see any ice giants do you? Odin is the one true god! LOL Same logic!
Boudiga 7 months ago
@bass109 I see your Jesus and raise him by Tom Cruise! Behold! Your new GOD! Master of all things action orientated!
oldfool666 8 months ago
Either way you look at it, it all must be taken on faith... We were not there when it all came into being... So we are only going off of what we see... I for one believe that everything that is, or ever that there ever was in the universe, has been and always will be... I do not believe God created everything, but like a sculptor and his clay... Took what was already around him and organized it into what we now have(Earth) This is my opinion... So take it as you will.
xenex23 9 months ago
time had to come into existence. think of it like this, you line up a bunch of dominos. without a first mover, the dominos would never move. they would sit till for all eternity (which youd only be able to calculate "all eternity" with time). in order to have time, you need movement. movement measures time or time measures movement. the first domino must be struck in order to start time. like the 0's on a stop watch. until you hit start, the stop watch remains on 0 (no time)...
deliveryboy1 10 months ago
@deliveryboy1 Except time is not a linear thing that is the same everywhere/time in the universe and has a "start". Time isn't an independant dimension... A joke between me and my mate: need more time? I think I saw some under that table there! Time and space are intertwined (hence spacetime). And spacetime is being created and warped to my understanding. So your dominoes are suddenly elongating/shortening and creating new dominoes... Does your arguement still apply then?
TakesTwoToTango 9 months ago
God or no god, no one can explain how something came from nothing. Big bang- what caused that. Quantum fluctuations- what caused that? Membranes-what caused that? An eternal universe? How can that be!
frogman360 1 year ago
@frogman360 No one has ever stated that something came from nothing besides theists, we don't know yet, so get over it
BARNEYRAPEDME69 11 months ago
@BARNEYRAPEDME69
Yet? What would that answer look like?
frogman360 11 months ago
@frogman360 I have no idea what the fricken answer would look like, I'm no scientist and I don't claim to be. But I do know that they learn more every day, years ago we didn't have half the knowledge we do now so who says there isn't room for learning more, You can question the origin of things all day it doesn't mean anything, did you ever stop and think that maybe some things are ACTUALLY a little difficult to study? yet you go rambling off like whered the big bang come from??? -
BARNEYRAPEDME69 11 months ago
@frogman360 Like your some sort of genius, maybe you could actually give the people working on it some time instead of demanding answers as if there gonna find the answers to some of the worlds biggest questions. Furthermore it's incredibly ignorant to state things like "something came from nothing" as if that even somewhat explains the big bang or whatever theory you were so eloquently describing, great research bro, keep up the hard work
BARNEYRAPEDME69 11 months ago
@BARNEYRAPEDME69
Your not understanding the fundamental problem here. Science can not answer the question of existence. Not now, not ever. If you believe that, you must believe that universe is eternal. That is what I was complaining about. The big bang was not the beginning. Quantum fluctuations were not the beginning. I am not saying there is a theory that is correct. I am saying that there will never be one.
frogman360 11 months ago
@frogman360 Lol yeah ok dude, You tell me how that works out
BARNEYRAPEDME69 11 months ago
@lucretius I'm not sure i get your time argument. "Causing time"? that would simply be another phrase for time being set into motion wouldn't it?
You seem to be suggesting that time needs to be pre-existent in order to come into existence within itself (as you might phrase it) .
No, when time begins it begins "within" THAT MOMENT, and thus within time. This is the meaning of phrase "the beginning". The first cause is not outside of time or before it, it is immanent.
anastamotic 1 year ago
love the Rachmaninov
ollybreh 1 year ago
The first cause argument was actually invented by Aristotle. Good video though
assassinsrock 1 year ago
Huh, interesting. So since space can never have a value of 0, then neither can time. But doesn't the concept of time mandate a start beginning by definition?
tipsdaturtle 1 year ago
@tipsdaturtle Not if you read about relatively
ollybreh 1 year ago
@ollybreh Explain
tipsdaturtle 1 year ago
@tipsdaturtle Erm Yikes! Ha if you wanna learn about relativity (not relatively, which is how i spelt it before for some strange reason :S ), just read online! But time itself is "relative". If i had to go like even into any detail I would have to read myself!
ollybreh 1 year ago
The unmoved mover is the flying spaghetti monster, it has spoken to me
velendzas 1 year ago
The universe has always existed........ So the hundreds of scientists who believe that the big bang created the universe are stupider then you right?
lumosknight 1 year ago
@lumosknight No scientist believes (at least not officially) that the big bang "created the universe". What they believe is that it created THIS FORM of the universe. There is a big difference. Obviously, the singularity that the universe as we see it today formed from was, in fact, the universe before the big bang, so the big bang didn't create the universe as the universe existed as a singularity before the big bang occurred.
genobahamut1337 1 year ago
The universe is uncaused hahahah, are you mad? everything within in our reality or within the universe is caused intelligently, why would the universe only be different?
rocha333 1 year ago
@rocha333 No, planets and stars are not caused intelligently. We see them form in space (at least, the stars we can see for sure). They form by way of physical laws, not intelligent forces. Same as land slides and tornadoes here on earth. Physical laws control these things, not intelligent beings. Why should the universe be any different? Your problem is that you try to super-impose what you choose to see on the universe. The truth is that we don't know how the universe formed.
genobahamut1337 1 year ago
Lol! The Christians and Muslims use the Cosmological argument to prove their god! Such a weak counter argument, and I thought he was going to pose a challenge....
