Believe in God in 5 Minutes (Scientific Proof)
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 08. 2014
- Watch PART 2 on CZcams: bit.ly/Proof_God_Miracles
Watch PART 3 on CZcams: bit.ly/IsEinsteinWrong
MIT Physicist Dr. Gerald Schroeder offers proof god exists and explains how, as a scientist, he believes in god. Schroeder explores scientific proof of god using the Big Bang theory and quantum theory.
Dr. Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor's, Master's, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute, while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.
Find out more about Gerald Schroeder: geraldschroeder.com
Like our videos? Check us out here:
Website: SinaiSpeak.com
Facebook: / sinaispeak
Twitter: / sinaispeak
Sinai Speak connects you with today’s cutting-edge Jewish speakers via short, inspirational videos. We create original video content with dynamic educators from around the globe, creating connection to the wisdom of Jewish tradition. Shalom & enjoy!
God doesn't write in Letters, he writes in Math.
god doesn't write , he created an extremely precise universe where everything is guided by math and laws (like the cosmological constant).
Gematria ;-)
&, just as computers calculate & render in binary, the numbers need to be translated into modern human languages, for humans to understand what's been said.
God spoke the universe into existence!
Gods not a he nor she
I want to believe in God but I wanna ask. If God just was there, he didn't get made, then why couldn't the universe have "just been made?"
Except the Big Bang wasn't really the creation of the Universe, it was merely the expansion of it. All the energy was already there - the Big Bang just sort of stretched it out.
The big bang theory has no reason behind it, God has a reason behind Him.
How can something predate the big bang? Time itself began at the big bang. Any notion of before or after cannot be said about a timeless time.
God is ETERNAL.. he does not exist within TIME.
So, time is an invention of God. Like how the computer is an invention of man. WE are not bound by our computer, and have freewill to do what we please with it as it is our creation.
Same with God and time.
Crabby Lobster I think you're missing the point. Mr Schroeder here is claiming that the laws of the universe predate the universe. The problem is is that you need time to predate something. Without time there is no chronological order of events. Since time and space are two sides of the same coin, and all space, and therefore time, began at the big bang, nothing can predate it. Whether or not god is eternal is eternal is irrelevant.
Max Elkin I think you're getting too caught up on his wording. He means outside of time, beyond the dimension of time. He also isn't bringing any information that is new to the scientific community; all his claims are based on accepted findings.
But just because right now science does not accept that Nature is causal, doesn't mean they are right. For example, less then 10 years ago the vast majority of scientists believed that the Universe was eternal. It's not now, because it's proven it is not eternal. So, one day, we may see that natural forces are causal. But, possibly not.
***** I'd be more skeptical. I've heard a lot of people trying to fit their particular holy book with science. Muslims do it too. I always wonder, if you really think some ancient culture got it right, then why isn't someone trying to figure out which ancient book of myths best conform to our current understanding of science?
As he said this scientifically proves the "God of the Bible". So since it is the biblical God please explain scientifically why it took him six days to create the universe?
I'd love to see a debate between Dr. Gerald Schroeder and Lawrence Krauss. That would be fun.
I’m not convinced. Maybe as another commentator said, I’m not as smart as him. But it really seems to me like he’s coming from the conclusion that god exists and then fitting these discoveries to that conclusion.
Imagine having researched this for so long and still not having any proof or basic research and instead just saying:
"Well something should have started it"
The point is the existence of a repository of rules/knowledge that existed before matter and is independent of humans, which acts upon ALL material. That is a settled understanding of cosmology
Are you a scientist by any chance? Is your education lv anything greater than highschool? This man actually has done the work and knows the data first hand you just repeat something you heard from a youtube atheist.
@@ohbenbeckman1089 And you believe something you heard from a youtube theisis. By the way, if you are going to believe that god is or isn't real just from scientists and educated people then I present to you this fact: Stephen Hawkings and Albert Einstein are both atheists.
The most important attribute of God is left out: volition.
Without volition, you don't have a God, you just have forces, natural laws.
The Creator is the One who divided into many, both as in spiritual units and particle units. God's was here before any choice and no law or force cannot exist if the prime energy force was not. A very long time ago, God desired to see self, thus created us, with freewill still intacted. God is invisible... well, not anymore... look around you and inside of yourself... your the second part of I AM that I AM... now you know.
To create a universe you must exist outside it.
This is all well and good, but i feel like the typical understanding of the abrahamic god as described in the bible etc. has a few more attributes than the ones you listed. To me this seems like you are moving the goalposts so to speak.
So if god is just the forces of nature, why should people pray to the forces of nature. It would be an assumption or an act of faith to assume that the forces of nature have a conscience which is capable of hearing, understanding, and acting upon those prayers.
But in your opinion is God the forces or nature??
That is why we have the bible. God's letter to us.
We hear,understand, and we act on things everyday. And we also live and thrive in the forces of nature because we live on earth and the earth is in the universe.
