Video

Thanks. I wish you well on your exploration. Do keep sceptical, though. A sceptical mystic, if you like. Yes, my old PK investigations are currently unlisted. Although chapters 25 to 28 of "I, Universe" are all about those experiments. Have a listen! 🙂

This is a whole other topic, but I don't see nature as separate from God. My view of God is pantheistic. So I can kind of agree with what you're suggesting here. But I don't think nature is restricted to space-time, because we have to overcome the problem of explaining order within space-time. Without that, there's no reason for there to be anything other than absolute entropy, undisturbed thermodynamic equilibrium for all time.

That's fair. My definition should have been more precise.

What you're calling mere "belief" is a theory guided by well reasoned argument.

"By the way, we don't know that our universe is a closed system. And, if any sort of god exists and is interacting with our universe, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't necessarily apply anymore." Loosely speaking, you're making my very point. The universe is treated as if it's a gigantic closed system, because no external explanation (like God) is permitted. And so, the low-entropy beginning becomes a problem. And remember, all I mean by "God" is a higher-dimensional mystery transcending cause and effect.

I explained in the video why I don't accept the "We don't know" view. We do know that cause and effect takes us to an infinite regress where the past is always necessarily more ordered than the future. Some form of the God hypothesis is entirely reasonable when faced with that. It is not an unwarranted leap, but is the only solution, given what we know about how causality works. Your final statement is a straw man. What I'm referring to as God could simply be called hyper-spacetime, as stated in the video. It has no qualities that I can understand or prove, other than a higher dimensionality that takes it outside of space-time. I never use the word supernatural, because I'm not talking about miracles and things that break the laws of physics. Even Einstein entertained this view of God.

@@darrylsloan Thanks for your replies. It seems that our positions are, in reality, quite aligned. As I pointed out, we're still studying and learning about or universe (or Nature in general). In a different comment, I noted that Nature may already have all of the properties or qualities that are required to explain the universe as we observe it now, but we haven't yet discovered yet what are those characteristics. If I understand you correctly, it seems that you're just calling these unknown/undiscovered qualities "god". I think we both agree that the origins of our universe are not explained by our current understandings of science. My conclusion is then to say "I don't know what are the origins of our universe", which does not imply that I don't believe that there are logical reasons for its existence, just that we don't know what those reasons are. Whereas you posit that there is a "hyper-spacetime" god that somehow brought about our universe, but not needing supernatural powers to do so. Your god may be what I'm calling Nature itself. I hope I summarized your position correctly. Consider this quote: "Language serves not only to express thought but to make possible thoughts that could not exist without it" - Bertrand Russell. Imagine that we have a time-machine and you've been tasked to go back to ancient Greece to explain to them everything we know about thunder and lighting. Prior to leaving, you fully learn the ancient Grecian language. Even still, you'd have a hell of time trying to explain thunder and lightning. As an example, you'd need to explain that the light in lightning is coming from outer shell electrons of the gas molecules in the air as they return to their ground-states. In this process, they release photons as a way to reduce their energies such that they can be stable in those ground-states. Think of how many words and concepts that the ancient Greeks never heard of. What is a molecule? Or an electron? Or a photon? Or a ground-state? Why do energies exchange in discrete packets? And so on. My point being that the ancient Greeks could not have even conceived of our more comprehensive understanding because they didn't have sufficient language to express those thoughts. It shouldn't come as any surprise that the Greeks appealed to Zeus to explain thunder and lightning. Realize that the sciences are languages. Perhaps 2 thousand years in our future a civilization will speculate that if had they had a time-machine and learned our ancient english language, then they could go back and teach us the true origins of our universe. But, likely, they too would realize that learning english wouldn't be enough. They would need to teach us all kinds of new words, concepts, and science in order to get us to the point where we could even conceive of the correct solution. Or, as B. Russell put it, to make those thoughts possible. So it doesn't surprise me that you replied in a different comment by saying "...all I mean by `God' is a higher-dimensional mystery transcending cause and effect". Are you not admitting that, if your god is a "mystery", and that it is still unclear as to exactly how this god actually made possible our universe, then you too don't fully know what are the origins of our universe? And, by Occam's Razor, since this god of yours is not actually providing us with any new information (including itself) upon which we can test, verify, and/or learn more, then we can (ought to) remove this god, and just say that there is very likely much more to our universe's origins that we do not yet know or understand (and possibly cannot even conceive of yet). As I said in the original comment, are you not just replacing one mystery (universe origins) with another mystery (god)? (Sorry for how long this response was.)