Qum2Najaf 1 year ago
bad video. You should tried to do more search first. Specially on that case of the big bang and quantum phisics. What the hell is your reference to that? xDD
marteco 1 year ago
So it kills our sense of ego and pride that we require God's revelation. So it irks us that we cannot get God on a telescope or under an electron microscope, Worse things can happen. I'll take revelation because I find Jesus Christ believable. I don't know how else to say it in a paragraph. Someone as wonderful as Jesus is to me belieavable. I daon't think anyone WOULD imagine a person like Jesus even if they COULD. The revelation is believable.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
You don't really refute Aquinas. You talk about things which annoy you about ie, his god versa some other's god. I don't consider that a major refutation. Whoever's god there was a will and power and decision to move. If we cannot test divine revelation, too bad for us. It is not unreasonable. Other problems seem onlyu limitations of human language. Too bad for us. Revelation not unreasonable because we're limited. Nice music in backround - Rachmoninov.
Ear4Beauty 1 year ago
best thing is not question it, it will drive you insane if all you strive to do is disprove or prove a being(or whatever you wanna call it) that by all definitions of itself is unprovable either way, its an infinite argument. believe what you believe through looking at your personal evidence and the feelings that evidence gives you. if your wrong: ask god for mercy/don't waste your life. basically find a happy medium. do everything that feels good that won't ultimately hurt you or others.
rocker816 1 year ago
god would be an uncaused cause. . . ok you just said assuming the universe "just" exists. there you go. god just exists. we're saying the same thing. christians crossed a line when they started using god as a way to say how we were created, just as atheists did when they said we have no purpose. if there is anything history has shown us, its that we cannot possibly know everything. because everything itself is too big of a concept to grasp.
rocker816 1 year ago
the only thing god really gives to humanity is a reason why..
rocker816 1 year ago
all gods are the same idea. i would like to know when humans first evolved to believe in a god, because we might find out why people started wanting to have faith.
rocker816 1 year ago
Perhaps someone can help me understand the hostility toward the concept of a "first cause". Science has proved that we live in an expanding universe and science has attached an age to this expanding universe. The premise of an age is that at one point it did not exist. Did the law of cause and effect not apply before this aged, expanding universe started?
usedbrain 2 years ago
I know that I am not alone in my conclusions because Sir Bernard Lovell raised many of my own thoughts. When addressing the concept of an expanding universe he said, If at some point in the past, the Universe was once close to a singular state of infinitely small size and infinite density, we have to ask what was there before and what was outside the Universe. . . . We have to face the problem of a Beginning" . We are forced to conclude either the beginning was CAUSED or NOT CAUSED.
usedbrain 2 years ago
There are so many holes in your presentation, I hardly know where to begin. You seem quite intelligent but your video betrays your young years (only 21), inexperience, incomplete scientific and philosophical education and lack of understanding. You have some knowledge but very little wisdom. I suggest you look up the meaning of the term, "To beg the question." Further, it is disingenuous to misrepresent the cosmological argument, and then debunk your misrepresentation.
pmchristopherjv 2 years ago
I think your video is very good. I am struggling a bit though. If space-time was originally compressed into a singularity, it must have been composed of energy - energy that was used for expansion and the creation of matter. Why is it errant to question where that energy came from? You seem assured, but physics has no testable, verifiable answer. That is why we are now getting inflation cosmology and other explanations to help explain the origin of the universe. Am I missing something? Thanks!
iDeismFounder 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You see. Big bang theorist they argue only with very "plastic" and unconcrete terms.
Fancy terms:
- singularity
- quantum fluctuations (whatever that may be)
- 10-32 second
- inflation (euphemism of explosion)
They make diagrams, lines with "fundamental forces" and pictures that get you a feeling of : you know nothing.
But it is just guessing and making large leaps and assumptions.
They make their own religion, based on "forces of the sky" (demons?)
geilanderable 2 years ago
Singularity: A single point (the smallest possible physically meaningful point being a Planck Length) that is of infinite density.
Quantum fluctuation: A result hinted at by the uncertainty principle that tells us that the energy of background space is not constant at zero, but fluctuates around some non-zero value. This is verified by the Casimir Effect.
