something had to excite the "singularity that sparked the universe" into motion. without that, this whole big bang theory is just stupid. you provide no evidence for that.
@goodvibes1995 "something had to excite the "singularity that sparked the universe" into motion. without that, this whole big bang theory is just stupid."
No. All worldviews, whether they be theistic or atheistic, have a "necessary being". Some sort of attribute to existence that is an eternal "something" that everything else can spring from. This something is a brute fact of existence. For atheists this will be some simple aspect of nature itself. For theists it is god
@goodvibes1995 Another way to phrase this is that causality can not be a universal phenomenon in any worldview due to infinite regress.
Either way, the big bang theory is a useful theory regardless of what one things about gods, because it is currently humanity's best attempt at cosmology and explains a vast range of observations.
(Now bare with me) I think the universe was caused not by s crushing, but the is like riffle effect--a pulling. Perhaps the gravity of "ripple universes" pulling at a center is the cause for another singularity in the epicenter. And this could happen because each "tug" is constantly greater the more and more "ripple universes" there are. Our ripple will spread and pull at the epicenter until such a stress where another ripple is created: universal birth.
Now you are using logic, that does not work on religious people.
Even if they proved there was a god that made the big bang, they can't prove their god it the one true god or you should pray to him or there is a heaven, or....
So your saying that the universe came from something and that has always existed,. Gee that sounds familiar, (GOD). The problem is where did all the design come from then? You attribute random occurrences over time as accounting for the information & organization of all things. That's odd, the only thing we can attribute the source of information to would be a mind, not randomness . Hum, might THAT be the THING that has existed since before time. What name would you give the Alpha & the Omega?
The problem with the notion of an intelligent "God" to explain the "organization and information" is it has no real explanatory power, merely "pushing back" the mystery and paradox one step, and wrapping it up in form that makes you feel good. That is because there is no plausible explanation for how this highly organized and intelligent "thing" just came about. Effectively you've gone full circle.
@iAmEhead If this highly organized and intelligent 'thing' pre-exists time, then a 'beginning' does not apply to it. Pretty simple. Or people could just pretend that all the truth they know is gained through empirical means, and wrap the mystery of the origin of this physical reality in a form that makes them feel good.
@tetrahydroscope It seems that you missed the point of this videos which is that you can't assume that something already existed without proving it. Since you can't prove it, the argument becomes void and has no notable effect on those who hold logic. ZJ never actually did say that the universe always existed, she just proposed that it could have just as God could have simply always been around.
@LexiePersonForever Well the question is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one. You can't demand scientific proof of something that exists outside physical reality. The use of logic precedes positivism. It is more logical for some type of transcendent portion of reality to preexist the physical portion of reality. The reason why this is more logical is because physical reality would have very different qualities if it was timeless. If the universe is eternal, it should be very different.
@tetrahydroscope Well, many skeptics require proof because it's seen as a necessary base line for whether an idea's plausible or not. It does not appear more logical to me for a supernatural being to have simply existed forever. In fact, this seems to be a myth to me. I see things with a naturalistic view and require fact based conclusions. Not conclusions being drawn first, then searching for something to back it up. How would you know the universe would be different? Have you seen others?
@LexiePersonForever The transcendent part of reality is not a pre conceived conclusion, it is arrived at when you take the nature of reality and the nature of human beings into account. The real problem with logic that atheists have is that they ask for scientific proof of something that exists outside the scope of science. Besides the fact that atheists seem to refuse to follow their philosophy to its logical conclusion. No I haven't, but the universe would have wound down if it was infinite.
@tetrahydroscope The reason for a demand of scientific proof is because science has most answers. It even has the answers to why we feel certain emotions or why we find certain things about people we once loved about someone annoying. It's pretty safe to say that there's a scientific reason for everything, and we don't want to cease the exploration for this knowledge. Please enlighten me with the logical conclusion I should reach. We don't really know that or much else about the universe, sorry.
@LexiePersonForever Science has the most answers for scientific questions.If the answer to the nature of the love for family is that its a biological imperative of evolution, then love lacks inherent meaning.Someone who cares for their family is experiencing an illusion,so a sociopath would be equally justified in killing your family as you would be in protecting your family.Both of those actions are equally valid if the question of Rightness is answered by science.Nihilism is the conclusion.
@tetrahydroscope Knowing where the feeling of love comes from does not take away the pleasure of loving someone. It DID come from evolution to help keep people together for maximum chance of survival, but that doesn't make me want to love people less. We just know why we feel it, now. No, killing is not justified now. Since love is used to keep people alive and killing is used to... not keep people alive, they have two completely different results. Killing = bad in science, and love = good.
@LexiePersonForever Killing has always been a way to promote evolutionary progress; whether through infanticide of disabled children to prevent the sapping of energy and resources, or through conflict with ethnic or racial rivals in order to possess limited resources. If morality is completely naturalistic, then the western world is justified in dominating the globe because it is the interest of perpetuating the western world. If morality is drawn from evolution, then social Darwinism is moral.
@tetrahydroscope It has been. That's only between other species, though. When I said that killing is bad, I meant within a species. Evolution is used to help increase the chance of survival of a species, and if that species just starts killing itself, the whole thing is pointless and that species will eventually die off unless reproduction keeps up. Accepting where our morals comes from does not necessarily lead to social Darwinism. They're two separate issues.
@LexiePersonForever Killing or sterilizing those who would pollute the gene pool (or sap finite resources) not only ensures the survival of the ethnic group from an evolutionary stand point, but it also ensures the survival of the species. If morality is meant to promote evolution, then social Darwinism and eugenics are moral because they promote evolution. I'm done adding views to this vid so PM me if I haven't made it clear enough for you.
I would like you to answer some questions for me, if you don't mind:
1. Based on our scientific understanding of singularities and logic itself , Do you accept that the big bang singularity could not of caused itself to expand?
@Ataensic actually the concept of the Christian God is that he is infinite and all powerful so if that's the case then he can create something out of nothing. When dealing with the big bang theory, if thats what you believe, it all deals with finite materials that had to come from something an "uncaused" cause. Something had to create the materials that caused the big bang.
There is a cause for all things. the things cannot bring themselves into existence. There must be an uncaused, cause of these things. that uncaused cause is God.
It's weird how little I'm pissed that you finally said something that calls ME wrong. But there are still some giant holes in what you are saying. All of the fallowing is on the assumption that absolutely everything in the universe happens because of physical laws which if YOU are prepared to argue that point with me, I'll eat my hat. Your main flaw is that you have assumed that I (or others) think absolutely everything has to have a cause and we just exclude god for whatever reason.
@DepressedAnnnie No! I am proposing that god WROTE the laws of physics and if that was true, then just because everything in THIS reality requires cause, (if there is evidence that not everything does, please give me a link. You could change how I see EVERYTHING) that would not necessarily mean that another reality capable of creating this one does. Furthermore, even though I understand you weren't talking to me, let me say I am completely open to the idea that something DID have to create "god"
@DepressedAnnnie A picture of someone looking at a picture of someone looking at a picture I think is an almost perfect explanation especially if ultimately it loops back to a computer programmer sitting at his desk in this universe; a mobius that is both eternal and in need of cause by forever causing itself. Of course then, we are stuck with the chicken and egg dilemma but to me, that still is a lot more sensical than what you are describing but maybe I just don't understand. Please reply.
@DepressedAnnnie "I am proposing that god WROTE the laws of physics and if that was true, then just because everything in THIS reality requires cause"
Writing is a causal act, FYI. You can't get away from the fact that you're arbitrarily making an exception for your unobserved entity. The simple answer is that nature is eternal. We don't actually know that "creation" is even possible. Bell's theorem is one indication of non causal events btw, although such things can never be proven.
@Gnomefro Well I realized that stating that the cause of our universe must be conscious was facetious shortly after writing this but do you understand what I meant by saying "God wrote the laws"? I wasn't saying he/she literally took a pen and pencil and just started making words. I was implying the world is one giant computer program and computers 101: Someone (or in the future, perhaps simply something) needs to write the computer-script for the program to function.
