Video

WOW!!!

all i heard is "we don't know" where is the debunking? i don't find any answer.

It amazes me that most people want to think the universe is "all there is". That's close to what early man thought about the Earth -- the only place for mankind. They were wrong.

Thank you. Here are my thoughts in the context of CIG Theory: adjective 1.of, from, or characteristic of India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh." Priyanka is a true desi girl at heart 2.unadulterated or pure. "desi ghee" noun * a person of South Asian birth or descent who lives abroad. " the crowd was fantastic, full of desis, we felt like we were playing in India OR Could your DESI data confirm that the stellar entities that are releasing the most ENERGY are also the entities that have the greatest RED SHIFT? Normalized one to the other to an even spatial background field (i.e. isolated and corrected to remove RED SHIFT expansions from other foreground and background "OTHER RED SHIFTS", such that one is only seeing the Red Shift of that specific stellar entity alone. And that the isolated RED SHIFT correlates to the greatest energy release (released from the entity into Space, not contained and not released) (actually not into Space but a creation of Matter to Space) is proportional to the greatest expansion. And this correlates to an expansion (creation of Space from Matter) ENERGY to SPACE based on ENERGY. And does this align in any way with the CUPI as calculated in the book "I Have Become Space" ? In other words, please use your data to confirm CIG Theory. It's right there. CIG Theory is the fundamental explanation for the data you are seeing. Please investigate. In CIG Theory, E=MC2 interprets "E" as new Volumes (SPACE ITSELF). Thank you kindly.Excellent -thank you so so much. Maybe, and a theoretical maybe at that , with of curse CIG Theory in mind, and to further vindicate Halton Arp, and with the Cosmological Non-constant in mind, and to offer that Albert E. has gotten a final word over Neil's B., the following could be considered: According to CIG Theory, the most Dark Energy will be created at a time when the most Energy (light motion of matter) is being released, actually the creation of Space from Matter (not Space from Space as is the current discussions among Cosmologists). So, a slowing over time of Dark Energy will be evident when that light in the Universe has already become Space and as such there is little light leftover to become more Space. This will be gradual. I am trying to explain in the context of CIG Theory why you are seeing the slowing promulgation of Dark Energy over time, since there is less light Matter to turn into Dark Energy (Space). In the EMS the Dark Energy wavelength will be very very long, shorter for Dark Matter, still shorter for Visible Light, and shortest for Black Holes, the full curvature of Spacetime. Please look at CIG Theory in the context of DESI Data findings of a weaker Dark Energy , of Mariangela Lisanti's Dark Matter waves, of Halton Arp's Red Shift Anomalies, of the Measurement Problem, and of the Vacuum Catastrophe. So, the greatest expansion (Hubble Non-Constant) will take place when there exists the most light in the Universe and when there is no light left, the expansion of Space will stop. The Hubble Tension can be explained away as in the early Universe there existed a propensity for less light to escape and become the long long longest wavelength Dark Energy. Then at a later time, the light was much more pronounced, and the fast moving matter unfolded to become the Dark Energy. that Energy is weakening as the light fades. A comment I left on my CZcams website: The intent herein is to provide a new definition of space consistent with the CIG Theory, which has already offered a new definition of Matter. That new definition of Matter is: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: Space is that three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form, Space is unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment. So, within the MTS equation we have all wavelengths, from the shortest (Black Hole) to the longest (Dark Energy). Dark Matter then is a wavelength not as long as Dark Energy. But CIG Theory still needs a more direct link to the reality of the electromagnetic spectrum in the context that the spectrum proceeds at "c". Are we sure it always proceeds at "c"? Maxwell made this link yes, but in CIG, the "c" portion of the spectrum is reserved for Dark Energy, while the lesser rates = more solid forms of matter. Quantum Gravity appears resolved in CIG. But this aspect of melting CIG into the spectrum because of the consistency of the spectrum to travel at "c" confuses me. Any help would be appreciated. CIG resolves so many quantum and cosmological conundrums. We know it is correct. While inherent to CIG is the link between Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the direct reference to Dark Matter waves was absorbed from Dr. Lisanti's Simon Foundation video on Dark Matter. She is amazing. The offering then is that we extend the wavelength to Dark Energy which is much much longer than even Dark Matter. The MTS equation links Black Holes to Dark Energy. As stated above though, that issue of "c" as applied to the spectrum bothers me. HELP! The intent herein is to provide a new definition of space consistent with the CIG Theory, which has already offered a new definition of Matter. That new definition of Matter is: That which has mass, consists of the curvature of space-time and has an element of motion. While the current definition of space in its simplest form customarily is: "a boundless three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction" . As can be seen, since we have redefined Matter in the context of the curvature of space-time, we must also redefine "Space" as well, herein and as best I can, as follows: Space is that three dimensional extent in which objects and their events occur, wherein those objects of Matter are they themselves curved space-time, wherein the aforementioned space consists of and emerges via the unfolding of that Matter into various volumes and densities of Space by way of opportunistic rates of motion of Matter. In it's simpler form, Space is unfolded Matter, emergent from rates of motion. That's it and if I come up with a better definition or if someone else would like a try in the context of CIG Theory, please have a go at it. In this manner, a particle can become spatial and go through both slits in the double slit experiment. The Red Shift Cosmological data already confirms CIG Theory. The Double Slit experiments already confirms CIG Theory. A boiling pot of water and the Ideal Gas Law confirms CIG Theory. CIG Theory confirms CIG Theory.