10^-32 seconds. This is a number... didn't pass basic math?
lucretius1 2 years ago 18
Can you be an atheist and believe in a first cause? I would say yes though the first cause has to be a non self aware something. I heard Richard carrier; a historian (i think) use the phrase "the sea of random potential". I would say this is the law of physics and "i don't know"....your thoughts are?
Machineghosts 1 year ago
@lucretius1
The philosophical problems of an infinite universe (or an infinite interrelated multi-verse) are far more formidable.
Let x be a given moment in an infinite span of time extending backward. There must necessarily be an infinite amount of time that precedes x. an infinite amount of time cannot be exhausted which means that the time required to reach x can never elapse.
It is impossible to reach any moment in the history of the universe and therefore the universe cannot be.
anastamotic 1 year ago
@lucretius1
Ofcourse there is the additional question of the character of the first cause (God) apart from his capacity as first cause, but as the first cause his actions are not "prior to" but within that first moment (which we might call the Big Bang)..
anastamotic 1 year ago
@lucretius1 : You bring up assertions so if you don't mind I'd like to ask a few questions. 1-infinite density? how did they arrive to this as being possible? 2-A field is still a field and a law a law, does the casimir effect account for their creation or is it assumed that they just are? By the way, a law is observable and does not create anything that science has observed (at least that I am aware of), so how does it fit in to the first cause argument? Thanks for your video and explanations!!
jgoltz37 9 months ago
Inflation: An era during the Big Bang of rapid expansion due to the release of potential energy trapped in the inflaton field.
These things are very well defined. IF you took some simple physics courses instead of throwing in the towel when a big word comes your way you might learn a thing or two instead of remaining a simpleton.
lucretius1 2 years ago 18
@lucretius1 So are you saying cause and effect never had a beginning?
JAKEHARRIS281 1 year ago
@lucretius1 oh AHAHA yes yes.
ollybreh 1 year ago
@lucretius1 Time does not exist as a ''dimension'' ,per se, it is a concept. First cause is a good argument in light of space and ''time'' beginning.
07Aristotle 6 months ago
@geilanderable I make it simple for you, God done it all, and his son was Jesus. Now stop hurting your little head, there is a good girl.
47saeed 1 year ago
@geilanderable singularity is not known, it is hypothetical but some scientists are looking for evidence that will remove the singularity, its called revisioning like they do with all theories. do you not think they know about quantum fluctuations? they happen today. 10-32 second is because they are talking about huge or very small amounts of time, it is math, it is the ONLY thing concrete in reality, 2+2 is ALWAYS 4.
blazereef 1 year ago
@geilanderable there is a saying in my country: ignorance is bold. so are you. you wish you had the intelectual capability to understand the physics behind the big bang. read, if your small mind can follow, steven weinberg's first three minutes. scientific cosmology is not made by iliterate morons like you.
sirdelrio 1 year ago
@geilanderable Ignorance does not trump science. Rather than saying science doesn't know what it's talking about, why not admit the truth, that YOU don't know what they're talking about? Go get an education or at least try to look up what these things are that you are struggling to understand. It'll do you good.
genobahamut1337 1 year ago
@geilanderable ha you got told
ollybreh 1 year ago
@geilanderable : This is actually a reasonable statement. Maybe not so much the demon part but the part about scientists stretching very far to make their points sound correct. As the video even stated, investigations that had been done before quantum mechanics on the BBT was done via Einsteins theory which now is under question. So how can we know that new theories won't face the same fate after new discoveries? Science has become more faith based then science would like to admit
jgoltz37 9 months ago
It is just the pride of people like the maker of this film.
Some questions are just not valid
The same question you can ask: imagine that there was nothing? This question is just not valid.
Also imagine a infinite plain surface. Like a large (3D) sphere. What is the beginning of the surface of this sphere. The surface is NOT infinite What is the end? You see this questions is also not valid. Only in ANOTHER dimension (3 D) there is a beginning. Like the atmosphere in the earth.
geilanderable 2 years ago
Booste30 is the biggest fool around. Infact all Atheists are fools.
Goodbye.
Beckdead 2 years ago
OOooooh, wait, if the universe existed prior to the singularity being formed, then why do we not apply this same reasoning of scrutinizing the existence of that of which no greater can be said or thought and stop there? Truly, Aquinas' argument was for that of a deistic god, a sort of god posed and used by Einstein, but in order to avoid a chain of infinite regress, at some point we need to have a beginning, whatever it may be.
NumberNile 2 years ago
The "god" of Einstein were the Pantheistic god. He used "god" as a metaphor for nature.
RogerNorling 2 years ago
Does quantum gravity violate the first law of thermodyamics?
lamarjlp914 2 years ago
There is a lot of speculation used as "counter arguement". Quantum cosmology is not a fact, it is not even a theory.
fucknuaf 2 years ago
How can I be rude to something that doesn't exist? This does not compute.
