Lecture from the 2nd mini-series (Is "God" Explanatory) from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
This guy. He has the answer for everything, but in his final hours he will find god. If he’s blessed. If not he could spend a entire afterlife in HELL. His choice.👌🏻🌞😃✝️❤️🌹
We think God has a humanlike shape, characteristics and behaviors of humans because we are humans. God is more than we think, the limit of our knowledge today. Yet, because of some people's fanatism, we fight in religious dogmas on things we are not sure of, instead of searching for our real needs: happiness, welfare and good relations.
Note, however, that dogs and horses, not being made in the image of God, can't create anything. Seems by your creating a straw man you missed the point.
@@emmadaughtry Lets just face it. Anything that can bring the universe into existence from a singularity so powerful that it is beyond human beings imagination and that caused energy and matter to come into existence out of nothing, with all of the laws of physics and chemistry, is beyond human comprehension. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. Douglas Adams
actually the puddle doesn't disappear, it is evaporated into the air, becomes a cloud and returns to the Earth....and this is random??, don't think so.
@@magic10801 it's called an analogy. You're hardly destoying the argument by taking it all literaly. Plus your comment is not only begging the question, assuming the conclusion ratger than supporting your own claim, It's also committing a black and white fallacy
@@casparcubitt1117 wow, just because the analogy doesn't really make sense in terms of creation or humans existence, does not mean I don't understand it. I know what the puddle represents, but I'm actually thinking and not just regurgitating what I hear or read. The puddle is part of a system in which it is recycled repeatedly, do you ever think why? A Universe that supplies humans every need, while providing a brain to create their own needs and wants. And you want people to believe its random, or we just happened to show up. You have to realize how senseless that sounds.
@@magic10801 " Creation" doesn't make sense it's just something people say that has no actual meaning. What is "creation"? Describe an act of creation where god makes nothing into anything from nothing. You have a God and nothing else and this God does what exactly to create a hydrogen atom from nothing. Go!
@@dimbulb23 Creation is a term only thinkers can understand. We live in a world where objects are created all the time. you will never say oh that building. car or plane just appeared but then when it comes to a star or planet all of a sudden we become dumb. those things just appeared out of nothing. If it takes knowledge to understand this world. then something/someone with knowledge had to create it. period.
The fine-tuning argument is ultimately self-defeating: “This universe is so complex and “fine-tuned”, that can only be explained by a creature which is infinitely more complex and “fine-tuned”, which doesn’t need an explanation of course!” If our great but still far from perfect universe needs a designer, so does the creator of this universe, who is necessarily “greater”, more “fine-tuned” than our universe.
The universe is not eternal though, God is said to be eternal. It is consistent as far as I can see. The argument depends upon the universe having a cause.
@@crabb9966 Depends what you mean by universe. Our (observable) universe? That started with the Big Bang. The whole cosmos? We have no clue. When I talk about the universe, I mean the latter. Consistent, yeah, if the premises where true, but justifying the premises necessarily involves special pleading, that’s my point.
Hello! Welcome to the youtube comments section! Here's a few steps you can take to enjoy your time here! 1. scroll back up 2. finish the video 3. close browser If you've completed these steps then you are well on your way to living a happy life where you avoid pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else!
Nubro Zaref but how do you know if there is people whose ultimate happiness consists precisely on getting involved in "pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else"? Just read atheist603 and Typical-Religious-Internet-Atheist-Troll comments above and you'll see what I mean... :)
well typically a debate has more than one person.. and the idea of god doesn't actually need to be "argued" in any way, that's kinda the beauty. This video is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else
@@baterickpatman Probably why he put debate in quotation marks. I agree, religion is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else.
@@cagedgandalf3472 "religion is utterly pointless" What makes you say that? Or a more pertinent question might be, how can you say that anything has a 'point' or 'purpose' at all?
@@nanashi2146 Things have a 'point' because people give them a point. It's a simple fact of reality, that we'd agree with, that people like and dislike, and draw their own meaning from events. Religion is pointless because it's hypocritical to the points we choose. We all want personal freedom, better understanding of the world, love, peace, happiness, etc. The issue is that religion, while it does provide some of these things in parts, it does so while stripping many others away in far greater amounts or does so inconsistently. Just look at how many people want to remove certain people's rights to marriage or free-expression while it isn't the thing that grants those in the first place. Religion causes more harm than good; it's an awful way to get meaning.
This isn't as logical as you think it is, if this is the case you're talking about absolute contingency which is just doesn't cut the mustard, logically speaking.
He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not is simple. Teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows is simple. Teach him. He who knows and knows he knows is wise. Follow him! ~ Arabian/Persian Proverb (Somewhat ironic considering what Islam later did to previously groundbreaking Intellectualism in the Middle East, but still...)
EXACTLY!! ❤️🙏🏻🌈🥰 My favorite quote in this regard is Isaac Newton about calculus being “a seashell on a beach to a child” while the whole vast ocean of truth lay before him undiscovered. Or the Taoist ”the Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao” Both of which I live by. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t find new things, that there are not truthful symbols. When we read a book, where is the meaning? It does not exist in the black squiggles on the page. And we can later come back to the same book and see so much more. But it’s the same book! Or is it? The act of reading is symbolic of life. The reading is the progress of evolution. Which is why animals can be ranked so to speak, but also learned from as symbols. So they are at the same time much more valuable and intimately related to humans than generally realized. Same thing with plants.
Hello prof Sean Carroll, for a long time I have this question and I can't find the answer, In your research about "emergence" I always wonder if the in 2009 intrudeced theory on emergent or entropic gravity by prof Erik Verlinde of the university in Amsterdam? (Netherlands) if you find the time thank you so much.
@@Lintpop : Clearly many people believe that but it doesn't make it factual. I don't know that pretending is helpful. Bad information leads to bad choices. We give meaning to our own lives. That we are self-aware in the vastness of space is pretty special and we should appreciate how remarkable it is.
@@lrvogt1257i guess my reply was more in the lines of a simplistic answer. For myself no one can debonk the fact that there is a no God. Unfortunately I can not say the same for person next to me in the store or anyone for that matter. I grew up with the understanding that there is a God, when I was older and ready I challenged the God vs science, did alot of reading and studied apologetics. The end of the day there is more proof that God is the cause of why we are here.
@@Lintpop : I think you were trying to say that you can't disprove god. That's right. You can't disprove a claim that is unfalsifiable. You can only point out the lack of evidence to accept it as fact. You can't prove there are no goblins. You can only speak to the lack of evidence for them. If someone were to catch one, we'd have to accept that as evidence. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can actually demonstrate the supernatural.
TehJumpingJawa except that no mathematical equation would make any useful prediction unless there was a necessary event that proceeded along the same entropic event space whose interactions were anything but “causal”. It’s ridiculous for a determinist to deny causality, necessity etc
@@flyingmonkey3822 No determinist denies the existence of causality or necessity. But the word 'cause' is extremely slippery. There are a whole host of words that people use all the time, but which make very little sense as understood by a layperson, and 'cause' is one of them. 'Time' is another. So is 'free will'. All these words represent incredibly subtle, complex concepts. So when a religious person starts talking about causality they tend to have an extremely simple, blunt understandings of the concept. And if you're trying to deny the existence of uncaused events, like radioactive decay or quantum field fluctuations, then you're just arguing with reality.
@@thesprawl2361 I think that Dr Carroll should be self consistent in his physics. You are of course correct that our definition of a concept should evolve to either encompass new aspects of the thing it is attempting to describe or new words should emerge if the concept is no longer tenable. I very much appreciate the lucidity with which Dr. Carroll speaks, but i find that he also equivocates on definitions. I would like to take his same concept that he uses to describe why the arrow of time moves only in one direction and show why this description is completely consistent with causality and radioactive decay, quantum field evolution, and the beginning of the universe. I very much liked what he said during his debate with Dr William Lane Craig when he said that "our metaphysics should follow our physics", and also thank him for his story about "the principle of sufficient reason" as I also had no idea why it was called that until hearing him speak! I enjoy his lectures, and his contributions to science and especially to his popularizing engagement with quantum theory. I just think that if he's going to take the many worlds interpretation that he's got a LOT of explaining to do, the least of which is that it violates the Born rule (or does not return it) and therefore does not return predictable results. If ever we should abandon a theory, it would be because it predicts nothing. Yet he holds to it as a sledgehammer to the concepts which normal people observe in their everyday lives. He has to justify his reason for thinking that the wave function becomes real at every split, when we definitionally have no evidence for universes that are no longer connected to our own. It also assumes that there is a more fundamental bubble universe that effervesces universes like ours into being. BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not. Purely statistically, it will have such a dilute space to exist as a particle that it will decay eventually. The "cause" is then that the dividing action of universes separating will average out to one in which we see our physics play out. It is not possible for each planck moment to pass without a change in it's universal state, only in it's local state. Interacting with the universe along this splitting paradigm "causes" the events we see. When a portion of the quantum vacuum changes to a state where it has traded regularity in frequency for location we will see it "pop" up a "particle". Is it possible for it to change universal states and not fluctuate? is it necessary that it's variations "unfreeze" and choose another state? When concentrated to a definiteness in one measurable aspect, can it do anything but continue interacting with the ever changing and diluting universal state? I'm not aware of evidence of this. I have more questions regarding how it is that we "jump" planck moments, and why it is that non-local interaction cannot be avoided... but it seems that between choosing A to interact further and Not A to choose to stop interacting... that we have no choice but to interact. If that is not determinism and causality... please help me see where i'm wrong. I'm open to hearing this, it IS all new to me and I don't have a formal education in it. P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist. P2) the universe began to exist. C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing. It's the same thing as the original cosmological argument but with updated assumptions regarding what it means to exist (be able to interact with it) or to begin and cease to begin (depending on it's current state) that are consistent with QM. So, an electron-positron pair that eventually occupy substantially the same space would exist while traveling towards each other and then stop existing in their current form but change form while conserving their properties of momentum etc. This observation can reliably lead us to deduce that there is something more fundamental to the universe.
of course you aren't obligated to interact specifically with anything here i've presented if you just want to argue that words are slippery, then we can both go home saying that sean and WLC are entitled to their own opinions... even to their own facts.
@@flyingmonkey3822 "BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not" ...But that IS the Many Worlds definition of probability. Probability is just the proportion of actual worlds in which an event happened. Count the proportion, and you attain the probability. (...There's a section in his new book where Carroll describes precisely how many worlds comports with the the Born Rule, but it's on my phone. If you have the book it's on pages 146-148.) "P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist. P2) the universe began to exist. C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing." Okay. For the sake of argument let's say I agree with your first premise. (Although what exactly 'more fundamentally existing thing' means I'm not sure. I think you just mean that it precedes it in a chronological sense, but that doesn't make it more fundamental. My mother isn't more fundamental than me just because she 'caused' me. But forget that.) Even if I were to accept the first premise, I most definitely do not accept the second. Firstly, what makes you certain that the universe began to exist? Sure, we had a Big Bang, but you know that many, perhaps most, physicists do not consider that to be the beginning of the universe/multiverse/reality. And again we hit upon the problems of definitions: what does it mean for something to 'begin to exist'? Have you ever seen anything begin to exist? No. You've seen matter and energy change form, you've seen that fundamental relationship fluctuate...but you've never seen something 'begin to exist' in the sense that you're talking about. It's unclear to me how it even makes conceptual sense. ...........
problem solving and testing . this includes building faster computers and AI if the calculations become too complex , run simulations .... be open to change ,
I appreciate Dr. Carroll taking the time and effort to explain what the parameters of his philosophy was. I write fiction novels with settings based in mythologies. We may disagree on a personal level, but your presentation, specifically its scaffold, gave me a number of new relatable perspectives for my characters. Thank you
The spiritual world it appears to be, a subset of existence, probably totally unlike the materistic world that humans live in, such as the micro level of quantum mechanics which differs from classical physics, but we cannot explain the processes, only observe the outcomes. It's a peculiar mystery that intrigues me.
@@keyissues1027 I think it's understandable, so no big mystery, that there are fundamental limits to how we can figure out deterministic laws about the objects that make up ourselves. In other words: Observations (measurement results) cannot in principle be separated from what is observed.
@@keyissues1027 humans don’t live in the physical realm alone, we are also rational constructs that exist metaphysically in a timeless and essential (eternal and spiritual) fashion.
I am a new student of Sean Carroll, just found him and can't wait to see what I learn. Love how he is a very fluid speaker, does not himm or haww.... knows what he is talking about and very vigorous.
I am glad that you benefited from his knowledge, can you think of a practical implications of following his teachings? Such as Anxiety increased or decreased? Motivation for life increased or decreases? Love for others and compassion? Agility meaning quickly come back after being down?
Sean carrol is as bad at science as stephen hawking , stephen hawking never made any contributions tro sceince , his whole spiel about dark stars is rubbish.Try reading his papers he is fucking nutter as is sean carrol, Who claims universes pop in and out of existence with no evidence to support the claim, it is no different than god claims.
Who knows. Human think they knows everything but we all know 0.000...to infinity....0 % of the universe. So better accept the fact we don't know anything and live the life happily
If we have each other, 8 billion or so, then we are by definition not alone. We also don't know where we were before this reality or where we go after. An open mind and humility are the best tools in this life.
You're as shallow as Sean. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Your premises don't follow logically. Yes, the universe is 'winding down' in the sense it is expanding and it appears matter will eventually become a diffuse fog of elementary particles. But you've never explained why this necessitates anything supernatural. The first step is to define supernatural and provide evidence. Until then it's just ambiguous speculation.
@@2fast2block Shallow is someone who believes others are shallow and that THEY know the unprovable. spare us you ignorance and talk to yourself in the mirror.