​@@jacobgrosek Now that's what I call a comment! I'll attempt to articulate the chain of logic behind my position a little better... You said, "Nature may already have all of the properties or qualities that are required to explain the universe as we observe it now, but we haven't yet discovered yet what are those characteristics." Any qualities that are comprehendible within spacetime will form part of the order and complexity of spacetime. They will not be an answer to anything because they will require explanation - as all appearances of order within spacetime do. Again, this is why logic drives me to the necessity of hyper-spacetime. That is the only way to get out of an infinite regress of cause and effect, where only order may produce order. Your example of how the Greeks relied on gods to explain things that would only be explainable naturalistically in the future is good, but not applicable here. Firstly, I am not putting an anthrpomorphic deity forward as an explanation. I called it hyper-spacetime for good reason. I have directly asked myself, "What must the explanation for the presence of a stable universe consist of?" Answer: "(1) It must explain the low-entropy beginning, and (2) it must overcome the problem of an infinite regress of orderly causes." Now, you could perhaps speculate that we will someday explain how genuine order can emerge from absolute chaos. But we already possess the clear understanding, from observation, that it does not. Hoping for an overturning of that seems, to me, futile. So, using what we understand, I posit that the existence of hyper-spacetime is the correct solution. You can view that as an extension of Nature, but it is an extension that cannot be probed and understood because it is the "domain" of formlessness and timelessness that transcends spacetime. It is better to say that hyper-spacetime is the absolute reality that gave rise to spacetime as a subset of itself. In using God to explain the universe, the ancient world has had esoteric traditions, where the idea of God is much more mature than what common people understood. Advaita Vedanta, within Hinduism, is a prime example, where the supreme reality is called Brahman, which means "he from whom all words flee". (A couple of commenters mentioned Brahman.) Even in Judaism, when the name of God is revealed as "I AM", this may well be a reference to eternal being outside of time, distinguished from all things which exist in a state of becoming. Anyway, that's just an aside, to make you aware that not all ancient thinkers were merely jumping to unwarranted conclusions when they couldn't see how things worked. On to Occam's Razor. Here's how I would apply it, pitting two theories against each other. Theory #1: Sometime in the future there will be an explanation for how order can come from chaos. We are relying on the assumption that our current observations about order and chaos are wrong, and that a solution will spring from some as-yet-unknown area of scientific enquiry. Theory #2: There is hyper-spacetime, something that we cannot ever prove with direct evidence because it transcends space-time. This theory makes the assumption that the assumptions in theory #1 are incorrect, and that "naturalism" is not the absolute basis of reality. Theory #2 wins for me because theory #1 holds out a tenuous hope that is in direct conflict with what we already observe about the universe. As I stated in the video, "The data is in." In my experience, the denial of "naturalism" is the real hard sell for atheists. Many of them have little or no awareness that they have adopted a philosophical position, when they insist that all ideas about reality must conform to naturalism. This is why God is a taboo hypothesis while multiple universes are not (even though in both cases physical evidence cannot be obtained). You may say that naturalism is all we've got, and that's true as far as the reach of science is concerned. But the limits of scientific enquiry are not necessarily the limits of reality itself. And philosophy provides a wider scope of inquiry.