Please, enough with the compulsive talk about homosexuality, no one ever brings it up but you. Indications of homophobic arousal?
booste30 2 years ago
One argument against the first cause argument that I missed in the video is:
Wwhy stop at God when looking for the first cause? Why doesn't God require a first cause, but the universe does?
Of course if God can exist a first cause, why cannot the universe?
w00tehpwn 2 years ago
This guys science is a little old, but he's still basically right. Time does appear to have a beginning. Whatever may exist outside of our universe wouldn't be bound to the constraints of time - words like "eternal" and "infinite" wouldn't even really apply.
BraaapMan2000 2 years ago
The problem is with the word "exist". what does it mean to even exist 'outside' of space and time. It holds no meaning in that context. The same goes for causation. It has no effect outside of a spacio-temporal description. The idea is that there is no such thing as existence outside of space/time. That's an illusory concept which cannot even be formulated with a proper language.
AtomicKinetic12 2 years ago
Causation requires Space and Time. The universe IS space and time. Therefore causation requires the universe. Basic IF/THEN statement. If that is the case then how can the universe be caused when it is the universe that is required for causation to occur in the first place?
AtomicKinetic12 2 years ago
1:30:
He just said there was a first mover, to what the first cause is up to everyone's own philsophical implications, teleological and ontological arguments go along side with this argument and usually work with each other to prove the ultimate truth. Teleological arguments have been embraced by prominent figures from Newton to Einstein (no appeal to authority, just pointing out). Views are diferent, Newton a Christian and Einstein a Deist, the thing is that Atheism is wrong.
ogirv101 2 years ago
...A single (half a dimension, really) of time needs a cause. If two or more dimensions of time existed within our universe, then it would not require a cause, but, seeing as that is not the case, our time needs a cause.
Despite all this, you seem to believe that the universe always existing is more likely than God. I fail to see how a universe that has always been could explain the fine-tuning of the universe for complex life.
momoseth2 2 years ago
Fine-tuning is an illusion. Life fine tuned itself for the universe, not the other way around.
It's a bit like if you buy a powerball loto ticket, and someone else wins. You would see this as nothing special. If YOU won however: "Holy crap it's a miracle!" When the only difference is perspective. You only assume that life is the 'purpose' of the universe because you have the perspective of a living being, there's no objective reason to assume the universe was made for us.
cyxgun 2 years ago
If my entire life depended upon winning the next 60 lotteries in a row, and, somehow, I did it on the first try, no one would assume I won completely by chance. There had to be some agent insuring that I would win.
momoseth2 2 years ago
But that's just it. Life EVOLVED. It's not like winning the lottery, it's like hitting 1 correct number a week until you have 60 weeks worth of accumulated correct numbers. Decent with variation is random, but natural selection is NOT. Life fits this universe perfectly the way a water fits in a vase perfectly. You see the water in the vase and declare "Look how perfectly the vase was shaped for the water!" when it's obvious that it's the other way around.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Evolution has nothing to do with the discussion. Life could not exist at all, even with evolution, if one of any 140+ characteristics of the universe differed by any degree whatsoever.
momoseth2 2 years ago
First of all it's not 140, it's more like 30 constants the universe is based on, and they are mostly interconnected. 'Changing' one (impossible, but let's say it's not for argument's sake) would force another to change.
Secondly, life evolved in this universe because it has the laws it had. You can't say that there is no other arrangement of constants in which life, or something like life wouldn't evolve there as well. To insist otherwise is pure assertion.
cyxgun 2 years ago
The list of 140 has been compiled by astronomer Hugh Ross. The 30 most commonly sited constants are the ones you are referring to. If any variable were different at the moment of creation, life could not exist. I do know this because it is hard to imagine life of any kind existing in a universe without stars or galaxies. Your assertion that "something like life" could have evolved in a different universe contradicts all current science and logic.
momoseth2 2 years ago
"Because it is hard to imagine..." I rest my case. Argument from personal incredulity fails. The fact is you don't know what could have happened in universes with different physical laws. You're just relying on intuition, and we all know how fallible intuition is when it comes to scientific concepts. "The earth is OBVIOUSLY flat. The sun OBVIOUSLY circles the earth. Life is OBVIOUSLY created. Atoms are OBVIOUSLY solid. The universe is OBVIOUSLY created...."
cyxgun 2 years ago
Instead of picking apart my sentences and misquoting me, why don't you provide some evidence that life (or something like it) would be possible without galaxies, planets, stars, or even atoms.
momoseth2 2 years ago
Sorry but "because it is hard to imagine" is an exact quote and it's my precise point. Your entire argument rests upon the fact that you can't imagine the equivalent of life existing any other way than it does.