Well interestingly that is the basis of paganism and prayer, and also used in alchemy. It's called the law of attraction, pretty much if you put your mind to something with great concentration you can manifest. That's why prayer can be effective if you really believe. It's because everything in the universe is consciousness, vibrations and math that can be manipulated. In our current state we are pretty weak though. I would guess that the reason for the bible was that when men fell, they needed something to keep them in line and stop them from finding out so soon (hense the great hatred of paganism). It can be pretty powerful, and involves tuning into different dimensions to harness and bond with energies. Sounds nuts I know but I'm pretty sure thats kinda the point of the revelation/apocalypse (the unveiling of what was kept secret) "everything you thought you knew was a lie" for atheists and religionists alike. Surprise!
Jim Morrison he’s not the forces of nature, he works through them
So, if everything was created in "6 days" then
what were these days based off of if the sun was not created until (what was it? the 3rd day?) How was there a day/night cycle without the sun yet?
It wasn't "day/night", but as stated in Genesis it was "evening and morning" and of course even in current times "evening and morning" does not constitute a day (as a day/night cycle on Earth), and it certainly doesn't before the existence of Earth and the Sun. So obviously literal meaning of simple translation of the Hebrew does not suffice.
This conflates the idea of natural laws as 'GOD' being equivalent to the notion of a 'person' that created the universe. They are very different notions. The rational argument that 'laws' must have predated the matter they act on does not prove the myth of an entity in whose image we are allegedly created and with whom we can have a personal relationship. Science can infer one, but not the other.
Leave put the part where he misunderstands the big bang, where instead of being a "beginning" it is just the point where our understanding of existence stops. It could easily be the point where we get the illeged something out of "absolute nothing" but there is just as much evidence for that as there is for, say a magical unicorn farting out a rainbow that then collapsed on itself and then exploded again and became the universe
One can mean anything with the word "God" that doesn't prove his existence tho.
Only way to one day prove or disprove God is to 1st settle down and agree to a single scientific definition to the word "God". If we don't do that we can never claim that whatever God means exists or not.
I love how there's people in the comments that think they're smarter than this guy too. Lol
even if you accept literally everything he says in this video, you still don't reach the conclusion that god exists. you get that the universe has something that created it. you don't know if its a being, you don't know if there are multiple somethings which created the universe, and you certainly don't know that what created the universe was your very specific version of god which you only believe in because of your upbringing and what region of the world you were born in.
"There are many rooms in my father's house" as they say if you allow me to paraphrase a verse crudely etc...the more we learn scientifically man literally is constantly rewriting his certain science in ways where it is almost fluid when viewed over the span of time....when you take away sincerely the fear of how small we are in scope of large things like the known universe and also remove our personal pride and our fear of our mortality...you start to see all things from a sincerely beautiful and humble positon....you realize the vastness of all that is known and unknown materially pales to potential and breadth of the capability to.love and hope which is in our heart. That potential I suspect infinitely dwarfs the canvas of the known and unknown of existence so much that the physical universe really does not matter in the slightest. We are looking at the wrong things to prove God exists if you are only looking at how big physical existence is ...as physical existence is but on one plane and its rather the easiest plane to engage with and its still too much for our species to comprehend. The fact that I am taking this time and care to converse with you about this topic is literally evidence there is something else that cares about you with infinite love that is reaching out to you for no reason but to love you.
Thats because the only reason you really know is if you experience him for yourself
did he just conclude that the laws of nature are God itself ? like gravity is god , or electromagnetism is god ?
... the biggest flaw i see is the assumption that the 'laws create'. I think the general view would be that they describe. In this case an QuantumField without any forces are standard particles.
The theories he seems to refer to, almost explicitly, deny anything like an 'act of creation'. They describe instabillity of virtual particles in 'nothing'... no agent required, no time, no forces at work at that moment..
Given his four main points:
a) in a sense the 'nothing' is a physical system (there are virtual particles)
b) there are no real forces at work that act on anything (no causal chains)
c) the physical universe could enfold out of this
d) it doesn't 'predate' since there has no time.. but that almost seems more a matter of linguistics
So... God would the describtion of the QuantumState of 'nothing'.
Though i am not an expert .. this is (pretty much) the representation the scientists that did the research actually give... and it diverges rather far from this in ways that seem quite essential to the train of thought he tries to make.
intox, Look up "def of big bang theory" it states that the universe may have been created, it says nothing about there being energy before the big bang, The big bang is stated to be the creation and expansion of the universe.
Unconvincing ! However, even if he was right it would still get him no closer to showing that the force that set it in motion was, in fact, a god of any kind, nor would it be any indication that it is his own preferred christian god.
It proves the beginning. The debate is whether or not the Big Bang was an expansion or creation of the universe. For starters red shift already prove the universe came from one single point getting rid of the expansion argument. If it were creation then that would imply matter was created. How can matter be created all on its own?
Wrong lane Sir ! See czcams.com/video/SNkxpTIbCIw/video.html
Buddy, if you think humans came from nothing.... Then you need Jesus.
The black spaces around the edges of the diagram to which Gerald Schroeder refers are indeed “nothing”, but not in the sense in which he uses the term. Everything is contained within the gridlines. The black spaces are merely the margins of the diagram, and do not represent a physical reality.