@@darrylsloan I recall from reading another response of yours that you said that your god cannot be observed nor demonstrated, but is rather a philosophical conclusion, which aligns with what you're saying in this response. However, herein lies our biggest point of contention (not that we need be opposed to one another)... in that, while you seem to be saying that your hyper-spacetime god is a rational (or the most reasonable) conclusion, I'd say that you haven't quite met that standard yet. I'll explain... When I brought up that hypothetical about teaching the Greeks about thunder & lightning, I wanted to convey the point that the best position that those Greeks could have expressed was for them to have said "I didn't know how this phenomenon works, so I should not draw any strong conclusions". With our hindsight being 20/20, we see now that science (language) did eventually bring a satisfactory natural explanation that requires no gods, anthropomorphic or otherwise. Furthermore, we cannot conceive of ideas or solutions for which our language (including science) is not comprehensive enough to express. One conclusion that, at least for me, seems obvious from all of this is we cannot confirm that we've exhausted all other natural explanations (they've been explored and don't work), so now extra-natural (or hyper-spacetime) possibilities are warranted. Likely, even if we already knew everything there is to know about nature, we wouldn't necessarily know that there wasn't more to be learned. As physicists have said, any current well-established theory can always be a limiting case to an even more grander, more encompassing, theory that we haven't found yet. I think for your argument to work (or for it to be be truly "rational"), you'd have to demonstrate that there is no possibility whatsoever for there to be a natural explanation. Now, I see in your response that you have another video ("The data is in"), which I need to go watch (maybe tomorrow evening), that may address this concern. As a final point, I'm not clinging to some hope that naturalism wins out in the end. I don't actually care whether or not any god(s) exists. Indeed, whatever the truth may be, I'd like to know it. Moreover, I completely understand that science never claimed that it could find all truths. And, more generally, there is no guarantee that we humans can ever know the truth to big questions that we may have, like "What are the origins of our universe?". I will admit though that I'd much rather have observations and demonstrations over philosophical conclusions if and when possible.

@@jacobgrosek Hello again. Oh, when I said "The data is in", that wasn't a reference to another video, but a statement I made in this video. However, I would draw your attention to chapters 13 to 15 of my audiobook, "I, Universe." They are entitled "Man the Mythmaker," "How Gods Are Made," and "The Impenetrable Mystery" (free to listen on my channel). I appreciate your articulation of science's track record of explaining phenomena that were originally attributed to gods. It's absolutely spot on, and if we were discussing some seemingly supernatural phenomenon that had been witnessed, I firmly agree that we should be looking for a naturalistic explanation. However, I think this is a special case. Here, we're not merely seeking an explantion for a phenomenon in nature. We're seeking an ultimate explanation for the totality. And, as mentioned in the video, how do you use the laws of nature to explain the laws of nature, when those laws are part of what needs to be explained? I think science's track record of success often lures people into thinking in an exclusive way, and very easily leads to a sort of hubris, an unwarranted overconfidence that the ultimate explanation for all things will lie within the natural domain, and that this explanation will be accessible to a mere creature such as man. Not saying this is you, but I would invite you to look at the words of other commenters. It's common to find a hatred of philosophy - even though they have one: materialism/naturalism. Transcendent ideas are taboo to the point of utter ridicule, because evidence is the sole criteria. I wonder what they would think of the atomist philosophers of Ancient Greece, who deduced a reasonable theory of atoms without the aid of an electron microscope? I like your statement "There is no guarantee that we humans can ever know the truth to big questions that we may have." I would go further and say there's a guarantee that we won't. The brain is limited, and it developed to aid survival, not to give us answers to ultimate questions. Just like a goldfish can't ever know about supernovas and black holes, or perform calculus, we are no doubt stuck with our own perceptive and cognitive limits. We just don't know what they are. But we can see the barriers, such as the other side of the Big Bang singularity. There's no getting there. So I'm left with impenetrable mystery; I just think the mystery is transcendent in nature. Feel free to continue this, if you like. It's the best discussion with an atheist I've ever had!

We have the fact of a highly ordered beginning. We have the fact of entropy increasing over time, which becomes problematic when you view time in reverse and are faced with order at the Big Bang that is inexplicable in any conventional sense. We have the fact that any naturalistic explanation will be bound by chains of cause and effect where only order can give rise to order. Therefore ... naturalism must be the wrong premise. This cannot be proven or verified by physical evidence, which is the sticking point for many atheists who have commented ... because they are naturalists and their thinking is guided only along that very narrow line.

Well, you've certainly improved my view of the atheist community.

@@darrylsloan Atheist community? You mean anyone with a functioning frontal lobe? Can You fathom that you can not be in a commune and still be able to function?

It's an intentionally provocative title, shorthand for what's in the the description.