Well done. Very convincing but seriously flawed. The generic statement "fish feel pain' is meaningless.

Debate him then. Craig is always willing to defend his stance always. Defend what they/atheist believe if they're certain.

String cosmology without vafa?

What’s wrong with this “random” example? czcams.com/video/cj3W8L6dM_Q/video.htmlsi=YkJO9O2VPdb2cynL

My guess is we are just supposed to assume the philosophy professor doesn’t exist.

I can't see why you introduce Cantor's theory to refute the kalam. Denumbrable infinite (aleph0) is largely enough for that. And paradoxes like the Hilbert's hotel can there be explained more precisely using the notion of one-to-one correspondance, aka bijection : an infinite set is defined as a set that can be made into a bijection with one of its proper parts, for instance the set of integers with the set of even integers... Interesting video anyway.

phil please come back to speakers corner and school these creationists on evolution

No one informed disputes that the universe is fine tuned. The question is if it's intentional.

If you have an infinite number of Joe Schmid clones incrementally ready to debunk William Lane Craig, will Craig never be debunked?

So cool!!! Thanks for these awesome updates and findings!

On what day did God create primordial black holes ??

my guess is he won't be finding anything

Great interview. I wish you asked as a last question how confident/hopeful he’s of getting some results: 80%, 50%, 20%, only 1% but it’s still worth a shot 😁.

I thought for a moment at about 30:00 that you were going to get into my biggest objection to DCT, when you asked how we would know what God commands. As far as I can see, we can’t. Ever. Even in an idealised scenario where we have clear and direct instructions from a god, they’re useless to us. Let’s imagine two hypothetical gods. They’re exact opposites. Anything that one of them decides is good, the other decides is evil. God A, like many claimed gods, commands its followers to not kill, not steal, tell the truth, and not have butt sex. God B, being its opposite, commands its followers to not kill, not steal, tell the truth, and not have butt sex. Wait, what went wrong? Why are two opposite gods giving the same commands? Well, since one of the gods is opposed to murder, theft, lying and butt sex, the other one mandates them. Which one? Nobody knows, and nobody can know. It will lie to us, and by definition, it will be right to do so.

Excellent talk. 🙂

Ya, ya, ya, when do we get more Monica?

10/10 would recommend to friends. 👫👭

“Micro Wormhole X-Treme”😎

Hawking radiation is a hypothesis, never proven and always a "hack" of known physics (because there's no GUT yet and that would be needed to actually deal with BH physics). I'm all for dismissing that hypothesis for the sake of getting real in terms of black holes (and dark matter by extension).

Hi Phil! Thanks for the upload

29:00 or so. Hey Phil the CMBR was _hypothesized_ in 1948 by Gamow, Alpher, & Herman. It wasn’t “discovered” or “confirmed” until Penzias & Wilson in ‘65. Significant distinction. EDIT 1948, not 1940. my mistake.

15:18 Vastly-lower-than necessary entropy objection presupposes the _primary_ purpose of the low entropy at the beginning of the universe was for the creation of sentient beings. From where are you deriving the assumption that God created the entropy at the beginning just for us? I don’t know of a single Christian apologist or cosmologist or astrophysicist (and I know and have widely read & interviewed several) who advocate that the low entropy was designed explicitly and exclusively for sentient life. To my knowledge _no_ thoughtful Christian familiar with the FTA has ever claimed that.