@Gnomefro and the program isn't aware you exist, it just runs. Now of course, Atheists have got it completely right that just because this COULD be true doesn't mean we should start assuming it is but this theory does completely co-inside with what man observes. Now I've done some thinking since I wrote that and actually, I'm an Atheist too, just of a different stripe because if you ask me, a god needs to be something worth worshiping and any explanations of a conscious creator so far are either
@Gnomefro pathetic (as in deism and why would I worship something less powerful than myself?) or malevolent. So even with a creator, there still is no god. Now, my main problem is that this video dismisses that everything must have a cause. I hope you agree, but if you don't, I'll be perfectly ready to debate that point until one of us must admit he/she is wrong. I'm very passionate about that flaw with this video. Moving on, might I say that I'm rather offended that you claim I'm making an
@Gnomefro exception for an unobserved entity. However, that's simply because I take pride in doing so. I have watched a lot of "Through the Wormhole" and scientists seem to be concluding after numerous contemplations the strange behaviors of gravity, time, and anit-matter that there are, in fact, a good chance of parallel universes. So it's possible there was a universe that caused ours and this universe might not abide by the same laws of physics or have any laws at all. We can't know because
@Gnomefro we can't really observe them yet. So am I "making an exception for an unobserved entity"? Yes, because you are NOT making an exception for an unobserved entity. Normally, What I just said would be a terrible argument because it was essentially "Well you can't prove god DOESN'T exist" but I accept it because it is still less flawed than the alternative; 1. the singularity of the universe suddenly blipped into existence for no reason or 2. The singularity was infinite but suddenly
@Gnomefro began to expand without explanation. That's just not how science works. I will be perfectly happy to shrug and say "Ok, there was nothing before this. Case closed" if when Scientists come back with an acceptable answer, it states that the universe really did have no cause in an explanation no one thought of before, but for now, I rather have a theory that makes sense but isn't proven over a theory that does neither any day.
You misunderstood the argument, it claims that everything that began to exist has a cause, to avoid an infinite regression one must posit something that is timeless. The first cause is not an exception, it is a neccesary agent that is unavoidable.
The singularity never existed, it is just our theories breaking down because we don't have a complete picture of quantum gravity.
"Much like the "what was the cause of God" argument, what was the cause of this singularity? Backtracking and saying it was the result of a collapse of a previous universe only creates a chain. What began that chain? Something to think about."
if u say that we are an intelligence and are self aware then u have to say the universe is an intelligence and self aware because we are one in the same.
@Twilight0012 I dont see how. Like ZJ said, we could just assume this chain of causes and effects extends 'infinitly into the past'. Theres really no reason for, or onus on big bang proponents to explain what, if anything, initiated this chain because they arent the one's using the causality hypothesis to back up their theory.
In fact, most Theists believe that a God exists who had no cause, yet is the cause of everything else. Finding people who have logically absurd beliefs is not in itself an argument against the existence of God. The existence of stupidity does not imply the nonexistence of God.
"It's remarkable that so many people continue to..." Nah. It makes perfect sense if you presuppose that God exists. Plus a bunch of other things that have no material element, like souls, telos, and of course a wholly rhetorical concept of a cause.
Hell, it's more scientifically plausible to say that the singularity that sparked the big bang was caused by the existing universe collapsing on itself with the assertion that time is circular than it does to assert a god that broke its own rules must have done it.
@TheCeejReturns First of all where did that original universe that you propose our universe comes from? Another previous universe? Where did that universe come from? It's a scientific fact that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate, meaning it cannot contract, only grow further and further apart and eventually grow cold and die.
@TheCeejReturns What I'm saying is that because of the universes increasing speed of inflation, it cannot contract again. Meaning either there was nothing before the universe, (the universe today did not come from a previous universe contracting and inflating), or out of I do not know how many of billions of times matter might of done this, we are unfortunately living in the universe where that would never happen again. (infating, contracting, re-inflating again.) So if you have a brain, there
@TheCeejReturns ...following scientific data and evidence, there was no universe pre-existing our one. Which brings us to a rather unpleasant conclusion for people who believe the universe is eternal.
So, what you're saying is that it makes more sense that a god did it than that time is cyclical? And you're appealing to science? That smells a bit selective to me.
@necr0sys The kalam cosmological argument has been addressed. Matter is made of energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. That means that energy is eternal. The universe came from energy, and the universe still is energy.
@PluralOfEverything Actually it hasn't. We have yet to fully even understand what "energy" even is. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics does NOT state that energy is eternal, it simply states that energy cannot be created or destroyed IN THE UNIVERSE. This means that the total amount of energy in the UNIVERSE is constant. It says nothing about what the metaphysical nature of the universe is, that which transcends the universe. What we do know is that the known laws of the universe collapse at t = 0.
@EnjoiningKnowlege To argue that the universe is eternal is to posit an infinite series of past events. This runs into the problem of an infinite regress. Also, you should actually read the papers published by physicists such as Dr. Lawrence Krauss, who understand that it is false to completely assert that the universe is flat, and by consequence infinite. A better cosmological model states that the universe has a finite volume.
@EnjoiningKnowlege To actually defeat the KCA, one would need to show that the B-Theory of Time is true. This would probably serve a big blow to the KCA. However, the Argument from Contingency still holds.
@EnjoiningKnowlege It seems to me that time and energy are wrapped up in each other somehow, as if they are the same thing or one is a byproduct of the other. Without time, there is no way to know whether or not everything continues to exist because consciousness requires energy (electrical activity in the brain), and energy requires time (movement and all that). I've read that even solid matter is made up of little more than movement. I don't see how it's an argument for Yahweh though.
@TheCeejReturns actually scientist due truly believe that the end of this universe is likely to end in the "Big Crunch" where all matter will descend in on itself in the size of the nucleus of an atom before expanding once again into another universe. So yes it is very possible to believe that the universe was "created" by another universe.
Just because some people say everything must have a cause doesn't mean that everything does. Nice straw man. Most Theists believe that God is the only uncaused entity, and everything else, having been created by the God, has a cause.
This form of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) really isn't appealing to me. Although perhaps your arguments are specified only for the cosmological argument presented to you, you haven't addressed the major philosophical problems upon which the KCA is hinged. For one, when Muslim philosophers first proposed the argument, it was based on observing changes in the external world. This implied that there was indeed a dimension of time, which led to events occurring in sequence. [cont
@EnjoiningKnowlege From this, it was logically deduced that there were two options: 1) the universe had an infinite past (perhaps there were previous configurations of the universe which began from previous singularity points) in which case the total number of past events/changes would be infinite. Or 2) the universe had a finite past (and this includes the singularity point), in which case the total number of past events/changes would be finite. Option 1 runs into serious problems. [cont
@EnjoiningKnowlege The primary problem involved is that of an infinite regression of past events. This is logically absurd, because in order to arrive at this moment in time, we would have had to complete an infinite set of past events. Even a cyclical model runs into this problem (which although quantifiable - circumference) involves the same problem of arriving at this particular moment from an infinite past. So, it's not a matter of simply making an exception out of thin air.
@EnjoiningKnowlege As such, physical reality which involves these changes (and thus time) logically could not have existed eternally. This begs the question then, what explains its existence? Clearly, it began to exist, confirmed logically and even scientifically. Modern physicists such as Hawking argue that the universe arose out of 'nothing' which is misleading as he is really referring to the quantum vacuum, from which virtual particles come into and out of existence all the time.
@EnjoiningKnowlege If events are actively occurring (i.e. changes) in the quantum vacuum, then obviously there is some dimension of time involved. This merely pushes the causal chain back, and the question would be: what explains the quantum vacuums existence. It clearly required a beginning, otherwise it runs into the same problem. You're critique of God being eternal is no different then saying the universe is eternal, is false. The Islamic position rejects omnitemporality (you refer to this).
@EnjoiningKnowlege Rather, God is timeless (no changes are occurring in any sort of sequence as is involved with time). Therefore, God does not exist such that His existence extends infinitely to the past. This is absurd, as it means that God would have to pass through an infinite amount of time before Willing for the universe to come into existence. It also assumes that time affects His realm. Anyways, you really should seek to understand the (actual) argument before critiquing it.
@EnjoiningKnowlege See this for a detailed outline of the argument I'm defending, please google: "Sunni Answers Foundations of the Religion", and it should be the first link.
@nosajj12345 No, just commenting on my own comments so that the person I'm responding to doesn't receive too many notifications. The first comment was in reply to them.
@EnjoiningKnowlege Remember too that a vacuum or the use of that term is misleading...a vacuum is still something. People still argue that the universe could of arisen out of nothing because we observe particles doing the same out of a vacuum. But a vacuum is something, not nothing.
@necr0sys Thanks for specifying this. That's a very good point, and it's interesting to note how often some physicists (Hawking, Krauss etc.) mislead their audiences by asserting that the universe "can and will come from nothing [quantum vacuum = something]..."
What started the expansion? Something outside our universe started it. Call it whatever you'd like. Even if you call it a g'd, that g'd would no longer influence our universe.
The universe exists forever, but has only been *expanding* for 13-20 times 10-to-the-power-of-9 years. {Billion? Thousand-million? It depends on where you're from 6^D .}
@marasu66 on religion and atheism im a agnostic theist.you cant know the unknowble,nobody knows if there is an after life so how can anyone argue either side when no one knows?
Wow, a girl who can think! I've never seen one of those, though I heard they exist. My observation of you disproves some of my misogynist suspeicions. ...
