Nice work but I think you may have taken on a rather impossible task.... illuminating the dark corners of ignorance....especially when it is self-imposed and highly guarded ignorance. Kudos for not calling names! That really gets tedious doesn't it?
I was thinking that according to the 30 year old model which he chose to use, there was a point of origin when there was nothing, he was willing to accept this, so where was god located just then? Somewhere just beside the nothingness?
It is ONLY because the pressure that creationist put on scientists that they changed there mind about everything coming from nothing. SO they are still in the dark.
@NoneBeforeNoneAfter Creationists have not yet put any actual pressure on any scientists.
All creationists have done is make claims and arguements. Science is not philosophy, and you need a lot more than creationists have provided for it to be considered science. Every idea they come up with is often shown to not work, and or be impossible and require magic.
The idea that creationists have put any kind of pressure on scientists has nothing behind it, just like many creationist ideas.
I fucked that fag Jesus in the ass then muhammud sucked my dick and I came all over allah in his mouth and later I used pages from the bible and the quaran to wipe the shit out of my ass . RELIGION IS THE SCOURGE OF MANKIND .and has murdered more people than any part of society FUCK RELIGION AND ANYONE INVOLVED
@biggerturtle you know... i strongly disagree with you because by that logic... black people cause gang wars mexicans are the laziest people on the planet germans are just as bad *caugh* who were just as bad (nazis) *caugh* and you areenglish so
If you TRULY BELIEVE in God, and you come to believe also that God wants you to blow up a building full of people-would you do it? If you really believe, you would have to wouldn't you? You can't say it would never happen because in the Bible God has commanded horrible crimes. The believers claim that without God anything is allowed, even murder. I would say the opposite-WITH GOD, any imaginable unspeakable crime is possibly allowed . google Doe's Account.
So there is one or many universe(s) where you are a fundamentalist muslim, or a mormon; the same goes for me of course. It could be like J.L. Borges's "Library of Babel" where every book that could be written is available. Most of them make no sense at all, many differ by just a coma, or just one characters name.
I thought when cosmologists say that the universe came from nothing they are having fun with words to the former meaning of nothing, as nothing doesn't mean nothing anymore.
I grew up with Muslims in a Muslim dominated area and use to hang around with them. I even went to school where 95% of the pupils where Muslims. I can tell you right now, the majority of Muslims are dumb idiots. Muslims can not think properly. They can not even acknowlegde that their precious Qur'an was written by mankind. Philhellenes - keep schooling these dummies.
There is a place outside of space and time that is made OF nothing. Thoughts. My imagination is such a thing. Ex: Such as my imaginary puff cloud friend that says hi to me every morning. :D
Now its generator exists, the brain, but imagination creates nothing physical at least to my knowledge.
There is one physical manifestation of our thoughts though, the electrical impulses in our synapses and neurons. I agree your puff-cloud while not physically 'real', does exist as something tangible that exists and can be manipulated by your mind.But without time and space, neither the impulses nor the concept can't exist.But of course you already knew that.
It exists within the brain itself which, I've read, has twenty million billion computations a second. There is a whole hell of a lot going on in there, than you may have thought and one of those things is your imaginings.
There is no such thing as nothing, once something is created or thought of it exists. Now, for example, when a baby is born it is created, therefore exists. When a Religion is thought of(Thats right, Religion was created by thought) it exists, but in our reality, it does not. Or when we think of a Mythical creature, it exists, but not in our reality, if this reality is even real and not some simulation.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
why dont u get proper editing program for subtitles and titles, now it looks like u did your video in power point, if it coud support video.... or mightbe it does but looks damm ugly
this only came to me recently but you all know the story of noa's arc ok.
now if there were 2 of every kind (only 2, not more)what did the lions eat when they got out without causing the extinction of another specie, plus that would be only enough for 2 days and then another species would go extinct.
this are only the lions, add the ienas, croccodiles, wolfs, etc.etc.
careful where u go with this thought. if you dont understand the math and a scientist tells you that it is true, how do you know it is true but by his word only? just be careful because that to a smart theist, would be calld faith.
See theoryful your error in that statement is you don't actually know the definition of faith:
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Answers(com)
How do I know Australia ever existed... Do I take it on faith? If I wanted to I could prove Australia exists... I could go there, I could find people who have been there, hell I could use a satellite. We don't need to be scientist to understand science... It still doesn't hurt to double check science though
One has to be infinite to claim that there is no God.Even the Big Bang cannot take place just by chance as quantum physicist Dr. John Polkinghorne stated in his book"The Quantum World."Where are the transitional fossils for the millions of creatures that supposedly have evolved? Is dis why evolution theory was modified by some scientists and came up w/ punctuated equilibrium?If there's no God, how do u differentiate between good and evil?R we getting better when d last century is d bloodiest?
I love the notion that without God these religious mentals would be running around in a bloodlust, coveting each other's asses, adulterating, killing, making graven images, calling Jesus a twat, not lazing about on the sabbath, telling lies etc.
Whereas we atheists seem to manage to refrain from being lieing, thieving adulterous, covetous wankers without any sad and pathetic self-loathing need to believe in a magic dad in the sky.
well, theres no evidence for a god that ive ever come across, and theres certaintly no evidence that branes and multiverses exist. i learn this tiny peice of information by reading a book on string theory, one on multiverses, and hawking's books. so, basically it was a waste of time b/c the theories have no evidence for them yet. i would say, read big bang theory and inflationary theory... and maybe atkin's "thoughts on nothing"
hmmm try "a breif history of time" by stephen hawking... antimatter isnt so confusing... i was actually talking about atkin's idea that "nothing" and "something" are two manifestations of the same thing.. it actually makes some physical sense i like this arguments. But, yea read hawking's book slowly and carefully... i think its what you're looking for
no dude i wasnt trying to make you seem stupid... i mean i read the book twice, and the first time i read it i feel like i wasted my time in retrospect because i didnt read it carefully enough... i just read through it like it was a novel
Your responce was good and your simplification of multiverse M-Theory physics was spot on. Your example of the bolt of lightning and static charge to explain the brane (yes I spelled that right) forming another universe is not one I would of used. It is beter, in my belief, to use the original illistration by the authors. Think of two waves crashing together. When they crash they spew water in every direction. That water makes up up all the mater in the universe. Overall very good. 5 stars
So why do so many Muslims "teach wrong things". Al taqqiya. To quote a famous and much respected Muslim theologian, Abu Hāmed Mohammad ibn Mohammad al-Ghazzālī (1058-1111):
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives...When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory."
In other words, if it is for Islam, you MUST lie!
@Juniper677 Also, how do we know what is wrong or right is "Allah" has not told "us" about it. I'm perplexed. But I'm going to save my perplexification for your reply
@HarryIsTheGamingGeek cuz if we didn't know what good/ bad is, we wouldn't be here talking about it... i.e. only those people who behave in a certain way, that we can call largely good, will live long enough to create a society that will allow their ways to survive.
you're thinking this the wrong way around.
it's not that we're destructive in nature and need some god's teachings.... but that ONLY those communities will survive that are overall more good rather than bad.
Allah (swt) does not need anyone to love or worship him that is soley for the benefit of the person. If a person lives his life without praying to Allah, than the person will get punished in the hereafter, possibly in this world to since prayer helps me not only in this world but especially in the hereafter. It is out of Allah's great mercy that he has created humans, it is out of his mercy that he has created a heaven.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why is there a heaven and hell, well so people can't get away with doing bad things, harming others without going unpunished. The good people will get rewarded for their good deeds and the bad will get punished.
In Islam there is nothing before Allah or after him. Are you satisfied? I hope you are. There really isn't any point in trying to figure things that are beyond your control out. That is not the point of your creation. Well we know there is a heaven and a hell because Allah states it in the Quran.
Allah does not need anyone to love or worship him. By doing so you as the person will age the reward in this world and in the hereafter. Well if you have any Islamic knowledge than you will not go without an explanation as to why you were created. We were created because of Allah's mercy. We were given the favor. We are on this earth for some time and after that we return to God. This world is a test not a playground.
Why did god make us? What's the purpose? If he's perfect why does he need love? What was before god? How can god have existed without being created? Is heaven matter or energy? Where is it? Why is it there? Does it make sense? Can the hypothesis of there being a big magic man in the sky be destroyed? Yes, very easily.