As to the fine tuning. I think that is sort of the point as particles, material particles, out of which everything is constructed revert back to a featureless domain of motion time ceases to become a constrain. And if, empirically, time ceases to be a constrain for said particles to combust then they have "all the time in the world" to combust in precisely a type of universe that may be traced back to such type of undeterminate particles.
runamokkk They don't just claim to know their gods, they claim to know about all gods. Think about it. If they claim it was their own gods who created the universe then they're making two claims, one ridiculous and the other completely fucking outrageous. The ridiculous claim is that magic/the supernatural is real and their gods used it to conjure the universe. The completely fucking outrageous claim they're simultaneously making is that all other gods invented by all the other humans on the planet are all false. At least 3,000 named gods that we know of, people who claim their gods created the universe are insisting that all those other gods aren't real. If you're ever stuck in a cafe waiting for Godot, try asking one of them what specific criteria they applied to each of those other gods to determine they were false. Godot and all his family, friends, relatives, his neighbors, and his neighbors relatives will all arrive long before you'll get a straight answer from a fundie.
The comment above me is the perfect example of what I said earlier. Surely he must be the leading theist/physicist to have such insight into what a 'GOD' is. He's probably smarter than Einstein and all others that came before him. He doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants for he is the Giant.
I think that scientists should be very picky about the usage of the word _theory_. Non scientifically educated people confuse _theory_ with _conjecture_ or _supposition_. So, they understand _Supposition of Evolution_ instead of _Explanation of Evolution_.
Richard Gomes Yeah, it's a pity that word was used in a scientific context as it opens the door to deliberate obfuscation by unethical religious types.
I think Dr. Carroll is giving the theologians a very large head start... and then demonstrating that even when given the easiest possible case to make, gods fail spectacularly. He does the best thing possible when dealing wtih pseudoscience: He takes it seriously and then says "What if that's true?" Apply it to biological evolution denial, big bang cosmology denial, climate science denial, abiogenesis denial and it *always* comes back as egg on the face of the denier.
Richard ,you talking nonsense;theory is a specific scientific construct,it is the ignorant that should learn by reading,asking questions, any means accessible what the word theory means depending on context it`s being used .If you bring the information to the lowest denominator nobody will learn anything and knowledge won`t be served and all will stay in darkness.
I hardly think changing "God is not a Good Theory" to "God is not a Good Scientific Theory" is dumbing anything down, and it would address the OP's point that ignorant people, especially the willfully ignorant, will immediately insert their superstition based mythology/conjecture as "also a theory" It's not going to stop them, superstitious people will always just double down when confronted with evidence that they're peddling superstitions, but nothing can be done about that other than teaching kids how to think instead of what to think.
Richard Gomes wouldn’t it be nicer if we could continue the correct usage of the word and simply teach others the proper use? The word theory is used in place of hypothesis frequently and inaccurately.
Sean Carroll! You have a gift for explaining & conveying answers with facts in complete detail & properties summed up in the most efficient dialogue that's impossible to not grasp.
Let neuroscience study how human need for safety, hope and meaning created a God out of nowhere. Or not. My personal belief is that we, people in the 21st century, are obliged to talk about God, only because our ancestors set it on the table at the very beginning. Thousands of years ago, people had no better tools than religion in order to understand the world around them. But, hey! Today we are not obliged to ruminate all this stuff about God and life after death etc. Also our ancestors had to make rituals around the tribe's fire. But hey! This isn't mandatory for us today. Let's move on. Lets forget about this once and for all. We have no reason thinking about Gods and life after death. Today our life is different. Let's free ourselves. Lets save time and energy for real problems that actually exist today. Existential problems. Ochham's razor, afterall, dictates us towards more empirical, materialistic, physical studies of the world. If no ancestor of ours had ever thought about the existence of God, then I have no doubt that nobody would still argue about this stuff. Lets leave the "Neanderthal's beliefs" behind. Its ok. This is not our problem any more. We are mature now. We can handle our own existence better. We dont need mommy's/daddy's hug (God). We don't need existential comfort in order to move on with our lives. We are free and powerful to explore and taste the world! No God has ever existed. In any form. We don't need to think about it. We dont have to argue about it. We don't have to apologise for that. This is TOTALLY OK!
He's got no gift except if you call lying a gift. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
He's not. Well known in science that he is a how can we put it.... snake oil salesman. Well known that his backing of Kaku is a cartel within science talking absolute nonsense with string theory. He can conceive 26 dimensions but the god hypothesis for him is nonsensical. I neither believe nor disbelieve but Dr Carroll is a well known vagabond and lover of Dr Kaku. He's no smarter than a graduate student. Even Penrose can't stand either of them.
The ''fine tuning'' conundrum may be resolved if the universe is assumed to exit forever. For then there is time enough for the universe to pass through all its phases/eons with all possible combinations of natural constants. So clearly we are in a phase/eon of the universe with the present values of the natural constants that are obviously consistent with our presence in it. (Note that, it is not necessary to assume infinitely many universes to be present at one time, rather, only one universe passing through its infinitely many possible phases/eons.)
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole...
Mostly theologians who focus on science and the existence of God do not argue that there is conclusive proof and furthermore that this is purposeful because it would not allow for the existence of faith and development of faith. I don’t have time to explain these things here, but there have been whole books and articles written on the topic from multiple different perspectives and logic, so if you are curious, look into it more deeply.
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - George also said if you don’t believe in him he’ll send you to hell where you will be tortured forever and ever…..But he loves you!😂
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - I have debated them ad nauseam and I have come to the conclusion that most of them are innately rotten people. Now that might sound harsh at first, but once you consider that most of them don’t believe any human can be a good person without the fear of believing a sky daddy is going to punish them, it makes perfect sense. They ask me stupid questions like “what’s to stop you from randomly killing people or raping women?” My response is, “oh, so that’s what you were doing prior to being converted?” Or “is that what every non-believer you know is out here doing?” Then I respond with, “statistically speaking most rapists, murderers, and their victims believe in God.”
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - Trust me, I know. Growing up in a catholic school and studying world religion gave me all of the ammunition I needed to fight back against indoctrination. The cult hated me because even as a child I asked a lot of logical questions and refused to take their word for everything. What you stated is an absolute fact. According to their belief system the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. How convenient? That type of system is highly effective for recruiting people, especially considering the estimated 300,000,000 to billions of deaths, rapes, and torturous activities perpetrated toward free thinkers and people of other belief systems over the centuries. My ancestors were read Ephesians 6-5 to keep them in line.
That was George Carlin’s pithy quote about God always needing money. Every religious person should watch the CZcams video of George Carlin’s excellent and hilarious account of his conversion from a young Catholic believer to a enlightened skeptic. It is transformative.
He hates what science shows. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Totally awesome. Job needs to hear this presentation. There is no apparent correct explanation or answer for suffering. Our notion of the all knowing and loving being does not comport with the likes of a simple person like myself praying over and over again for the wisdom and understanding to live the best life I can for all those people in my life and me. Having faith in faith is an ask beyond all the extraordinary gifts I have been given. The very need to have to rely on biblical scholars to explain godship is hard to grasp and the Truth , the way and the light should be easily accessible to everyone. Thank you for a well thought out explanation. Keep them coming
Just getting into this video now but have an immediate question: given the weight and meaning that the word “theory” carries in science, shouldn’t we be using “hypothesis” or something else here? My understanding is that the word “theory” in the scientific context refers to a working model eg. Evolutionary theory or gravitational theory.
It is so satisfying how Sean Carroll emphatically, sincerely and thoroughly explains the fine tuning argument, just to utterly demolish it entirely.... 😊
God is neither an engineer, nor a scientist. Being any of those, would imply that God makes calculations, drawings, etc which can be proven would make a design of the universe impossible. But, as we do not make calculations to move an arm, or to transform electromagnetic radiation into light inside of our skulls, God likewise makes the Universe happen NOW, instantly in the eternal present , without design or calculation, just as we pick our noses without thinking and only wishing to do so. Therefore the Universe is created only by one thing very closely resembling magic emanating from the center of our own bodies.
Dural Lexan How do you know so much about an invisible entity that allegedly exists outside of time and who possesses a disembodied mind... whatever that is? Just stop making things up
Hardtry to scatch an universe with minimum belongings to start the thoughts, but where the chemistry and physics came from? Where this first particle came from?
Correct that to modern religion. Back then it was probably more wise to go with the crowd for fear of death unless you were outspoken with proof of no God. Plus there are the scientistst such as Da Vinci, and Newton.
Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa I don't think we can ever know. just look at what happened to the ones who were open about opposing religion.
I don't have an issue with religions until they "Christians" try to prohibit subjects being taught in public schools. I don't have a problem with religions until they directly interfer with government. I don't have a problem with "Christians" until they try to interfer with my life. As you can see, I have many reasons to have problems with religion.
Well very ironic you say that when the law you live under says what “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." if you live in the u.s.a then you literally living in a country built on Christian belief and morals “thou shall not kill” ect ect without the law of that first came from god their would be no “law” in modern society if it was left to us “humans” all morality would be Relative, the law could be whatever it wants but no the us law is actually built in godly principles and then you say “interfere” with the government or do this or do that you that’s not “Christians” that’s just a few bad apples in the butch you look at they hate and the bad side? You say you don’t have a issues until the “Christians” what about the Terrorist yelling allah and giving the muslim religion a bad name? Or the buddist who put THIER kids through the extreme to be enlightened? Those people don’t speak for the rest of the “religion” you’re talking about It’s incredibly small minded to take a small group of people and group them up and give a negative intent,I’m black and everytime a cop kills one of my people do I group up all the cops in a butch no cause that’s unfair and wrong ,do you know that the most Christians are in Asia not in the us or the uk or canda but Asia and I’m just saying that to open your eyes and stop looking through this thick lenses you got on, you decided to take a Critical thinking video and make this negative comment, grow up dude….
@@manmadetunao2597 The pledge of allegiance isn't a law. It is also actually a relatively recent innovation. dating only back to the old anti-communist scares.
@@lexireina3641 well if you actually read my comment I never said it was the law I said THW country was built on Christian belief which it is and second recent? You’re saying thw 1700s we’re recent? That was 3 Centuries ago,that’s not recent buddy you know what is recent the civil rights moment which was only 56 years ago and Yk how Martin Luther king convinced the government and who talked to about why blacks are equal to whites ja because every man created by god is equal and that’s what he pushes and preached and why as a black man I can sit where I want and drink where I want it was only 50 years ago where I couldn’t now that’s recent not 300 years ago where as a black man I would Be in chains
@@manmadetunao2597 Funny you should say that, considering that those "Christian" beliefs you say the country was founded on didn't stop said founders from keeping you in chains. But then, if you read your Bible, you'll find that your God is pretty cool with slavery. Encourages submission to one's masters, no less.
...and atheists interfere with ours...like propagandizing them in your secular schools headed by your academic mentors who does early sexualization of them and push evolution onto them. Your worldview makes for a unsuccessful civilization, not a successful one. Your worldview shows a lot of garbage out from the garbage in you take in...such as twice the suicide rate for kids you bring up in your fatalism. The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to not have the federal government to tell the states what religion or type of Christian sect to have. Even President Jefferson took money out of the US treasury to pay for Bibles for schools. A 1892 Supreme Court ruling said we are a Christian nation. Another thing. There are two types of Christianity. One is true Gospel and the other are Christian cults. The difference? The true Gospel is salvation without works and is a GIFT for mere faith and grace without merit...the cults believe it is grace with WORKS and it s possible to lose salvation off and on. Here is a video giving the true Gospel of how to get the gift of eternal life. czcams.com/video/Wh1VU-_OF98/video.html
The first example of a particle floating in one direction universe does not disprove the necessary being type of God. For example, where did the laws of Newton come from? The particle and space being infinite does not absolve that something was necessary, even if it was the particle and law themselves that are the necessary parts.
from my understanding they would fall into the same system cause you have language and code on the face of the 8th script but theres still a structure above all of that which states tunnel line point and feeds back into information so the top of the structure as far as i can tell seems to be the statement of complexity
The entropy argument is very fascinating, and the whole lecture is well put-together and a great challenge for any apologeticist to try and overcome. However, I think when you say things like, "I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other," I just get the feeling it would take most theologians about 7 seconds to come up with a counter argument - and that's if they were distracted.
@@alankoslowski9473 I think maybe quoting 1 Corinthians 13 which describes the uselessness of all action without love would alone fry the "God didn't tell us to love each other," argument, let alone a vast number of similar sections of the Bible that encourage loving. "Love your neighbour as yourself," is in there, as is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and other instructions on love and compassion. Saying that stuff isn't in there ("I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other") belies a lack of knowledge about theological teaching - and that's just on that one religious text. There are plenty of others. It's not a good argument.
@@ghr8184 But it's not consistent, and there's much lacking in scripture, such as equal rights for everyone. It's also complete devoid of modern practical science. As he says, if it were written by an omniscient god, why isn't there anything about the germ theory of disease? I think his point is that it's evident the bible was written by humans during a particular historical period rather than being the inerrant word of god since so much of the bible is is lacking and erroneous.
@@alankoslowski9473 Perhaps I was unclear in what I was specifically saying. I was not addressing Carroll's whole lecture or even that whole section. I was specifically speaking to his saying that God (he is mostly using the example of the Christian God) didn't tell us to love each other. It explicitly says this exact thing multiple times throughout the Bible. It's literally right in there. Either Carroll doesn't know this or he is discounting these statements based on something he doesn't specifically indicate here, but that specific statement makes him sound like he really hasn't done his research on that specific statement's full implications regarding the Christian Bible. Making that statement in front of an apologeticist or theologian would be like jumping into a school of piranhas. And, yes, I know that piranhas don't really strip flesh from bone in seconds like in a cartoon. However, the overall point I'm making, I think is clear, even if I opened myself up to critique with a poorly-chosen analogy - especially if there were any marine biologists around. Which makes it the perfect analogy to describe my point about saying, "The Bible doesn't tell us to love each other," in the presence of a hypothetical theologian. Again: I like the lecture overall, and I think Carroll's main points are clear, intact, and challenging. He just has one poorly selected phrase.
