Richard Swinburne - Did the Universe Begin?
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 10. 2023
- Watch more interviews on cosmic beginnings: bit.ly/3RNIRvb
Some scientists claim that the universe did not have a beginning. Some theologians contend that the universe did not need a beginning. Yet the universe is expanding, and so run the movie in reverse and there seems to be a beginning. What stakes are riding on whether the universe had a beginning?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Richard Swinburne is an English philosopher and Fellow of the British Academy. He is currently Emeritus Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
That library looks awesome
The covers look wonderful, but they hide copies of Hustler and the Beano.
Fake books.
As an atheist, I have to say that I love Swiny. One of the best theist philosophers ever, and one of the few torch-bearers for the theistic cause.
That's why I'm a theist .
Infinity doesn't compute.
Everything that we know is based on Cause and Effect.
Brain in a Vat .
Fish in a Bowl .
The one that interests me the most is Van Inwagen. Don't have any of his books though.
@@dongshengdi773
Infinity doesn't compute? What does that mean?
@@wet-readI think maybe it means not believing what one doesn’t understand. Not sure but that’s what it sounded like. Thing is no matter what one believes there’s plenty we still don’t understand. For me it’s a Holy creator named God. It takes a lot more faith to be an atheist in my eyes
@hitogokochiso if the universe ends how would it end? A wall? Then what’s on the other side of that wall?
This is one of your best topics with Swinburne! Thanks for surfacing it after all these years.
If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It's not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it."
"So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe," Shostak added. "I don't know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider."
Filippenko stressed that such statements are not attacks on the existence of God. Saying the Big Bang - a massive expansion 13.7 billion years ago that blew space up like a gigantic balloon - could have occurred without God is a far cry from saying that God doesn't exist, he said.
"I don't think you can use science to either prove or disprove the existence of God," Filippenko said.
'Why are there laws of physics?'" he said. "And you could say, 'Well, that required a divine creator, who created these laws of physics and the spark that led from the laws of physics to these universes, maybe more than one.'"
.
The solution to the never-ending Chain or the problem of infinite regress :
The solution is Aristotle's UNmoved Mover called the Actus Purus.
Space and time do not exist.
The conversation was very enlightening. Gave me some food for thought about why the complex objects in the universe are separate.
“I do object to the notion that ‘time began’ because I don’t think you can understand the notion of the universe beginning except in therms of, first there was an empty time, then there was a Universe.”
I agree. I think for some scientists the idea of asking, “what was ‘before’ the Big Bang”? Or asking, in essence “what was the ‘cause of’ the Big Bang?”… for some scientists these questions are effectively rendered meaningless by the idea that the Big Bang marks, not an event in time, but the beginning of time itself. On their view it is meaningless to ask about _causes_ that predate what is essentially “the beginning time”. In reality though this hard stopping point creates more problems then it solves. Instead of just asking how something could come from nothing (or rather, why something and not nothing) we are now forced to ask, ‘how does time itself emerge from non-time’ (in which no causes are possible)? What’s meant to close mouths and forbid inquiry requires that time and space both begin and emerge (uncaused) from no time and no space.
Ran into a Jordan Peterson interview in which he says, “When you say the laws of physics-the beginning of space and time even are unknowable prior to the Big Bang you’re basically positing a miracle at the beginning of existence”.
Point being, the idea that it’s unscientific to ask what “began time” is a reversal-it’s unscientific to demand time began uncaused with time’s first unexplainable and uncaused instant leading smoothly into every subsequent moment,
Good your reasoning? The number line - infinity and + infinity , space is infinite no beginning or end ie. God's Spirit and time is infinite no beginning or end ie. God is infinite time and the creation was when men began to measure time with a clock.
M=E/c² is God's creation equation, not something from nothing A is B illogical impossible contradiction but how all the matter in the universe was created by Spirit energy, think of God as a nuclear reactor on steroids, God inputs 186,000² Joules of Spirit energy into the reactor and created 1 gram of matter.
Aristotle's famous formulas
A is B law of contradiction illogical impossible contradiction. No philosophy logic instructors have plugged data into formula. For example
A is non intelligence or non consciousness, non being CAUSED the illogical impossible contradiction ( is ) B your intelligence, consciousness and being
This is A is B impossible illogical contradiction
A is only intelligence, consciousness and being CAUSED the logical non-contradiction EFFECT of ( is ) your intelligent conscious being. A is A. B is B hence A isn't B law of non-contradiction.
A non life caused the illogical impossible contradiction effect of ( is ) life. It is illogical for God not to exist and logical he ABSOLUTELY OBJECTIVELY EXISTS. You can't Debunk A is B illogical impossible contradiction subjective illogical immoral unjust illegal absurd confusing logic
Excellent insight. And what if it shall be demonstrated that there was no "Big Bang", but a different sequence of events that brought matter and motion together in what we now call the Universe?
@@questor5189
Time is infinite
A is B illogical impossible contradiction
( A ) non time caused the illogical impossible contradiction effect of
B time in the universe
Hence, logically time must have existed outside of the universe. Time just wasn't measured by a man because it is eternal.
Space is infinite eternal
A non space caused the illogical impossible contradiction effect of
B space in the universe
Space goes infinitely in all directions with no beginning or end.
Time seems to be change. Without change time doesn’t seem to have any meaning.
People sometimes speak about infinity as a value that is so large(or small) that it might as well be considered as infinite. I feel the same way about space and time. As for time, mathematically and logically time cannot change states from none to something. Time is required for all changes.
We need to start to think that before and after there is just a "no-time" environment (the Now) from which all is born and where all will return
@@thesystem6246 because going back for eternity just does not make sense. Even more because we know that "time" is a very relative aspect of gravity and matter. Is not a constant, a fundamental aspect of reality. Saying that there is an eternity behind us is just an excuse to avoid the "first causation" problem, just like the multiverse is an excuse to avoid the "fine tuning" problem
@@thesystem6246 I agree my friend !! Just one little thought more... Whoever experienced a NDE (no matter if are hallucinations or whatever else) says that time does not exist, and exist only the "now", So our consciousness can grab the feeling of an ever existing now without past (and future ?). A priest who had an NDE said that here we watch time like something that advance along the side of a walking stick ...while "there" is like watching through the stick , top to bottom, every action merge into a now.