Dawsoninja- Who said god needs love? Who said anything about heaven?God cant be disproven, espesially by someone who takes questions about physics and turns it into GOD. If matter can not be created or destroyed,(Which is a scientific fact) where did it all come from? I never said anything about a "Majic Man in the sky" Every question I raised is purely scientific, and it will most likely NEVER be known.Saying there is no cause or no "GOD" is = to saying there is a god. You cant destroy SHIT
yes, nothing magical about certain physical features promoting fertility and strength. nothing magical about personalities, you will find that parental and peer influence plays a huge part as does life experience.
you mean branes, yeah you are talking about p-theory. i used to be in the Quatom physics side of the coin. I started looking into m-theory and string theory. LOL reminds me of the startrek episode where the captain kirk meats his evil self :)anyway brane cosmology like everything is still a theory and the Qur'an says Allah is the LORD OF THE WORLDS!--- What that Means we don't know, could be :) still covered in the Qur'an :). Love particle physics :) very elegant!
yes the mathematics is just beautiful :). it reminds me of the time when I first studied Quantum Physics, obviously I am getting old so that is quite a while ago :) anyway is refreshing to see I am not the only weirdo talking about it and making people bored. But you know even your argument can be used to prove that god exists :)
"But you know even your argument can be used to prove that god exists :)"
I'm not sure which "god" you're talking about, but it clearly can't be any of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic versions. To take Islam in particular, Muhammed believed he had received a revelation from Allah saying the universe was geocentric and the classic Islamic astronomy reflects this - skydome with stars fastened to it and all.(Tabari I:235) So, Allah+Muhammed are proved false long before you get to particle physics.
LOL I disagree with calling atheists irrational. After that I got a lovely PMS from some folks asking why do I say such thing. tell you the Truth had i not found Islam I considered 3 possibilities! 1- Jew (but that is exclusive) 2- Buddhist (but not my cup of tea but like the idea) 3- Atheist. because to me Atheists ask the questions that should be asked :) anyway that is my opinion!
And storm, i hate to break it to you, but science starts from the ground up. science, the ACTUAL methodic process that is science, does notin anyway way, shape, or form support or produce through it's purely emperical means, any notion of any sense of an end result. The way you have worded your statment is indeed poetic, but it is simply that. Science provides absolutely no conception of an end result, in other words a search for a destination of in this case god.
(cont.) -- to actually BE that same person whom we wished to resurrect. And if you're a complete slave to numbers like me, dispatching the concept of a soul, this new body IS that person. Obviously this is logistically impossible, but entertaining the theory is makes for a good bathroom-time thought.
(cont.) Not because god's power allows an individual to do so, or because said individual has some form of 'enlightened' frame of mind, but the basic idea is that if time and calculative capacity aren't considerations, we could effectively manipulate enough particles to assume the quantum identities of the particles that had at some slice of time (literally...) during our subjects living lifetime, through the exclusion principle have to basically consider this new mass-- (cont.)
Although i'd love to raise an interesting point with regard to the very core nature of the exclusion principle (if you dont know what that is, dont bother relying because yuo'll only look stupid...) could in a very perverse sense, actually provide an avenue for a synthesised act of "resurrection". Omitting the obvious logistical and calculative hurdles needed, the standard model of quantum mechanics leaves room for recompossing an individual's body. (cont.)
Thank you for pointing out early in the clip that the general public's consensus on the big-bang, is horribly dated. I'm not going to get into it since the majority of nay-sayers don't have the state of mind needed to tackle the idea of 'inflationary' models of the beginings of the universe, let alone the multi-verse models.
An inflationary model is "big bang". It's just a super accelerated expansion period after the creation. And for which no one has a mechanism to explain the expansion and subsequent slowing down. Not saying it's wrong, just stating the current state of things.
Ed Whitton, he says the way we try and think about it is primative. That guy has a grasp on things most of us can`t concieve lol. They reckon he`s probably the next Einstien.
I'm surprised you acknowledged branes as hypothetical. Good for you.
I would not contend that atheism is "irrational", I would simply contend that it is less reasonable.
Current cosmology helps a great deal in how to approach the question of God. Single line proofs can't work so we approach the question with an eclectic set of evidences and arguments.
That's the thing, I'd only have to list one piece of evidence to tip reasonability in favor of Christianity. Furthermore, it wouldn't have to be a single line proof, nor could it be.
A naturalistic heuristic is expedient for the practice of science within our universe. That comes to an immediate and final halt at time = 0.
So, because we all must speculate, who has the best evidence for their speculation? Reasonability can be determined by a photo finish.
philhellens, does general relativity predict the big bang singularity? Is general relativity confirmed through observational evidence?
Basically, all the laws of physics exist well within one second of t=0 and have not changed since, true or not? And any similar laws of physics existing prior to t=0 would have no effect at all on our current universe, true or not?
So what does that mean for our naturalistic assumptions used in the practice of science prior to t=0?
"Does general relativity predict the big bang singularity? Is general relativity confirmed through observational evidence?"
Yes, and yes, but you obviously don't realize that "singularity" is just the word physicists used for something they didn't and still don't understand. It is not an object. It is a set of conditions. General relativity doesn't work under the ultra dense conditions at the beginning. They called these conditions the singularity. It is NOT a prediction, it is a limit.
"All the laws of physics exist well within one second of t=0 and have not changed since, true or not?" True. "And any similar laws of physics existing prior to t=0 would have no effect at all on our current universe, true or not?" False. IF our universe sprang from another, or from some form of hyperspace, then it is entirely possible that the pre-existing laws or balance thereof in the "parent space" may have had a PROFOUND influence on the possible balance of laws in THIS Universe.
I've answered your questions, now you answer mine, that I asked at the beginning. What cosmological observation gives YOU any indication that this Universe was put together by Jesus' Dad?
"What cosmological observation gives YOU any indication that this Universe was put together by Jesus' Dad?"
The cosmological argument is not really used to say Jesus is God. That argument just gives indications of a creator. If you want to get specific to Jesus then the argument is resurrection.
I think we disagree on the singularity. I know it as an infinite curvature of space-time. That makes it a limit as you have said in addition to a prediction of general relativity. I also don't understand the following:
"General relativity doesn't work under the ultra dense conditions at the beginning"
No, it is not you and I disagreeing. It is YOU disagreeing with every cosmologist and physicist on Earth who knows what the word "singularity" actually means and why it was coined.
"Are you referring to t=0 or just after?" Both.
P.S. Pathetic that you keep using "t=0" to make others think you know what you are talking about. You use it correctly, but it's a simple term that a child can understand and I for one am not fooled.
The resurrection is NOT a cosmological argument. It is a myth. What you don't realize is that cosmology is TIGHTLY intertwined with the laws of physics in minute detail. The laws of physic FORBID events like the resurrection. By accepting (or seeming to accept) ANY cosmological science, you are attempting to use science that actually RULES OUT the resurrection. Silly boy.
"The laws of physic FORBID events like the resurrection. By accepting (or seeming to accept) ANY cosmological science, you are attempting to use science that actually RULES OUT the resurrection. Silly boy."
Did you know Christians use the physical miracles of Jesus as evidence of his diety? We aren't saying he is God because he did regular guy stuff.
Science does back me up. But in the way I said it did, not in the way you think I said it did.
I still agree with my statement:
"Current cosmology helps a great deal in how to approach the question of God. Single line proofs can't work so we approach the question with an eclectic set of evidences and arguments."
1963:I believe their are multiverses. I'd read solids don't exist. Staring @ a block of wood, I imagined a universe as a single atom within it. Then I imagined all the other atoms in the mass & thought of the wood as endless(no dimensions/endless dimensions). I told friends/family about this. Eyebrows were raised. Now modern cosmologists are saying it. They also say there could be endless OVERLAPPING universes, like endless double exposures-all different. This through MATH. Hawkings: Brilliant!
Cutting edge cosmology is not going to have any effect on this guy. you're arguing with someone who basically thinks that the scientific method is in itself a creation of satan. At least when the method leads to results he doesn't like.
why say all of that, when all you have to say is that if nothing can come out of nothing where did god/allah come from. God does not provide a solution to the genuinely difficult question he posed.
hey philhellenes just wondering does this theory actually disprove god? i can see from the video that pure atheism is not irrational but do these theories mean that god cannot exist? i'm not talking about the bullshit god of the major world religions but an intelligent being that created the universes. in other words do these theories say that 1: the universes didn't have to have been created by god or 2:the above and that god could not exist? i'm deciding whether to become an atheist or not!
IF a Universe can come into being by chance, then yes, the theories suggest a Universe like ours COULD exist without a God "flicking a switch". And to answer your second question, no, they do NOT say a God could not exist. But then, when God is said to be capable of doing the impossible, NO science could EVER rule such a being out.