@@ghr8184 Understood. Though he probably rehearsed the lecture, I don't t think he was reading directly from a script, so at least some of it was improvised. Considering this, I guess some inaccuracies are expected.
"You don't say that the integers are ontologically extravagant because there is and infinite number of them." at 40:40 is a great example. It made me laugh pretty hard while thinking about it.
Postulating that mathematical objects are real entities, that they should be part of our ontology, *is* ontologically extravagant. You can say that mathematical objects shouldn't be considered "things". I.e., you can say that "there is" should be understood to mean something different when you say "there is a city in Nebraska with over 150 zipcars" than it does when you say "there is a prime that can be written as the sum of five cubes but not as the sum of two cubes". And if you do that, your list of "things" is a lot smaller. The question is whether you've gained anything by that. I think that including mathematical objects in your ontology is perfectly reasonable, but that's because I think that being ontologically extravagant is perfectly ok. If there's an empirical reason to believe that some type of things is scarce, then there's an empirical reason to doubt a hypothesis that entails the existence of lots of things of that type. But beyond the scope of such an empirical basis, there's no good reason to insist that ontologies have to be small.
@@johnholmes912 People say all the time that infinite quantities are impossible but can never prove that to be true. It's just a false mantra they repeat, why I don't know.
@@esausjudeannephew6317 Ee, fuck yeah? Like for now he is t h e best. But I consider not only the substance but also the form. He freaking nails every crucial point with his accent, modulation of voice etc. when it's necesarry. Tyson for instance is god awful (considering all the hype). But to be fair I havent watched him a lot (but again maybe because he is so bad, lol).
But he speaks nonsense. You can see that , no? His science is based on nothing. He can not even master his ONLY instrument, Thought. Total abandonment of REASON.
I can’t discard this video. A lot of very interesting stuff. Everyone in the comments and including this presenter have equal opinion. I would have enjoyed a video on the mythology of god. It would be more appropriate to this conversation. I’ll be checking that out now. Good luck.
Three wise men once learned about a Deity by answering a foolish series of questions: was she really a virgin? Should we really believe this story? Isnt there a more plausible explanation for this birth? Hell no, it's a miracle! Come! Let us adore him! Worship this infant!
Aha! Someone else noticed! I've been leaving comments saying he sounds like Alan Alda and I keep seeing stupid comments like that he sounds like Stephen Hawking's text to speech program.
Gotta love the Sean! He’s super smart, super logical, and sometimes funny. I love the beginning where he shows the 3 ways of looking at god. It’s just how a scientific mind would begin - by grouping like things. It’s a taxonomic view.
@@con.troller4183 Wish there was an easy way to get them to understand that. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca Even Obama and Biden know that.
@@graveseeker Instead of being disqualified from office for believing in talking snakes and zombie saviors, you can't get elected unless you profess that you do.
@@keithhamilton2240 The universe comes from a burnt out star from another universe. There are an infinity of mathematical infinities but just one infinity
@@whirledpeas3477 I hope you'r not insinuating scientism or some form of positivism (the view that science is the ONLY way to truth) this is a position largely abandoned by philosophers of science, since it cannot bear the weight of its own princilple (that truth only come from sciense), it cannot itself be proven scientifically. Though, I agree "God is it's concious matter", sounds like some strange Chopra stuf.
The wordsmith? Is it bad to use words or philosophical language to define something? I do not know if that was what you intended to say. No matter; let me try to "wordsmith" a description of God: God is a peronal being with thoughts (aboutnes), similarly to us, though not analogus to us. And he is not constrained by time, space or matter (timeless, spaceless and immaterial) In other word the ucaused first cause, or the unmoved mover. This is a very narrow and minimal description, and a fuller description would probably take thousands of pages, with a lot of philosophical speculations (ehmm... Aquinas).
To make the presentation a lot simpler: when we consider the probability of a universe with exactly this parameter naturally existing vs the probability of a god existing with an particular intention which brought about a universe with exactly this parameter, Occam's razor prefers the former as it contains one fewer assumption.
Notice how Carroll's speaking never falters. No "Uh"s or "ahhh"s. The mark of someone who really..really..knows his subject, and the mark of a very clear thinker.
Just explain to me the first nanosecond of our universe, when from nothing we have all the energy of the current Universe. How the Higgs field created, so we can have material mass from interactions with it?
i saw this in my recommended and immediately watched it, I recognized Sean from watching Veritasium and i had no idea he had talks on this topic, something ive been interested in ever since i left christianity
Yes a single particle universe is plausible. Who made the particle? Again, Sean can not get around the pesky making something from nothing problem... I know several high level particle physicists professors at Cal Tech who were so intimidated by him while he was there that they hid their deep belief in Christianity. We can only love and pray for Sean.
@@jamesrichards3086 the question "who made the particle?" cannot be answered without first making the assumption that everything that exists must have a creator. you cannot answer such a question until you can demonstrate that the question even has an answer (through proving or justifying said assumption)
@@Azide_zx I never understand why people conclude that the only possible answer for these kinds of questions is a creator. "If answer is unattainable, answer must be a creator". Like, no? The answer could be anything and maybe there even is no answer. No one can possibly know, yet so many people have a need to make the conclusion of a creator. Clearly the faith itself is not enough to them so they have to seek additional cope by "justifying" it to others and coming to conclusions about "how it works".
@@denisdelinger3265 the thing that baffles me is the assumption that the originator of everything is a conscious creator. consciousness is an extremely complex property so out of anything i could possibly assume about what our universe came from, a conscious being would probably be one of the least likely some argue that a conscious being is the only thing capable of creating something new, but they have no basis for that assumption, or even the assumption that our universe even had an origin point some say that only a being with free will can create something truly new and creative like a universe or an artwork, but this inherently relies on the assumption that free will exists, implying that some influence exists in the mind other than the predictable interactions between neurons and cells and chemicals. this assumption is also unfounded. in fact, to assume that there is a supernatural influence in your chain of logic to prove a divine creator (a type of supernatural influence) is a circular argument and a fallacy
@@denisdelinger3265 doesn't Science use one theory and only one theory to assume the possible explanation to something?Why when its used with God you have a problem?You say it can be anything ,anything how?Lmao logic will then have to defy anything Creation theory is no way far fetched at all Your assumption that it can be anything it is because you not even specific at all which means that explaination can br outside the frames of logic and if so then no answer will be thought of instead of intelligent Design
What I do know about God is that when a tornado strikes the Bible Belt, he has nothing to do with that. But if an earthquake strikes San Francisco, God is sending a direct message to those people.
Right because they have queer folks! Totally ludicrous! My Arkansas cousin explained Katrina slamming New Orleans as God punishing the queer & sexually deviant! But Moore, Ok gets pummeled year after year! 🤣😂
Brilliant stuff from Carroll. Such an honest search for truth compared to the apologetics. Carroll " The logic is NOT ' I see that energy is conserved' therefore energy is conserved. The logic is 'I see that energy is conserved' therefore I make a hypothesis...and then I go out and test that hypothesis". I would challenge any creationist( old or new earth) or Intelligent design proponents to use that kind of thinking to support your claims. For me this type of thinking is what has taught us what we know about medicine, modern agriculture and technology, whereas theistic theories have demonstrated very little of actual use.
ShowMe Agree completely on your philosophy of science. However, religions have been enormously useful in encoding "how to" type information distilled over thousands of years, for example take the greek mythical constellations: in part, they are mnemonic devices for remembering the star patterns so useful in agriculture and navigation. Granted, one could use Ptolemaic calculations to navigate without reference to any mythology (and they did), but the point remains that religion served to teach about the star patterns and their movement. Like song, story and myth in general, religion is partly a form of preservation of lessons learned over the deep time of human existence.
I wouldn't try to deny that. Go back far enough and religion and science would have been nearly the same discipline...an effort to explain the world we live. And I wouldn't deny the use of any philosophy to ask further questions. Unfortunately many religious philosophies have stopped asking questions, and claim to have all the anwsers.
😂😂😂 this guy’s tunnel vision is pretty embarrassing for a “scientist”. Regardless of what your stance is on religion, this guy is basically like “well, I can’t prove based on my formula so it must not be. It couldn’t be that my understanding is limited.”
@@rizeorfall it's not embarrassing in the least. I wouldn't call it "tunnel vision" to dismiss something completely made up. There are THOUSANDS of religions. You may as well say he's got tunnel vision for not believing in fairies or Santa Clause.
@@rizeorfall Except he never said anything as absolute as that and you're 100% strawmanning him. The very first tuing he talks about is the importance of the word "good" in the title of his talk. At no point did he say that god is impossible, or that he certainly doesn't exist. He merely says, as a proper scientist/skeptic should, that the types of god hypotheses he outlined at the start are either useless or much more improbable than naturalistic explanations. There are, actually, god concepts that are impossible or disproven, but he didn't talk about those here.
@@betamusic5487 , Thousands of religions about gods indicates there is an original one. Only the Bible spells it out. That is how an intellectual person can figure it out. Zax is right. He starts with a bad premise then claims it can't be true because it didn't fit his bad premise.
The explanation to the question of 'why?' related to something always just creates a new question of 'why?', in my mind at least. It is an infinitely recursive question that loses meaning when you start asking it about the more and more fundamental low-level things in our reality.
There is a principle in philosophy elucidated by The Munchhausen Trilemma. All factual statements rest on chains of reasoning that are either circular, infinite in regress, or brute assertion. Therefore, our question should always be not "what is really true?" but instead rather "what is reasonable given the constraints we agree to for purposes of this conversation or investigation?" The latter question can be commonly answered by people who employ good logic; the former is more of a personal choice.
@@kennethbransford820 If you want to think God guided evolution that's one thing. But the idea that life forms on Earth have a common ancestor is well-established.
@@superdog797 HOW, is it well established? How did amino acids come together by accident? How, did the individual amino acids get their properly shaped isomers or enantiomers ? Why, are ALL, of OUR, amino acids right handed? If, life was by accident? The mixture of right and left handed amino acids would be the same. The chirality wouldn't be there. It would be non chiral. No one knows what the first step was for life. You comment ====> "common ancestor is well-established."< ==== This is showing you to be a liar. You don't know. All the worlds scientists don't know. ===== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@kennethbransford820 Life's amino acids are left-handed. It's completely false to say that both enantiomers should be present, and in equal mixtures, in living systems "just because". There are different theories as to why left-handed amino acids exist in life's proteins but it's safe to say nobody knows why the LUCA had left-handed amino acids. I don't know why you think that's a particularly important point. A universal common ancestor is indeed well-established, and since you seem to be interested in chemistry and likely science in general you should perhaps be asking why people think there is a LUCA instead of just disagreeing on little to no basis. Like I said, believing that God or an intelligence guided the emergence of lifeforms is one thing, but to suggest organisms on Earth don't share a LUCA is just ridiculous and betrays a failure to grasp why it is that people are so sure there was a LUCA. Think about a few questions from both an intelligent design perspective as well as an evolutionary perspective, and give me your answers and thoughts. Why do all lifeforms on Earth have DNA, RNA, ribosomes, a small group of about 20 amino acids, and a lipid cell membrane? Why are all multicellular organisms eukaryotes? Why are all lifeforms carbon-based? Do you think all humans have a common ancestor? If so, why? Do you think all cats have a common ancestor? If so, why? Do you think all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor? Why? Do you think all insects have a common ancestor? I could go on with questions like this but I'd like to hear your response. Have you heard of the term "nested hierarchy"? Do you know what it means, and how it relates to evolutionary theory?
This subject is as hard as trying to define what is human being and get majority’s agreement. Many subjects is fluid and dynamic since the meaning is defined by social norm which is hard to discuss without being very specific clear requirements, and tight definitions.
GOD = immorality justified. FUCK YOU enabler of racism, rape, child genital mutilation, Need I go on for the immorality of religion and its practices. All of these practices are exclusively middle eastern religions.
@@ossiedunstan4419 ah, ha caught you....you definitely do believe in God...you don't get that upset or make this many comments over the Easter Bunny.....Lol
Sean can't even make it past basic science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
The term Theory in science has a more robust meaning. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
I hate that this is the case honestly. It creates so much unnecessary confusion. Its very difficult to convince someone that a word doesn't mean what they think it does.
Prove it!! Sean Carrol isn't even Real and I'm surprised that so many people believe he actually exists!!! People are so gullible.... It's obvious that Sean Carrol is made up!!!
David Belcher, I take it from your use of "!!!!" 's that you are a bit bent out of shape. "Sean Carrol isn't even Real".....wow. What are you so angry about? Is it because people don't believe exactly as you do?
I have had some chats with the person calling himself Sean Carrol. He seems as real to me as you or anyone else. I happen to be a brown teddy bear so feel free to doubt my existence but someone presumably is typing this message on my behalf.
@@Bacpakin my biological "father" is, and always was, a lazy, uneducated waste of flesh, I'd love to know what it would have been like to have a family who actually gave a damn, I do have a family now but obviously not biological, more of an adopted family although they live more than 5,000 miles away 😔 People say you can't choose your family or parents, and while I agree with the latter you most certainly can choose the former, they make me a better person every single day and I hope you have as much luck as I did 😊👍 ♥ 🤗
@@DoctaOsiris And yet you are the best he could have and has biologically made. You are the best product of this [as you call it] ,waste of flesh...Think Really hard my friend.