Sounds like Buddhist philosophy. In the final analysis, both might be true: a passage of time as measurable, and an ever-present "Now".
There is no chaos in absolute time Absolute time is the interval between events. There is no going backwards in absolute time. Events occur in order for the observer. This is not the case in space-time because all observers clock an event depending on their speed, which will be less than C.
In absolute time, there is absolute space (not space-time), where speed is not limited by C. In absolute time, space-time inflates at 42 and ends at 42 + x. Job done.
There is nothing I love most than a mature man speaking facts that will eventually save lives now and in the future.
Considering all the lives Christianity has taken over the years and all the people Christians have tortured over the years and all the others they continue to attack with their racism, bigotry and intolerance, Christianity would have to save a lot of lives before coming even close to making up for the damage it’s done.
What facts? And how will they save lives?
The deepest questions scientific theories ask have answers this species doesn't want to hear. We want science to reveal a reality that can be dominated and wielded by our ego's and be made to serve us. The prime reality that is waiting for you has been hiding under your nose the whole time and when our ego's as a species are ready to submit to reality then we will be worthy of making use of scientific knowledge on the other side of this paradigm of reality.
Time scales are a fundamental reality. As an extreme example: Time on the surface of a Neutron Star, "runs" at a different rate than elsewhere. Time is not a constant everywhere. What if the universe always existed but the LAWS change based upon tipping point events. What if the big bang was one such tipping point event that didn't create the universe but that ALTERED some of the laws governing our universe? Another tipping point could occur next year or in 10 billion years sidereal time. What if the next tipping point causes deflation rather than inflation? What if this cycle of deflation/inflation has been happening forever? Each cycle different than the next in it's expression of the fundamental laws we see and measure now?
The Universe demands no answer. It is a brute fact. There is a beginning of change but not of substance.
Where does new matter come from? Stars clearly turn matter into energy, but nothing does the reverse.
@@20july1944 in physics, matter and energy are equivalent according to E=mc2. They represent the substance of reality and it always existed.
@@CMVMic always existed , how is that different from saying god did it , because what just said is everything but science ?
@@20july1944We have observed energy turning into matter in highly energetic photon interactions. They produce electron/positron pairs as a result of the Breit-Wheeler process.
@@billeltot Because Substances cannot be created and minds are not substances.
Well stated Prof. Swinburne.
If we assume upon time geometric attributes( temporal) . And transpose them into spatial equivalent special configurations( which we can and must do if relativity is correct as a universal binding tenor),
Then we are able to configure possible geometric expressions of time via extrapolation( mathematically) and then arrive at the most probable configuration given the properties of the universe as experienced. ( given the appropriate capacities of human cognition and consciousness are adequately compatible to the external configurations).
I therefore propose the rotating balloon shape.
“Truly, you have a dizzying intellect”.
Order out of Chaos seems entirely plausible, and Infinite Time equally plausible, regardless of whether you're a Creationist or an Evolutionist. Thank you gentlemen for this most enlightening conversation.
Werner Heisenberg said once that the Universe isn't as strange as we can imagine but it is far stranger. In England the BBC science unit conducted an experiment using the microwave background radiation to see whether the universe is unbounded or bounded in the four dimensions. The result was indeed a cosmos unbounded in the three dimensions of space and one of time. It did not begin and has no edge they said. Then there is the concept of quantum fluctuation. This is the strange appearance of energy coming into and going out of existence everywhere where there is space. This adds to the idea of the infinity of the cosmos. However you look at it, something didn't begin.
Gravity is a strange example. In order to say that all particle obey the law of gravity, it seems you would have to accept an Einsteinian view of gravity as the curvature of space-time. But then, the motion of all objects just follows the shape of the universe. The same would be true if there was no gravity. It seems to add nothing. You might as well argue that the conservation of momentum is evidence for God.
I feel time is just a reference to the total number of cycles taken by particles here using various forms and shapes until everything collapses upon energy running out?
We measure time with distance in space even though time itself is non-dimensional and non-directional. Singular in its existence time is. Space wraps around time and seems to fall away from it indefinitely.
Are we creating the interpretation ~~
It begins now.
Magnetism in a vacuum cannot be mere coincidence; And surely negative charges oscillate with positive charges indefinitely. Where did this fundamental positive incursion originate? Something had to have set it all in motion.
Time was a manifestation of man, just because mankind has a beginning doesn’t necessarily mean our universe has one. Infinity is a mind boggling concept that is not accepted by mathematics but that also is a mankind conception not measured by infinity as a constant because it’s not measurable with our mathematical ability 😊
A string that pulls and doesn't do so arbitrarily would seem sufficient explanation for the "coincidence" without the need for anyone intentionally pulling on it. A "string" that pulled inconsistently on dancers that offered precisely the same resistance to it would seem to demand more of an explanation or more of a "decision" on whether/how hard to pull.
Notice how we use the word 'Nature' and nobody bats an eyelid, but when we say god or the creator, then all hell breaks loose. The term 'Nature' sits quite well in our minds, but do we ever ask ourselves 'What Is Nature?' or even 'What Is Energy?' Energy, something science has proven, cannot be created or destroyed, what does that make it? 'Infinite' It was here, is here, and will always be here. So what is something that is Infinite? You work it out.
Nature is observable, measurable. ‘God’ remains conceptual and unverified, different in each mind and religion.
What about other theories of the creation?
The way we think is sequential. As was said this leads to that, and then that. Simple things come together in increasing complexity to produce emergent things and phenomena. Assume a big band then it is impossible to not ask what came before or what lead to it. If chaotic space before then what came before chaotic space? The sequential questions go infinitely back and forward. What does infinity even mean from the perspective of what appears to be a very finite universe and personal existence? God is more assuring answer than nothing or a multiverse. If a multiverse the question still arises - what before? Even if nothing, then nothing must be something that can give rise to big-bangs and single or multiverses. The best we can do is to learn as much as we can about the universe, space and time within which we live now and use that knowledge to maximize our experience now and into the future.
God is only a more assuring answer to you because you ascribe to that God a whole bunch of characteristics you like. Especially the more than questionable assumption that after you die, your God has a place in waiting for you where you will live throughout eternity. It may be an assuring assumption, but it’s also one with side effects.