You don't have to be an atheist. Believe in a God that makes sense to you (the only kind you'll be able to believe in). Just DON'T join a religion. :)
What I find absolutely ridiculous, Phil, is that so many of these people can't wrap their heads around the idea that the universe may have always existed. They can't wrap their heads around an infinite time and space concept (which I admit is a bit difficult at first). Who's to say the only way the universe could exist was if it was "created" or "sprung from nothing." It's more reasonable to assume that the universe(s) goes through cycles.
It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born. "
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery.
Hey, did you notice how he waisted forst two minutes in his video on nothing. They weren't even about the topic, and then last 5 minutes was a strech of something he could sum up in a minute. . . . I want my 7 minutes back D:
Anyway, great video, hopefully string theory will prove that there is an infinite amount of universes. I think that will be the final nail in the "god" coffin.(The fanatics will never let go of course)
Physicists often talk about the universe expanding from distant galaxies in a relationship described by Hubble's law, which is taken to indicate that the universe is undergoing a continuous expansion.
Something can't "expand" into something that doesn't exist yet. If the universe is constantly expanding then we are talking about space that does not yet exist. I don't understand how something that doesn't exist can be expanded into by heat waves by a continuous, INFINITE flow of energy.
The Universe doesn't expand "into something". That's not what the physicists think is happening. It's just expanding. You think it is expanding into something on an instinctive level. Common sense tells you this. But if you read more physics you'll see that common sense is limited and often misleading, especially where the very large or the very small are concerned. The overall energy content of the Universe appears to be ZERO, not infinite.
you say "space and time made of nothing" how is space and time going to create planets? Even if space has always existed regardless of a beginning. How can it create planets and living organisms
so you're saying space has always existed because there is no beginning of the universe.. and the stars came out of space..and everything came out of space. That doesn't make any sense and you know it.
I loved how the first 2 minutes of his video was simply an ad hominum attack on all atheists. I believe Christopher Hitchens once said that once the argument for the other side resorts to that, it seems as if we've won.
Science is the biggest contradiction to atheism. Atheism is based on the belief that the universe and life on earth came about by chance with a series of accidents. Yet, science is based on the study of the complex systems that make up the universe and the laws that make life possible. It's impossible to study accidents because they are unpredictable and do not follow a regular sequence.
You are very simple minded, you cannot understand that the mainstream scientists have been funded by the elites who want to spread atheism and those who do not conform are fired from those organizations and not allowed to do any research. Whatever happened to the pursuit of truth, even if it contradicts the mainstream beliefs.
The "pursuit of truth" carried on without you, left you behind. It looked long and hard at the "invisible brain that wants to burn disbelievers" theory and found it, shall we say, lacking in rationality. The pursuit of truth still goes on. The only reason you don't know this is because you're not interested in truth, only finding straws to cling on to. Oh, and you're starting to sound paranoid with the "elites who want to spread atheism" bit. Your ignorance is amusing. Please continue.
About the bolt of lightning you just proved that it come from a pattern, a static spark. That means everything can be studied scientifically because they all follow a pattern. How can specific patterns, and innumerable elements came together from mere accidents? How come the infinite accidents became subject to specific laws?
The laws exist. Accidents will happen. But the term "accident" is misleading. It could be said that from the moment of the big bang life in this Universe was inevitable, not humans, nor ANY specific form, but just life itself. That does NOT mean a god intended it (unless you mean a god with NO specific organism in mind).
If there ARE many universes (as I was TRYING to explain in the vid) then SOME universes WILL have the right laws for life, just by "accident". We only need that ONE accident.
I beg to differ with your thesis. Life is not a result of one accident, but an innumerable factors that come together at precise times and conditions. The solar system is part of the factors that make life possible, if any of the planets change their position or orbit, life on earth is over.
The fact that there are numerous laws that govern the way this world works and even our bodies and tiny organisms, proof that mere accidents are inadequate to explain such perfect balance.
The solar system and the position of the Sun are utterly irrelevant to the "thesis". I'm talking about life in the Universe, NOT just life on Earth. There will be life all over the place. Obviously each specific organism requires a set of specific accidents, but NOT life itself.
Our world, our Universe works according to a surprisingly simple set of laws governing the interplay of just 4 forces, fixed from the first second.
And we COULD lose SOME planets and life on Earth would NOT be changed.
Are you for real? The solar system is an integral factor in the existence of life. Our position from the sun, the position of other planets and their orbits are extremely relavant to life on earth. There are uncountable forces that have to come together in order for life to exist, and uncountable more for sustaining life. Lets not forget the complex systems of life that exist on earth, such as organs, cells, bones etc...
I suggest you read the thread and watch the video again. It's NOT about life on Earth. It's about life in our universe. The rest is just the details of chance. No need for Allah or God to explain the existence of life with THESE laws of physics and all these stars. A hundred million trillion rolls of the dice will result in several "winners".
We are part of the universe, and you cannot conveniently ignore life on earth, just because it is impossible for you to explain how billions of elements had to come together at precise conditions and made life possible. There is no logical way anyone can accept billions of accidents came together at precise conditions and made life spontaneously, and then the law of nature came together to sustain life unprompted.
Wrong. The person I was replying to was either ignorant or dishonest concerning science. Anyone knowledgeable AND honest who understands physics would agree. Why waste my time?
My knowledge of Islam is that it states that an all-powerful, invisible, untouchable brain controls the Universe and burns people (somewhere without location) who don't believe it and provides rivers of wine for eternity for those that do. What more do I need to know to find it utterly irrational? Tell me.
Muslimramirez reply is a standard that most theist will give claiming they ask a serous question and then when a serous answer is given they claim that they dont want to respond and that the science or in this case logic that someone used can be used to prove the theist first point.
But what the theist does not know is that to many people have seen this bullshit and can thing for them selfs. And we all know that even a simple reply can show the theist is wrong in the first statement...
although you created a very logical and worth while video here, I think you are taking an idiot muslim thiest too seriously. Speaking sense to retatds very seldom works.
Sometimes you hear an idiot at a bar and have to throw in your 2 cents then get back to enjoying your beer. He'll get no further responses unless he aims something directly at me, and even then probably not.
Don't waste your energy on someone like that muslimresponse guy...It took me three years to understand things like QM, ED etc. People like this just WONT listen. You're reasoning is exactly the same as any other atheist with an understanding of physiscs!
Anyway =D You're a scientist right? I've never heard not-scientists talk about the beaty of mathematics in the way you describe it.
No. I'm not a scientist. I just read a lot. I think I got the idea of the maths mainly from Weinberg, when he described some equations that later became part of the standard model. As I remember he came up with some highly elegant math, but it required there to be another particle that hadn't yet been discovered. Purely because of the beauty of the math, he proposed the particle actually existed and predicted its properties. Several years later they found it, exactly as he described it.
The problem with this whole meta-universe idea is that regardless of it being true or not OUR universe started off at the big bang aka time=0. So now we are back to an infinite universe spawning our finite universe. Does this sound familiar? If not then think about the argument of an infinite creator creating his creation.
On another note, you cannot say that he is looking at sceince of 30 years ago, that science is FACT. No amount of string theory, M-theory will disprove the big bang.
You misunderstood, or I wasn't clear (although everyone else seemed to get that particular point). The "theory" that is 30 years out of date is the notion that the Universe came from "nothing". Cosmologists don't think like that these days and none of the cosmology or astrophysical books I've read (going back to the early 80s) talk of the big bang as coming from "nothing".
I understood it fine, but the way you explain it to get around the "nothing" concept is to say it came from something that is infinite. Any of your books you claim to have read will tell you that the universe had a begining and before that we cannot know for certain, hence the "nothing". Since all we see and can detect now is a result of the big bang it logically flows that the universe came from nothing.
So now that we established where this "nothing" comes from, we can go from here. Since "nothing" cant create something we need an infinite source. And that is what your infinite multi-verse theory is trying to prove. So now we are back to philosophy, and that can get quite lengthy. Bottom line a theist say the universe came from an infinite creator and the atheist says it came from an infinite source. Both arguments are the same, two different ways of comming to the same conclusion.
Seeing as I dealt with the "nothing" in the previous comment and refuted it, ALL of the above is invalid, or groundless, or bullshit (as I prefer to call it.
If you think cosmology and theology come to the same conclusion you're either ignorant, a fool, or lying (I'm betting a combination of all three). So, because I've become bored of people wasting my time by simply throwing misleading statements and pretending to know something about subjects they do not, I shall wish you Farewell.
2:09 "It MIGHT be an infinite number of universes". It might. It might not. That is not the point. Just as long as there are a number of them (potentially a large but finite number, the point holds true: Some Universe just might happen to have the laws fit for life.