In another universe where the constants are different there could be ANYTHING. Infinite variability of the constants would be infinite possibility. Your argument is still pure assertion. No atoms? Oh darn, why not something similar... why not something BETTER? You can't imagine that!
cyxgun 2 years ago
I would love to see some evidence to back this pure assumption. There is NOTHING "better" than an atom. There is either an atom, or there isn't. There is no wild card.
momoseth2 2 years ago
Wow... You've got balls of steel to ask for evidence in this situation. YOU'RE the one saying that in all the possible universes other than this one, with unknown physical laws and unknown consequences of those totally different setups, that something as special as life is impossible. I repeat, there could be ANYTHING if the laws of reality were randomized, and your saying 'nuh-uh, there are either atoms or there aren't' is just unimaginative and stupid assertion on your part.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Unlike what you may read in science fiction books, there is no alternative to an atom as a building block of the universe. Theoretical universes with varying laws have been shown to produce nothing but disorder. There is no "alternate dimensions" where theoretical living creatures not made of matter can exist. As the anthropic principle states, the only type of universe in which intelligent life can exist is in our own.
momoseth2 2 years ago
Your lack of knowledge of science is showing.
Google "strangelet" and find out that we already know a NON TRADITIONAL atom that exists in THIS unvierse.
You say that it's been 'shown'... Where, by who? How many simulations did they run and by what parameters did they vary the constants? Was this actual research or just napkin math?
How is it that you are willing to insist atoms are impossible in any other universe when we know atoms exist, yet you believe in god with no evidence?
cyxgun 2 years ago
Ah, strangelets. I am familiar with them.
They are made of quark if I am not mistaken. While the hypothetical particle could produce quark stars, they are not a substitute for atoms by any means. As for the experiments, I would suggest Sir Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind.
Atoms are possible in other universes as long as that universe is nearly identical to ours. I believe in God because of the evidence coming from the anthropic principle. What atoms have to do with it, I am not sure.
momoseth2 2 years ago
"Not a substitute for atoms." True enough, as far as life as we know it is concerned, they cannot be sustained by strangelets. But that's not my point. You say that nothing like an atom could exist in any universe with different fundamental laws, and I gave you an example of something like an atom that theoretically can exist in our very own universe. If more than one 'atom like' structure can exist in this universe, how can you possibly say something equivalent is impossible in others?
cyxgun 2 years ago
Furthermore, you quotemine and use ad hominems. May I also remind you that the multiverse follows the naturalistic fallacy and the inverse gambler's fallacy, it also follows the appeal to probability fallacy. Your argument is based of bare assertion fallacies as well, momoseth2 has some validity you don't, you're just making logical fallacies and acusing others of doing so.
ogirv101 2 years ago
"The fact is you don't know what could have happened in universes with different physical laws"
You made countless fallacies there. First of all you don't know either, you don't have any empirical evidence for these universes, and you're making an appeal to nature. for life to exist (more importantly to evolve and adapt), you need DNA, which is only possible through our parameters. The existance of matter itself is precise to 1:10^10^123 (Roger Penrose). This number can't even be written.
ogirv101 2 years ago
You, apparently aren't paying attention to the argument. He's the one postulating the other universes, not I, so I'm using his own argument against him. Secondly I'm not claiming to know what can happen in these alternate universes... he is.
Sorry the TWO fallacies that you list as 'countless' (you must be HORRIBLE at math) are not fallacies if you had the reading comprehension to keep up with what had been said.
And as for DNA, being required for life... you left out a "AS WE KNOW IT."
cyxgun 2 years ago
He isn't postulating other Universes, he's making refrences to hypothetical Universes and how the probability and statistics of the fine tuning of our parameters applies to them. Furthermore, yes you did assume that life COULD exist in other Universes, and taking his view is a logical fallacy in the first place. Furthermore, how else do we know DNA? Do you have empirical evidence of life arising through rock particle DNA? It's a chemical format allowed by our laws of Physics, wow.....
ogirv101 2 years ago
None of what you just said is true, all strawmen.
cyxgun 2 years ago
You have to be more specific if you're going to accuse the whole argument of being a fallacy, just because YOU say so doesn't make it true, this is called a bare assertion fallacy (just because you say it is true, it is true). Prove to me that it's a strawman argument. You're denying the claim that the Universe is fine-tuned? Are you making the assumption that DNA can arise in another form without empirical evidence, and the evidence and common sense going against your logic?
ogirv101 2 years ago
You're very good at missing the points people try to make. DNA is required for life as we know it. Saying it's required for any form of self replication with variation (in any possible set of variations of laws of physics) is pure assertion on your part.
He states that the anthropic principle demonstrates that ours is the only possible universe in which life can exist, when it state nothing of the kind.
This is the pattern of theists everywhere: Make shit up, pretend you know it's true.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Yes all of life requires DNA to exist, I don't understand your objection though? So you're saying that life could exist with DNA in another Universe? You're missing the point, I don't believe in 'other' Universes, there is no empirical evidence from which we can even bring to point into it. It doesn't matter, the laws of Physics are precisely tuned to create existance. I'm not just talking about chemical composition or laws, I'm talking about existance itself.
ogirv101 2 years ago
If your argument is that this is the only universe that COULD exist, then I don't see how you reach the conclusion that it is fine tuned.