Ooooh Wernstrom!
What the heck is "empty time?" If nothing is happening there is no time. Time has a before and after... something happening. Time isn't static because it changes with speed and gravity. I though Swinburne's ideas were well thought out but it sounded more like rationalizations to me.
He means non-metric time (e.g. a time which cannot be divided into "minutes", "seconds", etc.).
@@legron121 : That make even less sense to me. Time is defined as a measurement between events. It is not a stage on which things happen. I have heard it called the measure of causality because it varies by the speed of an observer and gravity so it may not even be fundamental but an emergent property of causation.
There is only the current arrangement of matter and energy. The past is just memory. The future is just predictions.
We know from maths and physics that, from all we can see and theorize on that there is a certain bit of beauty in the rules and organization of things.. we do (our scientists etc..) a lot of things based on this.. we can, in so, so many ways count on this... so, as a non-scientist, I have a question.. we know that things of different polarity repel from each other.. this happens even at the smallest levels.. if we can find them.. it was can capture and contain them within a perfect sphere how long, what is the entropy on that, can it be managed, our tiny opossing polarity dudes would chase each other around and around.. how would that affect the 'sphere' holding them, affect things placed around the sphere... things that cannot influence inside the sphere yet be influenced by what it occurring inside? Electromagnetism meets quantum meets the littlest of Stardust and uses its own energy? What does quantum theory say about the ability to negate or slow entropy within the sphere... everything, from its biggest component to its smallest wants to do its thing.. we can count on that for many, many things... it is how you can build nano through electrical currents or even lasers... people don't think you can, but pretty sure any wave can be ridden...
Anyhoo... more thoughts on this, I guess, but from an outsider who's read too much and watched a bit of scientists and maths folks discuss things... I just wonder if there is any value in what a layman sees in his head.
Peace.
Please say no, please say no. It would be two important wins for Swinburne (morality)....ooh good answer by 3:30, nice one.👍
The Big Bang theory is fantastic at describing everything after that, but before it, we're a bit lost. Get this: At small enough scales, we don't even know if the word "before" even makes sense!
In search for ultimate truth. Our willingness to ask the question with an open mind is fundamental to our ability to discover the truth behind the answer.
One of the first people to think scientifically about the origin of the universe was a Catholic priest.
In addition to his religious training and work, Catholic priest, Father Georges Lemaître was a physicist who studied the general theory of relativity and worked out some of the conditions of the early cosmos in the 1920s and ’30s.
action on a subatomic scale, random fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness.
Actually such processes don’t create anything from nothingness. They are the result of fluctuations in the vacuum energy, which is the background level of quantum fields. The fields have an energy level though, which is why they can produce particles.
All well and good, but having nothing to do with the concept of a god and whether it is real beyond being a conceptual existence in some minds.
I do not know why it matters weather or not time had a beginning for there to be a god, if god exists it would exist either way. It seems a bit egotistical to think that god created a universe just for this one group of beings to exist for this very brief amount of time so that it could save us from ourselves.
As always we must ask "Who or what created God?" An infinite regress begins.
Here's a question that is relevant to this discussion. Does time exist without an observer? Or is there just an infinity of non-time in both directions where observers are absent? Is this period chaotic, or possibly completely stagnant and lacking entropy?
Interesting...what do you qualify as an observer? Does an observer have to be sentient? When a sun is born in a dust cloud 1 billion light years from any other system or galaxy with NO sentient species, as we define sentience, to observe the birth, does this event not exist? Time is only separable from the observer when one is AT the speed of light as anything at the speed of light is in the same instant it has always been and will always be in. No time passes at the speed of light...zero entropy. In all other instances, entropy exists. I think entropy is the "observer". What do you think?
Interesting points. I would say the observer must be a life form, not necessarily sentient, but at least aware of its surroundings to a level where it understands the difference between night and day, has a survival instinct, etc, like a higher mammal for example. I like your question about an event billions of light years away beyond the horizon of an observer. Now I'll give my thoughts twofold here. One, there may be another observer much closer to the event, the universe could be teeming with observers, or we could be it, we still don't know (I lean towards the former). Two, the existence of such an event is an interesting thing to ponder, because DOES it exist if nobody ever observed it? Maybe it doesn't. Or maybe it's some weird kind of Schodengers cat situation where it both exists and doesn't exist.
@@digitalfootballer9032 Of course life exists elsewhere in the cosmos. Statistically impossible we're the only ones....think about this, why does an observer need to exist? Observation doesn't change the state of non-quantum events. The solar system certainly existed before Earth developed life, no? In fact, in order for observers to exist, a whole sequence of events have to occur to create said observer. Nice to ponder such things with a fellow traveler. Cheers.
The scientific and the theological converge in chaos, dissolving them to reveal a truth beyond either.
in the beginning was the would, in the beckoning was the wyrd, in the bargaining was the word.
One must be an objective empiricist when speaking of nature, a logical rationalist when philosophical argument, and a skeptic regarding subjective matters, such as divine revelation.
Here, we get an unfortunate mix: rational space and time, not empirical spacetime. Time dilation has been empirically verified (satellite clocks), the union of space and time is a fact, not a choice of argument.
Are the episodes old or new?
Most old. The ones done online are new. And all of these new ones are excellent. Less production, but more intimate and thorough of a discussion (sometimes several hours long and broken into parts). I think it’s a great change; perfect for our times.
@@longcastle4863 where can I find the new ones?
@@Curious_Mindss I would think, go into the playlist. There the ones with two people on two different screens, not two people in one setting.
@@longcastle4863 thank you
Did the universe begin with avoid the word in.
The fact that we're stuck talking about time again is disheartening. What if there was no ONE beginning?
What if sequential time is an illusion? What if there were several songs going on at the same time. Each song at different stages of completion. What if the Universe is just one dissonant or resonant note in the caphony produced by those songs? What if the Universe is the result of the whole mismatched mess? When, in this scenario, could the beginning of the universe be located? Through which song, one or several or all?
Could time be an illusion, like mistaking one stanza of one song as determinative of time while ignoring all the rest of the songs 🎶? Then this "universe" would be an illusion. Merely the notion of certain listeners.
