Scientists Look for any Explanation for the Big Bang-Except the Obvious: David Berlinski
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лют 2025
- Watch Dr. Berlinski's full lecture from June 2012 here:
• Dr. David Berlinski: T...
Subscribe to Socrates in the City
/ @socratesinthecity
#bigbang #davidberlinski #socrates #socratesinthecity #einstein #cosmology #creation #inthebeginning
Our intellectuals should be iconoclasts challenging the status quo not propagandists for it. Berlinski is so much fun. A real original.
What is he any good at?
Here he gets the age of the universe wrong repeatedly?
More of a poseur than an iconoclast….
Challenging the status quo in science is what Americans want but when it comes to politics the status quo rules, and the billionaires run our lives. Modern slavery with a two-party system which is one more than they had in Soviet Russia😂😂😂
@@Epoch11I’d settle for just having speakers who have a clue what they’re talking about….so that’s David Berlinski screwed then…
Thank you for posting Dr. Berlinski's intriguing presentation.
Did you like the bit where he got the age of the universe wrong?
Tune in next week when we'll have a talk on quantum gravity from Brittney Spears.......
@@mcmanustony Nice to see that you’re so confident in your omniscience.
@@ghostgate82 I made no claim to omniscience. You might put the pipe down and have another go....
Thanks for sharing this great video! Prof Berlinski is an amazing scientist to listen to. I admire his profound knowledge and especially his intellectual humility .
"Prof Berlinski"- PROF? of what? Where? Scientist? IN WHAT?
His attempt at an academic career was an utter disaster. He never had a full time secure job and was fired from a succession of low level temp teaching assistant gigs.
I think there's a technical reason for this; he's fkg useless.
Professor of what? Where?
@@mcmanustony He’s the professor of living in your head rent free.
@@ghostgate82 He's not a professor.
Can you rise above this childish tripe and actually post something of substance?
"Profound knowledge"- of what? He repeatedly gets the age of the universe WRONG in this presentation where he feigns expertise in cosmology.
It should still be pointed out, however, that even if a conscious creator was responsible, there is no harm in trying to figure out how it was done.
Agreed. Nor is it, if trying to explain how he did it, wrong to acknowledge that it was done.
This is the difference between creationism (biblical literalism) and intelligent design (that there was some sort of conscious creator, but this could mean any number of things, not just judeo Christian god.)
@WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle I agree with you also. In fact, assuming a conscious mind at work might help develop more coherent physical models. If I were going to purposefully create a physical universe like this, how would I do it?
Everything else is simply a matter of faith. Which religious model (purpose) are you most comfortable with. I choose the faith of my fathers.
No harm at all, searching is important
True , why not 😊
I believe it's expected of us to use the mind that God gave us to try to understand Him through understanding what He has made.
Always like listening to David Berlinski.
He does like to straddle the fence. 🙂
Yes, he is caught by the obviousness of theism AND bitterness at God about the holocaust.
He's being forced by his own intellectual honesty toward theism, however.
@@20july1944 He's a pretentious lying fraud- a failed academic and now grifter with the "Discovery" "Institute"
@@20july1944 He's a pretentious poseur pretending to be a scholar. It's laughable as usual
@@mcmanustonyalways someone in the peanut gallery who scoffs at David.
@@20july1944got to love the man who sounds like he leans towards faith in Yahweh and yet is honest enough to say, I don’t know😊
Why is it so easy for the world to believe that the universe suddenly burst into existence from nothing and nowhere, but so hard to believe that a man could rise from the dead….
Exactly. They make a religious argument but say they are scientific
There's evidence for the big bang and none for resurrection.
Because they've got air for brains 😂😂😂
Cognitive Dissonance. I'm a internal medicine physician, board certified, practicing in the united states. I believe in the big bang and Jesus Christ as Creator of the universe. I have studied ad nauseum and to exhaustion the sciences from cellular, molecular, and evolutionary biology, organic chemistry, and physics, not to mention a myriad of other sciences to achieve my goal. So there are scientists out there such as myself who acknowledge that it is possible for two to be true and not contradict.