I would add not knowing about something for "certain" in NO way equates with "nothing". You last sentence is also invalidated if the big bang itself was the result of something else, as cosmologist now believe.
i think that you cannot help this guy understand because what he does not understand is HOW all these systems have been created. Science is the logic and the testing and the acting out of the system but it gets no closer to the main mystery. I think he feels that since science grows in depth with our awareness heightening the complete system could only be conceived and then possibly created from something of the same awareness but at the highest level
What gets me is the fact that all these religious nuts that want to say evolution is untrue always call up this bullshit that atheists belleve we came from nothing(which is of course not true) and yet on the other hand they have no problem believeing that some supernatural being whipped up the whole universe from "nothing" just by waving it's hand.the only thing i see different there is the cause not the effect :)
Ha ha Islam is idiotic. They don't believe in science and think the EARTH IS FLAT! plus here is another lovely verse from the Koran. They are just as bad as those stupid creationist Christians. In fact since we are talking about Christians.
Qur'an 5:37 "The [Christian] disbelievers will long to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out there from; and theirs will be an enduring torture."
When I was a christian, I actually thought heaven would be alien like, and that humans would transform into this powerful animal like being that you only see in video games.
Assuming there's an infinite amount of universes there's an infinite amount of chance that there will be a being that is as potent as it's physically possible, that means omnipotent, since there's an infinity of physicallities. And on top of that there'd be an infinity of these beings. Doesn't that prove a god?
I'm doubtful due to the fact that I'm not a scientists, just following the line of thought fully.
"As potent as it's physically possible" means can do all that is possible. It does NOT mean can do the IMPOSSIBLE. Omnipotent would mean being able to do the impossible. If there are an infinite number of Universes there will still be NO entity ANYWHERE that could make Mickey Mouse come off a cartoon page and become the world heavyweight boxing champion. An omnipotent God COULD do this. Hope that helps.
Awesome video...but I don't think it will make much impression on Muslimresponse..because his logic is all circular reasoning and he is too dumb to grasp what you are talking about.
omni this, omni that god want it`s creation, man/woman to worship it to the point where if they do not worship it, it will destroy it`s creation of man/woman?
I believe this to be complete nonsense, totally unbelievable and a man created delusion.
You mean to tell me that ID, creationism and apologist pseudoscience is based on obsolete strawmen arguments made by people who don't actually do research?
I like your intent but replying to his video affirms it as if it were an opinion worth responding to. Muslimresponse is gone not to return to mental stability. But you still debunked him and more
is string be given the title of a Theory I thought it was still a hypothesis?
Tony2438 7 months ago
Nice work but I think you may have taken on a rather impossible task.... illuminating the dark corners of ignorance....especially when it is self-imposed and highly guarded ignorance. Kudos for not calling names! That really gets tedious doesn't it?
I was thinking that according to the 30 year old model which he chose to use, there was a point of origin when there was nothing, he was willing to accept this, so where was god located just then? Somewhere just beside the nothingness?
chh5555 1 year ago
It is ONLY because the pressure that creationist put on scientists that they changed there mind about everything coming from nothing. SO they are still in the dark.
NoneBeforeNoneAfter 1 year ago
@NoneBeforeNoneAfter Creationists have not yet put any actual pressure on any scientists.
All creationists have done is make claims and arguements. Science is not philosophy, and you need a lot more than creationists have provided for it to be considered science. Every idea they come up with is often shown to not work, and or be impossible and require magic.
The idea that creationists have put any kind of pressure on scientists has nothing behind it, just like many creationist ideas.
Silentsam7532 10 months ago
I fucked that fag Jesus in the ass then muhammud sucked my dick and I came all over allah in his mouth and later I used pages from the bible and the quaran to wipe the shit out of my ass . RELIGION IS THE SCOURGE OF MANKIND .and has murdered more people than any part of society FUCK RELIGION AND ANYONE INVOLVED
biggerturtle 1 year ago
@biggerturtle you know... i strongly disagree with you because by that logic... black people cause gang wars mexicans are the laziest people on the planet germans are just as bad *caugh* who were just as bad (nazis) *caugh* and you areenglish so
fuck you but have a nice day
gamefreak22574 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you TRULY BELIEVE in God, and you come to believe also that God wants you to blow up a building full of people-would you do it? If you really believe, you would have to wouldn't you? You can't say it would never happen because in the Bible God has commanded horrible crimes. The believers claim that without God anything is allowed, even murder. I would say the opposite-WITH GOD, any imaginable unspeakable crime is possibly allowed . google Doe's Account.
techbesst 1 year ago
So there is one or many universe(s) where you are a fundamentalist muslim, or a mormon; the same goes for me of course. It could be like J.L. Borges's "Library of Babel" where every book that could be written is available. Most of them make no sense at all, many differ by just a coma, or just one characters name.
synsei1 1 year ago
I thought when cosmologists say that the universe came from nothing they are having fun with words to the former meaning of nothing, as nothing doesn't mean nothing anymore.
supafly345 1 year ago
some of the world's biggest brains are drawn into the branes. =)
tmowlee 2 years ago
I grew up with Muslims in a Muslim dominated area and use to hang around with them. I even went to school where 95% of the pupils where Muslims. I can tell you right now, the majority of Muslims are dumb idiots. Muslims can not think properly. They can not even acknowlegde that their precious Qur'an was written by mankind. Philhellenes - keep schooling these dummies.
iidjkg 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Yall atheists iz all crazy! Imma pray 4 yall
tony482I9 2 years ago
Theories 30 years old, not so bad. I'm almost at the end of a degree in physics and we haven't reached the 30's yet...
arsenelupin123 2 years ago
This video makes you look like Bruce Willis
LurkingLurkerLurks 2 years ago 5
EXCELLENT!!!!
Unfortunately, That most likely went straight over the heads of your intended audience.
Faith is about as irrational as it gets.
nishbrown 2 years ago 3
I always thought that "nothing " was the extreme lack of anything ....
and if the universe is every thing ... than before it it must have been nothing .... right ? I dont know ...
HK379 2 years ago
There is a place outside of space and time that is made OF nothing. Thoughts. My imagination is such a thing. Ex: Such as my imaginary puff cloud friend that says hi to me every morning. :D
Now its generator exists, the brain, but imagination creates nothing physical at least to my knowledge.
khallex 3 years ago
There is one physical manifestation of our thoughts though, the electrical impulses in our synapses and neurons. I agree your puff-cloud while not physically 'real', does exist as something tangible that exists and can be manipulated by your mind.But without time and space, neither the impulses nor the concept can't exist.But of course you already knew that.
MilesB1975 3 years ago 2
It exists within the brain itself which, I've read, has twenty million billion computations a second. There is a whole hell of a lot going on in there, than you may have thought and one of those things is your imaginings.
Abbodine1 2 years ago
There is no such thing as nothing, once something is created or thought of it exists. Now, for example, when a baby is born it is created, therefore exists. When a Religion is thought of(Thats right, Religion was created by thought) it exists, but in our reality, it does not. Or when we think of a Mythical creature, it exists, but not in our reality, if this reality is even real and not some simulation.
VulcanXL 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
why dont u get proper editing program for subtitles and titles, now it looks like u did your video in power point, if it coud support video.... or mightbe it does but looks damm ugly
mjurgis 3 years ago
this only came to me recently but you all know the story of noa's arc ok.
now if there were 2 of every kind (only 2, not more)what did the lions eat when they got out without causing the extinction of another specie, plus that would be only enough for 2 days and then another species would go extinct.
this are only the lions, add the ienas, croccodiles, wolfs, etc.etc.
bluetrilobite 3 years ago 16
throw in the "epic of gilgamesh" you you will ultimately find the origins of this story.
heres a spoiler .....the epic of gilgamesh is open a poetic entertainment piece of sumer, made purely for entertainment.
jassi4010709 3 years ago
I like to think of myself as reasonably intelligent (not a genius by any stretch)
However I am almost mathematically illiterate
Basically quantum physics is a bit beyond me
Still numbers and equations i cannot grasp still make much more sense to me than 'One day sky daddy got bored and decided to make the universe'
Creationism is a joke
From what i gather with my many conversations with creationists (some have been 'smarter' than me) is they have a fear of death and the unknown
Its that simple
666daedsidog 3 years ago 2
careful where u go with this thought. if you dont understand the math and a scientist tells you that it is true, how do you know it is true but by his word only? just be careful because that to a smart theist, would be calld faith.
theoryful 3 years ago
I dont understand how radiowaves work either
Does that mean radiowaves are a matter of faith?