Oh wait, you're a man? LoL. I read that in other coments. So it's true then. No woman can think like this. But you're a very smart dude; thumbs up.
I'm an open-minded atheist. With that being said, I find this transvestite intellectually stimulating and sexually attractive. I'm a straight man, but I would go gay for you, ZJ. :)
@devinechin Theists often claim to "know" that God exists. Most atheists are willing to admit that they don't know how the universe began. In my experience, atheists are the least likely to act as if they know something they genuinely don't. As far as I can see, theists, in general, are the ones claiming to "know it all".
I personally don't believe anyone knows anything for certain. But to argue against the existence of God and support the big bang theory I believe is hypocritical. As a theist I don't claim to know God exists, rather I like to claim I believe God exists. Much in the same way many atheists "believe" in the big bang theory. If atheists don't claim to "know" things then why is it so important to so many of them to disprove religious thought?
There is verifiable evidence behind the Big Bang Theory. However, if someone were to disprove it tomorrow, then I doubt anyone would have 'faith' in the theory and its validity. Many theists will not give up their belief in God, despite any evidence to the contrary, and this can be seen as unhealthy, especially when it dictates the way in which they live their lives.
If you humor the notion of God not existing, it's not hard to see why belief in him would be unhealthy.
everything is just theory there is no proof that any of this singularity or even ythe big bang stuff is true. why can't mankind ever admit that we do not have all the answers ?.
@remotehog1 because people like ZJemptv have low self esteem and need to feel like they have the answers to everything in order to make themselves feel superior to others.
We could just skip all this and talk about time. Would you say time is infinite or finite? If time were infinite would we be able to define certain moments in time? To me time by definition must be finite. So if time has a beginning, did it start before or after the singularity? Why did the singularity occur?
@blackhawk089 "So if time has a beginning, did it start before or after the singularity?"
Time is a relationship between two states of one object. (Object is a poor lingual term - technically everything in the universe, including the universe itself, is one object that changes shape -- yet, made up of an infinite number of objects; just like earth itself). If the object fails to change, time does not exist.
Time began when something changed and will end when it stops changing.
@blackhawk089 Actually, time did not exist before the singularity expanded and space-time was created.
The classic view of time and space being separate and absolute have been replaced with a relative space-time model. Evidence has shown this model to be more accurate in it's predictions and is the model used for many practical applications, for example GPS navigation and astronomy.
I didnt watch this video till the end.. Its utterly useless...singularity...BIG BANG... Universe...then eventually after billions of years.....Life.....But for those of you who STILL think that god created everything..... theres something wrong with you ppl... Another point, PEOPLE CREATED GOD!!!!
Scientists have repeatedly observed 'somethings' appearing and disappearing in what is considered nothing for some time now. Nothing isn't exactly what we think it is on a subatomic level.
This aside, if one believes things have to have a beginning they'd have to come out of nothing at some point wouldn't they? The assumption is there's always something or a god which is something. But if all means everything and there is a beginning there'd have to be a time before it where there was nothing
@marsCubed I do not respect you're view, you are not a scientist, you do not have a valid view, shut up. God is outside of time and space. It is impossible for humans to be in existence without a necessary being. Tell me, if God did not create the earth and the universe, then why is there such intelligent design, such complexity? Your logic fails if you say that it was created by mere chance and its all to do with the 'Big Bang.' Equally, you question the logical of Aristotle and Aquinas
Your not being able to comprehend ideas from physics and biology does not make them false.
You should question the logic of Aristotle and Aquainas, or do you believe that different masses accelerate differently under gravity. or do evil spirits cause disease.
Why don't you try Spinoza, Wittgenstein, even new scientist on-line for new ideas.
It is sad your religion is nuts and man made historical stuff.. sorry about that. but grow up and join reality.
@marsCubed The fact is, YOU are questioning the logic of Aristotle and Aquinas and you are in no position to do so. It is sad that you are only saying that my religion is nuts when you don't even know that I am religious. The funny thing is, I am in reality and you have no point. Clearly, you are a feeble little boy whom sits at home preaching about the fact that religion is mad. Get a life.
@ISullyHDI "you don't even know that I am religious. The funny thing is, I am in reality.
Classic..
The most fundamentalist religious position around that even Catholics, most Muslims and regular Protestants regard as corrupt anti-intellectual USA conservatives hacks and frauds.
And you are surprised?
Sheer Abuse, look at you, are you too embarrassed to admit you wasted your life?
It is like beaten wife syndrome.
I makes me feel really sad for people like you & angry at your cult.
@marsCubed Funny thing is, I guarantee I have a better quality life than you. You live in a fantasy world where you believe yourself to be intellectual, when really you are just a pretentious rat that lives in a slum :) Am I embarrassed to admit that I have wasted my life? The thing is I am 17 and hopefully off to University at the end of the year. You however have nothing to live for. I suggest you read Richard Dawkins the God Delusion before you talk to me.
@ISullyHDI I have read the God Delusion, good book.. If you are recommending it to me then I have probably misunderstood you completely.
Do consider that concepts of God unity of substance, set of sets, perfection from infinite states in infinite time, least action as supreme elegance etc., are not religious arguments, but pertain to the logical God of Spinoza.. God as Nature. AKA enlightenment deism, barely an aesthetic between it and atheism. Honesty, including saying we don't know.
Speculation, traditions, faith in, and adoration of Jupiter, did not tell us as much as Galileo's telescope did in a single evening, he discovered it had moons for instance.
It is the same problem religions faces today.
It is no longer able to control people by limiting their access to other ideas and information.
It is religion's own fault, it is caught out for pushing ridiculous, often iniquitous & bigoted junk on people, at the very least it's dull & shallow.
You have named my big problem with theists: the Big Bang had to have a cause, which must be god, but god doesn't need a cause, because god is "eternal" or "outside of time" (in which case, how does god interact with things within time?). And it is a waste of time arguing, they really do not see the problem -- like trying to describe the color blue to someone who has been blind from birth.
the whole point is that god is eternal. The chain of causes has to break at some point. And that breaking point is (i think) an eternal god. There has to be a first mover, otherwise there would be only causes, and nothing happening.
This is just what i think so don't flame me for being (slightly) religious :)
To start, Christianity doesn't make sense. However, science is ALL theory and therefore cannot be entirely correct. One can say it's closer to the truth but without knowing the correct answer from the beginning that statement cannot be used. The theory of relativity isn't the only answer, as proven by a gravitational singularity. The idea of a singularity is to indicate that said equation doesn't make sense.
Either way, science cannot disprove God, nor vice versa.
@snowzknight "Either way, science cannot disprove God, nor vice versa."
No, but we have a hypothesis that states that the more complex a system, the higher the probability that it's created by accident. (backed up by observation)
A fruit fly is already a extremely complex system... the entire universe is so ridiculously complex that ridiculous isn't even a big enough word to describe just how ridiculous it is.
Therefor we estimate that the probability that there is a God is approximately zero.
Again, that's simply a theory. There is no law stating that complexity is an indication of purpose, it's simply a structure to build on. The thing that strikes me as odd is that science is all theories and nearly every preposition are considered viable until proven wrong, yet science has yet to actually disprove god, stated in "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking" and the idea of such is only thrown around by militants with an unfounded distrust in religion.
@snowzknight Nice to see that you're quoting Stephen Hawking. In his latest book he wrote that "there is no need to invoke God to get the universe going". That's exactly the point.
Every valued scientific theory to date is there for a reason. There is no reason to disproof the existence of God, because of all the unexplained phenomena "God did it" is always the least likely explanation, even less likely than "yo mama" and "aliens".
As opposed to theories that change every 50 years? There is no possible way to say that science has any merit over God because there is no real answer. Again, science's purpose isn't to disprove God.
If anything, science is proving God exist with the creation of the Universe. The Big Bang theory is flaw in one simple way "It started out as a singularity."
I invite you to look it up, because a singularity is a moment in an equation that no answer can be obtained and that is how singularities are created so with that in mind, if science believes the Big Bang is the answer, which is may very well be and is as much likely as God at this point, than why is it science can't figure out what it is? Why is it they're happy to believe that all that we know of existences comes from something that we can't explain?
Sure we have ideas of what the Big Bang came from, but everything in a nutshell proves that we don't, and with the current theory of relativity that we use as the base argument for everything that happens, we never will unless we rewrite the laws of nature.
So don't get me wrong, I'm not out to belittle your beliefs and I'm not saying I don't put any merit in science, in fact I'm saying simply that God and Science have more in common that one would think.
@snowzknight So, you went through all this trouble writing absolutely nothing that I didn't know already and then tell me you're not here to belittle my beliefs. Your conclusion also pretty ridiculous.