Schroeder says that the laws of nature are not physical. This is indeed true. They are abstract representations of nature created by human beings. Humans observe the cosmos (or “nature”) and represent the interactions they observe as “laws”.
It seems to me that Schroeder’s assertion that the laws of nature “act” on the physical world is incorrect. A law of nature is not nature, and it does not act on nature. It is an abstract representation of the behaviour of nature. Nature acts on nature.
Schroeder claims that the laws of nature predate the universe. There is no evidence that the laws we know have always applied, nor that they will always apply.
This video does not provide scientific evidence for the existence of God.
Just because it's outside the diagram doesn't mean it's nothing and just because we don't know where the universe came from doesn't mean it was god.
Redefining god also doesn't mean it was the biblical god. This is more god of the gaps 🐂 💩.
There is no predating the universe. We know that time and space are interconnected, and that there is no "before" the Bing Bang. To talk about predating time makes no sense.
Was the Big Bang not an event? Are events not connected to time?
Could you please make this transcript available, for deaf people?
It is written, "For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen even His eternal Power and Godhead so that they are without excuse.
Could you give me with an example of one of these "invisible" things?
bigflamarang For one, have you ever asked yourself that how Israel and the Arab nations cannot have peace together due to their highly differing views on the Abrahamic relation and their quarrels lasted for years with no end in sight? Secondly, you may have not been spiritually awakened but there are spiritual influences in this world but have you ever suffered from sleep paralysis? But the final one, consider the stars, the constellations around our planet. What are they held by, what are we as a galaxy is keeping us together and not slipping out into another galaxy or even the sun, while the asteroids and comets can move freely..There is only one answer for it all King YHWH himself.
shadowblaze97
Great questions!
The conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors is a dynamic and complex issue with many contributing factors, some of which have to do with religious beliefs. People have written entire books about this and I don't think I can adequately answer your question without it being long and drawn out. I will say, however, that to this day I have never heard a respected authority on the matter invoke anything supernatural to explain it. That being said, why do we need to invoke the Judea-Christian God to explain how long the conflict has lasted?
I have experienced sleep paralysis, however we have a well-established natural explanation for the phenomenon that doesn't require any supernatural intervention. Are you aware of any cases in which sleep paralysis was beyond a reasonable doubt caused by something supernatural?
It has been well-established that the force responsible for everything mentioned in your last example is gravity. That being said, why is any supernatural force, let alone the very specific God of the Bible required in order to account for the phenomena you mentioned?
And by the way, our galaxy IS "slipping" into another galaxy as it is well-established that the Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda galaxy about 4 billion years from now.
Toodles!
shadowblaze97 very good
shadowblaze97 rodennyy rodennyy-rodennyy *****
If you guys would like, I'd love to tell you about what a great moral guide it is too!
We don’t know if there was a true beginning. It could have happened a million times.
Misinterpretation of science.
The bible says there was a beginning and from our current understanding of science, there was also a beginning to our universe; therefore, science proves the bible.
That's essentially the definition of pseudoscience there.
Mr Wegener: Who told you that the six days of creation are 24 hour days if the sun and other planets were not yet created? It is obvious to any careful reader that these 'days' are metaphorical periods of time. Also, Jewish Oral tradition informs us that Genesis is not chronological when referring to objects or forces listed.
one day mankind will have the same reaction to people who believe in god as we do now to people who believe in flat earth . The sad thing is i will probably not be here when this discovery will be made
Αναστάσιος Βρεττόπουλος Exactly!If only I could be alive to witness that..
But the premise of the flat earth being as biblical was false, please do some more research. The Bible is a book that still is a bestseller and is dominant today over millenniums. Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
" A spherical Earth, from the perspective of God, who is above, the Earths shape is like a circle from any angle he views it from. Hence, a globe.
Job 26:7 "He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing." An accurate representation of space we now know today. If anything, the Bible was ahead of its time, not before.
See Jordan Peterson, a well known Canadian Psychologists video on God: czcams.com/video/f-wWBGo6a2w/video.html
See C.S. Lewis, the author of Narnia and other best selling books on God: czcams.com/video/AJu0oYvi-cY/video.html
"God" implies intelligence awareness and intention
All we have is a beginning that's not really a beginning
Which is practically the same as the universe has always been
First earth was the world
Now the universe is the world
Once we break the next barrier i bet you're going to ague god made that too
We will never know the truth. Period.
Agreed. The Torah is the "Menu not the meal." That which is truly truth cannot be expressed in words, but words can be helpful references. If I asked you to describe the taste of Chocolate, you probably wouldn't get very far in conceptualizing the experience of taste of the flavor of chocolate.
So Torah for us is our way of approximating an understanding of He who can never truly be understood. And through that, help guide us to be able to truly experience Hashem in our lives, and to be able to recognize the experience.
Does this work with other gods?
is force really not physical? i learned that force has alsa particles like graviton? am i wrong? or are these participles just virtual? can someone please answer this?
And where did god come? From nothing to create something from nothing?
Give me back those five minutes...
"The Bible got it right."
The only thing that the Bible got right about the beginning of the universe was that there was a beginning, and it had a pretty good shot of getting that right by just guessing.