If the multiverse is real then one of two things is possible: 1. Universes all have different values of constants 2. Universes all have the same values of constants

God really like phenomenon P. 99% of all universes have P, so God is happy. Unfortunately it so happens that life exists in the 1% of universes that do not have P. So God doesn't care about life at all. He cares about P

I wish I could think half as quickly as Joe can talk. Great episode, looking forward to more!

I was thinking about taking the grim reaper paradox and applying it to future. Let's say there is a god at 11 30, another at 11 45, another at 11 45 + 7.5 mins etc. All the gods will either kill you if you are alive or resurrect you if you are dead. At 11 am you are alive. So at 12 01 will you be dead or alive?

Skydivephil!! You respond to everybody please say hi to me. I been a long time fan

Excellent discussion, thanks. I'm having quite a hard time accepting that any reaper though - let alone the supposed first - can successfully kill Fred, when swinging a scythe takes quite a long time:-)

Disclaimer: This is just my semi-related rambling... For the spatially arranged reapers, imagine the walls already being there. Asking which wall prevents you from going forward is essentially asking which point you traverse first when entering an open interval. The answer being "none of them, there isn't a first one" just means that our intuition that there must be a first one is wrong. "If you're entering an open interval, there has to be a point you're entering first" is the implicit assumption, but the math shows that that isn't true. In the same way, you're blocked from moving forward, but not by any single first reaper, that's just how infinity is: weird. But the apparent contradiction is not an actual one, you just need to accept that your intuition doesn't and can't apply to things dealing with infinity.

47:51 Why can't the "mysterious force" just be that nothing is perfect?

Existential inertia episode? Gimme Dat.

The reason the question of which reaper raised the wall is ridiculous is because you personified a mathematical construct. The math may very well correspond to something real, but it won't be persons.

Theists generally seem to have a poor understanding of causality, presumably based on that crap kalam argument. The problem is that the kalam asserts without reason that everything that comes into existence has "A" cause - that is, only one cause. This is blatantly false. I'd say that in general, things that come into existence have at least one cause. This is what we observe throughout our universe. There can be any number of causes necessary for an event to take place. Here's a more concrete example: Suppose you have a simple electrical curcuit: there's a battery for power, a light bulb, and 100 switches connected in series, one after the other. At the start, all switches are in the off position. Flip the first switch. The light bulb remains unlit. Now flip the second switch, same result. Keep flipping until the 99th. The bulb is still off. Now flip the 100th switch. Now all switches are in the on position and so electricity flows. This causes the light bulb to light up, and emit photons. What was the singular cause of those photons coming into being? There was no singular cause. Instead there were 100 independent causal events required. Theists also seem to misunderstand the notion of "first cause". A first cause is "that which has no causal precedent". That says absolutely nothing about how many independent first causes there can be. The common visual metaphor is a line of dominos, with the first in a chain being the "first cause". In this model, that first domino obviously has no prior domino, and so something external to the system is required to make it topple. But here's the problem: Here's a second line of dominos. With its own first domino. And here's a third line. And a fourth. And so on. Thus, there can be arbitrarily many independent causal chains, each with their own first cause. Now consider a large domino with two independent chains leading into it. The first chain topples in sequence, leading up to the large domino, but the large domino remains untoppled. Then the second chain topples, and it's only after the combined weight of the first chain AND the second chain, that the large domino topples, and continues onwards. A single causal chain is INSUFFICIENT. And who says that these multiple causal chains of dominos have to be toppled by just one entity? I knock over a line, and you knock over a different line. This system has TWO PRIME MOVERS. Thus the kalam fails to establish monotheism, as there is no reason to suppose a single causal prime being for all causal chains.

Given the Patchwork principle, we could say ; * If it is possible that Joe sits on a chair and is comfortable, and also, Alex sits on a chair and comfortable, * we could have a possible world where Joe sits on a chair which is positioned on top of Alex, who's also sitting on a chair, and both are comfortable . It seems to me that given the Patchwork principle, this would be absurd because, Alex could not be said to be SITTING and COMFORTABLE, while haven Joe sit on a Chair that is positioned on top of him.

These aren't actually paradoxes. They all have logical answers.

This was very interesting. I'm just a layperson, but this discussion was easy to understand, and I was very happy to hear a discussion of falsifiability. Karl Popper was a major influence on me in my philosophy of science class (as well as Thomas Kuhn). I'm glad I came across your channel.