Cognitive Dissonance. I'm a internal medicine physician, board certified, practicing in the united states. I believe in the big bang and Jesus Christ as Creator of the universe. I have studied ad nauseum and to exhaustion the sciences from cellular, molecular, and evolutionary biology, organic chemistry, and physics, not to mention a myriad of other sciences to achieve my goal. So there are scientists out there such as myself who acknowledge that it is possible for two to be true and not contradict.
Perhaps a universe expands to a point where it's gravity fails, and then collapses into a singularity, with a central gravitational pull, until a big bang oçcures, and this process of blooming and dying is the cycle of life of a universe, the pattern of which is seen in the cyclic nature of life in general
Now don't go around paraphrasing Stephen Hawking that way! Next we'll have to explain how spacetime is shaped like a football, and how the surface of this "football" is infinite, despite its being a definite shape. If these guys believe Berlinski, there's no way they're going to believe some tosser like Hawking.
By the way, the phrase "blooming and dying is the cycle of life" is nicely put.
I have taught science for 30 years, and what David says makes a lot of sense to me. He often asks questions to get his students to think- a good teaching method, but it does not force an answer.
"questions to get his students to think"- he doesn't have students. His academic "career", long in the past, was a disaster with him wandering from one temp or part time teaching assistant gig to the next and being routinely fired.
What do you imagine is his field of expertise?
@@mcmanustony A student is anyone who listens to your words, studies them, and takes them seriously.
Your appeal to authority fallacy betrays you as an embittered, weak thinker.
@@ghostgate82 You don't understand the appeal to authority fallacy. What a sneering, ill mannered jerk.
@@ghostgate82 I didn’t appeal to authority. You are one confused foul mannered puppy
@ what subject do you imagine is Berlinski’s field of expertise?
Loved it years ago and loved it again. Berlinski is always enjoyable and thought provoking.
What thoughts other than: how does he get away with it?
The real miracle here is that the audience is still awake at the end of the
Wonderfully narrated by David Berlinski.
Basically if the universe had a beginning that would require a beginner. The law of cause and effect requires that. The majority of people don't like that especially scientists and we will do anything and everything to resist the truth that stares us in the face.
@@TedBates-b8u the Law of cause and effect is for what happens within the Universe. We have no idea, yet, before/beyond it. Quantum Theory shows us the Universe is not what we would naturally think
@@steveburris6543"we have no idea"? Some of us have some pretty good ideas, so I think your "we" are those that deny some obvious attributes.
I love the infinite regress angle. Either they have to admit the universe was created, or they have to deny basic science (cause and effect). It is a paradox they can't escape
*"Basically if the universe had a beginning that would require a beginner."*
... That's not necessarily true. You can have a "first move" scenario that doesn't involve or invoke a "first cause." *Example:* If you had an inconceivable type of existence that was able to render itself conceivable via logic, then that would constitute a "movement" from nonexistence to existence. ... That is the theory presented in my book.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLClogic is logic and existance is existance. I do not see how can jump from one to another.
From far enough away the universe does in fact look like a dot.
Impossible to tell. Light.
Dr. Berlinski asks a great many questions. What he appears to be lacking is answers.
For example he appears to be suggesting because there is an effect, the appearance of our universe, the cause must be his God. There is nothing scientific in that process. Dr. Berlinski's speaks the language of physics but the words are just that, Words. Word salad, to be exact. aka Deepak Chopra.
I would however, compliment him on his speaking style. Very slow and ponderous. Painfully slow in fact. Gives the impression we are experiencing great sagacity. Leave out the word "science, an you are on to a winner.
As Richard Dawkins, Charles Darwin, Patricia Churchland and other materialistic scientists put it, Truth doesn't exist in naturalism. You were intuitively able to reason and you believe what you wrote here to be true, therefore truth exists and naturalism is false. You intuitvely know on some level that you are made in the image of God.
he's a pretentious, ignorant wanker who has been getting away with it for years.
David Berlinski is an amazing genius. He should win a Nobel.
On what merit?
A failed academic with ZERO contributions to any branch of any science (including mathematics) at any time. Are you under the impression there's a Nobel Prize for collecting cufflinks?
Do they give Nobels for Quackery?
His speeches are magnificent; stylish, humorous, elegant and eloquent.