"Entropy does not increase in an expanding universe." Entropy always increases in a closed system. The thing that works against it, allowing for the expansion, is the highly ordered beginning, which is an inexplicable mystery from the naturalistic perspective.

@@darrylsloan An expanding universe is not a closed system. A highly ordered beginning is inherent in starting from a near point source so you are wrong twice as it sure is compatible with naturalism. You should learn the subject before making things up about it.

@@darrylsloan Nice evasion of the fact that pyramids are not life and don't reproduce. Making up fake science won't change reality.

@@darrylsloan Your argument is very standard, we don't know everything so a god is needed because you say so. That is just nonsense. It is nice that you have accepted the reality that life evolves but I don't see any indication that you actually understand the process of evolution by natural selection. I know Dr. Behe does not.

No, you don't. You lump me in all the religious believers, when I'm nothing of the kind.

This isn't a "god of the gaps" argument. I'm not a monotheist or a religionist. A lot of atheists seem incapable of understanding that there are more sophisticated views of God than the "sky daddy". Listen carefully to the actual argument in the video.

@@darrylsloan You either a theist, or an atheist. Do you even know the meaning of the term?

Close. Pantheist.

It never ceases to amaze me how many atheists are abusive from the get-go. It's like you want the person you're "educating" to face-palm you. Happy to oblige!

@@darrylsloan So instead of an argument, you offer to hit me in the face. At least I came up front with a specific criticism. Yes. I'm mean. And you're bad at making arguments.

@@user-be1rk1tm1e hit you in the face? Facepalm means extending one’s hand upward with the palm facing outward - a gesture that means you’re not worth listening to. And you say I’m dumb.

@@darrylsloan facepalming is something you do to yourself. The way you used it was confusing, and STILL is not a suitable replacement for an argument. To answer your question, it’s still you.

@@user-be1rk1tm1e Of course! Your mistakes are all MY fault. 🤣

Death is built into the universe on every fractal level. In a droplet of water, tiny microbes are killing each other. Right up at the largest level, old stars explode as supernovas. In between, there is the predator and the prey. And the universe will end with either a Big Crunch to match the Big Bang, or a Big Freeze. That's a fair summation of death. As for "The Blind Watchmaker", you should probably read beyond a title before judging a book's worth.

@@darrylsloan Try reading the Bible. Death since the fall yes, but you are doing the atheist work for them.

Thanks. I appreciate the encouragement.

Unnecessary speculation.

Islam is a non-starter with me for the same reason as Christianity and Judaism. All monotheisms have the same problems.

Exactly. Life can sprout even in the most hospitable places, even if the universe would be wastly different, life would've evolved in a different direction. As we can see life can take any shape or form relevant to the environment it grows.

So let's hear you debunk the fine-tuning argument.

How does life emerge when the universe is subject to entropy? Magic?

@@darrylsloan "How does life emerge when the universe is subject to entropy?" What is the correlation between entropy and abiogenesis?

@@darrylsloan "So let's hear you debunk the fine-tuning argument." How about proving it first? Theists and intellectually dishonest people unable to understand that life being evolved into this universe, not the other way around! Would be time to actually study the topic instead of parroting other illiterate's ideas!

This is not a video about monotheism, polytheism, or anthropomorphic deities of any kind. You're regurgitating the usual atheist argument that cuts down the "low-hanging fruit" on the religious side. It doesn't apply to this video.

@@darrylsloan I regurgitate facts that somehow theists deny. No matter how many times it has to be repeated, some people unable to understand what is the difference between assertions/claims and evidence/proof! I will repeat this as much as I have to to warn poepole about their lies!

@@dorkception2012 By your reasoning, no one would be allowed to speculate about the existence of other universes, because we can't prove them (I'll bet you don't show them the same contempt). But people smarter than you understand the value of both deductive and inductive arguments, alongside proof.

@@darrylsloan Speculation is nothing more than making hypotheses without thorough research, previous evidence, and solid presumptions. You should look up how the scientific method works, because so far, that is the only method that leads to truth and not to wishful thinking! Bearded dchild!

@@dorkception2012 don’t worry, I see completely where you’re coming from. You’re the type who would dismiss the entire discipline of philosophy, and all its noted thinkers, as worthless bunk.