@@juanitosuriel6931 think really hard? Are you actually kidding me? You know nothing about my life, if I'm the best my biological father could have ever "made" then I wish he'd never bothered, I'd be perfectly fine with never existing, not that I'd have ever known about it anyway, what's there to think really hard about exactly? 🤷
Think about this How did the singularity form It has to consist of something Now we have watched 4 Smbh vanish One hypothesis is they evaporated But how if light can not escape how did it evaporate What if it went critical became pure energy Slipped through the space time fabric Became a singularity Started to expand
Sean doesn't follow the laws anyway. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
What a brilliant talk about a much needed explanation for or against god in our lives from a person who knows man made rules and laws and scientific rules and laws. This has helped me better understand pure logical theories and draw my own conclusions to our existence!
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole.
@@OMAELITE i guess a lot of people know god and yet have toxic attitudes because that's what he teaches, right? that's the moral standard that god has set for his believers, amirite?
@@OMAELITE yea sure. you can just repent for being toxic, then get "forgiveness" and repeat that all over again, right? such a great excuse btw i was being sarcastic lmao. even now oh wait, you just said "what a dumb word". how friendly for someone from a religion that teaches to behave in the exact opposite way. god sure lives within them and through him comes these behaviours. what a solid proof that god exists.
@@Calligraphybooster how was anything created naturally? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2blockYou've missed the entire point of his argument. His argument was never against a God and the creation of the Universe. He never said it's not possible. In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree. His argument is that at this point in time God is not a good theory. He then explained this with a very well researched, thought out and fair set of follow ups including the weaknesses in a lot of Scientific theories and the positives in God's. He however proved multiple times that although it is a theory at this point in time it is far from the best. He even took the best argument for God (by a long way).
@@matwatson7947 he's a typical 'maybe this, maybe that' actor atheist who will NOT give the glory to God. He loves his act of "In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree." but his empty pride can't get him to admit that God has ALL the evidence and he has NONE.
I translateted this videos subtitle to Turkish. But I am hesitant to upload to my chanel. Is it free to upload? If it's not, can I send you the Turkish subtitle and you can add to video. Thank you.
I enjoy Carrol but he is not omniscient, as I am sure he would agree. Anyone who thinks there is proof for the non-existence of God is not a scientist.
In his discussions about conceiving a universe w/o a necessary deity (11:00), he describes self contained universes. But isn’t it running into the same issue? Where did you get the particle and why’s it moving? Next one, where did you get the single point? The first cause argument is always gonna be there, it seems to me. It’s non-demonstrable still, but the same ontological arguments still exist.
Maybe he just says that his imagined Universe has no cause... that it is necessary. You know like you imagine a Creator God doesn't need a cause. You don't worry about how something capable of creating Everything just has to exist even though you can't demonstrate God's existence NOW. Sure you can show me a tree or a Holy Book that God had published. But God remains hidden, not once in my 77 years have I seen GOD. Crazy me I find it's easier to imagine Everything is uncaused and eternal. The Universe, at very least, is here now. I can point out parts of it and most sane people will agree it's here NOW. NOW is at least a part of Eternity. God has never been as obvious as a grain of sand on a beach. You've seen sand... I've never see God in the same way. I can show stone on my yard. If I toss in in your direction you will move and avoid being hit. We share the reality of the stone. I don't have sing a song or pray... the stone is there. God doesn't exist in the same way. So I believe in rock and sand.
@@dimbulb23 you could be right, this could be what he’s discussing. One thing Aquinas does say is that the ontological arguments do not get you to the Christian God, but to an uncaused cause or unmoved mover. He then says that the uncaused thing, that is what we call God. So it’s a cop out, but I suppose it’s a fairly established argument for God which defines God broadly enough to cover the bases. But that aside, you mention that you have never seen God. I wanted to ask how do you categorize people who believe (both individually and as groups) to have seen divine or spiritual things - especially ghosts. Some very odd things caught on camera, or corroborated by crowds of witnesses. Is it all simply people’s eyes playing tricks on them, simple ignorance, or mental illness?
@@dixonbuttes How do you categorize Hindus who have another origin myth? Desperate? Self-deluded? Gullible? Incapable of noticing that if Bramha was there creating the world, the origin had already happened? Aquinas cheated and asserted that God was un-created. I assert that EveryThing was uncreated and God disappears in a poof of redundancy. What I really believe is 1. We aren't entitled to every answer to every question that occurs to us. 2. No one is likely to ever have had or ever will have access to the necessary information to have an answer. I'm just not comfortable pretending to know things that I do not know.
@@dimbulb23 that’s understandable! I tend to categorize Hindus as getting part of the truth, as I do with the old prophets before Jesus. But I also tend to think that they don’t even need to be in competition - for example their trinitarian creator wasn’t the beginning, the beginning was a cosmic egg. So I just say “my God is the God which transcends all things, even the cosmic egg, and is free to use whatever means he wants to delegate authority over creation.” But I understand your view that we can’t claim to know things we don’t, but To me it feels like a strong assertion to toss out the primary portion of every spiritual claim ever made, rather than saying “there’s got to be some truth in there.”
@@dixonbuttes I'm an old guy... 77 next month. I grew up in small town full of people who were certain they had one version of the Truth or another. I have no need for Truth. Give me something with some evidence that I can evaluate, and I'll assign some level of 'true' to that with the option of upping that level or maybe calling it nonsense. Truth is a trap... a reason to believe you've arrived when you really have no idea how long the journey is. I have no idea what 'spiritual' means. I've heard it has something to do with feelings in our blood pump. To me that's what I call 'woo'. Woo makes luck work and astrolog... witchcraft.... crystals.
So his refutation of the idea that the Universe must have a reason for its existence consists of asking for a reason why the Universe should have a reason? Reasons that establish a metaphysical grounding of the Universe -- the question 'Why does the Universe exist?' -- are illegitimate, but reasons for the purpose of refuting the need for a metaphysical grounding -- 'Why should the Universe have a Why for its existence?' / 'Why can't the Universe be without cause?' -- are legitimate?
With an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes to go, a universe capable of spawning life was an inevitability. We aren't lucky, we just are because the universe is.
@@thelivingcross3785 Infinity is a very, very long time. Time for infinite universes before ours and an infinite number after. Who knows how many had or will have intelligent beings to create imaginary gods?
this is what bothers me about the infinite number of universes. Wouldn’t there be at least 1 universe out there where we had every single answer and power? would that universe just take over the others or possibly help them reach higher levels
Universe's with Life will still have laws of physics. They might be different in some but there probably is some limit to the power you can achieve. I could be wrong of course but for what your thinking of we'd have to be in the MCU.
Can’t say I’ve ever heard the problem of instruction laid out that clearly or named. I’ve heard it, I’ve even sort of used it, but never made it that clear. It’s in the running for my favorite
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole.....
7:20 Yet most of the prominent scientists of the classical era were some form of Christians. Faraday, Newton (there are endless examples). They believed natural philosophy would help with understanding God better.
if you focus on studying one religion, you'll be hooked for life. But if you study two, you'll be done in an hour.
If you will learn science you wont even touch religions
Exactly, I was a Muslim.....then I studied other religions and then come to the conclusion: Islam is just another religion.
?????????????????????????//
@@npc_citizen9276 So you believe life originated from a "Primordial Soup". Hahaha, ROFLOL!
This guy. He has the answer for everything, but in his final hours he will find god. If he’s blessed. If not he could spend a entire afterlife in HELL. His choice.👌🏻🌞😃✝️❤️🌹
Native Americans have a saying
if dogs and horses could draw their gods
their gods would look like dogs and horses
Steve, some artists act like animals, does that mean they are their own god?
We think God has a humanlike shape, characteristics and behaviors of humans because we are humans.
God is more than we think, the limit of our knowledge today. Yet, because of some people's fanatism, we fight in religious dogmas on things we are not sure of, instead of searching for our real needs: happiness, welfare and good relations.
thats a line from xenophanes as well. doesn't seem to do much against the theist
Note, however, that dogs and horses, not being made in the image of God, can't create anything. Seems by your creating a straw man you missed the point.
@@emmadaughtry Lets just face it. Anything that can bring the universe into existence from a singularity so powerful that it is beyond human beings imagination and that caused energy and matter to come into existence out of nothing, with all of the laws of physics and chemistry, is beyond human comprehension. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
Douglas Adams
actually the puddle doesn't disappear, it is evaporated into the air, becomes a cloud and returns to the Earth....and this is random??, don't think so.
@@magic10801 it's called an analogy. You're hardly destoying the argument by taking it all literaly. Plus your comment is not only begging the question, assuming the conclusion ratger than supporting your own claim, It's also committing a black and white fallacy
@@casparcubitt1117 wow, just because the analogy doesn't really make sense in terms of creation or humans existence, does not mean I don't understand it. I know what the puddle represents, but I'm actually thinking and not just regurgitating what I hear or read. The puddle is part of a system in which it is recycled repeatedly, do you ever think why?
A Universe that supplies humans every need, while providing a brain to create their own needs and wants. And you want people to believe its random, or we just happened to show up. You have to realize how senseless that sounds.
@@magic10801 " Creation" doesn't make sense it's just something people say that has no actual meaning. What is "creation"? Describe an act of creation where god makes nothing into anything from nothing. You have a God and nothing else and this God does what exactly to create a hydrogen atom from nothing. Go!
@@dimbulb23 Creation is a term only thinkers can understand. We live in a world where objects are created all the time. you will never say oh that building. car or plane just appeared but then when it comes to a star or planet all of a sudden we become dumb. those things just appeared out of nothing.
If it takes knowledge to understand this world. then something/someone with knowledge had to create it. period.
The fine-tuning argument is ultimately self-defeating:
“This universe is so complex and “fine-tuned”, that can only be explained by a creature which is infinitely more complex and “fine-tuned”, which doesn’t need an explanation of course!”
If our great but still far from perfect universe needs a designer, so does the creator of this universe, who is necessarily “greater”, more “fine-tuned” than our universe.
The universe is not eternal though, God is said to be eternal. It is consistent as far as I can see. The argument depends upon the universe having a cause.
@@crabb9966 Depends what you mean by universe. Our (observable) universe? That started with the Big Bang. The whole cosmos? We have no clue. When I talk about the universe, I mean the latter. Consistent, yeah, if the premises where true, but justifying the premises necessarily involves special pleading, that’s my point.
@@LomuHabana I only answered your question
@@crabb9966 Where did I pose a question?
Hello! Welcome to the youtube comments section! Here's a few steps you can take to enjoy your time here!
1. scroll back up
2. finish the video
3. close browser
If you've completed these steps then you are well on your way to living a happy life where you avoid pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else!
Nubro Zaref but how do you know if there is people whose ultimate happiness consists precisely on getting involved in "pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else"? Just read atheist603 and Typical-Religious-Internet-Atheist-Troll comments above and you'll see what I mean... :)
*****
don't give him the attention mate, he has no argument, he has only hate and ignorance.
nuckable lol
Thanks for saving my soul from this misery I keep falling into!
Funny, but false. I have learned a lot through commenting on YT.
This is probably the best '"debate" you will ever see on the existence of god. Carroll argues both sides well and fairly.
well typically a debate has more than one person.. and the idea of god doesn't actually need to be "argued" in any way, that's kinda the beauty. This video is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else
@@baterickpatman Probably why he put debate in quotation marks. I agree, religion is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else.
@@cagedgandalf3472 "religion is utterly pointless" What makes you say that? Or a more pertinent question might be, how can you say that anything has a 'point' or 'purpose' at all?
@@nanashi2146 in the simplest form of all things, it shows that nothing is special
@@nanashi2146 Things have a 'point' because people give them a point. It's a simple fact of reality, that we'd agree with, that people like and dislike, and draw their own meaning from events.
Religion is pointless because it's hypocritical to the points we choose. We all want personal freedom, better understanding of the world, love, peace, happiness, etc. The issue is that religion, while it does provide some of these things in parts, it does so while stripping many others away in far greater amounts or does so inconsistently.
Just look at how many people want to remove certain people's rights to marriage or free-expression while it isn't the thing that grants those in the first place. Religion causes more harm than good; it's an awful way to get meaning.
Please enable community subtitles for translations.
7:30 to 8:22 is one of my favourite points.
Hit the nail on the head at ~14:00. We might PREFER to have a “why,” but it could be that the universe just IS.
Exactly. We humans often perceive ourselves as having a reason for doing something, but there's no reason to assume fundamental nature does.
Then determinism is out.
This isn't as logical as you think it is, if this is the case you're talking about absolute contingency which is just doesn't cut the mustard, logically speaking.
@@emmashalliker6862 If determinism isn't absolute, it is out.
@@emmashalliker6862 Your statement is ambiguous. Care to elaborate?
A truly wise man understands completely how little he really knows, a man on a mission for attention has all the answers.
A truly wise man like Sean Carroll.
Sean’s ok. Kind of a tool sometimes
He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not is simple. Teach him.
He who knows and knows not he knows is simple. Teach him. He who knows and knows he knows is wise. Follow him! ~ Arabian/Persian Proverb
(Somewhat ironic considering what Islam later did to previously groundbreaking Intellectualism in the Middle East, but still...)
EXACTLY!! ❤️🙏🏻🌈🥰 My favorite quote in this regard is Isaac Newton about calculus being “a seashell on a beach to a child” while the whole vast ocean of truth lay before him undiscovered. Or the Taoist ”the Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao” Both of which I live by. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t find new things, that there are not truthful symbols. When we read a book, where is the meaning? It does not exist in the black squiggles on the page. And we can later come back to the same book and see so much more. But it’s the same book! Or is it?