Existence "sustains the universe in being" with no clear evidence of a supernatural "god."😮
the universe "in being" without a "creator" could be an atom in space for eternity, a floating hydrogen cloud, a 2 km long banana, Or even more probably "nothingness".
@@francesco5581
There could have been Nothingness, but instead there was Somethingness with a mysterious inner working of its own divine nature.
Sorry to add a little more of my mustard here, but I just arrived at the segment when they discussed time, and if time is real. Well, imagine for a moment nothing at all, no space, no time, no matter, nothing, pure nothingness. IF you would now suddenly pop up in this nothingness you would have sufficient space to move, because that is what nothingness is - empty space. And if that empty space would truly be empty, distance would loose all meaning, and also time, because without matter, time would not matter. But the potential of time, and the potential of matter, in fact the potential even of you and me, existed even then, because a potential does not need anything to exist - logic tells me that it exists even in absolute nothingness. In fact, it HAS to exist, it does not have a choice. And, btw...looking at it that way, we can also realize that we are eternal beings. The POTENTIAL of you and me existed since the dawn of time, it just took half an eternity plus 13 or 26 billion years for you and me to manifest in this wonderful physical reality. So, if the universe emerged out of absolutely nothing, then time had a beginning (the potential of it always was, but it just started to matter, once matter and hence change was present). And if matter always existed, without beginning, and only transforms eternally, then time did not have a beginning and always mattered. Its as simple as that.
*There are **_three factors_** that support a universe with a beginning: (1)* the CMB, *(2)* evolutionary patterns, and *(3)* special pleading. ... The *CMB* takes the universe back to a singularity and nothing more. Just because one's "vivid imagination" can picture a previous universe doesn't mean that's what happened. Every *evolutionary pattern* we've observed demonstrates an _origin point._ And lastly, for someone to claim that the universe has no origin point requires *special pleading* (yes, the same _"special pleading"_ that's required to support the existence of God).
... If you actually believe that the universe has no beginning (infinite origin), then you'd better be prepared to address these three contraindications.
I think the idea of an eternal and infinite universe without beginning or end is just too unwieldy for those who would wish to build a philosophical system that explains everything, including our ultimate purpose. Otherwise, it would be acknowledged as just as much of a possibility as the universe having some beginning. Also biological evolution based on biological natural selection appears to have emerged out of hundreds of millions of years of nonbiological, non-life chemical natural selection. Where does one pinpoint an actual “beginning” in all that?
@@longcastle4863 *"I think the idea of an eternal and infinite universe without beginning or end is just too unwieldy for those who would wish to build a philosophical system that explains everything, including our ultimate purpose."*
... The only "unwieldy" version I can intellectually allow for is a universe with a finite beginning that can infinitely exist. It is logically possible for something to eternally exist as long as there are no barriers preventing its sustained existence. However, a universe with no origin point (infinitely existing) cannot be logically supported.
*"Also biological evolution based on biological natural selection appears to have emerged out of hundreds of millions of years of nonbiological, non-life chemical natural selection. Where does one pinpoint an actual “beginning” in all that?"*
... You can pinpoint the beginning of things by using the "emerging structure" as a new starting point.
*Example:* As you already know, I posit that the universe was the result of "nondimensional information" evolving into physical structure. The data pool for this nondimensional information started at 1 and was counted up to where it resulted in redundant data. This is the *point* where nondimensional structure moved into physical structure (the universe) which restarted the counting sequence form 1 (i.e., "singularity = 1").
Likewise, every representation of physical structure that evolved from this point of singularity was thusly added to the count until it once again produced redundancy. This is the *point* where physical structure moved into living structure (a prokaryote) and thus once again restarted the counting sequence at 1 (i.e., "prokaryote = 1").
The cells that emerged after the emergence of prokaryotes were counted up to the point of redundancy. That's the *point* where all of this cellular structure evolved into a single reference called a "self-aware human" and where the counting sequence restarted at 1.
Each new human that emerges gets added to the count until we once again reach the point of redundancy which will most likely result in yet another newly emerging structure called AI. This is the *point* where we once again restart the counting sequence at 1 (i.e., "AI = 1").
Isn't it interesting that people refer to the emergence of AI as a "singularity?"
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Does your model of a universe with a beginning also inevitably end in heat death?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I think you have too much faith in logic. It is a wonderful human invention, not a fundamental underlying component of the universe and all reality. Thus it crashes and burns when you try to go beyond what it is capable of addressing. Human logic cannot explain how either something always was or how something arrived (began) out of nothing. Here logic falls apart, it doesn’t compute. It can’t say yea or nay to either possibility. Which alone should tell you, logic is not going to get you all the way there. Your philosophy is based on the assumption that reality began but never ends. That’s is as unprovable of an assumption as anything else people have come up with around this topic.
@@20july1944 *"Does your model of a universe with a beginning also inevitably end in heat death?"*
... Sorry, but your past comments have consistently demonstrated a condescending attitude, so your name was added to my "no reply" list. I'd love to discuss the fate of the universe with you, but it's not worth the abuse I'd have to suffer just to do so.
There is no doubt there is a divine design, what is needed is how to rationalize the logic (by explaining how infinite complexity reach order).
Soooooh…. Can we force the logic to say what we want?
Ordered complexity force the logic, automatically.@@longcastle4863
@@longcastle4863 no but then you have to explain a complex and stable universe popped out from "nothingness".
What divine design? How is this design obvious? Be really specific.
@@wet-read there are many things that are hard to explain without an "intelligent act"... the starting set of the universe, each step that require laws, materials,constants, quantities, pressures and temperature to not go into a dead end, The universal constants that if just a bit different would not allow matter to form or other things, the fact that there is a consciousness inside. and many other things. You cant say "its all here by chance" , thats why usually materialists escape into the multiverse hypothesis (that explain little too... )
There are some questions that are not worth reflecting on. Because we will never know. Because we will never be sure, even if we know. Is there a god? Was there a beginning? Was there not a beginning? Our mind is limited to working with small data, every day life, not much more. Is universe infinite? Is it finite? Wats behind the finite universe. What caused big bang? What was before big bang? Why was there anithing before? Why not etc so on.
One problem is that claims of a god then justify varying moral codes (depending on the religion) which can cause suffering and oppression. As an example, the homophobia supported by the Abrahamic religions. A god underpins beliefs which then express themselves in real-world actions with consequences.