A chicken, democracy, rain and the number three also have more in common than you think... All I'm saying is: stop being an idiot and move along.
Sorry for not being able to read your mind. Whats funny is you expected me to yet science clearly states you can't, nice contradiction. As for my conclusion, what was so ridiculous about it? Instead of throwing around baseless statements why not actually use some of that imaginary knowledge you obtained in your 29 pathetic years of Star Trek marathons and tell me how exactly it works.
You're entire argument is a counter, with no points. That's the opposite of intelligence.
So, whats your reply? You're obviously some militant who can't accept the possibility of anything outside of your realm of ignorance and you clearly have something you want to get out, so what is it?
See, your problem is that you took a concept (science) which was supposed to be theories, not the exact truth, and you believe that it is the answer meanwhile all of those scientist and theorist who's every word you hang off of are trying to get you to believe the opposite!
They don't want you to think they're right, they want you to take what they learned and expand upon it. They know they're not right but your whole argument is "they're closer to the truth." but it makes one wonder, if we don't know what the truth is, how can you believe that?
You're nothing more than some petty guy is his late 20s who has no prospects or options in life so you desperately cling to a false reality where you're an intellectual. Grow up and take your anti depressants.
@snowzknight That's a lot of groundless assumptions about me, yet you claim you cannot read my mind. I know for one thing that angriness cause the IQ to drop significantly.
Do you even know what science is, btw? Science is all organized reliable knowledge and rational predictions based on that knowledge. It's not a concept. God is completely out of our knowledge sphere and cannot be predicted, so it has nothing to do with science.
Again, look up 'singularities' and then 'Ctrl-F' the word on as many theories you can find on wiki or whatever sources you use and then get back to be on that 'reliable knowledge.' Science and Religion are not the same thing, but if you believe that God has no place in science, you're an idiot.
Also, you use the word 'our' as if I don't acknowledge science, but unlike you I'm not arrogant enough to believe science can't be wrong, nor that religion can't.
In regards to your assumption that my anger has anything to do with my previous assumptions on your mental and physical status, I simply said it to put how you're appearing to me in context so you can see how you're being viewed. Maybe it'll provide some insight into how you appear to others, though I doubt it because if what I believe to know about you so far is true you're too egocentric to allow yourself to be viewed by others.
So what about singularities? It's just a point in an equation. "lim(x->0) 1/x = infinity"
This doesn't happen in nature, only in physical models. What you're talking about hinges to quantum-loop physics and stuff like string theory.
I don't understand that because I'm only into computer science, mostly intelligent architectures. But that doesn't mean I have to invoke God to satisfy a need for pseudo-understanding.
You're right, you'd rather believe nothing than the idea of God. That's called letting personal bias get in the way of being somewhat rational. I don't know what your story is but I can't say I care either.
Everything has a cause is a law. Conservation of Energy. Very obvious on that one. When it comes down to it, something had to cause the big bang to happen. It could be a cyclical event where the universe expands and collapses. But it cannot explain the amount of total energy in the universe.
Causation is dependent on linear, uni-directional temporal systems, which would not have existed until after the expansion the singularity. Demanding that the big bang have a cause is to demand that the origins of time behave like an event within time. Causation applies to entities within the universe, not to universe itself.
@butchkitties Please don't try your hardest to sound smarter than you actually are. "Linear, uni-directional temporal systems": just say time. I know time was created when the big bang happened. You are saying that causation can only be applied to things inside the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. Isn't that exactly the same thing God-believers are doing? Applying an idea to some things but not everything and accepting it as truth. Causation can happen without time.
@SMFApples Thanks for starting with a personal insult. I wasn't trying to sound smart. I was being specific.
"You are saying that causation can only be applied to things inside the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. Isn't that exactly the same thing God-believers are doing?" - Didn't you just argue that God was necessary because everything has a cause? Way to flip-flop to preserve your conclusion.
something had to excite the "singularity that sparked the universe" into motion. without that, this whole big bang theory is just stupid. you provide no evidence for that.
goodvibes1995 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goodvibes1995 "something had to excite the "singularity that sparked the universe" into motion. without that, this whole big bang theory is just stupid."
No. All worldviews, whether they be theistic or atheistic, have a "necessary being". Some sort of attribute to existence that is an eternal "something" that everything else can spring from. This something is a brute fact of existence. For atheists this will be some simple aspect of nature itself. For theists it is god
Gnomefro 2 days ago
@goodvibes1995 Another way to phrase this is that causality can not be a universal phenomenon in any worldview due to infinite regress.
Either way, the big bang theory is a useful theory regardless of what one things about gods, because it is currently humanity's best attempt at cosmology and explains a vast range of observations.
Gnomefro 2 days ago
(Now bare with me) I think the universe was caused not by s crushing, but the is like riffle effect--a pulling. Perhaps the gravity of "ripple universes" pulling at a center is the cause for another singularity in the epicenter. And this could happen because each "tug" is constantly greater the more and more "ripple universes" there are. Our ripple will spread and pull at the epicenter until such a stress where another ripple is created: universal birth.
TheOkami1113 3 weeks ago
the big bang singularity has zero mass and by definition that means that at that "time" it did not exsist
HukenShquirrel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1. A cause is a rearrangement of pre-existing matter that precedes its effect in time
2. Time and matter didn't exist until after The Big Bang
3. A rearrangement of pre-existing matter that precedes its effect in time is impossible before matter and time existed
4. The Big Bang had no cause
theBartone9119 1 month ago
Creationist logic: The universe has a cause therefore God of the bible dun it.
gregrutz 2 months ago
Comment removed
TryTheRedPill 2 months ago
Now you are using logic, that does not work on religious people.
Even if they proved there was a god that made the big bang, they can't prove their god it the one true god or you should pray to him or there is a heaven, or....
gregrutz 3 months ago
So your saying that the universe came from something and that has always existed,. Gee that sounds familiar, (GOD). The problem is where did all the design come from then? You attribute random occurrences over time as accounting for the information & organization of all things. That's odd, the only thing we can attribute the source of information to would be a mind, not randomness . Hum, might THAT be the THING that has existed since before time. What name would you give the Alpha & the Omega?
cptwonder 3 months ago
@cptwonder
The problem with the notion of an intelligent "God" to explain the "organization and information" is it has no real explanatory power, merely "pushing back" the mystery and paradox one step, and wrapping it up in form that makes you feel good. That is because there is no plausible explanation for how this highly organized and intelligent "thing" just came about. Effectively you've gone full circle.
iAmEhead 2 months ago
@iAmEhead If this highly organized and intelligent 'thing' pre-exists time, then a 'beginning' does not apply to it. Pretty simple. Or people could just pretend that all the truth they know is gained through empirical means, and wrap the mystery of the origin of this physical reality in a form that makes them feel good.
tetrahydroscope 2 months ago
@tetrahydroscope It seems that you missed the point of this videos which is that you can't assume that something already existed without proving it. Since you can't prove it, the argument becomes void and has no notable effect on those who hold logic. ZJ never actually did say that the universe always existed, she just proposed that it could have just as God could have simply always been around.
LexiePersonForever 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@LexiePersonForever Well the question is not a scientific one, but a philosophical one. You can't demand scientific proof of something that exists outside physical reality. The use of logic precedes positivism. It is more logical for some type of transcendent portion of reality to preexist the physical portion of reality. The reason why this is more logical is because physical reality would have very different qualities if it was timeless. If the universe is eternal, it should be very different.
tetrahydroscope 2 months ago
@tetrahydroscope Well, many skeptics require proof because it's seen as a necessary base line for whether an idea's plausible or not. It does not appear more logical to me for a supernatural being to have simply existed forever. In fact, this seems to be a myth to me. I see things with a naturalistic view and require fact based conclusions. Not conclusions being drawn first, then searching for something to back it up. How would you know the universe would be different? Have you seen others?
LexiePersonForever 2 months ago
@LexiePersonForever The transcendent part of reality is not a pre conceived conclusion, it is arrived at when you take the nature of reality and the nature of human beings into account. The real problem with logic that atheists have is that they ask for scientific proof of something that exists outside the scope of science. Besides the fact that atheists seem to refuse to follow their philosophy to its logical conclusion. No I haven't, but the universe would have wound down if it was infinite.
tetrahydroscope 2 months ago
@tetrahydroscope The reason for a demand of scientific proof is because science has most answers. It even has the answers to why we feel certain emotions or why we find certain things about people we once loved about someone annoying. It's pretty safe to say that there's a scientific reason for everything, and we don't want to cease the exploration for this knowledge. Please enlighten me with the logical conclusion I should reach. We don't really know that or much else about the universe, sorry.