He's a failed academic who makes a grubby living pretending he's a scientist while he lies and sneers at his betters.
@@mcmanustony Failed academic? Says who?
@hantallica Says the facts. Basic degree in mathematics. PhD in philosophy- though he lies in bios and book covers that he has a PhD in mathematics. He doesn't.
He has claimed to be a "post doctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology"- an astonishing achievement for someone with no post graduate training in mathematics and no training at all in molecular biology. When exposed he said the "post doctoral fellow" bit was "self styled"- or as we say in the clean world- a lie.
@hantallica Berlinski never had a tenured academic job and was, by his own admission, routinely fired from a succession of low level, temp teaching assistant gigs. Given his jaw dropping ignorance it's hard to see how the hell he was ever hired.
What branch of scholarship do you think he works in?
@@mcmanustony He pursued a post doctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia. What's your proof that he wasn't?
The best explanation and a true one is this: there's never been a "Big Bang" in the Universe.
The Universe doesn't have a beginning and end.
Prove it.
Here is the proof: nothing real can exist in REALITY if it's not a real effect of a real previous cause.
Here you have it.
Case closed.
Now it's your turn: disprove this real, fundamental and universal truth.
@@mikel4879 And yet the universe exists, it is expanding etc. I will go with Berlinski on this
Mrshanke...• Yes, you just confirm exactly what I said.
The Universe exists strictly causally and it is causally expanding towards infinity.
The real, simple-causal and universal dynamic of the Universe comes causally from real infinite small and goes causally towards real infinite large.
Of course, like the Universe you had no beginning, either.
Dr. Isaiah Rubinstein explains that the helixes that make up our DNA is held together by a series of sulfur bonds BETWEEN the base pairs (GCAT) that constitute your genetic code. And that these bonds are not randomly placed or evenly placed. But, there’s a sulfur bond, then 10 base pairs , then another sulfur bond, then 5 base pairs, another bond, then 6 base pairs, another bond, then 5 base pairs before the pattern repeats itself. 10-5-6-5-10-5-6-5-10-5-6-5… over and over, holding our DNA together.
This means nothing to native English speakers, of course, because we use Latin letters and Arabic numerals. But Hebrew uses letters as their numbers. Aleph is both the first letter of the alephbet, and the first number. The number 10 is a Yohd. 5 is a He. 6 is a Vav (or Waw, if you have an Arabic dialect). 5 again is a He.
10-5-6-5, your DNA held together with God’s signature יהוה over and over.
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.
@ncsgif3685
I know you rather believe that you evolved from a rock 4 billion years ago, because that way you think you can get away from God's moral laws.
I tell you what! At Oxford University there's a group of scientists who are still offering a $10 million dollars cash prize to whomever can prove the origin of life without God. You should go over there and show your proof of our origin from a rock and the rest of all your lies, frauds, and hoaxes of our common ancestors.
Here is they info:
*At Oxford University they are still offering a $10 million dollars cash prize to whomever can prove the origin of life without God.*
Questions they are asking:
Where did life come from? Where did the genetic code come from? The Evolution 2.0 Prize offers $10 million to the first person to self-organise chemicals into code.
At the Royal Society in Great Britain 31 May 2019, Perry Marshall tells the story behind the prize. Hosted by Oxford Professor Denis Noble FRS CBE.
The discussion was facilitated and chaired by Dr Paul Flather, President of The Forum for Philosophy, based at the London School of Economics, and Fellow of Mansfield College, Oxford.
Origin of Information is the central question in Origin Of Life (“Abiogenesis”). It’s critical to evolution itself. It is the most fundamental scientific question that can be precisely defined. A breakthrough may be as valuable as Einstein’s E=MC^2 or the invention of the transistor.
Perry Marshall is author of “Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design.” Submit prize entries at www.naturalcode.org. Listen to the podcast, videos, blog and read sample chapters of “Evolution 2.0” at www.evo2.org.
@@ncsgif3685clown🤡
@@DiscipleofJesusChrist-t2p "I know you rather believe that you evolved from a rock 4 billion years ago"- literally NO ONE believes this. What the hell is wrong with you?