The second I heard the word “creation”, I already knew this was gonna be silly. His train of though was basically 1) The CMB is leftover energy from an earlier universe---> 2) The universe had a beginning and therefore was created at some point ----> 3) The Bible got it right. Typical “universe had a beginning, therefore god” argument with so many errors I don’t even know where to begin
How does this explain the omnipresent God people know today? How does it explain the omni-benevolent being who supposedly loves everyone so long as they believe in Christ?
How is a hypothesis suddenly a theory?
If you can establish that something can indeed come from nothing, then why has it taken supposedly 6 days to do, when your hypothesis explains that it was done in several billions of years.
Also, if God were to see humans as so special, how do you explain the several hundred other planets that we've found to be in the right spot as earth is, but in their Galaxy, and still have the potential to support life?
This isn't scientific proof of God existing, this is a scientific hypothesis for how our universe was created.
Biblical definition of God:
God is not a creature and never had a beginning point, being eternal: Deut 33:27; Isa 9:6; 1 Tim 1:17; Isa 44:6
I'm sorry if I'm missing it, but you contradicted yourself by stating that the universe did in fact have a start, in which God has no start, but if God has no start, then the hypothesis that something can come from nothing is invalid, meaning something came from something. So are you either saying that God made something come from nothing, or that something came from the behalf of God?
It is almost always the case that "scientists" who believe, have believed before they scienced, they are trying desperately to justify the conclusion they started with, which is not scientific
What if we are actually operating on an metaphysical equation? Thusly: From dependence flows the need to trust. For trust to properly function, it need to have genuine and righteous truth. The proper harmonization of trust and truth is the basis for love, and, it's the measuring stick for justice when the equation get's violated. The proper harmonization of trust and truth is also recognizably good by non-malevolent people.
You cannot imagine a universe where properly functioning trust can operate on a lie (the opposite of truth). Therefore this equation is eternal, and preceded our material universe.
God has described himself as the way, the truth and the life. He has also described himself as just and loving.
In the creation narrative, God was basically saying to Adam and Eve: Do you, as creatures dependant upon me for your existence, consider me truthful enough in order to trust me enough, so in that in following through with this metaphysical equation/law that is a reflection of who I am, (as well as you being created in my "image") you will not only love me, but obey me, and you will flourish in so doing, but, you will become both evil and good if you don't, as well as suffer evil?
This is why hell is eternal... because we temporal creatures are operating on an eternal equation.
Does the physicist define god clearly before presenting his "evidence"?
Dear Sinai Speak, At 4:58, Gerald says "the opening Chapter of the Genesis says...." (1) Can you tell me what exactly the Genesis says; (2) Where can I find that verse in the Genesis? (3) At 4:31 he also mentions "that is the Biblical definition of God...."; and (3) Where can I find this definition? Thanks a lot.
Truth is a reasonable explanation as to why it is true, faith is the belief that the explanations are true.
Nothing can be truly supported in this world, as we can only conceive and make ideas out of this reality. Everyone has faith in what they believe in, no matter how small. This is why bias is so important to ones worldview.
Here is the supposition of an Athiest: Here is a box, with paper origami inside the box. If I were to observe purely things in the box, I could come up with a reasonable explanation as to how they were in the box. This is the explanation: the origami came from a piece of paper, in which it folded itself to create intricate and complex shapes. However, that requires faith, that there wasn't a force folding the paper to make the shapes, as well as the faith that the paper came from nothing. If they only observe things from within the box, they cannot possibly know that that explanation is true. They take science in materialistic aspects with holes in it and say that explains the world. Yet in the theory of evolution itself, if one is to believe that, nothing is true, as everything is up to time and chance. And with the proposition, they cannot say that anything is true, such as the theory of evolution.
“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
" Charles Darwin
There is a line of thinking one could make to question if anything is true:
1. How can I know what I have been told is true? To most people, the truth that they get is from the people they think have experience and authority. Those people tell you what is true, and give an explanation as to why it is true, but you must have faith to trust in that person's explanation.
2. How do I know if my senses are what they say they are? You know and process everything from your sensory organs, but how do you know that they can see properly?
3. If my senses are wrong, then how do I know if this reality Im living in is even correct? What if this is a simulation?
If left unchained to this reality, people are prone to doubt even their existence. Living each day, they have faith that this reality must be true, or they could be having an existential crisis everyday.
There is another explanation to the Universe, which does take in accounts from things outside of this reality. That is found in Christianity, where the entire religion is based on a miracle, which is an occurrence that cannot be explained by this reality. That miracle is the raising of the dead. Now, if that miracle is proven true, then what the man who has been resurrected must be true, hence, Christianity.
Here is where bias comes to play. People who don't want any influence in their life, no rules, no moral law to be subjected to, believe in Athiesm. They say everything is meaningless, so nothing you do really matters, and you can do whatever. With that, they can live their lives however they want. The reason they do not want to believe in Christianity, is because they are naturally inclined to do evil. That in itself is a proof for why Christianity is true. To some, to be an Athiest is to recognize the natural inclination to do evil, and believe in a reasonable explanation as to why they should and can do evil without consequences. To others who are more deeply embedded in the belief of Athiesm is when they actually believe that nothing matters, and go into either nihilism or hedonism, where they dont care about anything, or they know that nothing matters so they only do what gives them pleasure. Another belief is Agnosticism, where they just put out the supposition that it is impossible to know the why and how for reality, and live on with their lives. These are the people who don't want to go into religion because they think it won't help them. They think that if I devote my life to that religion and it therefore proves to not be true, I have wasted my life for nothing, thus they label the world as impossible to determine, and go on with how they want to live their life.