There are many things you or I dont understand that others do (and vice versa)
They cant all be matters of faith
"you dont understand the math and a scientist tells you that it is true, how do you know it is true but by his word only"
Basically there is no vast global conspiracy of mathematicians
If one mathematician puts forward a equation A thousand others will try to disprove it
666daedsidog 3 years ago 7
I doubt there are any real scientists who wouldn't gladly explain it if it was asked.
Science doesn't work in mysterious ways.
Mastikator 3 years ago 2
I know, just making a point of how a theist might view what had been said.
theoryful 3 years ago
Well that's the thing about science and math. You can tell them to prove it, or it's garbage.
Xenithan 3 years ago
See theoryful your error in that statement is you don't actually know the definition of faith:
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Answers(com)
How do I know Australia ever existed... Do I take it on faith? If I wanted to I could prove Australia exists... I could go there, I could find people who have been there, hell I could use a satellite. We don't need to be scientist to understand science... It still doesn't hurt to double check science though
SuperAtheistBrothers 3 years ago
Thank you. You're right. I forget that sometimes words are actually known by other people.
theoryful 3 years ago
That's very true. It's always a good idea to read an actual science book once in a while, or even experiment on your own. :)
mooseCW 3 years ago
One has to be infinite to claim that there is no God.Even the Big Bang cannot take place just by chance as quantum physicist Dr. John Polkinghorne stated in his book"The Quantum World."Where are the transitional fossils for the millions of creatures that supposedly have evolved? Is dis why evolution theory was modified by some scientists and came up w/ punctuated equilibrium?If there's no God, how do u differentiate between good and evil?R we getting better when d last century is d bloodiest?
luvmusic200070 3 years ago
lol google the questions
EverettsVLOG 3 years ago 2
"Where are the transitional fossils for the millions of creatures that supposedly have evolved?"
Everywhere
"If there's no God, how do u differentiate between good and evil?"
Your obviously not a functioning human being
"Is dis why evolution theory was modified by some scientists "
Evolutionary theory will always be modified and improved That is the nature of science
"R we getting better when d last century is d bloodiest?"
Ask yourself What if we had the technology of today 800yrs ago?
666daedsidog 3 years ago 13
I love the notion that without God these religious mentals would be running around in a bloodlust, coveting each other's asses, adulterating, killing, making graven images, calling Jesus a twat, not lazing about on the sabbath, telling lies etc.
Whereas we atheists seem to manage to refrain from being lieing, thieving adulterous, covetous wankers without any sad and pathetic self-loathing need to believe in a magic dad in the sky.
Mentals.
geffel 3 years ago 4
And they will call you arrogant
Because you dont believe that their desert god death cult is the 1 and only truth
Ohh the hypocrisy
Ohh the stupidity
666daedsidog 3 years ago
Arrogant with just cause, though, to be fair.
geffel 3 years ago
What is the cause of the arrogance?
A book written by bronze age nomads that thought that fowl walk on four legs?
To be fair their arrogance is simply arrogance
666daedsidog 3 years ago 2
i totally agree with you guys. You make an eccelent argument. I shall use this in my next athiest vs. thiest argument, (of which i have many)
outrageousmayo 3 years ago
"It's not irrational to not believe in invisible brains."
I want that T-shirt.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
i would add that its not irrational to not believe in invisible *branes* as well
EverettsVLOG 3 years ago
Point me in the direction of some books - and in 20 years time I'll be able to have a ridiculously short conversation with you about it.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
well, theres no evidence for a god that ive ever come across, and theres certaintly no evidence that branes and multiverses exist. i learn this tiny peice of information by reading a book on string theory, one on multiverses, and hawking's books. so, basically it was a waste of time b/c the theories have no evidence for them yet. i would say, read big bang theory and inflationary theory... and maybe atkin's "thoughts on nothing"
EverettsVLOG 3 years ago
Thoughts on Nothing? That's the title? Is that to do with anti-matter because I'd like to understand that - the word alone boggles my mind.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
hmmm try "a breif history of time" by stephen hawking... antimatter isnt so confusing... i was actually talking about atkin's idea that "nothing" and "something" are two manifestations of the same thing.. it actually makes some physical sense i like this arguments. But, yea read hawking's book slowly and carefully... i think its what you're looking for
EverettsVLOG 3 years ago
Oooh, "slowly and carefully". That was unnecessary!
But yeah thanks for the recommendation.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
no dude i wasnt trying to make you seem stupid... i mean i read the book twice, and the first time i read it i feel like i wasted my time in retrospect because i didnt read it carefully enough... i just read through it like it was a novel
EverettsVLOG 3 years ago
Funnily enough my Physics teacher in First Year gave me a loan of it, just to what little bits I'd flick to, that would grab my interest.
Seriously the concept of space-time as one cohesive... thing, really threw me. That was ages ago though, I barely remember what bits I read.
I'd like to think 7 years later, I'd get more of it, plus I have online support now!
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
Your responce was good and your simplification of multiverse M-Theory physics was spot on. Your example of the bolt of lightning and static charge to explain the brane (yes I spelled that right) forming another universe is not one I would of used. It is beter, in my belief, to use the original illistration by the authors. Think of two waves crashing together. When they crash they spew water in every direction. That water makes up up all the mater in the universe. Overall very good. 5 stars
lunarfault 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The people that lived their life in disobeying Allah will get punished for the things they have done wrong. Even teaching wrong things is a sin.
Juniper677 3 years ago
So why do so many Muslims "teach wrong things". Al taqqiya. To quote a famous and much respected Muslim theologian, Abu Hāmed Mohammad ibn Mohammad al-Ghazzālī (1058-1111):
"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives...When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory."
In other words, if it is for Islam, you MUST lie!
philhellenes 3 years ago 16
@Juniper677 *Snort!*
HarryIsTheGamingGeek 1 year ago
@Juniper677 Also, how do we know what is wrong or right is "Allah" has not told "us" about it. I'm perplexed. But I'm going to save my perplexification for your reply
HarryIsTheGamingGeek 1 year ago
@HarryIsTheGamingGeek cuz if we didn't know what good/ bad is, we wouldn't be here talking about it... i.e. only those people who behave in a certain way, that we can call largely good, will live long enough to create a society that will allow their ways to survive.
you're thinking this the wrong way around.
it's not that we're destructive in nature and need some god's teachings.... but that ONLY those communities will survive that are overall more good rather than bad.
De4sher 1 year ago
Allah (swt) does not need anyone to love or worship him that is soley for the benefit of the person. If a person lives his life without praying to Allah, than the person will get punished in the hereafter, possibly in this world to since prayer helps me not only in this world but especially in the hereafter. It is out of Allah's great mercy that he has created humans, it is out of his mercy that he has created a heaven.
Juniper677 3 years ago
Your first statement constricts the rest of your paragraph. If your god does not need to be loved or worshiped, then why would he punish at all?
sabertooth1980 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is there a heaven and hell, well so people can't get away with doing bad things, harming others without going unpunished. The good people will get rewarded for their good deeds and the bad will get punished.
Juniper677 3 years ago
In Islam there is nothing before Allah or after him. Are you satisfied? I hope you are. There really isn't any point in trying to figure things that are beyond your control out. That is not the point of your creation. Well we know there is a heaven and a hell because Allah states it in the Quran.
Juniper677 3 years ago
Allah does not need anyone to love or worship him. By doing so you as the person will age the reward in this world and in the hereafter. Well if you have any Islamic knowledge than you will not go without an explanation as to why you were created. We were created because of Allah's mercy. We were given the favor. We are on this earth for some time and after that we return to God. This world is a test not a playground.
Juniper677 3 years ago
Why was there a big bang? What banged? What happend before it banged? What is outside the universe why cant we see "Other universes"
Is dark matter matter or energy? Where is it?
What is outside the singularity of the primeval atom of the big Bang. Nothingness?
Can matter be destroyed or created?
nickranes3 3 years ago
Why did god make us? What's the purpose? If he's perfect why does he need love? What was before god? How can god have existed without being created? Is heaven matter or energy? Where is it? Why is it there? Does it make sense? Can the hypothesis of there being a big magic man in the sky be destroyed? Yes, very easily.
dawsoninja 3 years ago
Appreciated dawsoninja. :)
You can obviously smell what I can.
philhellenes 3 years ago
Dawsoninja- Who said god needs love? Who said anything about heaven?God cant be disproven, espesially by someone who takes questions about physics and turns it into GOD. If matter can not be created or destroyed,(Which is a scientific fact) where did it all come from? I never said anything about a "Majic Man in the sky" Every question I raised is purely scientific, and it will most likely NEVER be known.Saying there is no cause or no "GOD" is = to saying there is a god. You cant destroy SHIT
nickranes3 3 years ago
Lol, interesting topic and points. I like them a lot 5/5 but not a very strong argument. Just interesting suggestions into logic.
kamuimusackie 3 years ago
Can't hear it.
iamonlinew 3 years ago
Alright! My belief that it's not unreasonable for there to be other dimensions isn't completely crazy after all!