LexiePersonForever 2 months ago
@LexiePersonForever Science has the most answers for scientific questions.If the answer to the nature of the love for family is that its a biological imperative of evolution, then love lacks inherent meaning.Someone who cares for their family is experiencing an illusion,so a sociopath would be equally justified in killing your family as you would be in protecting your family.Both of those actions are equally valid if the question of Rightness is answered by science.Nihilism is the conclusion.
tetrahydroscope 2 months ago
@tetrahydroscope Knowing where the feeling of love comes from does not take away the pleasure of loving someone. It DID come from evolution to help keep people together for maximum chance of survival, but that doesn't make me want to love people less. We just know why we feel it, now. No, killing is not justified now. Since love is used to keep people alive and killing is used to... not keep people alive, they have two completely different results. Killing = bad in science, and love = good.
LexiePersonForever 2 months ago
@LexiePersonForever Killing has always been a way to promote evolutionary progress; whether through infanticide of disabled children to prevent the sapping of energy and resources, or through conflict with ethnic or racial rivals in order to possess limited resources. If morality is completely naturalistic, then the western world is justified in dominating the globe because it is the interest of perpetuating the western world. If morality is drawn from evolution, then social Darwinism is moral.
tetrahydroscope 2 months ago
@tetrahydroscope It has been. That's only between other species, though. When I said that killing is bad, I meant within a species. Evolution is used to help increase the chance of survival of a species, and if that species just starts killing itself, the whole thing is pointless and that species will eventually die off unless reproduction keeps up. Accepting where our morals comes from does not necessarily lead to social Darwinism. They're two separate issues.
LexiePersonForever 2 months ago
@LexiePersonForever Killing or sterilizing those who would pollute the gene pool (or sap finite resources) not only ensures the survival of the ethnic group from an evolutionary stand point, but it also ensures the survival of the species. If morality is meant to promote evolution, then social Darwinism and eugenics are moral because they promote evolution. I'm done adding views to this vid so PM me if I haven't made it clear enough for you.
tetrahydroscope 2 months ago
i love the cute little arguments in the comments here, highly amusing and illuminating
jamesedwardtheobald 3 months ago
Comment removed
jamesedwardtheobald 3 months ago
wow u make sence just u sound like a man and like u are just mad at ne type of religion but everyone has a opinion lol
meneedweedies420 4 months ago
Again, love your videos. You make great points; but this isn't one of em
rgatlin04 4 months ago
I would like you to answer some questions for me, if you don't mind:
1. Based on our scientific understanding of singularities and logic itself , Do you accept that the big bang singularity could not of caused itself to expand?
BreakoutLuceal 4 months ago
what MY question is, is where did HER adams apple COME from???!!!
BenjaminPedraza1 4 months ago
@Ataensic actually the concept of the Christian God is that he is infinite and all powerful so if that's the case then he can create something out of nothing. When dealing with the big bang theory, if thats what you believe, it all deals with finite materials that had to come from something an "uncaused" cause. Something had to create the materials that caused the big bang.
Nikkithenerd1 4 months ago
There is a cause for all things. the things cannot bring themselves into existence. There must be an uncaused, cause of these things. that uncaused cause is God.
jesstkiddin 4 months ago
plz stop looking at the camera when u make vids, ur man/she/bearpig face gives me nightmares
JellayToasT 5 months ago
And where did the singularity come from?
zabooog 5 months ago
Philosphy FAIL! lol
ArdensSedVirens 5 months ago 3
It's weird how little I'm pissed that you finally said something that calls ME wrong. But there are still some giant holes in what you are saying. All of the fallowing is on the assumption that absolutely everything in the universe happens because of physical laws which if YOU are prepared to argue that point with me, I'll eat my hat. Your main flaw is that you have assumed that I (or others) think absolutely everything has to have a cause and we just exclude god for whatever reason.
DepressedAnnnie 6 months ago
@DepressedAnnnie No! I am proposing that god WROTE the laws of physics and if that was true, then just because everything in THIS reality requires cause, (if there is evidence that not everything does, please give me a link. You could change how I see EVERYTHING) that would not necessarily mean that another reality capable of creating this one does. Furthermore, even though I understand you weren't talking to me, let me say I am completely open to the idea that something DID have to create "god"
DepressedAnnnie 6 months ago
@DepressedAnnnie A picture of someone looking at a picture of someone looking at a picture I think is an almost perfect explanation especially if ultimately it loops back to a computer programmer sitting at his desk in this universe; a mobius that is both eternal and in need of cause by forever causing itself. Of course then, we are stuck with the chicken and egg dilemma but to me, that still is a lot more sensical than what you are describing but maybe I just don't understand. Please reply.
DepressedAnnnie 6 months ago
@DepressedAnnnie "I am proposing that god WROTE the laws of physics and if that was true, then just because everything in THIS reality requires cause"
Writing is a causal act, FYI. You can't get away from the fact that you're arbitrarily making an exception for your unobserved entity. The simple answer is that nature is eternal. We don't actually know that "creation" is even possible. Bell's theorem is one indication of non causal events btw, although such things can never be proven.
Gnomefro 5 months ago
@Gnomefro Well I realized that stating that the cause of our universe must be conscious was facetious shortly after writing this but do you understand what I meant by saying "God wrote the laws"? I wasn't saying he/she literally took a pen and pencil and just started making words. I was implying the world is one giant computer program and computers 101: Someone (or in the future, perhaps simply something) needs to write the computer-script for the program to function.
DepressedAnnnie 5 months ago
@Gnomefro and the program isn't aware you exist, it just runs. Now of course, Atheists have got it completely right that just because this COULD be true doesn't mean we should start assuming it is but this theory does completely co-inside with what man observes. Now I've done some thinking since I wrote that and actually, I'm an Atheist too, just of a different stripe because if you ask me, a god needs to be something worth worshiping and any explanations of a conscious creator so far are either
DepressedAnnnie 5 months ago
@Gnomefro pathetic (as in deism and why would I worship something less powerful than myself?) or malevolent. So even with a creator, there still is no god. Now, my main problem is that this video dismisses that everything must have a cause. I hope you agree, but if you don't, I'll be perfectly ready to debate that point until one of us must admit he/she is wrong. I'm very passionate about that flaw with this video. Moving on, might I say that I'm rather offended that you claim I'm making an
DepressedAnnnie 5 months ago
@Gnomefro exception for an unobserved entity. However, that's simply because I take pride in doing so. I have watched a lot of "Through the Wormhole" and scientists seem to be concluding after numerous contemplations the strange behaviors of gravity, time, and anit-matter that there are, in fact, a good chance of parallel universes. So it's possible there was a universe that caused ours and this universe might not abide by the same laws of physics or have any laws at all. We can't know because
DepressedAnnnie 5 months ago
@Gnomefro we can't really observe them yet. So am I "making an exception for an unobserved entity"? Yes, because you are NOT making an exception for an unobserved entity. Normally, What I just said would be a terrible argument because it was essentially "Well you can't prove god DOESN'T exist" but I accept it because it is still less flawed than the alternative; 1. the singularity of the universe suddenly blipped into existence for no reason or 2. The singularity was infinite but suddenly
DepressedAnnnie 5 months ago
@Gnomefro began to expand without explanation. That's just not how science works. I will be perfectly happy to shrug and say "Ok, there was nothing before this. Case closed" if when Scientists come back with an acceptable answer, it states that the universe really did have no cause in an explanation no one thought of before, but for now, I rather have a theory that makes sense but isn't proven over a theory that does neither any day.
DepressedAnnnie 5 months ago
You misunderstood the argument, it claims that everything that began to exist has a cause, to avoid an infinite regression one must posit something that is timeless. The first cause is not an exception, it is a neccesary agent that is unavoidable.
The singularity never existed, it is just our theories breaking down because we don't have a complete picture of quantum gravity.
MegaExelo 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Twilight0012
"Much like the "what was the cause of God" argument, what was the cause of this singularity? Backtracking and saying it was the result of a collapse of a previous universe only creates a chain. What began that chain? Something to think about."
The problem of infinite regression...
HAVE YOU GOT BIG TITS!!!?
Hammersley1967 6 months ago
Nice one.
Lainey37 6 months ago
Cosmological argument refutation:
watch?v=7raQmfuJ_Fc
wownov83 6 months ago
if u say that we are an intelligence and are self aware then u have to say the universe is an intelligence and self aware because we are one in the same.
buidseach 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@buidseach "u have to say the universe is an intelligence and self aware because we are one in the same."
Uhm, no we're not. The parts do not equal the sum necessarily.
Your point is facile to say the least.
moopism 6 months ago
have u got an autoque?
buidseach 6 months ago
@Twilight0012 I dont see how. Like ZJ said, we could just assume this chain of causes and effects extends 'infinitly into the past'. Theres really no reason for, or onus on big bang proponents to explain what, if anything, initiated this chain because they arent the one's using the causality hypothesis to back up their theory.