Have you ever tried listening to or, gasp!, READING biologists? Noble is a crank on the sidelines- banging on about his third way and gathering ZERO traction in the process. Perry Marshall is a hyper-ventilating businessman.
This video is 10 years old, and already in the channel. Why repost it now?
I feel sorry for the audience being duped by this guy. Then again, anyone with an ounce of reason can tell he’s full of shit.
completely..
I've been aware of this pretentious fraud for years. He does raise one interesting question: how the hell does he get away with it?
@@mcmanustony Theists have one overriding ability: to believe anything said in the name of a god.
Narrating a story does not prove a big bang
It would be nice to have honesty and humility in the scientific community about what kinds of questions science can answer and what questions it can not answer and is limited by its methods. If occams razor is your pronciple for deciding between competing theories the multiverse multiplies miracles to infinity God on the other hand makes only one great creative miracle necessary, so God is the clear winner in this case.
What are scientists being dishonest about? I can list Berlinski's lies all day if you like.
You posit a cause that cannot be shown true in any way. I reject it for that simple fact.
@@Roger-r7s for all the pomposity of your initial comment you seem to have gone a bit quiet….
@@mcmanustony The a priori adherence to naturalism, financial biases, personal biases, believing that science can answer everything, admitting that one's philosophy is lacking, speaking authoritatively about fields they have no knowledge of or training in, claiming to have The Truth while rejecting anything and everything that goes against that view a priori, being prejudiced against anything science cannot explain, trying to find scientific explanations (no matter how ridiculous or far-fetched they may be) to such topics even if their "scientific" explanation are WAY more "out there" than anything else... I could go on.
Now, I do not say that any other group does not do these things too - but scientists usually present their case like it is The Only Truth, as if they are infallible as long as they can slap "but science" to their beliefs.
Many scientists are honest enough to admit "we do not know". But usually they follow that up with "and we cannot know". Which is a statement that cannot be proven, and logically it is false.
@@mcmanustony By the way - list four of Berlinski's lies, with evidence and sources that proves your claim. I am not saying he does not lie, but you made a claim that he does. The burden of proof is on you.
There is only one way our perceived reality could have occurred by chance. There are an infinite number of ways it could have occurred for some purpose. Just make one up and you are probably closer to the truth than no purpose at all.
No, no, wrong. There are billions upon billions of chances we came to be and zero reason to think there was motive behind it.
No beginning no end. The Big Bang is impossible because nothingness is impossible.
This guy gets a lot of basic science wrong.
Anything that happens in Nature is not unique. First, we discover that the Earth is not the center of the universe; then, we discover that the sun is only one star among myriads; then, we discover that our own galaxy of stars is just one, among many. What's next? Probably that our universe is just one among many. I think reality is infinite and unbounded.
We may have to rewrite all the textbooks about the beginning of the universe the big bang and the photons from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation could represent the beginning of our time line within an infinite Universe.
The obvious from The oldest theory of everything.
Everything that is animated is animated by a will.
Therefore The Universe is animated so it must be animated by a Will.
Problem is we know of a lot of things that are animated by many observable wills and lot of things that are animated by no observable will. So if there is some kind of unobservable Will at the origin of the Universe is not obvious if it is by one, many or no will.
Y’all still atheists in 2025 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂❤
Common sense would should tell us that if the universe is expanding then space is has to be infinite.
Even more, if they dont know where is the center of the universe they dont know the size. So every measure of the universe is trash.
Common sense tells you the earth is flat....
it's as much use in science as a cast iron cabbage.
The name "Big Bang" is something you'd expect from from a five or six year old.
It was an atheist, Fred Hoyle, who was trying to debunk the idea who first used the term Big Bang. It stuck.
It was a result of the orphan mind. "Spooky" action at a distance, lol's.
I agree with you
It was Fred Hoyle who coined the term as he was mocking the idea. Hoyle believed in the eternal universe and was opposed to the idea of what coined the 'Big Bang'. Lemaître, who actually formulated the Big Bang theory, provided explanation via way of massive Primeval Atom.... then I came along and refined Lemaître's idea by way of using a binary neutron star merger as the causal mechanism of the Big Bang.... and called it the Big Bang Kilonova Hypothesis. In order to do so I had to coin the term "Superverse"..... would you like to comment on my choice of names? 😂😂😂
My original comment except the 5-6 year old is obsessed with comic books
I like when scientist puts a data to the begining of the Universe, thats the best part of the joke. 😂
What the fuck are you babbling about?