Now I can talk about it in public.
Praise the possible existence of the multiverse!
Good video though, nice explanation of the atheist standpoint.
Akulshae 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It took this man up2 3mins to get to the point and everything he said has to be explained by science
Im asking You
Can science explain you why your partner choose you?
DDFF232 3 years ago
Yes
bluecode320 3 years ago 5
yes, nothing magical about certain physical features promoting fertility and strength. nothing magical about personalities, you will find that parental and peer influence plays a huge part as does life experience.
guild1981 3 years ago 5
you mean branes, yeah you are talking about p-theory. i used to be in the Quatom physics side of the coin. I started looking into m-theory and string theory. LOL reminds me of the startrek episode where the captain kirk meats his evil self :)anyway brane cosmology like everything is still a theory and the Qur'an says Allah is the LORD OF THE WORLDS!--- What that Means we don't know, could be :) still covered in the Qur'an :). Love particle physics :) very elegant!
onemuslimvoice 3 years ago
yes the mathematics is just beautiful :). it reminds me of the time when I first studied Quantum Physics, obviously I am getting old so that is quite a while ago :) anyway is refreshing to see I am not the only weirdo talking about it and making people bored. But you know even your argument can be used to prove that god exists :)
onemuslimvoice 3 years ago
"But you know even your argument can be used to prove that god exists :)"
I'm not sure which "god" you're talking about, but it clearly can't be any of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic versions. To take Islam in particular, Muhammed believed he had received a revelation from Allah saying the universe was geocentric and the classic Islamic astronomy reflects this - skydome with stars fastened to it and all.(Tabari I:235) So, Allah+Muhammed are proved false long before you get to particle physics.
FaithIsImaginary 3 years ago 2
LOL I disagree with calling atheists irrational. After that I got a lovely PMS from some folks asking why do I say such thing. tell you the Truth had i not found Islam I considered 3 possibilities! 1- Jew (but that is exclusive) 2- Buddhist (but not my cup of tea but like the idea) 3- Atheist. because to me Atheists ask the questions that should be asked :) anyway that is my opinion!
onemuslimvoice 3 years ago 3
It is up to humans to infer the idea of an end result.
xsirpezx 3 years ago
xsirpezx -
We weren't in an argument. I just refined your statement as inflation attempts to refine the big bang.
Don't take it so personally.
StormTrek 3 years ago
And storm, i hate to break it to you, but science starts from the ground up. science, the ACTUAL methodic process that is science, does notin anyway way, shape, or form support or produce through it's purely emperical means, any notion of any sense of an end result. The way you have worded your statment is indeed poetic, but it is simply that. Science provides absolutely no conception of an end result, in other words a search for a destination of in this case god.
xsirpezx 3 years ago
(cont.) -- to actually BE that same person whom we wished to resurrect. And if you're a complete slave to numbers like me, dispatching the concept of a soul, this new body IS that person. Obviously this is logistically impossible, but entertaining the theory is makes for a good bathroom-time thought.
xsirpezx 3 years ago
(cont.) Not because god's power allows an individual to do so, or because said individual has some form of 'enlightened' frame of mind, but the basic idea is that if time and calculative capacity aren't considerations, we could effectively manipulate enough particles to assume the quantum identities of the particles that had at some slice of time (literally...) during our subjects living lifetime, through the exclusion principle have to basically consider this new mass-- (cont.)
xsirpezx 3 years ago
Although i'd love to raise an interesting point with regard to the very core nature of the exclusion principle (if you dont know what that is, dont bother relying because yuo'll only look stupid...) could in a very perverse sense, actually provide an avenue for a synthesised act of "resurrection". Omitting the obvious logistical and calculative hurdles needed, the standard model of quantum mechanics leaves room for recompossing an individual's body. (cont.)
xsirpezx 3 years ago
Thank you for pointing out early in the clip that the general public's consensus on the big-bang, is horribly dated. I'm not going to get into it since the majority of nay-sayers don't have the state of mind needed to tackle the idea of 'inflationary' models of the beginings of the universe, let alone the multi-verse models.
xsirpezx 3 years ago
An inflationary model is "big bang". It's just a super accelerated expansion period after the creation. And for which no one has a mechanism to explain the expansion and subsequent slowing down. Not saying it's wrong, just stating the current state of things.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Ed Whitton, he says the way we try and think about it is primative. That guy has a grasp on things most of us can`t concieve lol. They reckon he`s probably the next Einstien.
peteq1972 3 years ago
I'm surprised you acknowledged branes as hypothetical. Good for you.
I would not contend that atheism is "irrational", I would simply contend that it is less reasonable.
Current cosmology helps a great deal in how to approach the question of God. Single line proofs can't work so we approach the question with an eclectic set of evidences and arguments.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Please list your cosmological observations that you think point to the "hand" of a Christian creator.
philhellenes 3 years ago
philhellenes -
That's the thing, I'd only have to list one piece of evidence to tip reasonability in favor of Christianity. Furthermore, it wouldn't have to be a single line proof, nor could it be.
A naturalistic heuristic is expedient for the practice of science within our universe. That comes to an immediate and final halt at time = 0.
So, because we all must speculate, who has the best evidence for their speculation? Reasonability can be determined by a photo finish.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Absolute, complete and utter bullshit, AND you know it. :)
philhellenes 3 years ago
philhellens, does general relativity predict the big bang singularity? Is general relativity confirmed through observational evidence?
Basically, all the laws of physics exist well within one second of t=0 and have not changed since, true or not? And any similar laws of physics existing prior to t=0 would have no effect at all on our current universe, true or not?
So what does that mean for our naturalistic assumptions used in the practice of science prior to t=0?
StormTrek 3 years ago
"Does general relativity predict the big bang singularity? Is general relativity confirmed through observational evidence?"
Yes, and yes, but you obviously don't realize that "singularity" is just the word physicists used for something they didn't and still don't understand. It is not an object. It is a set of conditions. General relativity doesn't work under the ultra dense conditions at the beginning. They called these conditions the singularity. It is NOT a prediction, it is a limit.
philhellenes 3 years ago
"All the laws of physics exist well within one second of t=0 and have not changed since, true or not?" True. "And any similar laws of physics existing prior to t=0 would have no effect at all on our current universe, true or not?" False. IF our universe sprang from another, or from some form of hyperspace, then it is entirely possible that the pre-existing laws or balance thereof in the "parent space" may have had a PROFOUND influence on the possible balance of laws in THIS Universe.
philhellenes 3 years ago
I've answered your questions, now you answer mine, that I asked at the beginning. What cosmological observation gives YOU any indication that this Universe was put together by Jesus' Dad?
philhellenes 3 years ago
"What cosmological observation gives YOU any indication that this Universe was put together by Jesus' Dad?"
The cosmological argument is not really used to say Jesus is God. That argument just gives indications of a creator. If you want to get specific to Jesus then the argument is resurrection.
StormTrek 3 years ago
I think we disagree on the singularity. I know it as an infinite curvature of space-time. That makes it a limit as you have said in addition to a prediction of general relativity. I also don't understand the following:
"General relativity doesn't work under the ultra dense conditions at the beginning"
Are you referring to t=0 or just after?
StormTrek 3 years ago
No, it is not you and I disagreeing. It is YOU disagreeing with every cosmologist and physicist on Earth who knows what the word "singularity" actually means and why it was coined.
"Are you referring to t=0 or just after?" Both.
P.S. Pathetic that you keep using "t=0" to make others think you know what you are talking about. You use it correctly, but it's a simple term that a child can understand and I for one am not fooled.
philhellenes 3 years ago
The resurrection is NOT a cosmological argument. It is a myth. What you don't realize is that cosmology is TIGHTLY intertwined with the laws of physics in minute detail. The laws of physic FORBID events like the resurrection. By accepting (or seeming to accept) ANY cosmological science, you are attempting to use science that actually RULES OUT the resurrection. Silly boy.
philhellenes 3 years ago
"The laws of physic FORBID events like the resurrection. By accepting (or seeming to accept) ANY cosmological science, you are attempting to use science that actually RULES OUT the resurrection. Silly boy."