1982mockingbird1982 6 months ago
How original Never heard that one before! lol
habfan24 7 months ago
In fact, most Theists believe that a God exists who had no cause, yet is the cause of everything else. Finding people who have logically absurd beliefs is not in itself an argument against the existence of God. The existence of stupidity does not imply the nonexistence of God.
kmsoileau 7 months ago in playlist Religion
This has been flagged as spam show
@kmsoileau "The existence of stupidity does not imply the nonexistence of God.
Hmm, but gods and stupidity do seem to like each others company, though.
Pleendriver 6 months ago
eeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwww
AEVautomatic 7 months ago
you tell 'em girl!
you really get the crazies every time!
ImaginaryMdA 8 months ago
Please read Thomas Aquinas.....PLEASE
blackhawk089 8 months ago
I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but did she have a sex change?
bahdahdoop 8 months ago
"It's remarkable that so many people continue to..." Nah. It makes perfect sense if you presuppose that God exists. Plus a bunch of other things that have no material element, like souls, telos, and of course a wholly rhetorical concept of a cause.
klutterkicker 8 months ago
Hell, it's more scientifically plausible to say that the singularity that sparked the big bang was caused by the existing universe collapsing on itself with the assertion that time is circular than it does to assert a god that broke its own rules must have done it.
TheCeejReturns 8 months ago 28
@TheCeejReturns First of all where did that original universe that you propose our universe comes from? Another previous universe? Where did that universe come from? It's a scientific fact that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate, meaning it cannot contract, only grow further and further apart and eventually grow cold and die.
necr0sys 7 months ago
@necr0sys
I have no idea what you're asking.
As far as the claim following your question, don't make assumptions and refer to them as fact.
TheCeejReturns 7 months ago
@TheCeejReturns What I'm saying is that because of the universes increasing speed of inflation, it cannot contract again. Meaning either there was nothing before the universe, (the universe today did not come from a previous universe contracting and inflating), or out of I do not know how many of billions of times matter might of done this, we are unfortunately living in the universe where that would never happen again. (infating, contracting, re-inflating again.) So if you have a brain, there
necr0sys 7 months ago
@TheCeejReturns ...following scientific data and evidence, there was no universe pre-existing our one. Which brings us to a rather unpleasant conclusion for people who believe the universe is eternal.
necr0sys 7 months ago
@necr0sys
So, what you're saying is that it makes more sense that a god did it than that time is cyclical? And you're appealing to science? That smells a bit selective to me.
TheCeejReturns 7 months ago
@necr0sys The kalam cosmological argument has been addressed. Matter is made of energy, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. That means that energy is eternal. The universe came from energy, and the universe still is energy.
PluralOfEverything 7 months ago
@PluralOfEverything Actually it hasn't. We have yet to fully even understand what "energy" even is. The 1st Law of Thermodynamics does NOT state that energy is eternal, it simply states that energy cannot be created or destroyed IN THE UNIVERSE. This means that the total amount of energy in the UNIVERSE is constant. It says nothing about what the metaphysical nature of the universe is, that which transcends the universe. What we do know is that the known laws of the universe collapse at t = 0.
EnjoiningKnowlege 7 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege To argue that the universe is eternal is to posit an infinite series of past events. This runs into the problem of an infinite regress. Also, you should actually read the papers published by physicists such as Dr. Lawrence Krauss, who understand that it is false to completely assert that the universe is flat, and by consequence infinite. A better cosmological model states that the universe has a finite volume.
EnjoiningKnowlege 7 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege To actually defeat the KCA, one would need to show that the B-Theory of Time is true. This would probably serve a big blow to the KCA. However, the Argument from Contingency still holds.
EnjoiningKnowlege 7 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege It seems to me that time and energy are wrapped up in each other somehow, as if they are the same thing or one is a byproduct of the other. Without time, there is no way to know whether or not everything continues to exist because consciousness requires energy (electrical activity in the brain), and energy requires time (movement and all that). I've read that even solid matter is made up of little more than movement. I don't see how it's an argument for Yahweh though.
PluralOfEverything 7 months ago
ZJempty is absolutely sure the universe came from something prior to the singularity. Honest I saw her/him/it in a time machine.
necr0sys 7 months ago
@TheCeejReturns actually scientist due truly believe that the end of this universe is likely to end in the "Big Crunch" where all matter will descend in on itself in the size of the nucleus of an atom before expanding once again into another universe. So yes it is very possible to believe that the universe was "created" by another universe.
thewhatsit104 7 months ago
Just because some people say everything must have a cause doesn't mean that everything does. Nice straw man. Most Theists believe that God is the only uncaused entity, and everything else, having been created by the God, has a cause.
kmsoileau 9 months ago in playlist Religion
This form of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) really isn't appealing to me. Although perhaps your arguments are specified only for the cosmological argument presented to you, you haven't addressed the major philosophical problems upon which the KCA is hinged. For one, when Muslim philosophers first proposed the argument, it was based on observing changes in the external world. This implied that there was indeed a dimension of time, which led to events occurring in sequence. [cont
EnjoiningKnowlege 9 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege From this, it was logically deduced that there were two options: 1) the universe had an infinite past (perhaps there were previous configurations of the universe which began from previous singularity points) in which case the total number of past events/changes would be infinite. Or 2) the universe had a finite past (and this includes the singularity point), in which case the total number of past events/changes would be finite. Option 1 runs into serious problems. [cont
EnjoiningKnowlege 9 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege The primary problem involved is that of an infinite regression of past events. This is logically absurd, because in order to arrive at this moment in time, we would have had to complete an infinite set of past events. Even a cyclical model runs into this problem (which although quantifiable - circumference) involves the same problem of arriving at this particular moment from an infinite past. So, it's not a matter of simply making an exception out of thin air.
EnjoiningKnowlege 9 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege As such, physical reality which involves these changes (and thus time) logically could not have existed eternally. This begs the question then, what explains its existence? Clearly, it began to exist, confirmed logically and even scientifically. Modern physicists such as Hawking argue that the universe arose out of 'nothing' which is misleading as he is really referring to the quantum vacuum, from which virtual particles come into and out of existence all the time.
EnjoiningKnowlege 9 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege If events are actively occurring (i.e. changes) in the quantum vacuum, then obviously there is some dimension of time involved. This merely pushes the causal chain back, and the question would be: what explains the quantum vacuums existence. It clearly required a beginning, otherwise it runs into the same problem. You're critique of God being eternal is no different then saying the universe is eternal, is false. The Islamic position rejects omnitemporality (you refer to this).
EnjoiningKnowlege 9 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege Rather, God is timeless (no changes are occurring in any sort of sequence as is involved with time). Therefore, God does not exist such that His existence extends infinitely to the past. This is absurd, as it means that God would have to pass through an infinite amount of time before Willing for the universe to come into existence. It also assumes that time affects His realm. Anyways, you really should seek to understand the (actual) argument before critiquing it.
EnjoiningKnowlege 9 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege See this for a detailed outline of the argument I'm defending, please google: "Sunni Answers Foundations of the Religion", and it should be the first link.
EnjoiningKnowlege 9 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege Are you arguing with yourself?? lol
nosajj12345 9 months ago
@nosajj12345 No, just commenting on my own comments so that the person I'm responding to doesn't receive too many notifications. The first comment was in reply to them.
EnjoiningKnowlege 9 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege Remember too that a vacuum or the use of that term is misleading...a vacuum is still something. People still argue that the universe could of arisen out of nothing because we observe particles doing the same out of a vacuum. But a vacuum is something, not nothing.
necr0sys 7 months ago
@necr0sys Thanks for specifying this. That's a very good point, and it's interesting to note how often some physicists (Hawking, Krauss etc.) mislead their audiences by asserting that the universe "can and will come from nothing [quantum vacuum = something]..."
EnjoiningKnowlege 7 months ago
looking hot ZJ <3
rareisalive 9 months ago
What started the expansion? Something outside our universe started it. Call it whatever you'd like. Even if you call it a g'd, that g'd would no longer influence our universe.
shackupyourstruly 9 months ago
The universe exists forever, but has only been *expanding* for 13-20 times 10-to-the-power-of-9 years. {Billion? Thousand-million? It depends on where you're from 6^D .}
marasu66 9 months ago
I still can´t understand why there is something instead of nothing.
krishnamurti297 9 months ago
Because "nothing" is an illusion. Just because we can't see something, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. Isn't that why people believe in a g'd?
marasu66 9 months ago
@marasu66 on religion and atheism im a agnostic theist.you cant know the unknowble,nobody knows if there is an after life so how can anyone argue either side when no one knows?
scuzzfink 9 months ago
Wow, a girl who can think! I've never seen one of those, though I heard they exist. My observation of you disproves some of my misogynist suspeicions. ...