Then there is the Christian, where it has faith in the afterlife, a hope to come. They have a bias towards a purpose in everything in this world. They believe in a world created based on Love. They believe in good and evil, and they know judgement exists. However, the Christian does not pursue good by their own means. The Christian is based on miracles, such as the miracle of the changing of their intention from evil to good, not of their works, but of the works of the savior who has done that for them. Since they believe in miracles, they have faith in healing through prayer, etc. They have faith that the material world is not the truth, but only a glimpse of it.
If we were told to believe in any number of ideas,but none were true and we never knew we were limited,then how do we now know that we r not?
God of Gaps. As usually. "I don't know, therefore - God!" :)
Why God of the gaps?
The point is the existence of a repository of knowledge that existed before matter and is independent of humans, which acts upon ALL material. That is in fact what we do know
@@555usher The term "God of the gaps" describes some people's tendency to interpret the Bible litertally, as if it was a science book. They'll assign divine causes to any poorly understood phenomenon. For instance, when someone got struck by lightning, it was believed it was the Wrath of God - that's until research on electricity in the 18th century revealed it was a natural phenomenon. Same thing for graviity, quantum physics, chemistry, relativity and on and on. If one keeps assigning God to anything they don't understand, it means they'll eventually be painting Him in a corner, so to speak. Same thing with this fellow : what will happen to God if/when physicists develop an understanding of what caused the Big Bang ?
You are not alone, friend. Walk into a church and talk with the people in there, you'll be surprised. God wants you to meet him. God bless you.
This isn't a God of gaps at all. A God of gaps is we don't know therefore God. This man is saying we know something therefore God. He is simply giving his interpretation of what the data concludes. Anyone who looks at this data will come to a conclusion, many will say God many will say nature.
Pikachu created the universe. Disprove me 🤣🤣🤣
Videos like this are great for discerninglogical fallacies in real time.
Big bang was not an explosion as he described it. Do I need to dig deeper?
Ok, now prove that was not Gaia or Muspell from Greece of Scandinavia respectivelly who did this
it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster....everyone knows that ;)
Prove that they did.
A really smart person but just like the rest of us - without a clue how it all started.
So this guy seriously think that over 2000 years ago, they predicted right? They predicted, they didn’t do research, just predicted?
Came here to Lol at theists. Wasn't disappointed.
My question: if God used the Big Bang and created the world using 'science' or metascience/pseudoscience/quantum physics or whatever better terminology we can use...
Why does He state in His word that the universe was made over the course of six days? I have often heard this is just to introduce the week to people, but its very hard to tell because it's quite cryptic. Any thoughts or ideas, or better yet, information based on knowledge and evidence?
There was energy and, as it's says RIGHT THERE quantum fluctuations.
When God said, "Let there be Light." That was the Big Bang.
Quantum fluctuations aren't made of nothing. If you study physics you'll learn that the so called quantum fluctuations in the vacuum (quantum foam) are made out of virtual particles (if I'm not wrong, QED says that it's like static noice in the flies of each particle) it doesn't mean creating something out of nothing. It means creating something out of a very small something
To me, the original boom could only have been created from energy and energy creates matter. IF this is right, the nothing spoken of does not exist ! And if it exists then it is something.
So it was proven that the Universe came out of nothing? I'm not so sure about that.
To get an answer to doubts do what James 1:5 invites " If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him"
Nevermind the fact that the theory also fits pretty much endless other potential gods, descriptions or explanations (thanks, QualiaSoup and CosmicSkeptic), I'll just tell you what's really going on here...
So, to summarise (since otherwise this comment would be a wall), the universe is a mathematical structure (so it exists for the same reason 1+1=2) and the point existing before the Big Bang was an initial/post-iterative state. The forces in the universe are probabilistic constants that influence how quanta fluctuate every Planck instant. And now to clear some things up.
First, we don't really know if the Big Bang is really the beginning because people also think it could've been an infinite series of Big Crunches or black hole consumptions. Also, it doesn't necessarily point to intelligent design because any randomness is subjective since there are probably infinite universes like this with different quantum fluctuations or initial constants (and besides, if you're working with mathematics, no finite numbers are really considered large (yes that includes Rayo's number, BIG FOOT and sasquatch). You can quite definitely have WAY more intelligent and meaningful life with way larger numbers of particles and objective (Planck) lifetime. Humans have flaws, like the appendix obviously, not to mention megalomania pretty much destroying the world from way too much intelligence and greed from the relief of the burden of survival. Everything biologists and evolutionists have studied about life points to evolution being a fluke. And yes, I am insinuating that you all think you're so good, when really you're not (although morality is subjective) and you just can't bear the idea of how meaningless and chemical you are).
