Us. Humans, being a 3D part in the 3D Universe can not explain anything more significant then ourselves. (That being 4D thing) If you see some video on the 11th/10th dimension it shows how 2D would see 3D very weird indeed, and how 3D would see ourselves in 4D as a Snake-like figure showing our young selves to our elderly selves. But I now see why we can't define/explain time OR God, we can give examples, or equivalents.. but never the actual definition.
Physicists have no problem talking about something comming from nothing. The steady-state theory of the universe has this idea at its core. Quantum mechanical events have no causes, not in the everyday sense of "cause" anyway. Besides, if God exists and came from nothing, why not the universe?
Quantum mechanics describes events only on the subatomic level. It cannot explain the universe coming from nothing. If you say that God had to have a beginning, you are looking at God from a human-limited and time-limited viewpoint. If God created time, then he existed before time.
This video shows little understanding of modern physics.
Quantum physics has spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particles from nothing - we do know the process. We can see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.
The universe has always been a zero net energy. Conservation of mass/energy not violated.
You are right that quantum mechanics describes subatomic particles that seem to come from nothing. However,that is only in the subatomic realm. It cannot describe the beginning of the universe or even objects on an atomic level. We will have a video on quantum mechanics soon.
Quantum mechanics merges with classical mechanics to cover the full gamut of systems. The emergence of matter from non-matter is established. There are a number of plausible models of a purely natural beginning of the physical universe within current knowledge, not violating laws.
Science plays it fairly by actually developing hypotheses about how things work and testing to develop models/theories. Not plucking ideas out of thin air without the need to actually show positive evidence.
You are redefining the concept of NOTHING. John Clayton is using the Newtonian statement of the conservation law which is the foundation of all science including modern physics. Quantum mechanics, string theory, and other areas of modern physics have postulated that the physical universe can be connected to other dimensions--in string theory as many as 11 dimensions. (cont.)
(continued) NOTHING is not the absence of space/time/energy in these new concepts but allows extradimensional quantities to generate physical matter/energy. Theories like brane collisions and superstrings are the source of the cosmos in this model, not truly NOTHING in the sense of the conservation laws. If you want a modern treatment of this concept I would recommend books by Hugh Ross or Frank Tipler on this subject.
Sorry, the term 'nothing' can get used frivolously at times - which doesn't help the discussion.
If there was truly nothing then there would be nothing. So it seems that we all agree that there was something, but differ on what the something is - strings, or branes, quantum vacuum, or god.
So there was something at the beginning. What was it? One choice is that there was something, we dont know what, that had no life and no intelligence and we dont know where it came from, but it evolved into everything we see including life and intelligence. The other choice is that there was an intelligent, living creator who existed outside of time, who created time and mater/energy and then life and ultimately intelligent life. Either concept requires faith. I choose the latter.
That is the whole perplexing mystery of existence: Why is there something instead of nothing? Science is honest and says we do not currently know exactly. Religion says God is the first cause -- okay, fine, BUT: Who created God? If you say "He/She/It" always was -- that is NOT answering the question. It is evading a true answer.
We know of nothing that always existed, or that "created itself." Religion is less honest and mature than science.
quantum fluctuation and conservation of energy are both true, not one disproves the other. there is prrof in science, in religion your trusting uop a person's imagination as truth, big difference my friend.
Videos trying to shun science to god our so crap, it looks like he made up all what he was saying in 5mins!....science is the truth and when your dead your worm food, not in heaven
Yes, the First Law of Thermodynamics is semi-correct. You would realize this if you payed attention to modern science at all. The popular theory is that the universe is a vacuum fluctuation. Particles appeared with their anti-particles, which is possible because of their complete annihilation upon collision. This means the net mass/energy of the system was 0, thus the theory holds true if the amount of matter is the same as the amount of anti-matter.Your ignorance is this subject is sad.
No one says someting comes from nothing. Except god. Not even the big bang says that. It says all matter in the universe was at one point. Then there was a hyper-inflation period which formed the universe we know today. All the matter in the universe is still here; the exact same amount. What I dont undersatnd is how religion can believe in an eternal single superbeing. This seems much more absurd then the everpresent universe.