Oh wait, you're a man? LoL. I read that in other coments. So it's true then. No woman can think like this. But you're a very smart dude; thumbs up.
brindlebriar 9 months ago
Smarty pants. Always making sense...being logical.
HeyRuka 9 months ago
QUESTION: WHY GO THROUGH THE TROUBLE OF TRYING TO LOOK LIKE A WOMAN AND THEN ENDING UP LOOKING LIKE A SPINSTER LIBRARIAN? DUDE, UP IT, MAKE IT GLAM.
glower125 9 months ago
I'm an open-minded atheist. With that being said, I find this transvestite intellectually stimulating and sexually attractive. I'm a straight man, but I would go gay for you, ZJ. :)
JRC3034 9 months ago
Is she a tranny? There's definitely an adam's apple there
bahdahdoop 9 months ago
how can i argue with someone who looks like a woman and talks like a man?
scuzzfink 9 months ago
@scuzzfink Probably in a similar way you would any other human, shout at them and ignore their points founded by Bill O'Reilly.
SuppleOldMan 9 months ago
@scuzzfink
Does logic not apply regardless of appearance? Or are you just that easily distracted?
Anon11674 9 months ago
@Anon11674 yes im distracted,im thinking do i want to fuck it or argue with it.
scuzzfink 9 months ago
Apparently, you've never argued with a woman, right? If more men wore lipstick, I might pay attention to them more.
marasu66 9 months ago
@marasu66 no ive never argued with a woman,im the alpha male what i say is the final word.
scuzzfink 9 months ago
Enjoy that fantasy.
shackupyourstruly 9 months ago
Fantastic vid!
cartbeforehorse 10 months ago
Atheists think they know it all...
devinechin 10 months ago
@devinechin Theists often claim to "know" that God exists. Most atheists are willing to admit that they don't know how the universe began. In my experience, atheists are the least likely to act as if they know something they genuinely don't. As far as I can see, theists, in general, are the ones claiming to "know it all".
Pickle900 10 months ago
@Pickle900
I personally don't believe anyone knows anything for certain. But to argue against the existence of God and support the big bang theory I believe is hypocritical. As a theist I don't claim to know God exists, rather I like to claim I believe God exists. Much in the same way many atheists "believe" in the big bang theory. If atheists don't claim to "know" things then why is it so important to so many of them to disprove religious thought?
devinechin 10 months ago
@devinechin
There is verifiable evidence behind the Big Bang Theory. However, if someone were to disprove it tomorrow, then I doubt anyone would have 'faith' in the theory and its validity. Many theists will not give up their belief in God, despite any evidence to the contrary, and this can be seen as unhealthy, especially when it dictates the way in which they live their lives.
If you humor the notion of God not existing, it's not hard to see why belief in him would be unhealthy.
Pickle900 10 months ago
everything is just theory there is no proof that any of this singularity or even ythe big bang stuff is true. why can't mankind ever admit that we do not have all the answers ?.
remotehog1 10 months ago
@remotehog1 because people like ZJemptv have low self esteem and need to feel like they have the answers to everything in order to make themselves feel superior to others.
mokgable 10 months ago
Robot!!!!
enginiseer 10 months ago
@ZJemptv 3:48 "It's remarkable that so many people continue to use an argument that boils down to: Everything has a cause..."
*facepalm* Seems like you didn't even read the first premise of the argument?
CarlosMarti123 11 months ago
Why are you wearing your Mom's earrings?
Scousar 11 months ago
special pleading.
NefariousVirtuoso88 11 months ago
We could just skip all this and talk about time. Would you say time is infinite or finite? If time were infinite would we be able to define certain moments in time? To me time by definition must be finite. So if time has a beginning, did it start before or after the singularity? Why did the singularity occur?
blackhawk089 1 year ago
Comment removed
Icemario87 1 year ago
@blackhawk089 "So if time has a beginning, did it start before or after the singularity?"
Time is a relationship between two states of one object. (Object is a poor lingual term - technically everything in the universe, including the universe itself, is one object that changes shape -- yet, made up of an infinite number of objects; just like earth itself). If the object fails to change, time does not exist.
Time began when something changed and will end when it stops changing.
Icemario87 1 year ago
@Icemario87 you talking about entropy. but also forgot to say that time and space are linked... "space-time"
marcarmstrong88 11 months ago
@blackhawk089 Actually, time did not exist before the singularity expanded and space-time was created.
The classic view of time and space being separate and absolute have been replaced with a relative space-time model. Evidence has shown this model to be more accurate in it's predictions and is the model used for many practical applications, for example GPS navigation and astronomy.
hornetpalooza 11 months ago
Is that a tranny...?
TheFoxAcount 1 year ago
@TheFoxAcount in retard terms, yes
JustaEropeanGuy 1 year ago
@TheFoxAcount Are you a fox?
CriminalMinds89 1 year ago
I didnt watch this video till the end.. Its utterly useless...singularity...BIG BANG... Universe...then eventually after billions of years.....Life.....But for those of you who STILL think that god created everything..... theres something wrong with you ppl... Another point, PEOPLE CREATED GOD!!!!
commanderilz 1 year ago
Christians are the ones who believe that the invisible genie alien from super-space created everything out of absolutely nothing.
Ataensic 1 year ago 19
if you're that arsed then just kill yourself and find out. plato can chew my balls.
joehoughton 1 year ago
Were you born as a man?
Vanastarr 1 year ago
@Vanastarr
He has a video discussing his gender.
truthnotdogma 1 year ago
Scientists have repeatedly observed 'somethings' appearing and disappearing in what is considered nothing for some time now. Nothing isn't exactly what we think it is on a subatomic level.
This aside, if one believes things have to have a beginning they'd have to come out of nothing at some point wouldn't they? The assumption is there's always something or a god which is something. But if all means everything and there is a beginning there'd have to be a time before it where there was nothing
scotty 1 year ago
God is an uncaused cause.
ISullyHDI 1 year ago
@ISullyHDI "God is an uncaused cause"
That is like saying fairies are uncaused people. it blocks requiring evidence for their existence.
Like blanking the question with a stop sign and actually suggest God is a giant fairy.
Religion caused God.
makes more sense.. cult leaders avoiding responsibility by blaming a higher authority..a control mechanism, cultural chauvinism, divide & rule BS.
Science does not disprove religion, religion does that all by itself with wilfully ignorance.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed I do not respect you're view, you are not a scientist, you do not have a valid view, shut up. God is outside of time and space. It is impossible for humans to be in existence without a necessary being. Tell me, if God did not create the earth and the universe, then why is there such intelligent design, such complexity? Your logic fails if you say that it was created by mere chance and its all to do with the 'Big Bang.' Equally, you question the logical of Aristotle and Aquinas
ISullyHDI 1 year ago
@ISullyHDI
Your not being able to comprehend ideas from physics and biology does not make them false.
You should question the logic of Aristotle and Aquainas, or do you believe that different masses accelerate differently under gravity. or do evil spirits cause disease.
Why don't you try Spinoza, Wittgenstein, even new scientist on-line for new ideas.
It is sad your religion is nuts and man made historical stuff.. sorry about that. but grow up and join reality.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed The fact is, YOU are questioning the logic of Aristotle and Aquinas and you are in no position to do so. It is sad that you are only saying that my religion is nuts when you don't even know that I am religious. The funny thing is, I am in reality and you have no point. Clearly, you are a feeble little boy whom sits at home preaching about the fact that religion is mad. Get a life.
ISullyHDI 1 year ago
@ISullyHDI "you don't even know that I am religious. The funny thing is, I am in reality.
Classic..
The most fundamentalist religious position around that even Catholics, most Muslims and regular Protestants regard as corrupt anti-intellectual USA conservatives hacks and frauds.
And you are surprised?
Sheer Abuse, look at you, are you too embarrassed to admit you wasted your life?
It is like beaten wife syndrome.
I makes me feel really sad for people like you & angry at your cult.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed Funny thing is, I guarantee I have a better quality life than you. You live in a fantasy world where you believe yourself to be intellectual, when really you are just a pretentious rat that lives in a slum :) Am I embarrassed to admit that I have wasted my life? The thing is I am 17 and hopefully off to University at the end of the year. You however have nothing to live for. I suggest you read Richard Dawkins the God Delusion before you talk to me.
ISullyHDI 1 year ago
Comment removed
marsCubed 1 year ago
@ISullyHDI I have read the God Delusion, good book.. If you are recommending it to me then I have probably misunderstood you completely.
Do consider that concepts of God unity of substance, set of sets, perfection from infinite states in infinite time, least action as supreme elegance etc., are not religious arguments, but pertain to the logical God of Spinoza.. God as Nature. AKA enlightenment deism, barely an aesthetic between it and atheism. Honesty, including saying we don't know.