The act of reading is symbolic of life. The reading is the progress of evolution. Which is why animals can be ranked so to speak, but also learned from as symbols. So they are at the same time much more valuable and intimately related to humans than generally realized. Same thing with plants.
@@OmniphonProductions .....Wise words.....Now who's head shall we cut off next?
16:18 Energy Concervation is a particularly good example because energy is usually not conserved across the entire universe in General Relativity.
Wdym?
@@lightmorrison5404 there isn't really a "reason" since nothing changes, I think
Hello prof Sean Carroll, for a long time I have this question and I can't find the answer, In your research about "emergence" I always wonder if the in 2009 intrudeced theory on emergent or entropic gravity by prof Erik Verlinde of the university in Amsterdam? (Netherlands) if you find the time thank you so much.
@@lepidoptera9337 at least not yet, but they have similar viewpoints as the holographic universe so who knows right?
"A wise man knows he knows nothing" -Socrates
A religious man thinks he knows the truth of the universe.
@@lrvogt1257 it seems to work better knowing your not floating on a rock in space for absolutely no reason at all.
@@Lintpop : Clearly many people believe that but it doesn't make it factual. I don't know that pretending is helpful. Bad information leads to bad choices. We give meaning to our own lives. That we are self-aware in the vastness of space is pretty special and we should appreciate how remarkable it is.
@@lrvogt1257i guess my reply was more in the lines of a simplistic answer. For myself no one can debonk the fact that there is a no God. Unfortunately I can not say the same for person next to me in the store or anyone for that matter. I grew up with the understanding that there is a God, when I was older and ready I challenged the God vs science, did alot of reading and studied apologetics. The end of the day there is more proof that God is the cause of why we are here.
@@Lintpop : I think you were trying to say that you can't disprove god. That's right. You can't disprove a claim that is unfalsifiable. You can only point out the lack of evidence to accept it as fact. You can't prove there are no goblins. You can only speak to the lack of evidence for them. If someone were to catch one, we'd have to accept that as evidence.
There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can actually demonstrate the supernatural.
I'd never considered that this universe has conditioned my mind into expecting causality be a universal property.
TehJumpingJawa except that no mathematical equation would make any useful prediction unless there was a necessary event that proceeded along the same entropic event space whose interactions were anything but “causal”. It’s ridiculous for a determinist to deny causality, necessity etc
@@flyingmonkey3822 No determinist denies the existence of causality or necessity. But the word 'cause' is extremely slippery. There are a whole host of words that people use all the time, but which make very little sense as understood by a layperson, and 'cause' is one of
them. 'Time' is another. So is 'free will'.
All these words represent incredibly subtle, complex concepts. So when a religious person starts talking about causality they tend to have an extremely simple, blunt understandings of the concept.
And if you're trying to deny the existence of uncaused events, like radioactive decay or quantum field fluctuations, then you're just arguing with reality.
@@thesprawl2361 I think that Dr Carroll should be self consistent in his physics. You are of course correct that our definition of a concept should evolve to either encompass new aspects of the thing it is attempting to describe or new words should emerge if the concept is no longer tenable. I very much appreciate the lucidity with which Dr. Carroll speaks, but i find that he also equivocates on definitions. I would like to take his same concept that he uses to describe why the arrow of time moves only in one direction and show why this description is completely consistent with causality and radioactive decay, quantum field evolution, and the beginning of the universe.
I very much liked what he said during his debate with Dr William Lane Craig when he said that "our metaphysics should follow our physics", and also thank him for his story about "the principle of sufficient reason" as I also had no idea why it was called that until hearing him speak! I enjoy his lectures, and his contributions to science and especially to his popularizing engagement with quantum theory.
I just think that if he's going to take the many worlds interpretation that he's got a LOT of explaining to do, the least of which is that it violates the Born rule (or does not return it) and therefore does not return predictable results. If ever we should abandon a theory, it would be because it predicts nothing. Yet he holds to it as a sledgehammer to the concepts which normal people observe in their everyday lives. He has to justify his reason for thinking that the wave function becomes real at every split, when we definitionally have no evidence for universes that are no longer connected to our own. It also assumes that there is a more fundamental bubble universe that effervesces universes like ours into being. BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not. Purely statistically, it will have such a dilute space to exist as a particle that it will decay eventually. The "cause" is then that the dividing action of universes separating will average out to one in which we see our physics play out. It is not possible for each planck moment to pass without a change in it's universal state, only in it's local state. Interacting with the universe along this splitting paradigm "causes" the events we see. When a portion of the quantum vacuum changes to a state where it has traded regularity in frequency for location we will see it "pop" up a "particle". Is it possible for it to change universal states and not fluctuate? is it necessary that it's variations "unfreeze" and choose another state? When concentrated to a definiteness in one measurable aspect, can it do anything but continue interacting with the ever changing and diluting universal state? I'm not aware of evidence of this. I have more questions regarding how it is that we "jump" planck moments, and why it is that non-local interaction cannot be avoided... but it seems that between choosing A to interact further and Not A to choose to stop interacting... that we have no choice but to interact. If that is not determinism and causality... please help me see where i'm wrong. I'm open to hearing this, it IS all new to me and I don't have a formal education in it.
P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist.
P2) the universe began to exist.
C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing.
It's the same thing as the original cosmological argument but with updated assumptions regarding what it means to exist (be able to interact with it) or to begin and cease to begin (depending on it's current state) that are consistent with QM. So, an electron-positron pair that eventually occupy substantially the same space would exist while traveling towards each other and then stop existing in their current form but change form while conserving their properties of momentum etc. This observation can reliably lead us to deduce that there is something more fundamental to the universe.
of course you aren't obligated to interact specifically with anything here i've presented if you just want to argue that words are slippery, then we can both go home saying that sean and WLC are entitled to their own opinions... even to their own facts.
@@flyingmonkey3822 "BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not"
...But that IS the Many Worlds definition of probability. Probability is just the proportion of actual worlds in which an event happened. Count the proportion, and you attain the probability.
(...There's a section in his new book where Carroll describes precisely how many worlds comports with the the Born Rule, but it's on my phone. If you have the book it's on pages 146-148.)
"P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist.
P2) the universe began to exist.
C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing."
Okay. For the sake of argument let's say I agree with your first premise. (Although what exactly 'more fundamentally existing thing' means I'm not sure. I think you just mean
that it precedes it in a chronological sense, but that doesn't make it more fundamental. My mother isn't more fundamental than me just because she 'caused' me. But forget that.)
Even if I were to accept the first premise, I most definitely do not accept the second. Firstly, what makes you certain that the universe began to exist? Sure, we had a Big Bang, but you know that many, perhaps most, physicists do not consider that to be the beginning of the universe/multiverse/reality.
And again we hit upon the problems of definitions: what does it mean for something to 'begin to exist'? Have you ever seen anything begin to exist? No. You've seen matter and energy change form, you've seen that fundamental relationship fluctuate...but you've never seen something 'begin to exist' in the sense that you're talking about. It's unclear to me how it even makes conceptual sense.
...........
Obviously the universe is more complicated than any human mind can comprehend , including Sean Carroll's
problem solving and testing . this includes building faster computers and AI if the calculations become too complex , run simulations .... be open to change ,
At least he is not arrogant enough to know the origin of the cosmos because of an old book
And yet reprogramming his comprehension analysing and predicting how nature works is pretty much what a theoretical physicist does.
I appreciate Dr. Carroll taking the time and effort to explain what the parameters of his philosophy was. I write fiction novels with settings based in mythologies. We may disagree on a personal level, but your presentation, specifically its scaffold, gave me a number of new relatable perspectives for my characters. Thank you
The spiritual world it appears to be, a subset of existence, probably totally unlike the materistic world that humans live in, such as the micro level of quantum mechanics which differs from classical physics, but we cannot explain the processes, only observe the outcomes. It's a peculiar mystery that intrigues me.
@@keyissues1027 What is the spiritual world?
@@keyissues1027 I think it's understandable, so no big mystery, that there are fundamental limits to how we can figure out deterministic laws about the objects that make up ourselves. In other words: Observations (measurement results) cannot in principle be separated from what is observed.
@@keyissues1027 humans don’t live in the physical realm alone, we are also rational constructs that exist metaphysically in a timeless and essential (eternal and spiritual) fashion.
@@keyissues1027 navigate the (infinite) mystery with the Logos (God) and turn the peculiar mysteries into esoteric knowledge like a true sage does.
I am a new student of Sean Carroll, just found him and can't wait to see what I learn. Love how he is a very fluid speaker, does not himm or haww.... knows what he is talking about and very vigorous.
I am glad that you benefited from his knowledge, can you think of a practical implications of following his teachings?
Such as
Anxiety increased or decreased?
Motivation for life increased or decreases?
Love for others and compassion?
Agility meaning quickly come back after being down?
Isn't that lovely; John k.
Sean carrol is as bad at science as stephen hawking , stephen hawking never made any contributions tro sceince , his whole spiel about dark stars is rubbish.Try reading his papers he is fucking nutter as is sean carrol, Who claims universes pop in and out of existence with no evidence to support the claim, it is no different than god claims.
@@ossiedunstan4419 wait a minute, God will be proven to all when they pass away.
Unlike all the science here say.
@@ossiedunstan4419 thank you sir :) not everyone is gullible, good job!
Excellent presentation 👏
The older I get the more certain I am: we are aware and we are alone.
So be kind to each other.
We’re all we’ve got.
Who knows. Human think they knows everything but we all know 0.000...to infinity....0 % of the universe.
So better accept the fact we don't know anything and live the life happily
If we have each other, 8 billion or so, then we are by definition not alone. We also don't know where we were before this reality or where we go after. An open mind and humility are the best tools in this life.
You're as shallow as Sean. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Your premises don't follow logically. Yes, the universe is 'winding down' in the sense it is expanding and it appears matter will eventually become a diffuse fog of elementary particles.
But you've never explained why this necessitates anything supernatural. The first step is to define supernatural and provide evidence. Until then it's just ambiguous speculation.
@@2fast2block Shallow is someone who believes others are shallow and that THEY know the unprovable. spare us you ignorance and talk to yourself in the mirror.
As to the fine tuning. I think that is sort of the point as particles, material particles, out of which everything is constructed revert back to a featureless domain of motion time ceases to become a constrain. And if, empirically, time ceases to be a constrain for said particles to combust then they have "all the time in the world" to combust in precisely a type of universe that may be traced back to such type of undeterminate particles.
So many people who are leading experts in theology and physics in the comment section. How have we not heard of your wisdom before.
I don't anyone here claimed to be a leading expert in physics, but there are many comments here from people who claim to know god.
runamokkk They don't just claim to know their gods, they claim to know about all gods.
Think about it. If they claim it was their own gods who created the universe then they're making two claims, one ridiculous and the other completely fucking outrageous.
The ridiculous claim is that magic/the supernatural is real and their gods used it to conjure the universe.
The completely fucking outrageous claim they're simultaneously making is that all other gods invented by all the other humans on the planet are all false.
At least 3,000 named gods that we know of, people who claim their gods created the universe are insisting that all those other gods aren't real.
If you're ever stuck in a cafe waiting for Godot, try asking one of them what specific criteria they applied to each of those other gods to determine they were false. Godot and all his family, friends, relatives, his neighbors, and his neighbors relatives will all arrive long before you'll get a straight answer from a fundie.
Many religious people cannot even define god or god's characteristics. Thus, they don't even know their god.
The comment above me is the perfect example of what I said earlier. Surely he must be the leading theist/physicist to have such insight into what a 'GOD' is. He's probably smarter than Einstein and all others that came before him. He doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants for he is the Giant.
like who? Could you give some examples?
I think that scientists should be very picky about the usage of the word _theory_. Non scientifically educated people confuse _theory_ with _conjecture_ or _supposition_. So, they understand _Supposition of Evolution_ instead of _Explanation of Evolution_.
Richard Gomes Yeah, it's a pity that word was used in a scientific context as it opens the door to deliberate obfuscation by unethical religious types.
I think Dr. Carroll is giving the theologians a very large head start... and then demonstrating that even when given the easiest possible case to make, gods fail spectacularly.
He does the best thing possible when dealing wtih pseudoscience: He takes it seriously and then says "What if that's true?"
Apply it to biological evolution denial, big bang cosmology denial, climate science denial, abiogenesis denial and it *always* comes back as egg on the face of the denier.
Richard ,you talking nonsense;theory is a specific scientific construct,it is the ignorant that should learn by reading,asking questions, any means accessible what the word theory means depending on context it`s being used .If you bring the information to the lowest denominator nobody will learn anything and knowledge won`t be served and all will stay in darkness.
I hardly think changing "God is not a Good Theory" to "God is not a Good Scientific Theory" is dumbing anything down, and it would address the OP's point that ignorant people, especially the willfully ignorant, will immediately insert their superstition based mythology/conjecture as "also a theory"
It's not going to stop them, superstitious people will always just double down when confronted with evidence that they're peddling superstitions, but nothing can be done about that other than teaching kids how to think instead of what to think.
Richard Gomes wouldn’t it be nicer if we could continue the correct usage of the word and simply teach others the proper use? The word theory is used in place of hypothesis frequently and inaccurately.
Sean Carroll! You have a gift for explaining & conveying answers with facts in complete detail & properties summed up in the most efficient dialogue that's impossible to not grasp.