Wow, he has that old and almost dead Gentleman-and-a-Scholar British Accent. Once the most esteemed accent in the world, it's hard not to think of parody now.
You from UK?
Space time would have to be before the big bang because you need space to put something into and time to know when to put it
The question of “God” is totally irrelevant for the argument, because: If the faithfuls’ God is so powerful that he doesn’t even have to exist, then it follows that he’s also omnipotent and powerful enough that he could have created the Universe without a beginning. You see, the whole faithful notion of God is so conceptually tortuous and anomalously malleable that it doesn’t leave room for intellectual dismissal. Something that is totally baseless could fit into any logically meaningless scenario.
I've never heard a theist say God is so powerful He doesn't need to exist.
What are the initial conditions of your preferred model?
@@20july1944 This is in analogy to the Aristotelian notion of “The Unmoved Mover”. If God is the creator of Existence/Being, he himself doesn’t have to be bound by it. Hence, his perfection would imply that he could exist and not exist at once. I was using the allegory as an example of the absurdity of the anomalous malleability of the theological notions.
P.S. I’m not a theist.
@@NothingMaster Do you know some physics/cosmology, or are you just a philosopher?
Since you asked: I have Ph.D.’s in both Physics and the Philosophy of Science; and some might even claim that I’ve made original contributions to both disciplines. That said, I’m not here to convince anyone of anything; or take issue with people on the subject matters presented.
Have nature a start - no. Have nature more than a start - yes.
Time is Immortal?
There was a beginning for almost everything we can conceive of. But infinity is a reality. Similar to a circle having no beginning or end, I think there could not have been an ultimate "beginning".
Each point in a circle is a start and an end .. infinity is a reality .. ! .. u mean it exists in our world .. ?
There is? Please can you give me an example? Because is all i see (especially as far as living creatures are consider) is the continuing and evolution of living things and not the beginning of anything , we have never observed the beginning of any of the living creatures that we know of , even you didn't fundamentaly have a "beginning" you are just the continuing of both of your parents.
you are the mix of living cells from your parents you didn't come from "nothing" likewise it is the same for everything else . so if you are in possession of some kind of information that i am unaware of then by all means do share it with us .
Nope. Timelessness & infinity are ... unnatural.
The Universe is an Isolated Thermodynamic System (Function) .... composed of space, time, Laws of Nature, matter & energy which are all Natural Functions ...and has increasing entropy.
All Functions .. have purpose, form, processes, properties & design .. which ae Information.
Information is an abstract construct from the Mind of an intelligence.
All Thermodynamic Systems ... originate from the surrounding System ... which must proved the space, time, Laws oof Nature, matter & energy
The surrounding System ... of the Universe with time & laws of Nature ... has be God who is timeless, infinite and always existed.
Every new life has a beginning. It doesn't exist, then it does exist. @@SheikhN-bible-syndrome
@@catkeys6911 no and i just explained why your wrong
For it is man's function to contemplate the works of god and for this purpose he was made that he might view the universe with wondering awe and come to know its maker.
This whole cosmos which is a great god and an image of him that is greater and is united with him and maintains its order in accordance with that will is one mass of life and there is not anything in the cosmos nor has been through all time from the first foundation of the universe neither in the whole nor among the several things contained in it that is not alive. there is not and never been and never will be in the cosmos anything that is dead. for it was the father's will that the cosmos, as long as it exists should be a living being and therefore it must needs be a god also.
How then my son, could there be dead things in that which is a god? in that which is an image of the father; in that which is one mass of life?
deathness is corruption and corruption is distraction, how then can any part of that which is incorruptible be corrupted or any part of that which is a god be destroyed?
Yes, and it has an end.
If the universe is LINEAR ( 3D Cylinder), it has a beginning and and end..but the end need not b
If the words " the universe are to have any meaning at all it cannot conceivably have had a beginning because everything is everywhen or it is not everything or the universe.
God is not limited by time and space.
I’ve been trying to understand the beginning of the process before the Milky Way and its stars were formed,” he says. “It turns out that the first stars were more massive than the Sun and the first galaxies were smaller than the Milky Way.” This period is compelling, he says, because “it is the scientific version of the story of Genesis. I don’t want to offend religious people, but the first chapter of the Bible needs revising-the sequence of events needs to be modified. It is true that there was a beginning in time. As in the biblical story, ‘Let there be light.’ This light can be thought of as the cosmic microwave background.”
Let there be light means the invisible light wave spectrum that is necessary for our minds to process along with other vibrations that form all the visible objects we ( created AI ) observe within our individual minds.
Universe is not a monolith, a single, separate, unitary "thing". The word literally means *"all there is"* . That's a whole lotta things, many of which began just one second ago, while others passed millennia ago... each one of them depending on its own set of causes and conditions for it's arising, persisting, and inevitable ceasing.
So the title question is actually nonsensical.
If God did not create the universe, if there was never a time when God was alone, it makes a big difference to the religions that have God creating the universe. If God and the universe are eternal then God may possibly be considered the force that keeps the universe from being chaos, that is the laws of nature. Our understanding of the universe keeps expanding from a table with a sky full of clouds. Stars and wandering stars a greater and lesser light where the Gods could look down on us and even come to earth, then we pulled ack slightly to see the earth as a globe with the heavens circling around it, that model was replaced by the earth being part of the solar system and later we pulled back again to see that we were part of a Galaxy and the galaxy was all these was until the current step back is a universe filled with galaxys that started out as a relatively small singularity the origin of which is unknown. But now it seems that other things existed before this big bang. The unknown is, how many times can we humans pull back and in what form will they take?
why does stuff exist in the first place ~~~what is the true nature of reality~~
Hi C T T, while this might be a sensible question for astronomers and physicists theologians do not have to offer any rational foundation or logical coherence for what they choose to believe.
For normal n=mere mortals like myself it is of entirely academic interest!, it has absolutely no bearing on my daily life, it just fits neatly in that enormous catalogue of things that I do not know anything much about and feel no need or desire to do so.
Cheers, Richard.
I didn’t know Keith Richards twin brother was a philosopher
We’re all Keith Richard’s when we’re old enough. It’s just that Keith got that way in his 20s.