Enjoy Uni.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@me
And investigation.
-
Speculation, traditions, faith in, and adoration of Jupiter, did not tell us as much as Galileo's telescope did in a single evening, he discovered it had moons for instance.
It is the same problem religions faces today.
It is no longer able to control people by limiting their access to other ideas and information.
It is religion's own fault, it is caught out for pushing ridiculous, often iniquitous & bigoted junk on people, at the very least it's dull & shallow.
marsCubed 1 year ago
brilliant. It's logical. That argument is crap but you said it very well at the end. They can't even understand why.
Religion really does damage the mind.
sadrequiem 1 year ago
Great video!
MrUsername5678888 1 year ago
You have named my big problem with theists: the Big Bang had to have a cause, which must be god, but god doesn't need a cause, because god is "eternal" or "outside of time" (in which case, how does god interact with things within time?). And it is a waste of time arguing, they really do not see the problem -- like trying to describe the color blue to someone who has been blind from birth.
StarTrekLivz 1 year ago
the whole point is that god is eternal. The chain of causes has to break at some point. And that breaking point is (i think) an eternal god. There has to be a first mover, otherwise there would be only causes, and nothing happening.
This is just what i think so don't flame me for being (slightly) religious :)
StimPackMarauder 1 year ago
i like how you read what you are going to say ;)
stay classy
Dug1423 1 year ago
To start, Christianity doesn't make sense. However, science is ALL theory and therefore cannot be entirely correct. One can say it's closer to the truth but without knowing the correct answer from the beginning that statement cannot be used. The theory of relativity isn't the only answer, as proven by a gravitational singularity. The idea of a singularity is to indicate that said equation doesn't make sense.
Either way, science cannot disprove God, nor vice versa.
snowzknight 1 year ago
@snowzknight "Either way, science cannot disprove God, nor vice versa."
No, but we have a hypothesis that states that the more complex a system, the higher the probability that it's created by accident. (backed up by observation)
A fruit fly is already a extremely complex system... the entire universe is so ridiculously complex that ridiculous isn't even a big enough word to describe just how ridiculous it is.
Therefor we estimate that the probability that there is a God is approximately zero.
noxure 1 year ago
@noxure
Again, that's simply a theory. There is no law stating that complexity is an indication of purpose, it's simply a structure to build on. The thing that strikes me as odd is that science is all theories and nearly every preposition are considered viable until proven wrong, yet science has yet to actually disprove god, stated in "Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking" and the idea of such is only thrown around by militants with an unfounded distrust in religion.
snowzknight 1 year ago
@snowzknight Nice to see that you're quoting Stephen Hawking. In his latest book he wrote that "there is no need to invoke God to get the universe going". That's exactly the point.
Every valued scientific theory to date is there for a reason. There is no reason to disproof the existence of God, because of all the unexplained phenomena "God did it" is always the least likely explanation, even less likely than "yo mama" and "aliens".
noxure 1 year ago
@noxure
As opposed to theories that change every 50 years? There is no possible way to say that science has any merit over God because there is no real answer. Again, science's purpose isn't to disprove God.
If anything, science is proving God exist with the creation of the Universe. The Big Bang theory is flaw in one simple way "It started out as a singularity."
snowzknight 1 year ago
@noxure
I invite you to look it up, because a singularity is a moment in an equation that no answer can be obtained and that is how singularities are created so with that in mind, if science believes the Big Bang is the answer, which is may very well be and is as much likely as God at this point, than why is it science can't figure out what it is? Why is it they're happy to believe that all that we know of existences comes from something that we can't explain?
snowzknight 1 year ago
@noxure
Sure we have ideas of what the Big Bang came from, but everything in a nutshell proves that we don't, and with the current theory of relativity that we use as the base argument for everything that happens, we never will unless we rewrite the laws of nature.
So don't get me wrong, I'm not out to belittle your beliefs and I'm not saying I don't put any merit in science, in fact I'm saying simply that God and Science have more in common that one would think.
snowzknight 1 year ago
@snowzknight So, you went through all this trouble writing absolutely nothing that I didn't know already and then tell me you're not here to belittle my beliefs. Your conclusion also pretty ridiculous.
A chicken, democracy, rain and the number three also have more in common than you think... All I'm saying is: stop being an idiot and move along.
noxure 1 year ago
@noxure
Sorry for not being able to read your mind. Whats funny is you expected me to yet science clearly states you can't, nice contradiction. As for my conclusion, what was so ridiculous about it? Instead of throwing around baseless statements why not actually use some of that imaginary knowledge you obtained in your 29 pathetic years of Star Trek marathons and tell me how exactly it works.
You're entire argument is a counter, with no points. That's the opposite of intelligence.
snowzknight 1 year ago
@noxure
So, whats your reply? You're obviously some militant who can't accept the possibility of anything outside of your realm of ignorance and you clearly have something you want to get out, so what is it?
See, your problem is that you took a concept (science) which was supposed to be theories, not the exact truth, and you believe that it is the answer meanwhile all of those scientist and theorist who's every word you hang off of are trying to get you to believe the opposite!
snowzknight 1 year ago
@noxure
They don't want you to think they're right, they want you to take what they learned and expand upon it. They know they're not right but your whole argument is "they're closer to the truth." but it makes one wonder, if we don't know what the truth is, how can you believe that?
You're nothing more than some petty guy is his late 20s who has no prospects or options in life so you desperately cling to a false reality where you're an intellectual. Grow up and take your anti depressants.
snowzknight 1 year ago
@snowzknight That's a lot of groundless assumptions about me, yet you claim you cannot read my mind. I know for one thing that angriness cause the IQ to drop significantly.
Do you even know what science is, btw? Science is all organized reliable knowledge and rational predictions based on that knowledge. It's not a concept. God is completely out of our knowledge sphere and cannot be predicted, so it has nothing to do with science.
That's not militant, it's being consistent.
noxure 1 year ago
@noxure
Again, look up 'singularities' and then 'Ctrl-F' the word on as many theories you can find on wiki or whatever sources you use and then get back to be on that 'reliable knowledge.' Science and Religion are not the same thing, but if you believe that God has no place in science, you're an idiot.
Also, you use the word 'our' as if I don't acknowledge science, but unlike you I'm not arrogant enough to believe science can't be wrong, nor that religion can't.
snowzknight 1 year ago
@noxure
In regards to your assumption that my anger has anything to do with my previous assumptions on your mental and physical status, I simply said it to put how you're appearing to me in context so you can see how you're being viewed. Maybe it'll provide some insight into how you appear to others, though I doubt it because if what I believe to know about you so far is true you're too egocentric to allow yourself to be viewed by others.
snowzknight 1 year ago
@snowzknight Again with the insults, tss...
So what about singularities? It's just a point in an equation. "lim(x->0) 1/x = infinity"
This doesn't happen in nature, only in physical models. What you're talking about hinges to quantum-loop physics and stuff like string theory.
I don't understand that because I'm only into computer science, mostly intelligent architectures. But that doesn't mean I have to invoke God to satisfy a need for pseudo-understanding.
noxure 1 year ago
@noxure
You're right, you'd rather believe nothing than the idea of God. That's called letting personal bias get in the way of being somewhat rational. I don't know what your story is but I can't say I care either.
snowzknight 1 year ago
@snowzknight Then why did you start this discussion in the first place? :p
noxure 1 year ago
Everything has a cause is a law. Conservation of Energy. Very obvious on that one. When it comes down to it, something had to cause the big bang to happen. It could be a cyclical event where the universe expands and collapses. But it cannot explain the amount of total energy in the universe.
SMFApples 1 year ago
@SMFApples
Causation is dependent on linear, uni-directional temporal systems, which would not have existed until after the expansion the singularity. Demanding that the big bang have a cause is to demand that the origins of time behave like an event within time. Causation applies to entities within the universe, not to universe itself.
butchkitties 1 year ago
@butchkitties Please don't try your hardest to sound smarter than you actually are. "Linear, uni-directional temporal systems": just say time. I know time was created when the big bang happened. You are saying that causation can only be applied to things inside the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. Isn't that exactly the same thing God-believers are doing? Applying an idea to some things but not everything and accepting it as truth. Causation can happen without time.
SMFApples 1 year ago
@SMFApples Thanks for starting with a personal insult. I wasn't trying to sound smart. I was being specific.
"You are saying that causation can only be applied to things inside the universe, but not to the universe as a whole. Isn't that exactly the same thing God-believers are doing?" - Didn't you just argue that God was necessary because everything has a cause? Way to flip-flop to preserve your conclusion.
Causation cannot happen without time.
butchkitties 1 year ago