@@mcmanustonyIm saying NO ONE can measure the Universe. They are liying, go home, baby. 😘
Warnings Against False Teachings: The Bible warns against teachings that contradict or undermine the truth of God’s creation. For example, Colossians 2:8 advises believers to be wary of philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition rather than Christ. This can be interpreted as a caution against ideologies that deny or distort the biblical account of creation
What does Zeus have to say about this?
It's a Kilonova, Baby!!! As evident from the large scale anisotropies of the CMB
Spinning the words and making assumptions in front of a gullible audience doesn’t create a reality but merely supports a collective wishful thinking
Yes you have been deluded for so long you automatically resist truth even when it smacks you in the head.
Is it not also wishful thinking to hold on to your atheistic myth that the universe came into being from nothing?
I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.
@@Narnian77 What a stupid lazy comment.
@@Narnian77 By definition the atheism is contrasted with theism, which is the belief that at least one deity exists .
Before speaking about atheism you have to prove the existence of the said deity , however you call it .
There is no evidence of existence of any kind of God but indeed theoretical it's impossible to prove the non existence of any god , therefore the belief of existence of any god is a personal choice .
And btw , I have no clue how the Universe come into being ,and so far I know no one else know for sure , the science people are making only hypotheses .
@mitchl2122 Spinning the words is very much an Atheist technique. Such as Communism. Atheistism is a religion.
When from a bang comes creation. A big bang would do the opposite would it not?
We don't absolutely exist; it's a trick of the language to think that anything is absolute. Only language using creatures suffer from this.
Impossible things can't happen; they always were.
This is meta existence, aka the universe, which contains time which contains existence which contains cosmic radiation which contains the big bang continuum
The question makes about as much sense as asking a Theist why God exists.
Well he said a whole lot of nothing
As usual
More rhetoric than addressing the issues revealed by the astronomy and cosmology today.
One can always say that it can not be ''expressed'' -- but, alas, that does not make the issues go away. (Evoking a ''God of the gap'' ever so faintly would not be even an attempt to answer them.)
The guy stands up there and says nothing. A total word salad.
Sounds like a Atheist then.
@@richardquimby7046grow up.
David Berlinski playing with words before a rapt audience.
As always.....how the hell does he get away with it?
He speaks like a drunk uncle leaving the dinner. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Fundamentally, the mind is a relative entity, consisting of matter energy space and time. " I " HAVE a mind. So why look for absolutes in a relative world ?
As Epictetus told us, "reality is where you are looking from, NOT what you are looking at"
In modern parlance we are looking for consciousness, when we are actually looking " from " consciousness.
"Looking for " creates a contribution to a hologram, and as with the physics equivalent, forms " groups "( beliefs in the minds case ).
So why the mental investigation ?
To discover reality requires the discovery of illusion first.
This explains the holographic universe and answers the " hard" question !
The comments section reflects two camps: Those who seek a creator in absence of objective evidence and those seeking to prove a negative (that God doesn’t exist). The snark from the latter camp is a product of the logically untenable position they’ve taken. The faux certainty from the former camp is a product of imagining God in a physical universe that provides no proof. Cosmology is merely the forum that sets the stage for this unsolvable debate.
I don't have to prove a negative. THEY say "God", so explain why. Your trouble is you can't get that noise, "GOD!!" out of your head.
As an atheist, I am not trying to prove a negative. I am addressing what the theist claims. For example, that an omnipotent God exists, or that an Omnipotent and Omnibenevolent God exists. Both propositions are self-contradicting and so neither can be true.
Your view of the atheist position presumes a sound and valid argument for a God's existence. That claim is for you to prove, not me, nor any other atheist.
@ your logic is flawed, but you did demonstrate the snark factor I mentioned.
@@Stranglewood no, the only thing required to support my position is the existential POSSIBILITY of God, whether I understand his apparent contradictions or not. I’m not taking a position. I’m merely calling attention to the unsolvable nature of the argument between theists and atheists, although both are quick to declare the case closed.