That all the matter in the universe was at one point, a singularity, and then hyper-inflated to our universe, is much more amazing and wonderful to ponder, than a Creator God. Where the heck did "he/she/it" come from anyway? The universe is more incredible than a book written over 2,000 years ago.
I don't understand why the concept of everything coming from lifeless matter is "more amazing and wonderful to ponder" than the concept of creation by an intelligent creator. But anyway where did the singularity come from?
"more amazing..." is because: How can life come from dead matter, esp if there is no God?To me it is amazing because it is more mysterious, if not incomphrensible, than a supernatural creator being.
Re: "But anyway where did the singularity come from?" That's the whole point: we don't know -- no one knows! Imho, many people can't handle the existential dilemma of living with such a question, and so they must posit a God-being, because they can't handle the great unknown that is existence.
"To me it is amazing because it is more mysterious, if not incomphrensible, than a supernatural creator being." In other words you are saying that it takes more faith to believe in life coming from dead matter than to believe that life came from an intelleigent, living creator. Also you are saying no one can know where the matter came from so you just have to have faith that it happened by itself.
My argument is that "god" is simply an unexplainable existence. Most people who believe in a supernatural creator would describe god as an infallible mind, but that's just a natural humanistic description that we can relate to. Again, god is unexplainable; we simply don't know what god is. Either way, if we are here by pure science and luck or by some supernatural, unexplainable existence, they're both just as mysterious.
The central point of the Christian faith is that we believe God has revealed himself. The unexplainable Creator of the universe has revealed himself to his creation both in his written word (the Bible) and in the Word made flesh (Jesus Christ).
Yes, YOU believe that, and that is your right of free thought. Many people don't believe it, because it is an unsupportable fairy tale. Or at least, a myth with some meaningful elements, but not to be taken literally.
Just because we do not yet understand how the universe was created (for crying out loud, we're a YOUNG race, universe creation may be a little above us rigt now!) doesn't provide evidence that "God Did It"
Science does not rule out anything. The possibility of a creator is always open and would be accepted if there was enough evidence. However, most creationists come to the conclusion that God MUST have created the universe since we don't yet know how to create a universe. That is called an argument from ignorance. A typical logical fallicy.
Even if we did figure out how to create a single, living cell from non-living matter (which we haven't even come close to doing) we would only show that intelligence can create life. If you don't rule out the possibility of a Creator are you really an atheist. Wouldn't "agnostic" be a more appropriate term?
Your scientific knowledge is a little outdated. Mankind can make viruses from scratch, have been able to since 2002. Prokaryote cells are not too far off. And for the 100th time, atheist just means not believing in "gods" based on a lack of evidence. In the presence of compelling evidence, an atheist wouldn't be an atheist anymore.
Viruses are not cells. Again, even if we did figure out how to create a single living cell from non-living matter we would only show that intelligence can create life, which is exactly my point.
It also shows that life can spontaneously create itself if the conditions were right. Might show how we began on earth. It would show that there could be life on any number of worlds in the universe. It doesn't mean there had to be a creator.
This video just rots the brain. Please get some understanding, even if it's just from Wikipedia, of quantum cosmology, or more general physics, and then make a more informed video. I don't understand the appeal of religion when it's filled with such odious, pro-ignorance characters.
"There is a considerable amount of evidence there was a beginning". Such as?
"Atheists say: 'How can something come from nothing via some process we know nothing about?'" -- No physicists say this. I'm not sure who, specifically, you are referring to. Atheists do not have, by definition, a certain opinion of cosmology; they just don't believe in a god.
"We had a beginning and the beginning was caused". This is an assumption.
1- Evidence for a beginning falls into 3 categories.
1) The cosmos is expanding, and it is accelerating in that expansion.
2) The energy process of the cosmos demands fuel depletion.
3) Heat death involves a law of physics--the second law of thermodynamics which states that in a closed system things tend to move toward a state of disorder.