If only one universe is possible than the odds of this exact universe are 1: 1.
Nothing special about that...
cyxgun 2 years ago
But again, you misrepresent or misunderstand my point.
It's possible that in this universe with our current physical laws, that a life like 'species' of something could exist, independent of DNA, capable of self replication with variation. This is all that is required for evolution, and evolution makes amazing things possible.
Don't think this is possible? We are just a few years away from making nanomachines capable of this very thing.
If two 'life-like' things exist in this universe...
cyxgun 2 years ago
So you're saying it is possible? You're going beyond knowledge here, if it were possible you would have evidence for it, but you have no iota of evidence for your claims. There is a possibility that there is a flying spaghetti monster plotting a massive attack on Earth from Mars, anything is possible. Evolution is caused by DNA, it isn't a fundamental law of Physics, you're making an erroneous mistake. Nano-machines can't evolve on their own, lmfao, and it was man-made, not nature made. LOL
ogirv101 2 years ago
You seem confused here... I'm not the one saying that in any possible universe, ours is the only one that can support life... you are. You're the one saying something is impossible, yet you have no support for your claim.
I define life as anything self replicating with variation. Since we know there are two possible kinds of life in our universe, it stands to reason that other universes with other laws of physics could have one ore more as well.
cyxgun 2 years ago
Why is it relevant that nanomachines are man made? That doesn't change the fact that when they become capable of self replication they will be considered a life-form by most definitions of life.
Evolution is NOT caused by DNA, evolution can occur in any environment where there is replication with variation and heredity.
There are many computer applications which use evolution to find solutions to problems, do these programs require DNA?
You have no idea what you're talking about...
cyxgun 2 years ago
The First Cause argument was never intended to explain WHO created, that the universe WAS created.
If singularities do not exist, what are black holes? New string theories now explain quantum gravity back to the moment of creation. Hawkings's and Penrose's space time theorems now show conclusively that the universe did have a beginning.
Time cannot be uncaused because that would imply infinite time has pasted. Infinity cannot be applied to nature, as an infinite amount of something cannot exist
momoseth2 2 years ago
Very well, logically, put explanation.
booste30 2 years ago
Dude, how can time and the universe have no beginning? It boggles the mind!
whattheheck12four 2 years ago
Creationists have this propensity of cherry picking from science as they do from their bibles. They "believe" in BB but not the Evolution, although Evolution is a proven scientific Theory, while BB is just a hypothesis. The "beginning" of the Universe, as we know it, may have never occured, because we do not know anything about the first fraction of a second before BB.
armelix73 2 years ago
WHAT?! The Big Bang is NOT just a hypothesis. It's a very well established theory!
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
** ignore my multiple typos and stylistic hick-ups. I have no time to spellcheck right now.
regelemihai 2 years ago
regelemihai - So what if the universe did have a beginning. There is nothing in any rule books that says that whatever caused the universe was indeed a god. There is nothing that says that whatever created the universe was anything more than a natural order of events outside our time/space of which we have no way of knowing right now or perhaps ever. I don't see why saying that god was the first cause, without proving he is indeed a first cause adds anything to our knowledge.
mattyabsley 2 years ago
...gives us independent reason that universe had a starting point.
regelemihai 2 years ago
Not to mention that modern Quantum mechanics does NOT,in fact,negate that the universe had a beggining.The Borde-Guth-Vilenken theorem demonstrates that in a nice way.
And modern physicists can't say whether or not the universe is eternal or not,as the breakdown of physics at the Planck time restricts our knowledge of what happened before,and truth of the matter is we can't test or observe it.
Plus,the galactic red-shift+nucleosynthesis of light particles+Cosmic Microwave background radiation
regelemihai 2 years ago
This is your immaculate argument that dispotues the first cause hypothesis?
I'm sorry to tell you, but it's not a new one, nor an inovative/revolutionary one. It's a rather bland argument that has already been addressed before.
If you're assuming the universe is eternal you're implying that actual infinites exist which is both a mathematical and logical impossibilty.
That's why the universe couldn't have "just existed before."
regelemihai 2 years ago
How is this a mathematical or logical impossibility?
If you think infinity is something mathematically impossible; I'd recommend you learn some basic set theory. Similarly, I'd like you to extrapolate about the "logical impossibility" instead of just asserting it via fiat.
lucretius1 2 years ago
Maybe you should've told the same to David Hilbert who postulated this theory. Or maybe he's inferior too?
An infinite number of past events cannot exist. The infinite is an abstract concept that be envisioned in out minds, but it can't have a tangible physical reality.