Hugely appreciate all 3 of you of course, but Alex in particular is always a pleasure to listen to 👍

I'm probably just missing something obvious, but could someone tell me what the "pair" of claims is, in the specific case of Kalam-style arguments? I understand the UPD says we can't accept both conjuncts, but I'm not sure what the conjuncts are in this case. "Infinite past causes" seems to be one of them, but what's the other one?

Why would an all powerful god need to fine tune at all? Couldn't it create the universe to contain life, regardless of the constants in play? Fine tuning implies a lack of omnipotence.

I just stay away from the Kalam. It doesn't make 'ordinary' sense to discuss this with the vast majority of people. Waste of time. I simply make the point that if your god can be of a "always" existence and out of time and space, so can a paradigm without a god. I then move onto more substantial, tangible discussions.

I like using the rebuff: If we suppose there is an angel that starts counting for as long as God exists (1, 2, 3...), because there are no actual infinities, at some point God must stop existing.

These philosophy heavy conversations give me life. Also I appreciate that this episode has a perfect balance of facial hair vs none

Unfalsifiables merit zero belief because they lack any objective criteria by which to rank their plausibility. Without a way to objectively assess their truth, assigning them any level of belief becomes arbitrary and unjustified. Moreover, unfalsifiables are rendered void by the potential for infinite contradiction. For any unfalsifiable claim, one can always conceive an equally unfalsifiable but contradictory claim. This endless possibility of contradictions further undermines their credibility, as it shows that unfalsifiables cannot provide a stable foundation for belief. Therefore, to maintain logical consistency and avoid arbitrary or contradictory beliefs, unfalsifiables deserve no credence.

I don’t have enough faith to be a bigot.

The FINE TUNING ARGUMENT in 2024 CANNOT BE REFUTED--Unless you can prove the Laws of Physics have changed? YOUR VIDEO is nonsense. Lets take just the constants of Physics as an example. To my knowledge, the constants of Physics have not changed in the last several years (maybe a tweek on one or two). But one fact, YES FACT, to keep in mind is, "THEY SAY" and I don't really care, that their are 26 OR So constants that define OUR Universe--AGAIN I DON'T CARE and these are NOT MY NUMBERS. They belong on your side not mine. Now I have several video clips about these constants, BY THE PHYSICISTS themselves so I can back up what I say. Physicist Leonard Susskind says that just the cosmological constant is finely tuned to 1 part in 10 to the 120th power, and it cannot be attributed to CHANCE in THIS UNIVERSE. QUOTE: "no one thinks that's accidental....that is not a reasonable idea....its a stretch....that's too much". His rescue device is the MULTIVERSE. The Multiverse FAILS 1) It is not science in 2024, in fact, the Multiverse is THE BLIND FAITH BELIEF, BY THE ATHEIST, HIS SCIENTISM if you will. He hopes, he has Faith (without evidence I might add.) 2) Allen Guth "we may know in 100 years if the Multiverse is real" 3) To get One, that's right just ONE universe like ours (in a Multiverse) would require 10 to the 500 other universes 4) Nobel laureate Gerard Hoft--based on the improbability of this UNIVERSE, SEE 3 ABOVE, there is only one universe. 5) AND even if their is a Multiverse--the Multiverse creating Machine itself WOULD HAVE TO BE EVEN MORE FINELY TUNED. 6) Sir Fred Hoyle--any probability greater than 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power is a Miracle--AGAIN I DON'T CARE 7) Just the cosmological constant kills your video. BUT, LET ME REPEAT this is the biggest BUT 8) YOU HAVE TO EXPONENTIALLY COMBINE ALL 26 CONSTANTS--AT THE SAME TIME. YOU CANNOT JUST RELY ON "explaining" just one away. And the value is way BEYOND THE REALM OF CHANCE IN ONLY 10 to the 18 seconds (13.75 billion years).

My college admission number is 45678. We see many patterns of this type. These things don't imply the existence of an improbable and absurd god who can do anything. People have difficulty in believing in abiogensis but are comfortable believing in an absurd god who can solve 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 partial differential equations in zero seconds. People can understand from what I wrote that the chances of existence of such an absurd god is zero. If people want something which gives emotional support they can practice. Buddhism also makes outlandish claims but they are no way close to the claim of abrahamic god.