Let neuroscience study how human need for safety, hope and meaning created a God out of nowhere. Or not. My personal belief is that we, people in the 21st century, are obliged to talk about God, only because our ancestors set it on the table at the very beginning. Thousands of years ago, people had no better tools than religion in order to understand the world around them. But, hey! Today we are not obliged to ruminate all this stuff about God and life after death etc. Also our ancestors had to make rituals around the tribe's fire. But hey! This isn't mandatory for us today. Let's move on. Lets forget about this once and for all. We have no reason thinking about Gods and life after death. Today our life is different. Let's free ourselves. Lets save time and energy for real problems that actually exist today. Existential problems. Ochham's razor, afterall, dictates us towards more empirical, materialistic, physical studies of the world. If no ancestor of ours had ever thought about the existence of God, then I have no doubt that nobody would still argue about this stuff. Lets leave the "Neanderthal's beliefs" behind. Its ok. This is not our problem any more. We are mature now. We can handle our own existence better. We dont need mommy's/daddy's hug (God). We don't need existential comfort in order to move on with our lives. We are free and powerful to explore and taste the world! No God has ever existed. In any form. We don't need to think about it. We dont have to argue about it. We don't have to apologise for that. This is TOTALLY OK!
He's got no gift except if you call lying a gift. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block you've just convinced me with your babbling you're smarter than Sean Carroll, I am now a discovery institute CREATARD, also TNX
He's not. Well known in science that he is a how can we put it.... snake oil salesman. Well known that his backing of Kaku is a cartel within science talking absolute nonsense with string theory. He can conceive 26 dimensions but the god hypothesis for him is nonsensical. I neither believe nor disbelieve but Dr Carroll is a well known vagabond and lover of Dr Kaku. He's no smarter than a graduate student. Even Penrose can't stand either of them.
What facts for whom?
The ''fine tuning'' conundrum may be resolved if the universe is assumed to exit forever.
For then there is time enough for the universe to pass through all its phases/eons with all possible combinations of natural constants. So clearly we are in a phase/eon of the universe with the present values of the natural constants that are obviously consistent with our presence in it.
(Note that, it is not necessary to assume infinitely many universes to be present at one time, rather, only one universe passing through its infinitely many possible phases/eons.)
If you don't watch but just listen, it's very easy to convince yourself that young Alan Alda is giving this lecture.
',
'
0.
If only our politicians and economists thought as clearly as this guy!
They do. That's why government is such a mess.
@@wizardatmath politicians meet nowhere near the standards of first year physics let alone a phd
@@dangerouslydubiousdoubleda9821 this guy here has the easygoing wit of a Boris Johnson.
@@wizardatmath how am I dumb politicians are not held up to any evidence standard comparing them to physicists is inaccurate
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole...
Excellent video. Very interesting, informative, logical, and worthwhile video. A must see video for everyone.
// A must see video for everyone // The people that need to watch it , probably will never see it !
@@peterjames7073 Unfortunately you're right, but I've sent the link out to several people that should watch it.
@@robertschlesinger1342 It's like Dog Poop.
The people who Need to pick their Dog's Poop, will never watch a video about Dog Poop.
Mostly theologians who focus on science and the existence of God do not argue that there is conclusive proof and furthermore that this is purposeful because it would not allow for the existence of faith and development of faith. I don’t have time to explain these things here, but there have been whole books and articles written on the topic from multiple different perspectives and logic, so if you are curious, look into it more deeply.
So what you are saying is, If there is not enough proof, believe it anyway!!! Sounds sensible!
Lets see here, the god that humans created is supposed to be omnipotent & omniscient, BUT HE NEEDS YOUR MONEY ! I say holy crap !
George said it a little better!
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - George also said if you don’t believe in him he’ll send you to hell where you will be tortured forever and ever…..But he loves you!😂
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - I have debated them ad nauseam and I have come to the conclusion that most of them are innately rotten people. Now that might sound harsh at first, but once you consider that most of them don’t believe any human can be a good person without the fear of believing a sky daddy is going to punish them, it makes perfect sense. They ask me stupid questions like “what’s to stop you from randomly killing people or raping women?” My response is, “oh, so that’s what you were doing prior to being converted?” Or “is that what every non-believer you know is out here doing?” Then I respond with, “statistically speaking most rapists, murderers, and their victims believe in God.”
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - Trust me, I know. Growing up in a catholic school and studying world religion gave me all of the ammunition I needed to fight back against indoctrination. The cult hated me because even as a child I asked a lot of logical questions and refused to take their word for everything. What you stated is an absolute fact. According to their belief system the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. How convenient? That type of system is highly effective for recruiting people, especially considering the estimated 300,000,000 to billions of deaths, rapes, and torturous activities perpetrated toward free thinkers and people of other belief systems over the centuries. My ancestors were read Ephesians 6-5 to keep them in line.
That was George Carlin’s pithy quote about God always needing money. Every religious person should watch the CZcams video of George Carlin’s excellent and hilarious account of his conversion from a young Catholic believer to a enlightened skeptic. It is transformative.
beautiful lecture
Magnificent ! Either position you have regarding the subject Dr Carroll makes it easy to follow and understand
For smart assets
He hates what science shows. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Someone read Oolid Coluphids " Who is this God person anyway?" series of books from the future.
I just LURVE any and ALL references to H2G2 -- in any and ALL contexts!
Sorry, there are no books from the future but there is one available today that explains today, Falun Gong.
If you close your eyes he sounds like John Mulaney is giving a Physics lecture.
Sounds more like a hybrid of Fozzie Bear and Kermit the Frog to me.
{:-:-:}
OMG I WAS THINKING EXACTLY THAT great minds think alike
Oh no.
Now I can’t unhear it, and I’m just waiting for him to talk about playing Tom Jones on a Chicago diner jukebox…
Totally awesome. Job needs to hear this presentation. There is no apparent correct explanation or answer for suffering. Our notion of the all knowing and loving being does not comport with the likes of a simple person like myself praying over and over again for the wisdom and understanding to live the best life I can for all those people in my life and me. Having faith in faith is an ask beyond all the extraordinary gifts I have been given. The very need to have to rely on biblical scholars to explain godship is hard to grasp and the Truth , the way and the light should be easily accessible to everyone. Thank you for a well thought out explanation.
Keep them coming
Just getting into this video now but have an immediate question: given the weight and meaning that the word “theory” carries in science, shouldn’t we be using “hypothesis” or something else here? My understanding is that the word “theory” in the scientific context refers to a working model eg. Evolutionary theory or gravitational theory.
I noted that too. He seemed to be using theory in a colloquial sense and he didn't do himself a service.
@@rizdekd3912Yup exactly
It is so satisfying how Sean Carroll emphatically, sincerely and thoroughly explains the fine tuning argument, just to utterly demolish it entirely.... 😊
Ramen!
It's great to listen to smart people.
Fine tuning is cosmology's intelligent design
God is neither an engineer, nor a scientist. Being any of those, would imply that God makes calculations, drawings, etc which can be proven would make a design of the universe impossible. But, as we do not make calculations to move an arm, or to transform electromagnetic radiation into light inside of our skulls, God likewise makes the Universe happen NOW, instantly in the eternal present , without design or calculation, just as we pick our noses without thinking and only wishing to do so. Therefore the Universe is created only by one thing very closely resembling magic emanating from the center of our own bodies.
Dural Lexan How do you know so much about an invisible entity that allegedly exists outside of time and who possesses a disembodied mind... whatever that is? Just stop making things up
Good is relative? towards specific Outcomes?
Hardtry to scatch an universe with minimum belongings to start the thoughts, but where the chemistry and physics came from? Where this first particle came from?
Good approach to an old question.
Religion is viewed as true by the masses, false by the wise, and useful by the powerful.
that's false many wise believed in religion
Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa They must all be hiding then.
i love that...never heard it put so well before
Correct that to modern religion. Back then it was probably more wise to go with the crowd for fear of death unless you were outspoken with proof of no God. Plus there are the scientistst such as Da Vinci, and Newton.
Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa I don't think we can ever know. just look at what happened to the ones who were open about opposing religion.
I don't have an issue with religions until they "Christians" try to prohibit subjects being taught in public schools. I don't have a problem with religions until they directly interfer with government. I don't have a problem with "Christians" until they try to interfer with my life. As you can see, I have many reasons to have problems with religion.
Well very ironic you say that when the law you live under says what “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." if you live in the u.s.a then you literally living in a country built on Christian belief and morals “thou shall not kill” ect ect without the law of that first came from god their would be no “law” in modern society if it was left to us “humans” all morality would be Relative, the law could be whatever it wants but no the us law is actually built in godly principles and then you say “interfere” with the government or do this or do that you that’s not “Christians” that’s just a few bad apples in the butch you look at they hate and the bad side? You say you don’t have a issues until the “Christians” what about the Terrorist yelling allah and giving the muslim religion a bad name? Or the buddist who put THIER kids through the extreme to be enlightened? Those people don’t speak for the rest of the “religion” you’re talking about It’s incredibly small minded to take a small group of people and group them up and give a negative intent,I’m black and everytime a cop kills one of my people do I group up all the cops in a butch no cause that’s unfair and wrong ,do you know that the most Christians are in Asia not in the us or the uk or canda but Asia and I’m just saying that to open your eyes and stop looking through this thick lenses you got on, you decided to take a Critical thinking video and make this negative comment, grow up dude….
@@manmadetunao2597 The pledge of allegiance isn't a law. It is also actually a relatively recent innovation. dating only back to the old anti-communist scares.
@@lexireina3641 well if you actually read my comment I never said it was the law I said THW country was built on Christian belief which it is and second recent? You’re saying thw 1700s we’re recent? That was 3
Centuries ago,that’s not recent buddy you know what is recent the civil rights moment which was only 56 years ago and Yk how Martin Luther king convinced the government and who talked to about why blacks are equal to whites ja because every man created by god is equal and that’s what he pushes and preached and why as a black man I can sit where I want and drink where I want it was only 50 years ago where I couldn’t now that’s recent not 300 years ago where as a black man I would
Be in chains
@@manmadetunao2597 Funny you should say that, considering that those "Christian" beliefs you say the country was founded on didn't stop said founders from keeping you in chains. But then, if you read your Bible, you'll find that your God is pretty cool with slavery. Encourages submission to one's masters, no less.
...and atheists interfere with ours...like propagandizing them in your secular schools headed by your academic mentors who does early sexualization of them and push evolution onto them. Your worldview makes for a unsuccessful civilization, not a successful one. Your worldview shows a lot of garbage out from the garbage in you take in...such as twice the suicide rate for kids you bring up in your fatalism.
The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to not have the federal government to tell the states what religion or type of Christian sect to have. Even President Jefferson took money out of the US treasury to pay for Bibles for schools. A 1892 Supreme Court ruling said we are a Christian nation.
Another thing. There are two types of Christianity. One is true Gospel and the other are Christian cults. The difference? The true Gospel is salvation without works and is a GIFT for mere faith and grace without merit...the cults believe it is grace with WORKS and it s possible to lose salvation off and on. Here is a video giving the true Gospel of how to get the gift of eternal life.
czcams.com/video/Wh1VU-_OF98/video.html
The first example of a particle floating in one direction universe does not disprove the necessary being type of God. For example, where did the laws of Newton come from? The particle and space being infinite does not absolve that something was necessary, even if it was the particle and law themselves that are the necessary parts.
Very good lecture. Thanks a lot.
It's amazing how God loves Baseball if you live in America
But seems to hate my team, which is most unhelpful.
@@cuzned1375
Same 😂
Used to. Then All Star game moved to Denver.
lol
I appreciate his well thought out opinions. I am more persuaded by simulation theory.
Simulation theory is a God based explanation so it's just back to square one with that one
Why are you advertising that you are stuck in puberty? :-)
Simulation theory is just a bad of an explanation as a theory of god. To date, physics has not needed to rely on the existence of a higher power.
from my understanding they would fall into the same system cause you have language and code on the face of the 8th script but theres still a structure above all of that which states tunnel line point and feeds back into information so the top of the structure as far as i can tell seems to be the statement of complexity
The entropy argument is very fascinating, and the whole lecture is well put-together and a great challenge for any apologeticist to try and overcome.
However, I think when you say things like, "I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other," I just get the feeling it would take most theologians about 7 seconds to come up with a counter argument - and that's if they were distracted.
A response sure. But a good response? Probably not.
@@alankoslowski9473 I think maybe quoting 1 Corinthians 13 which describes the uselessness of all action without love would alone fry the "God didn't tell us to love each other," argument, let alone a vast number of similar sections of the Bible that encourage loving. "Love your neighbour as yourself," is in there, as is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and other instructions on love and compassion. Saying that stuff isn't in there ("I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other") belies a lack of knowledge about theological teaching - and that's just on that one religious text. There are plenty of others. It's not a good argument.
@@ghr8184 But it's not consistent, and there's much lacking in scripture, such as equal rights for everyone.
It's also complete devoid of modern practical science. As he says, if it were written by an omniscient god, why isn't there anything about the germ theory of disease?
I think his point is that it's evident the bible was written by humans during a particular historical period rather than being the inerrant word of god since so much of the bible is is lacking and erroneous.
@@alankoslowski9473 Perhaps I was unclear in what I was specifically saying. I was not addressing Carroll's whole lecture or even that whole section. I was specifically speaking to his saying that God (he is mostly using the example of the Christian God) didn't tell us to love each other. It explicitly says this exact thing multiple times throughout the Bible. It's literally right in there. Either Carroll doesn't know this or he is discounting these statements based on something he doesn't specifically indicate here, but that specific statement makes him sound like he really hasn't done his research on that specific statement's full implications regarding the Christian Bible. Making that statement in front of an apologeticist or theologian would be like jumping into a school of piranhas.
And, yes, I know that piranhas don't really strip flesh from bone in seconds like in a cartoon. However, the overall point I'm making, I think is clear, even if I opened myself up to critique with a poorly-chosen analogy - especially if there were any marine biologists around.
Which makes it the perfect analogy to describe my point about saying, "The Bible doesn't tell us to love each other," in the presence of a hypothetical theologian.
Again: I like the lecture overall, and I think Carroll's main points are clear, intact, and challenging. He just has one poorly selected phrase.