I can't go into more details here. For more info go to doesgodexist main website and do a search.
There is indeed very substantial evidence for the big bang, but the theory does not explain the origin of the universe (or 'everything', depending on how you define 'universe'. It's complicated). Please explain what you mean by 'the beginning'. The universe as we know it had a beginning, but this is not the origin of all matter/energy.
2- You reversed the meaning of what John said. He said that atheists have said, "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT SOMETHING CAN'T COME FROM NOTHING by some process we know nothing about?" I just found an example of that statement by an atheist on YouTube.
3- Yes, this is an assumption since none of us were around at the beginning. However, it is an assumption based on very good evidence.
I guess not. Look it up first and no I'm not going to explain it to you (mainly because it's too much to talk about). If your not willing to look at something your self than why should I talk about it to you. It's like me trying to argue with a brain surgeon on brain surgery.
I'm still missing your point. CERN has given us some interesting discoveries over the years, but as far as I know it has not disproved the law of conservation of matter/energy. You can convert one into the other, but you can't create matter/energy from nothing.
Perhaps one of the greatest things CERN has given us is the WorldWideWeb so that we can carry on this interesting conversation.
The whole 4D thing interests me.
Us. Humans, being a 3D part in the 3D Universe can not explain anything more significant then ourselves. (That being 4D thing) If you see some video on the 11th/10th dimension it shows how 2D would see 3D very weird indeed, and how 3D would see ourselves in 4D as a Snake-like figure showing our young selves to our elderly selves. But I now see why we can't define/explain time OR God, we can give examples, or equivalents.. but never the actual definition.
GodOnStrike 3 years ago
Physicists have no problem talking about something comming from nothing. The steady-state theory of the universe has this idea at its core. Quantum mechanical events have no causes, not in the everyday sense of "cause" anyway. Besides, if God exists and came from nothing, why not the universe?
okzoia 3 years ago
Quantum mechanics describes events only on the subatomic level. It cannot explain the universe coming from nothing. If you say that God had to have a beginning, you are looking at God from a human-limited and time-limited viewpoint. If God created time, then he existed before time.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Agreed.
GodOnStrike 3 years ago
This video shows little understanding of modern physics.
Quantum physics has spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particles from nothing - we do know the process. We can see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.
The universe has always been a zero net energy. Conservation of mass/energy not violated.
dbes02 3 years ago
You are right that quantum mechanics describes subatomic particles that seem to come from nothing. However,that is only in the subatomic realm. It cannot describe the beginning of the universe or even objects on an atomic level. We will have a video on quantum mechanics soon.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Quantum mechanics merges with classical mechanics to cover the full gamut of systems. The emergence of matter from non-matter is established. There are a number of plausible models of a purely natural beginning of the physical universe within current knowledge, not violating laws.
Science plays it fairly by actually developing hypotheses about how things work and testing to develop models/theories. Not plucking ideas out of thin air without the need to actually show positive evidence.
dbes02 3 years ago
You are redefining the concept of NOTHING. John Clayton is using the Newtonian statement of the conservation law which is the foundation of all science including modern physics. Quantum mechanics, string theory, and other areas of modern physics have postulated that the physical universe can be connected to other dimensions--in string theory as many as 11 dimensions. (cont.)
PowerVine 3 years ago
(continued) NOTHING is not the absence of space/time/energy in these new concepts but allows extradimensional quantities to generate physical matter/energy. Theories like brane collisions and superstrings are the source of the cosmos in this model, not truly NOTHING in the sense of the conservation laws. If you want a modern treatment of this concept I would recommend books by Hugh Ross or Frank Tipler on this subject.
PowerVine 3 years ago
Sorry, the term 'nothing' can get used frivolously at times - which doesn't help the discussion.
If there was truly nothing then there would be nothing. So it seems that we all agree that there was something, but differ on what the something is - strings, or branes, quantum vacuum, or god.
dbes02 3 years ago
So there was something at the beginning. What was it? One choice is that there was something, we dont know what, that had no life and no intelligence and we dont know where it came from, but it evolved into everything we see including life and intelligence. The other choice is that there was an intelligent, living creator who existed outside of time, who created time and mater/energy and then life and ultimately intelligent life. Either concept requires faith. I choose the latter.