"The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea." -Hilbert
regelemihai 2 years ago
Hilbert died in 1943, before cosmology even really got going. It has since been demonstrated via computer simulations that naked singularities CAN exist under the correct conditions in physical reality, and to the satisfaction of Stephen Hawking (who had bet against it being correct.) I'm not claiming to be smarter than Hawking, just that some people showed even HE can be wrong. He is a human, not a god. Just like Hilbert.
lucretius1 2 years ago
Agreed, however his theory about infinites is a mathematical axiom. Physics change as a function of empirical evidence. Mathematic principles stand firmly. The fact that he died in 43 says nothing about the veracity of his observations.
He also played a key role in the formulation of the general relativity together with Einstein.
regelemihai 2 years ago
His Hotel Paradox about infinities exploits a basic paradox in set theory. And, believe it or not, there are questions in set theory involving infinities whose answer depends on which formulation of set theory you choose. The question "Does a cardinality exist between the rationals and the reals?" is one such question. It just shows that our set theory is limited. Not that real infinities don't exist.
lucretius1 2 years ago
His paradox deals with the application of a set theory into reality.
It's a basic law in metaphysics.A distinction between potentiality and actuality need to be made.
A cardoinality of a specific set of numbers actually comes up in his hotel paradox.
No matter how many units you subtract from the initial set,you get ontradictory statements.
For example:what is infinity minus infinity?
There is also the impossibilty of traversing the infinite by adding one member after another.
regelemihai 2 years ago
I am glad that you at least make the attempt to understand the long standing philosophic arguements. It is true that either there is an eternal god or some is "thing" in the universe that has power exist in itself. Possibly a cadre of eternal subatomic particles yet undiscovered. Please understand that first cause arguements are made in conjuction with the asciety arguement. Now then. "There are no singularities." But then you say "the universe existed before the singularity." uh?
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Fantastic, finally someone on Youtube logical enough to see the impossibilities of god and the big bang as being almost inherently equally flawed. There is no need for a beginning of everything. Redshift is merely a reflection of whats happening locally not universally.Because it looks like it's expanding does not warrant the notion that it was ALWAYS doing so.What possible reason would the universe have for disappearing up its own black hole!? Hurray for steady state and the plasma universe!
MilesB1975 3 years ago
"a finite size, never zero" could this size be, in terms of our calculating ability, negative? Our concept of maths itself allows for negatives, could our model of the universe also use this concept?
Willgeorrobi 3 years ago
Our concept of math also allows for zero it's self, as well as infinitly small numbers. Negative space seems unlikly at best; but I'm no expert, anyway.
PhiloCentinel 3 years ago
but that zero is not 'nothing' it is a perfect balance between the negitive and positive. hence the question. I am not wondering if there will be negative matter as such, simply a kind of matter that goes further back than we currently count as zero, in terms of calculation.
Willgeorrobi 3 years ago
you said below "It is simpler that the universe self-exists because we know it exists". More specifically, I believe you stated that time must self-exist because causality is a consequence of time. So you would agree that it is simpler to say that time self-exists rather than to say something created time. So then time is the only thing immune from the law of causality. But then time would have to "cause" physical matter (either directly or indirectly) for the universe to exist as we know it.
dasklavierleben 3 years ago
But time itself does not cause anything. It is a franework within which things are said to "cause" other things, but never is it a causative agent itself. Therefore, we are still left with the question of the "prime mover". Otherwise the universe would not contain things which we know time itself cannot create. . . what say you???
dasklavierleben 3 years ago
Problems With The First Cause Argument? Stop trying to argue with the first cause argument. Only natural phenomena requires first cause. God is not natural. God is unnatural. That is why you cannot aplly physical laws to Him. Why would anyone in their right minds apply physical laws to a non-physical being?
cjla1987 3 years ago
Because logically this god cannot exist outside of existence itself, another infinite loop of regression! Back to square one!
MilesB1975 3 years ago
If I believe in a Creator of things, this creator had to be causeless. If you want to say that there is a loop of cause and effect, then the loop itself is causeless. You see, from this, one can realize how it is likely that the
fundamental truth of all existence and nonexistence is without cause
thus without reason and indeed, if it is without reason, it is without
any particular meaning. So at its core existence has no meaning. Is this what you are saying?
cjla1987 3 years ago
Living things like us and animals seem to be the only things that need a 'meaning'. Ask a Galaxy what it 'Means' by existing. Pointless, but yet it still exists. I meant that the Big Bang theory , while it looks like we must have come out of a singularity, could merely be what it looks like in our bubble of expansion, we could equally be in a larger perhaps truly infinite multiverse where some bubbles expand and other areas contract.
MilesB1975 3 years ago
if anything, preceeded it. Is that unappealing? Certainly, but those are the facts as best we know. Appealing to previous universes, or multiverses, is little more than mathematical alchemy until tested, and that is a problem. What would be the signature of a prior incarnation of this universe? Can information survive a 'bounce', or would any such survival ultimately lead to something akin to a heat death? It's a problem that may be inherently unsolvable, hence scientifically irrelevant.
cjla1987 3 years ago
Sorry, I do not see your "loop". God alone has the power to exist. All other things derive their existence from God. Where is the "loop" you refer too?
hadtohappen 2 years ago
Great video. Perpetual existence is a viable explanation of the universe.