@@ghr8184 Understood. Though he probably rehearsed the lecture, I don't t think he was reading directly from a script, so at least some of it was improvised. Considering this, I guess some inaccuracies are expected.
"You don't say that the integers are ontologically extravagant because there is and infinite number of them." at 40:40 is a great example. It made me laugh pretty hard while thinking about it.
Caught him saying arh
Postulating that mathematical objects are real entities, that they should be part of our ontology, *is* ontologically extravagant. You can say that mathematical objects shouldn't be considered "things". I.e., you can say that "there is" should be understood to mean something different when you say "there is a city in Nebraska with over 150 zipcars" than it does when you say "there is a prime that can be written as the sum of five cubes but not as the sum of two cubes". And if you do that, your list of "things" is a lot smaller.
The question is whether you've gained anything by that. I think that including mathematical objects in your ontology is perfectly reasonable, but that's because I think that being ontologically extravagant is perfectly ok. If there's an empirical reason to believe that some type of things is scarce, then there's an empirical reason to doubt a hypothesis that entails the existence of lots of things of that type. But beyond the scope of such an empirical basis, there's no good reason to insist that ontologies have to be small.
integers don't exist, and if they did you could never have an infinite quantity of them
@@johnholmes912 People say all the time that infinite quantities are impossible but can never prove that to be true. It's just a false mantra they repeat, why I don't know.
@@superdog797 Check out Hilbert's Hotel. That's an argument against actual infinites.
Damn, he's a good speaker.
You think so?
@@esausjudeannephew6317 Ee, fuck yeah? Like for now he is t h e best. But I consider not only the substance but also the form. He freaking nails every crucial point with his accent, modulation of voice etc. when it's necesarry.
Tyson for instance is god awful (considering all the hype). But to be fair I havent watched him a lot (but again maybe because he is so bad, lol).
Brian Greene is also a really good speaker.
But he speaks nonsense. You can see that , no? His science is based on nothing. He can not even master his ONLY instrument, Thought. Total abandonment of REASON.
@@gammaraygem it's only nothing if you deny thousands of years of reason, logic and what you can see with your own eyes.
24:10 " We should not think of the big bang as the beginning of the universe, we should think it as the end of our understanding"
It isn't. It may not even be the end of our observational data.
Hope we're not stuck in a time loop of 10 billion yrs. This all sounds familiar.
I can’t discard this video. A lot of very interesting stuff. Everyone in the comments and including this presenter have equal opinion. I would have enjoyed a video on the mythology of god. It would be more appropriate to this conversation. I’ll be checking that out now. Good luck.
~50:30 = some of the most powerful & thought provoking words I have ever heard from a human being thus far.
You need Matt Dillahunty!!
But that’s the problem of evil...
There are many philosophers that spoke about it!
Evil is proof of objective morality. Where does evil come from? A bunch of hydrogen atoms bouncing? That’s Sean’s position
@@patricksee10 indeed i think this is one of the weakest arguments.f
For me how the world goes is evidence for free will and the fall of man.
Wait until next year when you're in 4th grade and you meet new friends.
A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
It's better to cum in the sink, than sink in the cum.
😎🤘
A fool will reveal itself in any statement or question.
Three wise men once learned about a Deity by answering a foolish series of questions: was she really a virgin? Should we really believe this story? Isnt there a more plausible explanation for this birth? Hell no, it's a miracle! Come! Let us adore him! Worship this infant!
Not if the wise man is indoctrinated by science.
This definition of theory much better defines hypothesis.
Sean Carroll VS Dr Hugh Ross, SATURDAY MAY 25TH from the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Only on Pay Per View
Carroll's voice has a timbre similar to Alan Alda's.
Aha! Someone else noticed! I've been leaving comments saying he sounds like Alan Alda and I keep seeing stupid comments like that he sounds like Stephen Hawking's text to speech program.
I was thinking the same thing. Plus he looks like Gerald Casale.
Yea if Sean pinched his nose while he spoke it’d be even closer
Never thought of this before, but I can surely hear the resemblance.
I could picture him brewing up some Gin in the lab, just like Hawkeye Pierce .
Personally, I love the idea that the few billion galaxies were created just for my amusement
A few billion ?
There are at least 100 billion galaxies, according to physics.org !
@@lewis72 Eh, only a few
You have to share, though..
🤣😂
@@froop2393 and that's only _this_ universe...
I think that it speaks of something that both trying to prove god, and disproving it, emits a very similar, fanatic response on people.
Okay just finished the video, this guy is amazing! Really loved the video!
Gotta love the Sean!
He’s super smart, super logical, and sometimes funny.
I love the beginning where he shows the 3 ways of looking at god. It’s just how a scientific mind would begin - by grouping like things. It’s a taxonomic view.
Better hope he's there to greet you in eternity.
@@moongoonrex which god/goddess? proof?
@@graveseeker moongoonrex is just an atheist who disbelieves in one fewer god than the rest of us.
@@con.troller4183 Wish there was an easy way to get them to understand that.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Even Obama and Biden know that.
@@graveseeker Instead of being disqualified from office for believing in talking snakes and zombie saviors, you can't get elected unless you profess that you do.
I usually like to ask for a comprehensive definition of "God". After that comes the fun of the wordsmith...
God is the universe. God is it's conscious matter.
Intelligent comment award 👏, science is much more important than poetry.
@@keithhamilton2240 The universe comes from a burnt out star from another universe. There are an infinity of mathematical infinities but just one infinity
@@whirledpeas3477 I hope you'r not insinuating scientism or some form of positivism (the view that science is the ONLY way to truth) this is a position largely abandoned by philosophers of science, since it cannot bear the weight of its own princilple (that truth only come from sciense), it cannot itself be proven scientifically.
Though, I agree "God is it's concious matter", sounds like some strange Chopra stuf.
The wordsmith? Is it bad to use words or philosophical language to define something?
I do not know if that was what you intended to say. No matter; let me try to "wordsmith" a description of God:
God is a peronal being with thoughts (aboutnes), similarly to us, though not analogus to us. And he is not constrained by time, space or matter (timeless, spaceless and immaterial)
In other word the ucaused first cause, or the unmoved mover.
This is a very narrow and minimal description, and a fuller description would probably take thousands of pages, with a lot of philosophical speculations (ehmm... Aquinas).
Energy is neither created or destroyed. It is only reorganized.
To make the presentation a lot simpler: when we consider the probability of a universe with exactly this parameter naturally existing vs the probability of a god existing with an particular intention which brought about a universe with exactly this parameter, Occam's razor prefers the former as it contains one fewer assumption.
Very interesting...thank you .
Notice how Carroll's speaking never falters. No "Uh"s or "ahhh"s. The mark of someone who really..really..knows his subject, and the mark of a very clear thinker.
I've noticed that too. Even in Q&A's he's fluent.
Anyone can learn to speak without stuttering. They are just too lazy to care.
Between 5:03 and 5:05 prove you wrong buddy
@@nothingtoitbuttodoit Congratulations. Your mother must be so proud of you.
It's also the mark of someone who has prepared? He is literally giving a presentation with a slideshow.
Just explain to me the first nanosecond of our universe, when from nothing we have all the energy of the current Universe. How the Higgs field created, so we can have material mass from interactions with it?
i saw this in my recommended and immediately watched it, I recognized Sean from watching Veritasium and i had no idea he had talks on this topic, something ive been interested in ever since i left christianity
Yes a single particle universe is plausible. Who made the particle? Again, Sean can not get around the pesky making something from nothing problem... I know several high level particle physicists professors at Cal Tech who were so intimidated by him while he was there that they hid their deep belief in Christianity. We can only love and pray for Sean.
@@jamesrichards3086 the question "who made the particle?" cannot be answered without first making the assumption that everything that exists must have a creator. you cannot answer such a question until you can demonstrate that the question even has an answer (through proving or justifying said assumption)
@@Azide_zx I never understand why people conclude that the only possible answer for these kinds of questions is a creator. "If answer is unattainable, answer must be a creator". Like, no? The answer could be anything and maybe there even is no answer. No one can possibly know, yet so many people have a need to make the conclusion of a creator. Clearly the faith itself is not enough to them so they have to seek additional cope by "justifying" it to others and coming to conclusions about "how it works".
@@denisdelinger3265 the thing that baffles me is the assumption that the originator of everything is a conscious creator. consciousness is an extremely complex property so out of anything i could possibly assume about what our universe came from, a conscious being would probably be one of the least likely
some argue that a conscious being is the only thing capable of creating something new, but they have no basis for that assumption, or even the assumption that our universe even had an origin point
some say that only a being with free will can create something truly new and creative like a universe or an artwork, but this inherently relies on the assumption that free will exists, implying that some influence exists in the mind other than the predictable interactions between neurons and cells and chemicals. this assumption is also unfounded.
in fact, to assume that there is a supernatural influence in your chain of logic to prove a divine creator (a type of supernatural influence) is a circular argument and a fallacy
@@denisdelinger3265 doesn't Science use one theory and only one theory to assume the possible explanation to something?Why when its used with God you have a problem?You say it can be anything ,anything how?Lmao logic will then have to defy anything
Creation theory is no way far fetched at all
Your assumption that it can be anything it is because you not even specific at all
which means that explaination can br outside the frames of logic and if so then no answer will be thought of instead of intelligent Design
What I do know about God is that when a tornado strikes the Bible Belt, he has nothing to do with that. But if an earthquake strikes San Francisco, God is sending a direct message to those people.
😄 very well said
Huh... Where in the Bible did you read that?
@@djgroopz4952 I didn’t read it in the Bible. But that’s exactly the nonsense I hear from the so-called religious.
Right because they have queer folks! Totally ludicrous! My Arkansas cousin explained Katrina slamming New Orleans as God punishing the queer & sexually deviant! But Moore, Ok gets pummeled year after year! 🤣😂
@@skronked hypocritical and self-serving, isn’t it?
Brilliant stuff from Carroll. Such an honest search for truth compared to the apologetics. Carroll " The logic is NOT ' I see that energy is conserved' therefore energy is conserved. The logic is 'I see that energy is conserved' therefore I make a hypothesis...and then I go out and test that hypothesis".
I would challenge any creationist( old or new earth) or Intelligent design proponents to use that kind of thinking to support your claims.
For me this type of thinking is what has taught us what we know about medicine, modern agriculture and technology, whereas theistic theories have demonstrated very little of actual use.
ShowMe Agree completely on your philosophy of science. However, religions have been enormously useful in encoding "how to" type information distilled over thousands of years, for example take the greek mythical constellations: in part, they are mnemonic devices for remembering the star patterns so useful in agriculture and navigation.
Granted, one could use Ptolemaic calculations to navigate without reference to any mythology (and they did), but the point remains that religion served to teach about the star patterns and their movement.
Like song, story and myth in general, religion is partly a form of preservation of lessons learned over the deep time of human existence.
I wouldn't try to deny that. Go back far enough and religion and science would have been nearly the same discipline...an effort to explain the world we live.
And I wouldn't deny the use of any philosophy to ask further questions.
Unfortunately many religious philosophies have stopped asking questions, and claim to have all the anwsers.
ShowMe i know, rait! they go by 'god is beyond all human knowledge' and then proceed to say exactly what he does all day.
N Marbletoe Yep. that one always gets me.
ShowMe Even if energy is conserved, what is the source of the energy?
What does he mean when he says quantum gravity?
According to QM up to date Theory, Time I.S.God (Infinity Squared) and Timing manifest as I.S. (Information system).
One of the better talks I have ever seen, no matter the subject. Well prepared, well researched, well thought through. Kind of amazing tbh.
😂😂😂 this guy’s tunnel vision is pretty embarrassing for a “scientist”. Regardless of what your stance is on religion, this guy is basically like “well, I can’t prove based on my formula so it must not be. It couldn’t be that my understanding is limited.”
@@rizeorfall it's not embarrassing in the least. I wouldn't call it "tunnel vision" to dismiss something completely made up. There are THOUSANDS of religions. You may as well say he's got tunnel vision for not believing in fairies or Santa Clause.
@@rizeorfall Except he never said anything as absolute as that and you're 100% strawmanning him. The very first tuing he talks about is the importance of the word "good" in the title of his talk. At no point did he say that god is impossible, or that he certainly doesn't exist. He merely says, as a proper scientist/skeptic should, that the types of god hypotheses he outlined at the start are either useless or much more improbable than naturalistic explanations. There are, actually, god concepts that are impossible or disproven, but he didn't talk about those here.
@@rizeorfall If anything is embarrassing it's your ability to interpret reality. He says the absolute opposite to what you suggest and many times.
@@betamusic5487 ,
Thousands of religions about gods indicates there is an original one. Only the Bible spells it out. That is how an intellectual person can figure it out. Zax is right. He starts with a bad premise then claims it can't be true because it didn't fit his bad premise.
The explanation to the question of 'why?' related to something always just creates a new question of 'why?', in my mind at least. It is an infinitely recursive question that loses meaning when you start asking it about the more and more fundamental low-level things in our reality.
There is a principle in philosophy elucidated by The Munchhausen Trilemma. All factual statements rest on chains of reasoning that are either circular, infinite in regress, or brute assertion. Therefore, our question should always be not "what is really true?" but instead rather "what is reasonable given the constraints we agree to for purposes of this conversation or investigation?" The latter question can be commonly answered by people who employ good logic; the former is more of a personal choice.
@@superdog797 ==== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@kennethbransford820 If you want to think God guided evolution that's one thing. But the idea that life forms on Earth have a common ancestor is well-established.