PowerVine 3 years ago 2
Yes, complete nothing might have infinite potential, but not infinite mass -- how can nothing (void) have mass (something)?
StevenErnest 3 years ago
That is the whole perplexing mystery of existence: Why is there something instead of nothing? Science is honest and says we do not currently know exactly. Religion says God is the first cause -- okay, fine, BUT: Who created God? If you say "He/She/It" always was -- that is NOT answering the question. It is evading a true answer.
We know of nothing that always existed, or that "created itself." Religion is less honest and mature than science.
StevenErnest 3 years ago
no matter which way you look at it, SOMETHING MUST HAVE COME FROM NOTHING even if that sometihng is god.
nubmuffins 3 years ago 5
quantum fluctuation and conservation of energy are both true, not one disproves the other. there is prrof in science, in religion your trusting uop a person's imagination as truth, big difference my friend.
nubmuffins 3 years ago
Videos trying to shun science to god our so crap, it looks like he made up all what he was saying in 5mins!....science is the truth and when your dead your worm food, not in heaven
gazzat2 3 years ago
Yes, the First Law of Thermodynamics is semi-correct. You would realize this if you payed attention to modern science at all. The popular theory is that the universe is a vacuum fluctuation. Particles appeared with their anti-particles, which is possible because of their complete annihilation upon collision. This means the net mass/energy of the system was 0, thus the theory holds true if the amount of matter is the same as the amount of anti-matter.Your ignorance is this subject is sad.
504fiftward 3 years ago
No one says someting comes from nothing. Except god. Not even the big bang says that. It says all matter in the universe was at one point. Then there was a hyper-inflation period which formed the universe we know today. All the matter in the universe is still here; the exact same amount. What I dont undersatnd is how religion can believe in an eternal single superbeing. This seems much more absurd then the everpresent universe.
Panzerjock 4 years ago
That all the matter in the universe was at one point, a singularity, and then hyper-inflated to our universe, is much more amazing and wonderful to ponder, than a Creator God. Where the heck did "he/she/it" come from anyway? The universe is more incredible than a book written over 2,000 years ago.
StevenErnest 3 years ago
I don't understand why the concept of everything coming from lifeless matter is "more amazing and wonderful to ponder" than the concept of creation by an intelligent creator. But anyway where did the singularity come from?
PowerVine 3 years ago
"more amazing..." is because: How can life come from dead matter, esp if there is no God?To me it is amazing because it is more mysterious, if not incomphrensible, than a supernatural creator being.
Re: "But anyway where did the singularity come from?" That's the whole point: we don't know -- no one knows! Imho, many people can't handle the existential dilemma of living with such a question, and so they must posit a God-being, because they can't handle the great unknown that is existence.
StevenErnest 3 years ago 4
"To me it is amazing because it is more mysterious, if not incomphrensible, than a supernatural creator being." In other words you are saying that it takes more faith to believe in life coming from dead matter than to believe that life came from an intelleigent, living creator. Also you are saying no one can know where the matter came from so you just have to have faith that it happened by itself.
PowerVine 3 years ago
My argument is that "god" is simply an unexplainable existence. Most people who believe in a supernatural creator would describe god as an infallible mind, but that's just a natural humanistic description that we can relate to. Again, god is unexplainable; we simply don't know what god is. Either way, if we are here by pure science and luck or by some supernatural, unexplainable existence, they're both just as mysterious.
cschin11 4 years ago
The central point of the Christian faith is that we believe God has revealed himself. The unexplainable Creator of the universe has revealed himself to his creation both in his written word (the Bible) and in the Word made flesh (Jesus Christ).
PowerVine 4 years ago
Yes, YOU believe that, and that is your right of free thought. Many people don't believe it, because it is an unsupportable fairy tale. Or at least, a myth with some meaningful elements, but not to be taken literally.