Did you know Christians use the physical miracles of Jesus as evidence of his diety? We aren't saying he is God because he did regular guy stuff.
StormTrek 3 years ago
So why claim science backs you up, as you did at the beginning of our conversation?
philhellenes 3 years ago
Science does back me up. But in the way I said it did, not in the way you think I said it did.
I still agree with my statement:
"Current cosmology helps a great deal in how to approach the question of God. Single line proofs can't work so we approach the question with an eclectic set of evidences and arguments."
StormTrek 3 years ago
1963:I believe their are multiverses. I'd read solids don't exist. Staring @ a block of wood, I imagined a universe as a single atom within it. Then I imagined all the other atoms in the mass & thought of the wood as endless(no dimensions/endless dimensions). I told friends/family about this. Eyebrows were raised. Now modern cosmologists are saying it. They also say there could be endless OVERLAPPING universes, like endless double exposures-all different. This through MATH. Hawkings: Brilliant!
t4705mb6 3 years ago
Cutting edge cosmology is not going to have any effect on this guy. you're arguing with someone who basically thinks that the scientific method is in itself a creation of satan. At least when the method leads to results he doesn't like.
why say all of that, when all you have to say is that if nothing can come out of nothing where did god/allah come from. God does not provide a solution to the genuinely difficult question he posed.
anonymees 3 years ago 2
hey philhellenes just wondering does this theory actually disprove god? i can see from the video that pure atheism is not irrational but do these theories mean that god cannot exist? i'm not talking about the bullshit god of the major world religions but an intelligent being that created the universes. in other words do these theories say that 1: the universes didn't have to have been created by god or 2:the above and that god could not exist? i'm deciding whether to become an atheist or not!
dagimp4 3 years ago
IF a Universe can come into being by chance, then yes, the theories suggest a Universe like ours COULD exist without a God "flicking a switch". And to answer your second question, no, they do NOT say a God could not exist. But then, when God is said to be capable of doing the impossible, NO science could EVER rule such a being out.
You don't have to be an atheist. Believe in a God that makes sense to you (the only kind you'll be able to believe in). Just DON'T join a religion. :)
philhellenes 3 years ago
What I find absolutely ridiculous, Phil, is that so many of these people can't wrap their heads around the idea that the universe may have always existed. They can't wrap their heads around an infinite time and space concept (which I admit is a bit difficult at first). Who's to say the only way the universe could exist was if it was "created" or "sprung from nothing." It's more reasonable to assume that the universe(s) goes through cycles.
Aedak33 3 years ago
It has obviously not the smallest connection with a being capable of forgiving sins, a being who might listen to prayers, who cares about whether or not the Sabbath begins at 5pm or 6pm, whether you wear a veil or have a bit of arm showing; and no connection whatever with a being capable of imposing a death penalty on His son to expiate the sins of the world before and after he was born. "
- Dawkins
NewSpartan99 3 years ago
"The trouble is that God in this sophisticated, physicist's sense bears no resemblance to the God of the Bible or any other religion. If a physicist says God is another name for Planck's constant, or God is a superstring, we should take it as a picturesque metaphorical way of saying that the nature of superstrings or the value of Planck's constant is a profound mystery.
NewSpartan99 3 years ago
Hey, did you notice how he waisted forst two minutes in his video on nothing. They weren't even about the topic, and then last 5 minutes was a strech of something he could sum up in a minute. . . . I want my 7 minutes back D:
NewSpartan99 3 years ago
i hate that muslim fuck! you just fucked his theory straight into his previously friequently thrashed fuck hole!!!
stabwound16 3 years ago
An interesting and very lucid video! Well done.
honfridus 3 years ago
God is real,every time i smoke some joint i see Him
FUCKALLAHinTHEMOUTH 3 years ago
Well said old chap!
LOL, sorry your accent made me do it.
Anyway, great video, hopefully string theory will prove that there is an infinite amount of universes. I think that will be the final nail in the "god" coffin.(The fanatics will never let go of course)
Thanks!
ebrocato 3 years ago 2
Physicists often talk about the universe expanding from distant galaxies in a relationship described by Hubble's law, which is taken to indicate that the universe is undergoing a continuous expansion.
Something can't "expand" into something that doesn't exist yet. If the universe is constantly expanding then we are talking about space that does not yet exist. I don't understand how something that doesn't exist can be expanded into by heat waves by a continuous, INFINITE flow of energy.
upopads 3 years ago
The Universe doesn't expand "into something". That's not what the physicists think is happening. It's just expanding. You think it is expanding into something on an instinctive level. Common sense tells you this. But if you read more physics you'll see that common sense is limited and often misleading, especially where the very large or the very small are concerned. The overall energy content of the Universe appears to be ZERO, not infinite.
philhellenes 3 years ago
you say "space and time made of nothing" how is space and time going to create planets? Even if space has always existed regardless of a beginning. How can it create planets and living organisms
upopads 3 years ago
so you're saying space has always existed because there is no beginning of the universe.. and the stars came out of space..and everything came out of space. That doesn't make any sense and you know it.
upopads 3 years ago
why are people so ignorant. God created the universe
albinolintel 3 years ago
what i ask is why does anything exist at all?
not where did we or anything in this reality or any other reality come from but where did reality come from? why is there anything at all?
why is there anything at all?
by the way if you know anything about M theory and String and and so on you know there is no more proof for them then for GOD.
However I do not believe in religion.
SilverPheonix360 3 years ago
I loved how the first 2 minutes of his video was simply an ad hominum attack on all atheists. I believe Christopher Hitchens once said that once the argument for the other side resorts to that, it seems as if we've won.
bathory714 3 years ago
whats inside nothing yesterday?
jtbuckfast 3 years ago
Science is the biggest contradiction to atheism. Atheism is based on the belief that the universe and life on earth came about by chance with a series of accidents. Yet, science is based on the study of the complex systems that make up the universe and the laws that make life possible. It's impossible to study accidents because they are unpredictable and do not follow a regular sequence.
nidonsa 3 years ago
"Science is the biggest contradiction to atheism."
Yeah, right. Science CLEARLY says the Universe is controlled by an invisible brain that burns people that don't believe in it.
philhellenes 3 years ago
You are very simple minded, you cannot understand that the mainstream scientists have been funded by the elites who want to spread atheism and those who do not conform are fired from those organizations and not allowed to do any research. Whatever happened to the pursuit of truth, even if it contradicts the mainstream beliefs.
nidonsa 3 years ago
The "pursuit of truth" carried on without you, left you behind. It looked long and hard at the "invisible brain that wants to burn disbelievers" theory and found it, shall we say, lacking in rationality. The pursuit of truth still goes on. The only reason you don't know this is because you're not interested in truth, only finding straws to cling on to. Oh, and you're starting to sound paranoid with the "elites who want to spread atheism" bit. Your ignorance is amusing. Please continue.
philhellenes 3 years ago
About the bolt of lightning you just proved that it come from a pattern, a static spark. That means everything can be studied scientifically because they all follow a pattern. How can specific patterns, and innumerable elements came together from mere accidents? How come the infinite accidents became subject to specific laws?
nidonsa 3 years ago
The laws exist. Accidents will happen. But the term "accident" is misleading. It could be said that from the moment of the big bang life in this Universe was inevitable, not humans, nor ANY specific form, but just life itself. That does NOT mean a god intended it (unless you mean a god with NO specific organism in mind).
If there ARE many universes (as I was TRYING to explain in the vid) then SOME universes WILL have the right laws for life, just by "accident". We only need that ONE accident.
philhellenes 3 years ago
I beg to differ with your thesis. Life is not a result of one accident, but an innumerable factors that come together at precise times and conditions. The solar system is part of the factors that make life possible, if any of the planets change their position or orbit, life on earth is over.
The fact that there are numerous laws that govern the way this world works and even our bodies and tiny organisms, proof that mere accidents are inadequate to explain such perfect balance.
nidonsa 3 years ago
The solar system and the position of the Sun are utterly irrelevant to the "thesis". I'm talking about life in the Universe, NOT just life on Earth. There will be life all over the place. Obviously each specific organism requires a set of specific accidents, but NOT life itself.
Our world, our Universe works according to a surprisingly simple set of laws governing the interplay of just 4 forces, fixed from the first second.