@@superdog797 HOW, is it well established? How did amino acids come together by accident? How, did the individual amino acids get their properly shaped isomers or enantiomers ? Why, are ALL, of OUR, amino acids right handed? If, life was by accident? The mixture of right and left handed amino acids would be the same. The chirality wouldn't be there. It would be non chiral. No one knows what the first step was for life. You comment ====> "common ancestor is well-established."< ==== This is showing you to be a liar. You don't know. All the worlds scientists don't know. ===== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@kennethbransford820 Life's amino acids are left-handed. It's completely false to say that both enantiomers should be present, and in equal mixtures, in living systems "just because". There are different theories as to why left-handed amino acids exist in life's proteins but it's safe to say nobody knows why the LUCA had left-handed amino acids. I don't know why you think that's a particularly important point.
A universal common ancestor is indeed well-established, and since you seem to be interested in chemistry and likely science in general you should perhaps be asking why people think there is a LUCA instead of just disagreeing on little to no basis.
Like I said, believing that God or an intelligence guided the emergence of lifeforms is one thing, but to suggest organisms on Earth don't share a LUCA is just ridiculous and betrays a failure to grasp why it is that people are so sure there was a LUCA.
Think about a few questions from both an intelligent design perspective as well as an evolutionary perspective, and give me your answers and thoughts.
Why do all lifeforms on Earth have DNA, RNA, ribosomes, a small group of about 20 amino acids, and a lipid cell membrane?
Why are all multicellular organisms eukaryotes?
Why are all lifeforms carbon-based?
Do you think all humans have a common ancestor? If so, why?
Do you think all cats have a common ancestor? If so, why?
Do you think all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor? Why?
Do you think all insects have a common ancestor?
I could go on with questions like this but I'd like to hear your response. Have you heard of the term "nested hierarchy"? Do you know what it means, and how it relates to evolutionary theory?
The blind men are still trying to figure out the elephant. The elephant is silently laughing to itself.
In the end you can clearly tell which of the students are the religious ones, the ones that didn't applaud.
This subject is as hard as trying to define what is human being and get majority’s agreement. Many subjects is fluid and dynamic since the meaning is defined by social norm which is hard to discuss without being very specific clear requirements, and tight definitions.
Know the Safari-Project? Professor Dave and other Sci-CZcamsr covered it!
GOD = Geometrically Ordered Dynamics.
To me He is my Loving Heaving Feather who has always been good to me
@@daniesteenkamp1985 what about humans who are raped or molested abused? Who are killed for no reason?
GOD = immorality justified.
FUCK YOU enabler of racism, rape, child genital mutilation, Need I go on for the immorality of religion and its practices.
All of these practices are exclusively middle eastern religions.
@@ossiedunstan4419 ah, ha caught you....you definitely do believe in God...you don't get that upset or make this many comments over the Easter Bunny.....Lol
Did this work with another language? Lol
"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool."
Voltaire
Sean can't even make it past basic science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Let me give you some attention. ;-)
The term Theory in science has a more robust meaning.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
I hate that this is the case honestly. It creates so much unnecessary confusion. Its very difficult to convince someone that a word doesn't mean what they think it does.
This man is a great man.
Prove it!! Sean Carrol isn't even Real and I'm surprised that so many people believe he actually exists!!! People are so gullible.... It's obvious that Sean Carrol is made up!!!
David Belcher, I take it from your use of "!!!!" 's
that you are a bit bent out of shape.
"Sean Carrol isn't even Real".....wow. What are you so angry about? Is it because people don't believe exactly as you do?
I have had some chats with the person calling himself Sean Carrol. He seems as real to me as you or anyone else. I happen to be a brown teddy bear so feel free to doubt my existence but someone presumably is typing this message on my behalf.
Lucky!
In fact, he is the up~there genius, all he is missing the Equation, the ~Quanta.
“My father was like God. Busy elsewhere.” ~ Winston Churchill
Herrroooo 👋🤓
Fancy seeing you here 🤣
I commented on this video more than a year ago, I don't remember watching it 🤣
So was mine. God.
@@Bacpakin my biological "father" is, and always was, a lazy, uneducated waste of flesh, I'd love to know what it would have been like to have a family who actually gave a damn, I do have a family now but obviously not biological, more of an adopted family although they live more than 5,000 miles away 😔
People say you can't choose your family or parents, and while I agree with the latter you most certainly can choose the former, they make me a better person every single day and I hope you have as much luck as I did 😊👍 ♥ 🤗
@@DoctaOsiris And yet you are the best he could have and has biologically made. You are the best product of this [as you call it] ,waste of flesh...Think Really hard my friend.
@@juanitosuriel6931 think really hard? Are you actually kidding me? You know nothing about my life, if I'm the best my biological father could have ever "made" then I wish he'd never bothered, I'd be perfectly fine with never existing, not that I'd have ever known about it anyway, what's there to think really hard about exactly? 🤷
Think about this
How did the singularity form
It has to consist of something
Now we have watched 4 Smbh vanish
One hypothesis is they evaporated
But how if light can not escape how did it evaporate
What if it went critical became pure energy
Slipped through the space time fabric
Became a singularity
Started to expand
U Sir Sean Carrol ..👏..bravo!!
He contradictorily speaks of laws of nature as being 'out there' and also them being concepts. Laws are only out there if there is a lawmaker.
Sean doesn't follow the laws anyway. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
What a brilliant talk about a much needed explanation for or against god in our lives from a person who knows man made rules and laws and scientific rules and laws. This has helped me better understand pure logical theories and draw my own conclusions to our existence!
@@OMAELITE ok
@@OMAELITE And you know Gawd, of course..
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole.
@@OMAELITE i guess a lot of people know god and yet have toxic attitudes because that's what he teaches, right? that's the moral standard that god has set for his believers, amirite?
@@OMAELITE yea sure. you can just repent for being toxic, then get "forgiveness" and repeat that all over again, right? such a great excuse
btw i was being sarcastic lmao. even now
oh wait, you just said "what a dumb word". how friendly for someone from a religion that teaches to behave in the exact opposite way. god sure lives within them and through him comes these behaviours. what a solid proof that god exists.
CZcams, thank you for showing me this man!
The Bible: thank you for revealing to me the truth.
You should write a book which comes with a box of tissues.
He demonstrates how important it is to be well-spoken. It is asif he summons great notions and make them float on his words.
I don't think we can draw a complete narrative about a spiritual being because we are not spiritual in nature, not in this plane of existence.
@@keyissues1027 we are indeed not created in his image.
@@Calligraphybooster how was anything created naturally? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2blockYou've missed the entire point of his argument. His argument was never against a God and the creation of the Universe. He never said it's not possible. In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree.
His argument is that at this point in time God is not a good theory. He then explained this with a very well researched, thought out and fair set of follow ups including the weaknesses in a lot of Scientific theories and the positives in God's.
He however proved multiple times that although it is a theory at this point in time it is far from the best.
He even took the best argument for God (by a long way).
@@matwatson7947 he's a typical 'maybe this, maybe that' actor atheist who will NOT give the glory to God. He loves his act of "In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree." but his empty pride can't get him to admit that God has ALL the evidence and he has NONE.
I translateted this videos subtitle to Turkish. But I am hesitant to upload to my chanel. Is it free to upload? If it's not, can I send you the Turkish subtitle and you can add to video. Thank you.
Know Viced Rhino, Prophet of Zod, GMS and Belief It Or Not?
Sean Carrol gets it all right. He's the quantum-powered man!
nope - misrepresents Aristotle revealing his deep lack of a philosophical education, which I can prove
I enjoy Carrol but he is not omniscient, as I am sure he would agree. Anyone who thinks there is proof for the non-existence of God is not a scientist.
@@jakeolthof Interesting point! 👍🏿
OK. Game, set, match because "Kevin says..." We should have ask him 6 or 7 years ago.
Interesting to see him talking about football, goalies, and letting goals in; ie. real football, not American Football!
Real gay football
American football is real too, butthead.
@@trigonzobob I'm leaning more towards Beavis, but thanks for your kind words.
In his discussions about conceiving a universe w/o a necessary deity (11:00), he describes self contained universes. But isn’t it running into the same issue? Where did you get the particle and why’s it moving? Next one, where did you get the single point?
The first cause argument is always gonna be there, it seems to me. It’s non-demonstrable still, but the same ontological arguments still exist.
Maybe he just says that his imagined Universe has no cause... that it is necessary. You know like you imagine a Creator God doesn't need a cause. You don't worry about how something capable of creating Everything just has to exist even though you can't demonstrate God's existence NOW.
Sure you can show me a tree or a Holy Book that God had published. But God remains hidden, not once in my 77 years have I seen GOD.
Crazy me I find it's easier to imagine Everything is uncaused and eternal. The Universe, at very least, is here now. I can point out parts of it and most sane people will agree it's here NOW. NOW is at least a part of Eternity. God has never been as obvious as a grain of sand on a beach. You've seen sand... I've never see God in the same way. I can show stone on my yard. If I toss in in your direction you will move and avoid being hit. We share the reality of the stone. I don't have sing a song or pray... the stone is there. God doesn't exist in the same way. So I believe in rock and sand.
@@dimbulb23 you could be right, this could be what he’s discussing. One thing Aquinas does say is that the ontological arguments do not get you to the Christian God, but to an uncaused cause or unmoved mover.
He then says that the uncaused thing, that is what we call God. So it’s a cop out, but I suppose it’s a fairly established argument for God which defines God broadly enough to cover the bases.
But that aside, you mention that you have never seen God. I wanted to ask how do you categorize people who believe (both individually and as groups) to have seen divine or spiritual things - especially ghosts. Some very odd things caught on camera, or corroborated by crowds of witnesses.
Is it all simply people’s eyes playing tricks on them, simple ignorance, or mental illness?
@@dixonbuttes How do you categorize Hindus who have another origin myth? Desperate? Self-deluded? Gullible? Incapable of noticing that if Bramha was there creating the world, the origin had already happened?
Aquinas cheated and asserted that God was un-created. I assert that EveryThing was uncreated and God disappears in a poof of redundancy.
What I really believe is 1. We aren't entitled to every answer to every question that occurs to us. 2. No one is likely to ever have had or ever will have access to the necessary information to have an answer.
I'm just not comfortable pretending to know things that I do not know.
@@dimbulb23 that’s understandable! I tend to categorize Hindus as getting part of the truth, as I do with the old prophets before Jesus. But I also tend to think that they don’t even need to be in competition - for example their trinitarian creator wasn’t the beginning, the beginning was a cosmic egg.
So I just say “my God is the God which transcends all things, even the cosmic egg, and is free to use whatever means he wants to delegate authority over creation.”
But I understand your view that we can’t claim to know things we don’t, but To me it feels like a strong assertion to toss out the primary portion of every spiritual claim ever made, rather than saying “there’s got to be some truth in there.”
@@dixonbuttes I'm an old guy... 77 next month. I grew up in small town full of people who were certain they had one version of the Truth or another. I have no need for Truth. Give me something with some evidence that I can evaluate, and I'll assign some level of 'true' to that with the option of upping that level or maybe calling it nonsense. Truth is a trap... a reason to believe you've arrived when you really have no idea how long the journey is. I have no idea what 'spiritual' means. I've heard it has something to do with feelings in our blood pump. To me that's what I call 'woo'. Woo makes luck work and astrolog... witchcraft.... crystals.
So his refutation of the idea that the Universe must have a reason for its existence consists of asking for a reason why the Universe should have a reason?
Reasons that establish a metaphysical grounding of the Universe -- the question 'Why does the Universe exist?' -- are illegitimate, but reasons for the purpose of refuting the need for a metaphysical grounding -- 'Why should the Universe have a Why for its existence?' / 'Why can't the Universe be without cause?' -- are legitimate?
I think the only thing missing from this was a mic drop and a peace sign as he kicks the door open to leave.
Nah. He'd have to be arrogant to do that.
A statement of a true believer.
I really enjoyed his God Theory vs. Multiverse and String Theories probability explanation.
With an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes to go, a universe capable of spawning life was an inevitability. We aren't lucky, we just are because the universe is.
@@graveseeker What?
@@thelivingcross3785 Infinity is a very, very long time. Time for infinite universes before ours and an infinite number after. Who knows how many had or will have intelligent beings to create imaginary gods?
@@graveseeker That literally makes no sense.
@@thelivingcross3785 Makes way more sense than does gawd (even though it is almost certainly just as false)..
this is what bothers me about the infinite number of universes. Wouldn’t there be at least 1 universe out there where we had every single answer and power? would that universe just take over the others or possibly help them reach higher levels
What is bothering you is your intellectual laziness. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 czcams.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/video.html
Universe's with Life will still have laws of physics. They might be different in some but there probably is some limit to the power you can achieve. I could be wrong of course but for what your thinking of we'd have to be in the MCU.
@@rlcmza6705 a multiverse is only a theory so right I get that part but the infinite thing still bothers me.
@@rlcmza6705 law of physics hmm dk man becoz it our universal thing beyond that everything is special tion why to bother with this .
So reasonable, thanks
thank God for this video
You’re welcome!
Can’t say I’ve ever heard the problem of instruction laid out that clearly or named. I’ve heard it, I’ve even sort of used it, but never made it that clear. It’s in the running for my favorite
I agree wholeheartedly 👍
@@OMAELITE What on earth does the man's sexuality have to do with any of this?
What are the "mathematical problems" with the theory of evolution?
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole.....
this feels like hearing what jve been trying to say this whole time
7:20 Yet most of the prominent scientists of the classical era were some form of Christians. Faraday, Newton (there are endless examples). They believed natural philosophy would help with understanding God better.
Awesome, I think I have to watch it again to fully get a grasp on a lot of it though.
Aaawwww fyi watched it 5 times ......didnt help 😁😁😁
@@jimanderson2518 it's okay, you'll get the hang of it, I had to go back a few minutes to fully digest too