If there is a God, God constitutes all of mathematics without bias (so even though you don't have free will, you're God. Congrats for reading this comment). God wouldn't be so biased, anthropomorphic or so demonstrably biased in their specific morals. God wouldn't even be making any decisions: they'd just exist timelessly. I mean of course can you imagine 1+1=2 having any dimensional sense to it other than real finite positive integer space in it?
And yes. You probably think I think I'm so good when really we both know I'm not. It's mostly just that for whatever reason, humanity is dumb for a number of realistic, logical, social and psychological reasons. So yes, here's the truth you've all been waiting for. Now to put myself in the depths of the comment section and see if people will fish me to the top...
Plot twist: We are acually in a simulation and the people making the simulation is in a simulation and its a never ending simulation loop
So... were there any 5 minute conversions?
"Nothing", the "un-dimensional", exists in abstract from a purely heraclitean human perspective as structuring principle of the very chaotic forces that created the universe. "Who has ears to hear".
Except there's no evidence the laws of nature are sentient, or have a personality. So there's no reason we should pray to them, there's no reason to believe in the afterlife.
"I believe in god, only I spell it nature." - Frank Lloyd Wright..
Or, utilizing The Godel Proof with no formalisms for simplicity (a mathematician higly specialized in abstract Logic):
Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by-i.e., strictly implied by-a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
...there is a book written by Tony Tymstra titled; What is possible? ...here is a chapter you may find interesting...the book is available on amazon.
THE LITTLE BUTTERFLY PROOF
How much more amazing can this planet be? A butterfly
returns to the forest four generations later after having never
been there before and lands on the same trees as its great
grandparents once did, traveling almost 3000 miles and never
getting lost. How can that not be proof of something grand in
this world?
The Great North American monarch butterfly's migration is
only one example of nature's seemingly endless number of
inspiring mysteries.
It is a demonstration of the complex and elegant
entanglements that are still hidden from us. Such a testimony
quietly compels us to discover and understand the world
around us.
Before these butterfly sanctuaries were discovered in the late
1970s, people in North America had always wondered where
did all these monarch butterflies go. And in a strange twist of
beautiful irony, the people in Mexico had always wondered
where did all these butterflies come from. These are two
different views of the same incredible pilgrimage. This
migration is truly one of nature's wondrous revelations because
it is not the life of one butterfly that makes this so unusual. It is
the life of four generations of butterflies that makes this story
complete and causes us to ponder about our own purpose and
destiny.
This is a beautiful story. The migration starts in the middle of
the forest, in the mountains of Michoacán. It is in an area only
thirty by fifty miles round. Millions upon millions of butterflies
converge in this place to overwinter enjoying the warmth of the
Mexican sun. During their stay in this migratory site, the female
monarchs become fully developed, and mating takes place.
As this first generation begins their spring migration, they fly
over mountain ridges to as far north as Texas and to the
southern parts of the United States. Here they lay eggs on
milkweed plants along the way. This generation soon dies, but
in four days, their eggs will hatch into baby caterpillars. These
earthbound caterpillars eat ferociously for two weeks before
becoming fully-grown. They will then find a quiet and safe
place to hide. Here they will start the process of transforming
into a chrysalis.
For about ten days, the caterpillar will undergo a remarkable
transformation called metamorphosis, and soon a beautiful
butterfly will emerge. Deeply embedded in their nature, this
second-generation somehow knows to continue the journey,
and they fly north to the mid-United States and to the lower
parts of Canada where they will lay eggs and begin the cycle for
the next generation.
As the third generation emerges, they will find milkweed
plants, eat, breed, and lay eggs, and soon a fourth generation of
butterflies is born. When autumn arrives, and the leaves fall,
this fourth-generation will fly all the way back to Mexico.
Picking up thermals and getting carried aloft on the upper
winds.
They will travel roughly sixty miles a day. After two months,
they will eventually arrive at the same thirty by fifty-mile
forested area of that first generation. It will have been a flight of
almost 3000 miles without having any knowledge of being there
before, and never getting lost on the way. It is an incredible feat.
The Monarch Butterfly migration inspires an overwhelming
feeling of reverence and admiration for the glory of nature. It is
still a mystery as to how they do it.
In early Christianity, the butterfly was a symbol of the soul. In
China, it was used as a symbol of bliss and joy. People in
Australia and New Zealand call the monarch butterfly "the
wanderer." To Native Americans, the butterfly is a symbol of
joy, color, and change. The butterfly has inspired many poets,
thinkers, and writers. Perhaps this is a testimony to the Creator
of this world. Is a butterfly proof that a Creator exists? If and
when we learn all the mysteries of the world, then perhaps we
will know, but the Great Butterfly Migration gives us a glimpse
towards that answer.
I clicked on this video thinking it'd be fun to read angry comments, but this was very well put and well explained. I myself am an atheist and I was genuinely shocked (the good kind) at his unique approach at explaining the existence of God, especially the way he used actual scientific evidence.