🤣@@simonhibbs887
I am an "Ultimist", that is I think Reality is Complete, moreover I am a believer in Order even when complexity makes it look like disorder, and in that strict sense a believer in a very abstract kind of "God" who permeates all domains of Reality and of course which is not itself excluded to the Reality Set as that would not make any sense...Now given that kind of belief is not compatible with the current main Abrahamic Religions I guess I would be qualified as an Atheist...I'm fine with it!
Ok, good to hear! But what is reality being complete mean? What would an incomplete reality look like or entail?
@@wet-read It means what Parmenides and Einstein meant...done through and through. Like a huge Rubiks cube where all spacetime cohexist.
@@FAAMS1
So it is just a fundamental account of spacetime then, being able to conceptualize its entirety? Like the B-theory of time?
@@wet-read There are many models that are cyclic B-theory is one CCC from Penrose is another, black holes and white holes are yet another...some of them account for all spacetime as one complete thing...others rather speak of emergence...Personally I am totally opposed to the concept of "emergence" as it is really dodgy thinking, no better then magic, so in my view, my intuition since the early 90's when I was a young lad, I've always took the path of completion or "ultimism". Specially after spending a great deal of time thinking about the obscure concept of Nothingness which is self negating and thus contradictory. With absence of absence emergence goes out of the window...and Einstein relative account of spacetime makes everything clear Reality is complete cyclic and as Parmenides used to say motion itself is a phenomenological illusion. Everything that ever was, that is, and that will be, IS in BEING already. I could call that God, but that is so distinct of the classical Metaphysics for the pleb that I rather be called an Atheist. Excuse my rushed English I am not a native speaker.
@@wet-read The oddity in all this is that the Christian guy is Metaphysically closer to understand what is the case then most scientists that debate him...some of these Theologians make a case in point of being deliberately obscure with all the classical conventions, the dressing of their Metaphysics precisely because they just want to be understood by those who have competence to see the nuances of what they claim. Deep down they have a disdain for most Physicists and find them utterly dumb and dull. They don't care they are not understood and much of what they say is clean pure reasoning...the smoke and mirrors of the "dressing" pays service to the needs of the many down the ladder...just make the following exercise swap the word God for Reality, take into account distinct domains in phenomenology, and use the word Reality instead. Now everything being said by some of these Theologians is miles ahead of the best accounts given by Theoretical Physicists when it comes to coherent explanation. Physicists are good for mathematical modelling but terrible at juggling with words and concepts a classical of good at maths and terrible at English situation.
This seems to be a circular argument.
One more thing, since they also talked about a potential god. For me, obviously, a god seems irrational. But lets assume there was one. We would then have the same questions: Was he always or did he come from absolutely nothing? It must have been the one or the other, yet either option would indicate that there is a power greater than this god, because if he always was, he would have had no choice in wanting to be or not, he just was. And if he came from nothing at all - same problem: "Where in the world do I come from"? So, trying to explain the universe with something even more complicated then the universe itself seems crazy to me and would open even more questions, questions even this potential god could surely not answer. And what if he would get tired of having to exist forever? I guess that after a few trillion Googleplex years he would be bored up his godly butt, but doomed, since he could not just "not be". Or could he?
We don't know. We just don't know. There is no clear answer.
That is some really great word salad double talk gibberish.
Learning more about India philosophy, even Brahma has a cycle.
What is this procession and regression; some very great mystics explicate the procession is the regression and not two differing directions.
Yep. We get it. India’s new thing is to try and claim all of its religions came up with everything first. But if you want a good laugh, read the text they claim supports this boasts.
Did Mr. Kuhn Begin?
or was He just born in a new baby-body,
did Mr. Kuhn have parents.
do You really believe that Universe,
came 'out of the blue'.
Counterfactually if the universe did not begin then the universe would be eternal?? Eternal could be taken in at least two ways, one is that the universe is not subject to time, the other is that the universe fluctuates in dynamic generation and re-generation without ever going to zero!! The latter could be had by a series of contractions and expansions without ever contracting into a null state or nothing, contracting and expanding forever!! But the real problem that behooved theorists to posit a universe without a beginning is the problem of a total nothing being the state prior to the something appearing, and that causes an epistemic singularity where there is no way to discover the conditions before the appearing because there was no information existing prior to the beginning, and that causes a existential panic in theorists that need to explain how something occurred?? The problem of an information catastrophe of a void of information before the beginning could also be solved if the state prior to the beginning was a higher dimensional state common to the multiverse at large, then we could conceive of a higher dimensional template or matrix containing information consisting of prior conditions bypassing the problem of a total nothing prior to the beginning!!
Why does it have to fluctuate between generation and re-generation? Why can’t it just fluctuate, change, evolve?
Swinburne is a seasoned theologist. He is hesitant to use the Big Bang as an argument for a god as he knows too well that putting gods in the gaps of scientific knowledge is a fools errand.
*"He is hesitant to use the Big Bang as an argument for a god as he knows too well that putting gods in the gaps of scientific knowledge is a fools errand."*
... Multiverse Theory is like "science of the gaps." It requires the same level of special pleading as the existence of God.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC On the contrary, the multiverse idea is just a way of exploring possible answers and solutions to questions we have. It is about exploring gaps in our knowledge, not trying to fill them. Whereas, using the declaration that “God did it” to fill a gap shuts down further exploration.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC I always find it amusing how other untested hypotheses like string theory or even the nature of dark matter and dark energy don't seem to attract the same level of ideological pushback as the multiverse. But then again, they don't necessarily undermine traditional religious, or as in your own case, existing theories to the same extent.
He's delusional there is no god just wishful thinking
@@Joe-ym6bw You don't know that, Joe you POS, just your wishful thinking.
🙂🌎⏳🙏♥️
There is the idea of the block universe where everything is and we observe it sequentially.
I don't subscribe to a big bang beginning. That's not to say there wasn't a big bang. I like Penroses idea of the cyclical universe. That is, the universe has always been, but it keeps recycling itself. Another similar take, is that we are in just another arm of an ever expanding universe that atarted with the big bang, not the the big bang started it, but it rather started this arm of it.
It's just ludicrous that everything just started an arbitrary amount of time ago.
Why can’t we just be a forever changing, morphing, evolving thing? Why throw recycling into the mix?