And we COULD lose SOME planets and life on Earth would NOT be changed.
philhellenes 3 years ago
Are you for real? The solar system is an integral factor in the existence of life. Our position from the sun, the position of other planets and their orbits are extremely relavant to life on earth. There are uncountable forces that have to come together in order for life to exist, and uncountable more for sustaining life. Lets not forget the complex systems of life that exist on earth, such as organs, cells, bones etc...
nidonsa 3 years ago
I suggest you read the thread and watch the video again. It's NOT about life on Earth. It's about life in our universe. The rest is just the details of chance. No need for Allah or God to explain the existence of life with THESE laws of physics and all these stars. A hundred million trillion rolls of the dice will result in several "winners".
philhellenes 3 years ago
We are part of the universe, and you cannot conveniently ignore life on earth, just because it is impossible for you to explain how billions of elements had to come together at precise conditions and made life possible. There is no logical way anyone can accept billions of accidents came together at precise conditions and made life spontaneously, and then the law of nature came together to sustain life unprompted.
nidonsa 3 years ago
Very well done.
I watched his video and was annoyed about his arrogance and even commented it, but you top my comment.
FHB71 3 years ago
???????????????????????????????????????
farazilu1 3 years ago
Wrong. The person I was replying to was either ignorant or dishonest concerning science. Anyone knowledgeable AND honest who understands physics would agree. Why waste my time?
My knowledge of Islam is that it states that an all-powerful, invisible, untouchable brain controls the Universe and burns people (somewhere without location) who don't believe it and provides rivers of wine for eternity for those that do. What more do I need to know to find it utterly irrational? Tell me.
philhellenes 3 years ago
Muslimramirez reply is a standard that most theist will give claiming they ask a serous question and then when a serous answer is given they claim that they dont want to respond and that the science or in this case logic that someone used can be used to prove the theist first point.
But what the theist does not know is that to many people have seen this bullshit and can thing for them selfs. And we all know that even a simple reply can show the theist is wrong in the first statement...
Tacos25n28 3 years ago 2
although you created a very logical and worth while video here, I think you are taking an idiot muslim thiest too seriously. Speaking sense to retatds very seldom works.
chindoo 3 years ago
Sometimes you hear an idiot at a bar and have to throw in your 2 cents then get back to enjoying your beer. He'll get no further responses unless he aims something directly at me, and even then probably not.
philhellenes 3 years ago
Don't waste your energy on someone like that muslimresponse guy...It took me three years to understand things like QM, ED etc. People like this just WONT listen. You're reasoning is exactly the same as any other atheist with an understanding of physiscs!
Anyway =D You're a scientist right? I've never heard not-scientists talk about the beaty of mathematics in the way you describe it.
PimmesNL 3 years ago
No. I'm not a scientist. I just read a lot. I think I got the idea of the maths mainly from Weinberg, when he described some equations that later became part of the standard model. As I remember he came up with some highly elegant math, but it required there to be another particle that hadn't yet been discovered. Purely because of the beauty of the math, he proposed the particle actually existed and predicted its properties. Several years later they found it, exactly as he described it.
philhellenes 3 years ago
i love arguments i think all people have right to rise their points
daimin90 3 years ago
The problem with this whole meta-universe idea is that regardless of it being true or not OUR universe started off at the big bang aka time=0. So now we are back to an infinite universe spawning our finite universe. Does this sound familiar? If not then think about the argument of an infinite creator creating his creation.
On another note, you cannot say that he is looking at sceince of 30 years ago, that science is FACT. No amount of string theory, M-theory will disprove the big bang.
moestyles 3 years ago
You misunderstood, or I wasn't clear (although everyone else seemed to get that particular point). The "theory" that is 30 years out of date is the notion that the Universe came from "nothing". Cosmologists don't think like that these days and none of the cosmology or astrophysical books I've read (going back to the early 80s) talk of the big bang as coming from "nothing".
philhellenes 3 years ago
I understood it fine, but the way you explain it to get around the "nothing" concept is to say it came from something that is infinite. Any of your books you claim to have read will tell you that the universe had a begining and before that we cannot know for certain, hence the "nothing". Since all we see and can detect now is a result of the big bang it logically flows that the universe came from nothing.
moestyles 3 years ago
So now that we established where this "nothing" comes from, we can go from here. Since "nothing" cant create something we need an infinite source. And that is what your infinite multi-verse theory is trying to prove. So now we are back to philosophy, and that can get quite lengthy. Bottom line a theist say the universe came from an infinite creator and the atheist says it came from an infinite source. Both arguments are the same, two different ways of comming to the same conclusion.
moestyles 3 years ago
Seeing as I dealt with the "nothing" in the previous comment and refuted it, ALL of the above is invalid, or groundless, or bullshit (as I prefer to call it.
If you think cosmology and theology come to the same conclusion you're either ignorant, a fool, or lying (I'm betting a combination of all three). So, because I've become bored of people wasting my time by simply throwing misleading statements and pretending to know something about subjects they do not, I shall wish you Farewell.
philhellenes 3 years ago
2:09 "It MIGHT be an infinite number of universes". It might. It might not. That is not the point. Just as long as there are a number of them (potentially a large but finite number, the point holds true: Some Universe just might happen to have the laws fit for life.
I would add not knowing about something for "certain" in NO way equates with "nothing". You last sentence is also invalidated if the big bang itself was the result of something else, as cosmologist now believe.
philhellenes 3 years ago
i think that you cannot help this guy understand because what he does not understand is HOW all these systems have been created. Science is the logic and the testing and the acting out of the system but it gets no closer to the main mystery. I think he feels that since science grows in depth with our awareness heightening the complete system could only be conceived and then possibly created from something of the same awareness but at the highest level
jimisevertoolhed 3 years ago
wow this guy is a scintist......
in my ass.
ageg20 3 years ago
Great response to my points. A Muslim response by any chance?
philhellenes 3 years ago
What gets me is the fact that all these religious nuts that want to say evolution is untrue always call up this bullshit that atheists belleve we came from nothing(which is of course not true) and yet on the other hand they have no problem believeing that some supernatural being whipped up the whole universe from "nothing" just by waving it's hand.the only thing i see different there is the cause not the effect :)
hellshade2 3 years ago
I think thats the whole point. With no cause there can not be an effect, hence religion and need for a creator.
moestyles 3 years ago
Why do you refute theory with more theories? Very weak stance, imo.
iszwins 3 years ago
At least he's using his brain.
crashtaiwan 3 years ago
If you think a god "clicking His fingers" is a theory you MUST kinda stupid.
philhellenes 3 years ago
Brilliant.
My money is on MuslimResponses not responding to these responses responsibly.
molonpy87 3 years ago 4
Ha ha Islam is idiotic. They don't believe in science and think the EARTH IS FLAT! plus here is another lovely verse from the Koran. They are just as bad as those stupid creationist Christians. In fact since we are talking about Christians.
Qur'an 5:37 "The [Christian] disbelievers will long to get out of the Fire, but never will they get out there from; and theirs will be an enduring torture."
pblcenmy27951 3 years ago 2
dont bother
jollyroger1990 3 years ago
When I was a christian, I actually thought heaven would be alien like, and that humans would transform into this powerful animal like being that you only see in video games.
BeautifulSnake1993 3 years ago
Assuming there's an infinite amount of universes there's an infinite amount of chance that there will be a being that is as potent as it's physically possible, that means omnipotent, since there's an infinity of physicallities. And on top of that there'd be an infinity of these beings. Doesn't that prove a god?
I'm doubtful due to the fact that I'm not a scientists, just following the line of thought fully.
Irbubble 3 years ago
"As potent as it's physically possible" means can do all that is possible. It does NOT mean can do the IMPOSSIBLE. Omnipotent would mean being able to do the impossible. If there are an infinite number of Universes there will still be NO entity ANYWHERE that could make Mickey Mouse come off a cartoon page and become the world heavyweight boxing champion. An omnipotent God COULD do this. Hope that helps.
philhellenes 3 years ago
If you cannot meassure it, then you do not know what you are taking about Lord Kelvin
and I would add, including GOD
migue4lg 3 years ago
Awesome video...but I don't think it will make much impression on Muslimresponse..because his logic is all circular reasoning and he is too dumb to grasp what you are talking about.
statickk14 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My question about god:
Why would an all powerful, all intelligent,
omni this, omni that god want it`s creation, man/woman to worship it to the point where if they do not worship it, it will destroy it`s creation of man/woman?
I believe this to be complete nonsense, totally unbelievable and a man created delusion.
maurieer 3 years ago 9
You mean to tell me that ID, creationism and apologist pseudoscience is based on obsolete strawmen arguments made by people who don't actually do research?
brickbungalow 3 years ago 3
I like your intent but replying to his video affirms it as if it were an opinion worth responding to. Muslimresponse is gone not to return to mental stability. But you still debunked him and more
moltenslag 3 years ago 3