This did raise some questions for me though, like why many Christians still see the Big Bang Theory as something that contradicts God, and why there always has to be a fight between religion and science. (The scientist in the video was capable of bypassing both, respect)
I don't see this as something that "disproves" atheists though, because from another perspective, the reason this similarity (4:23) is there may just be because both (God and the laws of the universe) happen to be a regulator of what we cannot explain or even perceive (outside of the universe, before the universe, etc.) Also, even though the Biblical God matches these observations of the Laws of Nature, it still seems like a jump in logic since assigning God as the Laws of Nature, while it makes sense, still doesn't validate what was stated in the Bible (for example, flat Earth, Genesis, etc.). I'm not saying that the existence of God is bound to the validity of the Bible but I do think it's a factor in being convinced, which is what's important.
This guys is not thinking clearly for a scientist...first of all ...science isn’t claiming that the universe came from nothing ...but it is saying that’s where our understanding sort of like end ...we don’t really understand what happened before that singularity...also just coz you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you should make bold assumptions like that ...”we don’t understand it ...therefore God”
Clickbait
So if he does exist then why hasn't he said anything?
So the bible just calls the universe "God"
that's it.
Are causal world, astral world inside the box(Universe) or outside???????
soooooo... god is the laws of physics? i mean i'm down for that.
Yes God created.
OBVIOUSLY
Okay; there is a god. Who among us is communicating with it? How do we know what it’s wishes are? If it is a singular entity, and there are so many interpretations of it’s intent, who is the ultimate authority? What if there is a god but our creation is a result of randomly determined parameters? To think that we, as individuals, are known with such intimacy and that our actions are of such import to this creator of all things, are going to earn benefit beyond what is natural for our species by following certain rules. Who makes those rules? Is there more than one acceptable set? Is it a benevolent god or does it kick ass and take names? I think that if there is a benevolent god it better start paying a bit more attention cause we’re fixin’ to ruin the place.
What put the laws of nature in place?
So let's say these "Laws of Nature" and fit the description of what is God according to the bible. Still, there's no reason why these "Laws of Nature" have to come down here and create an Adam and Eve and then create the tree of knowledge and a talking snake! (I'm talking to those who believe that's actually what happened)
This video proves nature is god.
This proves nothing tho.
Nature has no volition. Suppose the cause of the universe has existed eternally. Suppose further that this cause is not personal: that it has given rise to the universe, not through any choice, but simply through its being. In that case it is hard to see how the universe could be anything but infinitely old, since all the conditions needed for the being of the universe would exist from all eternity. But the universe cannot be infinitely old. That is a scientific fact and it is also absurd to think an infinite set of events happened before reaching today. You cannot count down from infinity to 0. But we exist. So the hypothesis of an eternal impersonal cause seems to lead to an inconsistency.
If the cause is eternally present, the effect must be eternally present. The only way for the cause to be timeless and for its effect to begin a finite time ago, is for the cause to be a personal agent, endowed with free will, who has the ability to spontaneously create a new effect without any antecedent determining conditions.
Romans 1:25 " They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served creating things rather than the creator-who is ever praised."
There was no nature nature was created
Better start bowing to trees.
the big bang wasnt how the universe was "created"
(creation and/or a creating god is impossible)
nor was it the first.
Who or what created God?
Talk about reaching
His whole argument relies on one vast unsubstantiated claim: that the laws of physics predate the big bang. He seems perfectly willing to accept the standard model, that spacetime started with the big bang, yet he tries to sneak in the notion that there was a time before the beginning of time. That's more than bad science, that's a con.
I believe in the Heavenly Father .
I copy pasted this but it's a little bit longer than 7 days. In a process known as runaway accretion, successively larger fragments of dust and debris clumped together to form planets. Earth formed in this manner about 4.54 billion years ago (with an uncertainty of 1%) and was largely completed within 10-20 million years.
If a scientist is asked the question ... "Do you believe that the universe was created by a God?" and the scientist answers "Yes" ... that is not science ... that is religion.
This has so many dislikes, just because it has a different premise than the mainstream atheistic view. Nice video :)
I am not totally convinced, yet I do respect the ideas expressed by this man.
I believe in God, but I don't think the existence of God can ever be proven, nor do I think it's useful to even try to prove it. Belief uplifts because it entails *trusting* that what you think to be true is in fact true, and giving up control in the process. It's a letting go, one quite similar to that which occurs when you trust that a loved one won't hurt or deceive you, even though you obviously can't know s/he won't for sure.
Attempting to prove scientifically the veracity of your faith inherently defies said faith, and leaves you lacking in trust, not only in God, but in yourself. You're left enslaved to a need for rigid certainty, rather than liberated by the release of control which comes with faith, which comes with trusting in yourself that your belief is true, and that God is with you always.
Nevertheless, I appreciate Dr. Schroeder's thoughts, and encourage anyone who's made it this far into my comment to check out 'The Brother's Karamazov' by Fyodor Dostoevsky for more on this topic (note: *DO* *NOT* just read "The Grand Inquisitor", a very famous story within the story, but please read the entire book, or at least maybe the SparkNotes, to understand the full context and purpose of the author's profound endeavor).
"I don't understand cosmology therefore god" - I am not convinced.