@@longcastle4863 recycling is a sinonym of those.
Puppet master maynot have body but humans do hence this has been going on forever.
Did the universe have a beginning? You'd think that there would only be two answers to that question, Yes or No. In this post l am going to offer you a third possiblity. It is based on this curious notion; The universe is not just another thing in the universe. A corollary of this notion is that whether or not something has a beginning applies, Ah, meaningfully applies, to things in the universe, but not to the universe itself. But Why not?, you ask. Because the universe is not just another thing in the universe. Because 'universe' is on another level of abstraction than the things in the universe. Because to think Did the universe have a beginning? is a valid question is to be fooled by correct grammar and syntax. To accept that the universe did or did not have a beginning is to get on the train of infinite regress to Confusion. The solution to this problem question is not cosmology or metaphysics, its linguistics. You asked the question in language, therefore how language captures meaning or fails to capture meaning is relevant.
Existence exists, and the universe, or nature, is its character.
These guys are confusing the universe with Existence. The universe is just the current manifestation of Existence, which must be eternal because you can't create something out of nothing. There may have been a previous universe and there may be a new one trillions of years from now. Probably Existence just keeps recycling itself forever.😅
You say the universe is eternal because you can’t create something out of nothing. But the same logic system you’re working out of also says nothing can exist without a cause.
@@longcastle4863
Who says that nothing can exist without a cause? That's not part of my logic system. I'm comfortable saying that while universes may come and go, Existence itself may be eternal. It seems to be the most logical explanation.
@@browngreen933 Saying something “seems to be the most logical explanation”, does not mean it passes logical muster. Besides, “possibly” the universe, is there anything else that exists without a cause?
@@longcastle4863
You don't grasp what I'm saying. The universe had a cause (Big Bang), but Existence itself did not have a cause from nothing. Two different things.
@@browngreen933 So you’re saying that existence is eternal and our universe, which had a beginning, is jus a part of that eternity. You’re still saying, what exists has always existed. And I’m still saying that’s a belief, not a logical deduction.
need not be where it began. If the universe is circular, the point of beginning is also the end. If the universe is oscillating, the beginning would be difficult to delineate.God is the beginning..that makes him the creator of the universe. And the order of creation is god, then demigod, and finally the angel. Strictly speaking, a god is not an angel..but a spirit can wear the face of a god, an angel, and a demigod.
The universe has a beginning of existence or is eternal. Can the universe be eternal? Can the universe have infinite days? Can the universe have an infinite number of causes and effects? Logically the universe can not be eternal and atheists don't understand. I am a poet that writes prose to be understood better, all my work is poetry. I am a psychologist and I have discovered atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. I am suffering the most severe and devastating censorship in history in a social media era for many years trying to save lives with knowledge. Would you do me a favor and tell your innocent and vulnerable children what I just said to you? They would understand an injustice is being committed. To understand atheism is a logical fallacy you have to understand why the most emblematic remark of atheism is "who created god?", with the intelligent creator of the universe written in lower case. I was religious and atheist and I claim I have discovered the nature of God, and atheists have explained to me, because I don't know yet, what is atheism almost infinite times. I hope for God's sake to be understood.
You don’t sound like any psychologist I ever knew. And I knew a lot. The kind of nonsense you’re talking gets weeded out of you in graduate school.
Unless infinity itself is introduced into the argument, all other arguments break down into infinite regress. Turtles all the way down.
Suppose you see a turtle. where did this turtle come from? from another turtle. and where is the other one from? from another turtle. and so on until LUCA. and what is it ? It's a proto-bacteria world or something like that. we rewind, we rewind and we come to the big Explosion. That is, the complexity is growing. Why? just like that or what? Let us assume the work of the evolution of quantum states on the horizon of a black hole/universe horizon. Regress. So maybe this regression is not a bug but a feature? This means it's something like a fractal. quantum-qualia fractal of the evolution of the births and deaths of countless beings, a fractal consisting of the flows of their joy and sadness, pleasure and pain, happiness and suffering. an ocean of qualia, evolving fractal sea urchins and everyone else. snow of zygotes. an endless ocean of zygotes.
@@johnyaxon__Or possibly a causal loop of some sort. Turtles all the way around rather than all the way down 🤔
HUMAN HISTORY.."without a formation of a man@human, how could we know 'what&who' a man @humans are..!!" Peace be upon us all
The universe can’t be past eternal and be expanding towards a death at some point in the future. Because we would have been there already!!! Come up with a different idea. It must of had a beginning and that was God ✝️
A seed is planted. A tree grows. Everything in the universe operates according to these principles. From this we can only logically infer that the entire universe itself had a beginning just like everything in it had/has a beginning.
Time is merely a measure of change not from one moment or second to the next but from one change to the next. If one just appeared as consciousness only with no body in an all white realm where nothing exists but one's own consciousness and endless white surroundings then time would not have a reality because there would be no change to measure. Everything would remain the exact same. We measure time by measuring change. Some trees take over 100 years to grow fully. What we are actually saying here is that it takes some trees over 100 years to fully change from a seed to it's adult form. If the tree always existed as a fully grown adult tree then there would be no measure of time with regards to the tree. The universe likewise "grew" therefore there was a point in it's development where it was not as "grown" as it is now therefore we must accept a length or period of change (i.e. time) existed between the form that it was and the form that it is now. This undoubtedly implies a beginning.
Only Almighty God has no beginning which is a concept that the human mind has great difficulty in comprehending because it only knows change and it's very nature is change dependent and by change I mean time.
Omnipotent Being fundamentally requires that such a Being doesn't "change" therefore isn't subjected to "time." Such a Being will always remain the exact same being which is another concept that the human mind has difficulty in grasping because the idea transcends human cognitive ability because by it's very nature such a concept is a literal transcended concept.
Only an Omnipotent Being, An Almighty God, perfectly explains everything. No other idea or concept even comes close to fully explaining "everything" including multiple gods. One God created all of existence. This makes perfect logical and obvious sense.
Without accepting an "Omnipotent Being, (i.e. Almighty God)" as The Sole Creator of all things so-called scientific and philosophical thinking are no closer to understanding the universe in it's totality than such thinking was since humans began thinking.
Every single thing created directly, obviously, clearly, logically, reasonably and empirically implies a "Creator." This is logically undeniable.