StevenErnest 3 years ago
Just because we do not yet understand how the universe was created (for crying out loud, we're a YOUNG race, universe creation may be a little above us rigt now!) doesn't provide evidence that "God Did It"
UltraSWG 4 years ago
If we don't yet understand it, perhaps it would be premature to rule out the possibility of a Creator.
PowerVine 4 years ago
Science does not rule out anything. The possibility of a creator is always open and would be accepted if there was enough evidence. However, most creationists come to the conclusion that God MUST have created the universe since we don't yet know how to create a universe. That is called an argument from ignorance. A typical logical fallicy.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
Even if we did figure out how to create a single, living cell from non-living matter (which we haven't even come close to doing) we would only show that intelligence can create life. If you don't rule out the possibility of a Creator are you really an atheist. Wouldn't "agnostic" be a more appropriate term?
PowerVine 4 years ago
Your scientific knowledge is a little outdated. Mankind can make viruses from scratch, have been able to since 2002. Prokaryote cells are not too far off. And for the 100th time, atheist just means not believing in "gods" based on a lack of evidence. In the presence of compelling evidence, an atheist wouldn't be an atheist anymore.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
Viruses are not cells. Again, even if we did figure out how to create a single living cell from non-living matter we would only show that intelligence can create life, which is exactly my point.
PowerVine 4 years ago
It also shows that life can spontaneously create itself if the conditions were right. Might show how we began on earth. It would show that there could be life on any number of worlds in the universe. It doesn't mean there had to be a creator.
Panzerjock 4 years ago
This video just rots the brain. Please get some understanding, even if it's just from Wikipedia, of quantum cosmology, or more general physics, and then make a more informed video. I don't understand the appeal of religion when it's filled with such odious, pro-ignorance characters.
mf103 4 years ago
It would be helpful it you would give a specific example of just one incorrect statement in this video.
PowerVine 4 years ago
"There is a considerable amount of evidence there was a beginning". Such as?
"Atheists say: 'How can something come from nothing via some process we know nothing about?'" -- No physicists say this. I'm not sure who, specifically, you are referring to. Atheists do not have, by definition, a certain opinion of cosmology; they just don't believe in a god.
"We had a beginning and the beginning was caused". This is an assumption.
mf103 4 years ago
1- Evidence for a beginning falls into 3 categories.
1) The cosmos is expanding, and it is accelerating in that expansion.
2) The energy process of the cosmos demands fuel depletion.
3) Heat death involves a law of physics--the second law of thermodynamics which states that in a closed system things tend to move toward a state of disorder.
I can't go into more details here. For more info go to doesgodexist main website and do a search.
PowerVine 4 years ago
There is indeed very substantial evidence for the big bang, but the theory does not explain the origin of the universe (or 'everything', depending on how you define 'universe'. It's complicated). Please explain what you mean by 'the beginning'. The universe as we know it had a beginning, but this is not the origin of all matter/energy.
mf103 4 years ago
2- You reversed the meaning of what John said. He said that atheists have said, "HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT SOMETHING CAN'T COME FROM NOTHING by some process we know nothing about?" I just found an example of that statement by an atheist on YouTube.
3- Yes, this is an assumption since none of us were around at the beginning. However, it is an assumption based on very good evidence.
PowerVine 4 years ago
Have you ever heard of CERN (atom smashers).
Acorvettes 4 years ago
What's your point?
PowerVine 4 years ago
I guess not. Look it up first and no I'm not going to explain it to you (mainly because it's too much to talk about). If your not willing to look at something your self than why should I talk about it to you. It's like me trying to argue with a brain surgeon on brain surgery.
Acorvettes 4 years ago
I'm still missing your point. CERN has given us some interesting discoveries over the years, but as far as I know it has not disproved the law of conservation of matter/energy. You can convert one into the other, but you can't create matter/energy from nothing.
Perhaps one of the greatest things CERN has given us is the WorldWideWeb so that we can carry on this interesting conversation.
PowerVine 4 years ago