The point is the existence of a repository of knowledge that existed before matter and is independent of humans, which acts upon ALL material. That is a settled understanding of cosmology
So you understand cosmology better than him? Ok, Id like to see any proof you are any greater than a highschool dropout. Your not convinced because you rejected the premise from the start. Also, this isn't even a God of the gaps.
Depends on what we mean by the word - GOD - a word without a clear definition remains meaningless.. The Bible teaches.. God and mankind are POTENTIALLY.. ONE AND THE SAME - and we ourselves are Gods.... meaning - “we are ALL actually members.. or aspects.. of a single Being.. of which we ALL somehow form part.. to which we ALL belong….. The most popular name for it.. in our time…. is God…..” wrote Schrodinger
“Once more the Jews lifted up stones to stone him. Jesus replied to them: "I displayed to you many fine works from the Father. For which of those works are you stoning me?" The Jews answered him: "We are stoning you, not for a fine work.. But for blasphemy, even because you.. Although being a man, make yourself a god." Jesus answered them : "Is it not written in your Law, `I said: "You are gods"'? - John @ ----
Jesus was quoting the Psalms 82:5 - “They have not known, and they do not understand; In darkness they keep walking about; All the foundations of the earth are made to totter. I myself have said, 'You are gods, And ALL of you are sons of the Most High.” -- Psalms 82:5
“Every church is a stone.. On the grave of a god-man: It does not want him to rise up again.. under any circumstances.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
All of Existence is Itself a part of God - God is the Sum of ALL Natural Processes - The Ground of ALL Being - Omnipresence, the Supreme.. or Ultimate.. Reality. The Creative and Controlling Force in the Universe - The Life Force - The Force regarded as causing and regulating the Phenomena of the World by the Universal Natural Laws - God is both Outside.. and Inside.. Space-Time. Not subject to the cycle of Birth and Death - The Ultimate, the Absolute, Infinite and Eternal….. ENERGY and FORCE…
The word - GOD - functions as a SYMBOL.. representing.. the underlying Unity.. and.. or.. as a METAPHOR.. representing a personification of a Motivating Power.. of a Value System.. that functions in Human Life.. and in the Universe. The Force.. and Energy.. that supports the World - A personification of the Energy.. or Force.. that seems to regulate the Physical Universe - An anthropomorphic idea whose dynamism.. and symbolism.. are filtered through the medium of the psyche..
“We are inseparable from nature. God is the living fabric of the universe.” - Author Unknown
"We know some things have causes. But there cannot be an infinite regress of cause and effect so there must be a Cause which is itself uncaused - a source of all being - "and this is what we call God."
- - Thomas Aquinas
www.apocatastasis.net/THE-ULTIMATE-DEFINTION-OF-GOD.html
-
according to this prof,he states that the universe was created from nothing....except for the laws of nature.since the laws of nature are something,the universe did not arise from nothing.
Even energy must come from somewhere, it doesnt get there my itself, also why did the singularity expand all of a sudden and did it even get there and why was it in that state and why did it suddenly expand when it did and not before or after? I see God as being the only reason/explanation for this and MANY other issues such as there having to be a first cause because of infinite regression, and only God fitting with the neccessary criteria.
So how did god himself come about?
Non-sequitur. This is Ontology. If God exists, then by definition, God must be eternal. If something created God, then that would be God. Without an eternal cause, an infinite regress would occur, which is logically incoherent. It is necessarily true that an all-powerful, eternal, cause of the universe exists.
How do you think?
Watch the video
That’s what makes God, God. God is infinitely perfect
When we know more about our own nature and our universe we might ask questions about God
There is no way to know that!!!
The bottom has fallen out of atheism/ Darwinism/ evolution. No one has ever observed the transition of one kind of creature to another kind of creature (ape to man, etc.). However, many people throughout history have interacted with God. Choose recorded history (the Bible), not hypothetical atheistic conjecture; choose Christ!
It's not proof but it's a very good argument
I thought that you could only create something out of nothing as long as the energy of the creation multiplied by the time of its existence was less than the plank constant (or was it the plank constant / (2* pi)? )?
Beyond that, if you could create something out of nothing without restriction, why wouldn't it be creating constantly? Why do we think energy cannot be created or destroyed if it can be created in this manner?
Even then, what makes these forces a god and not nature? Is there proof of sapience, or any form of intelligence? What makes it the biblical god, rather than any other god, let's say Zeus?
Also, perhaps this is just my ignorance talking, but how does the idea that forces are not physical in themselves work with the virtual particle theory? As in, if infinite forces such as gravity are carried by massless particles (lets call them gravitons, and they must be massless to be created infinitely without energy, and exist indefinitely), then doesn't this mean that gravity as a phenomenon has a physical manifestation? The other fundamental forces also have carrier particles, and thus are they not physical manifest? Is your explanation that there were forces that didn't exist physically, that did affect physical objects (that didn't exist yet), but ceased to exist after the big bang?
"science has in fact discovered God and you can talk to the hard-line atheists and they will say" it looks like science has indeed discovered God."
Urm... I haven't met any hard-line atheists who have said this. And I haven't met anyone except for yourself sir, who use this diagram to say that science has proven God.