Space and time do not exist. We measure the distance between matter and call that space and the interval between matter we call time. Before the Big Bang matter was all that was there until the Cosmos started to expand.
Time is the internal and subjective sense of moving from one moment to another. It does not require external movement, only an internal sense of being. It is not possible to have any type of experience without time. Even an all white realm requires time to be experienced. Timelessness is not experienceable.
>”A seed is planted. A tree grows. Everything in the universe operates according to these principles.”
Right, and the seed also operated according to these principles and had a cause, and it’s cause had a cause. Nothing we have observed in nature violates ‘these principles’ you just laid out by being un-caused. That’s a powerful argument for an infinite regression of causes.
_The beginning of the universe is definitely not extremely important for planet earth and its fauna and flora. It’s extremely important for those who make a comfortable living out of it, pretending to know things, that ordinary minds do not know._
He is likely a victim of a certain psychological syndrome.
Who?
:/ I hate when I click on one and it’s a Mr. Godfrey video
It is pretty clear that the big bang is the birth of this universe. Saying this universe was there forever that is just a odd claim. There must be some characteristics which is referred to as being ''nothing'' that allow for a big bang to happen. So the question should be if the characteristics underneat, which cannot be found in the universe itself(!), have a forever quality or was this born also?
I disagree with his assertion about if time exists based on something “happening”. Ok. Fine. Something happens. So what. What does that have to do with “time”? The question still stands. What “is” “time”? Where is time? When is time? Why is time? How time is we can pretty much answer that question.
When you start thinking in terms of eons and infinity time is totally irrelevant. The universe and matter and energy and space and gravity may not have always existed. Ok than what has always existed? Nothing? Ok. Then it has to be something. And where did that come from and so on and so forth……is a white lie a lie? With time the inverse is true. If time goes forever it cannot exist. We think of time as going in two directions. To the past and to the future. What does that have to do with the universe? We are in a tiny tiny tiny planet in a huge universe of which we cannot even see all of it while it literally disappears because light cannot travel fast enough to get to us. What does that say about time? Time is faster than light? Ok then, what is time? The distance it takes matter or light to travel relative to other matter?
Geometry.
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Hold on, where did the pin originate?
Believing in something from nothing , must have a good supply of magic mushrooms.
God = Life
Life eternally actualizes infinite potential, because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.
👍👍👍Thanks be to God a wonderful talking ... the issue of the beginning of the universe is extremely important in modern physics and cosmology part of the motivation of some is because they are concerned that religious people theologians would take a beginning of the universe as an inference for the existence of God so how important is it theologically for the existence of the God whose arguments you believe point to is a beginning of the universe. [ it's not important at all to a true believer who believes in LORD Himself is the beginning and the end and a living God forever, instead, if it's physically proved the universe has a beginning it's disproved His presence, ... ] 3:13 St Thomas Aquinus who is best known for producing arguments for the existence of God he also thought it didn't make any difference that the same problems arise requiring God as the explanation whether or not the universe had a beginning or not he of course thought he did have a beginning because he thought that was the right way to interpret the Bood of Genesis [] but he didn't think it made any arguments a difference to the strength of arguments (it doesn't even increase the strength of the argument, if there is an actual beginning to spacetime ? ) 3:46 RS: ... 5:33 ... so let's look at the big bang and let's look at spacetime which physicist say began at the beginning of the Big Bang some physicists now beginning to say that time itself is not ral or is an illusion of human construct and that it's not fundamental in the laws of physics so you have a perspective beginning of the universe you have some people saying there's no real boundary to the universe in time others say time doesn't exist how do you deal with all these issues regarding time. 6:03 ... 7:31 ... ❤but I do object to the notion that time began because I don't think you can understand the notion of the universe beginning except it terms of first there was an empty time and then there was a universe now uh you might think that you could understand the notion of the universe beginning by it having only a finite age that is to say if it began 13.8 billion years ago then to say that the universe had a beginning would be on some scientist account to say that it has only existed for 13.8 billion years but that account of what it is for the universe to begin will only work if there is a cosmic time scale that is to say if there is a universal time scale by which all events which happen can be measured and there will only be that universal time scale if there are the same laws of nature that apply everywhere and a system of clocks can be set up to measure it but suppose for example suppose that be in fact 💛before the Big Bang there was a period of total chaos when things didn't behave in any regular way but it seems to make sense to suppose that the universe could have had a beginning even if before the Big Bang there was a period of chaos it might have began at the beginning of that period of chaos but then what would it mean to say that it began at the beginning of that period of chaos because you couldn't measure the length of that period of chaos there wouldn't be any difference between that period of chaos lasting a finite number of years and lasting an infinite number of years because there's no scale in which it can be measured there would still be succession of events that is to say a topology of first this and that happened in the period of chaos then there was a big bang. 9:40 ... so what does it mean to say that in that situation the universe had began 10:35 💚well the only sense that can be given to it is first there was empty time then there was the period chaos then there was our finite the sequence from the Big Bang up till now [ in this order the big bang is totally different from the previous one that assume our current finite visible universe is a continuum of an inflationary big bang, and in your order, the big bang starts in another "C-Qunta" Flunctuation (imported) setting the current univseral evolutionary journey going on, from the total chaos to 1dimensional realm then 2 dimensional fields, Dirac Sea, where 3d Planck world is emerged its wave function collapsed] 11:25 ... ❤for erxample the physicist EA Mil in the last century postulated that the law of gravity and the law of electromagnetism gave different time scales each of them suggested a different time scale for the universe and one would what would be a finite period on one scale would be an infinite period on the other scale 11:46 if
Maybe the universe was simply undiferentiated in its beginning, in a simultaneous state of zero and infinite entropy.
There's nothing more hilarious than to see the religious frantically trying to grasp the last straw they can see to make sure they can keep talking about the Invisible Sky Daddy. I don't know when this was recorded, but this man isn't up to date with his physics, nor his philosophy. On top of that, even a casual watching reveals a logical phallacy in the first half, and he pairs this with a kind of loaded language that is meant to discredit what he is talking about without ever showing an argument. Deeply tragic on a personal level, but hysterical for the rest of us.
How did this bloke ever receive a degree? First year students attempting this would fail that class.