Spectre11B 3 years ago
Thanks! Believe it or not, your video SERIOUSLY helped solidify my belief in God creating the universe. Furthermore the facts you have presented will be of the utmost benefit in a paper I am writing to demonstrate the probability of his existence. Way to work outside the box man! CHeers.
theothersock 3 years ago
You do realize that the Big Bang theory has never been prove, that even if it has been proven doesn't exclude a God-cause. Do you also know that the theory, itself, was originally thought of by a Catholic Bishop cosmologist? I find that anti-theists utilize science all the time to vindicate their atheism, even though science never makes a claim one way or the other.
CogitoErgoCogitoSum 3 years ago
Very well presented, but
YOU FAIL TO EXPLAIN HOW SOMETHING CAN CREATE ITSELF. If a painting cannot paint itself, why must we, in your words, "...just not argue that the universe gave rise to what we see today..." What a leap of faith!
You have painted yourself into a corner that you are denying is there.
You are saying the Universe created itself...period.
This blind faith in the universe's ability to be it's own creator, lacks basic logic, and makes IT "god."
You're just a pantheist.
toddbray 3 years ago
Paintings cannot paint themselves because this is a known empirical fact. God very well could self-exist. My problem doesn't lie with that statement. It is simpler that the universe self-exists because we know it exists. I am utilizing Occam's Razor. I take it as axiomatic that there was something in the beginning, and that that thing was self-sustaining. I see this resulting from logical necessity.
lucretius1 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is funny how people claim that we (religious people) can believe in anything. It requires even more faith to believe that from nothing we got Bach or Beethoven's Ninth. That dwarfs my belief of a super natural being. Hey! What seems more rational? A cretor. Or a super BANG that says from nothing we got everything and I mean EVERYTHING.
cjla1987 3 years ago
"Or a super BANG that says from nothing we got everything and I mean EVERYTHING."
what "bang" are you talking about? some new theory or something?
if you are talking about the "standard big bang" theory it certainly doenst say all came from nothing. it says all came from a singularity. whether real singularities exist or not, thats another question. however a bb singularity would entail infinite energy, which certainly aint nothing but pretty much, at least potentially, everything. EVERYTHING!
pikechris1 3 years ago
Absolutely outstanding.
bearnurse1 3 years ago
dude you're an unknowing taoist.
mikezephyr 3 years ago
Bravo! Well Done!!!
Zeuts85 3 years ago
Interesting stuff, but I'm not going to pretend to begin to understand how something can always have existed without a beginning.
Pinage 3 years ago
The premise that "the universe has a cause because everything that there is in the universe has a cause" looks like a fallacy of composition since one is ascribing a property of what is inside (part of) the universe to the universe as a whole.
Abdulmelik2007 3 years ago
good observation, Abdulmelik2007. imagine, in its modern form its coming from a professional philosopher - dr craig. one would not expect a professional to come up with informal fallacies.
pikechris1 3 years ago
It also goes for the argument from design. If in fact there is a realm beyond the universe, we can't use our observations within the universe to make assertions about the whole universe. It is like atoms trying to make predictions about biological systems.
Abdulmelik2007 3 years ago
You claim that an eternal universe is absurd but an eternal invisible man is perfectly reasonable? You're confused.
Yes, all agnostics are atheists unless they call themselves "agnostic theists." There are a few out there and you can't get more irrational than that. They're basically saying "I cannot know if "fill in the blank god" exists but I'm going to believe in it anyway."
Agnostics cannot know and therefore have no belief in any god. That makes them atheists by default.
Jeremyguru 3 years ago 2
Some will say that occams razor actually favors existence of "god". I don't know as I have not extensively looked at occams razor. I myself am a deist so I believe in a first mover but I am always open to different ideas and searching for answers. Your video brings up some very good points.
K2Tanner 3 years ago
Who moved the first mover?
Jeremyguru 3 years ago 2
The problem with requiring God to have a mover is that it's God! If God exists, which isn't very likely but if he or she exists it is an absolute fallacy to reuire God to have a first mover otherwise he or she wouldn't be God. Now if the universe is infinitely regressing who's to say there isn't an infinite consciousness out there observing. Theists believe in someone they can't see while atheists believe the universe just is. It's both a leap of faith because they're is no evidence for either.
Scjrd91 3 years ago
The entire argument, that there must be a prime mover, is a fallacy. It's a fallacy precicely because the theist must explain where the prime mover came from, and so on and so on.
Atheism requires no faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Atheism doesn't put forth any beliefs...it only tells you what we DON'T believe.