@ Yes, and the "possibility" of a God requires sound and valid claim of its existence. We must define the thing we are arguing about in order to know what exactly is possible.
There is no snark in my comments here, it is entirely inferred by you. You'd know it if I was being snarky.
This people fooling humanity 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
An electron spinning in its orbit is spinning only in your head. Tell me about the period on a page. What compels it to stay on the page? The answer is different than the electron question (neither are capable of compulsion, but that's not why their explanation would be different) and very different from a discussion of human compunction, which is related to consciousness, something we will never be able to denote to electrons or periods, and perhaps, might not be able to explain to ourselves. Keep the faith, even not quite cynical philosophers keep the faith.
Straight away he plays tricks with words. 'What compels the electron to stay in its orbit' is simply a stupid question. The only question is how does it do it. Human behaviour occupies a quite different universe of concepts, and he knows that, which is why he can make that switch on the word "compels".
2 universes scrapping together...
Socrates never made any such claims in the gods. That is one reason he was put to death. Re: his point at 1701. Scientists re convinced by the evidence and on any class, like my first year biology classes, students are given the overwhelming evidence for evolution from biology, geology, the fossil record, comparatve DNA and comparatve anatomy/ And Darwin and all biologists respect the whiole uf life and would never denigrate being related to all forms of life.
Psalm 33:6-22
6 By the word of the Lord the heavens were made,
their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
7 He gathers the waters of the sea into jars;
he puts the deep into storehouses.
8 Let all the earth fear the Lord;
let all the people of the world revere him.
9 For he spoke, and it came to be;
he commanded, and it stood firm.
10 The Lord foils the plans of the nations;
he thwarts the purposes of the peoples.
11 But the plans of the Lord stand firm forever,
the purposes of his heart through all generations.
12 Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord,
the people he chose for his inheritance.
13 From heaven the Lord looks down
and sees all mankind;
14 from his dwelling place he watches
all who live on earth-
15 he who forms the hearts of all,
who considers everything they do.
16 No king is saved by the size of his army;
no warrior escapes by his great strength.
17 A horse is a vain hope for deliverance;
despite all its great strength it cannot save.
18 But the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear him,
on those whose hope is in his unfailing love,
19 to deliver them from death
and keep them alive in famine.
20 We wait in hope for the Lord;
he is our help and our shield.
21 In him our hearts rejoice,
for we trust in his holy name.
22 May your unfailing love be with us, Lord,
even as we put our hope in you.
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1 Thessalonians 4:13-17
But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
Ecclesiastes 12:7
Then the dust will return to the earth as it was,
And the spirit will return to God who gave it.
John 5:28-29
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth-those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
Ecclesiastes 9:5
For the living know that they will die;
But the dead know nothing,
And they have no more reward,
For the memory of them is forgotten.
Ezekiel 18:4
" Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
Revelation 20:4-6
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years.
Romans 2:7
eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
@@stephenwatts2649 Bless. You got it bad.
Star Wars: Episode IV
Luke: Got 'im! I got 'im!
Han Solo: Great, kid. Don't get cocky.
You see, we have our stories too.
Yep......I remember when the Bass came on the bite, I looked to the heavens and cried "Thank God...." as I was reeling in the Bass, my "squeeze", who was lying on the grassy bank getting an all over suntan, (she worshiped the sun) grabbed my Miroku 12G U/O Gold Plated trigger and blasted the Bass. Looked at me and said, "I don't like fish.."
I then saw the light in her eyes, and started praying and thanked God for the Universe.
W.T.F. has quotes from the Bible (1,378 versions to date, written by crazies, killers, pedophiles, sadists, murderers, etc, etc,) got to do with me catching my Bass and my "squeeze" getting an all over suntan?
We are all travelers in time, and we all travel alone.
@@harrymax-t3l We travel alone, together.
No offence but electrons are kept in orbit around the nucleus due to the attraction between their negative charge and the positive charge of protons in the nucleus.
I think the speaker would explain that the charge and its sign is a rationalisation although his own reasoning has much supposition he is on the way somewhere, or at least I hope to learn so by the end of this. There are other ideas along these lines.
No offense, Dan, but the speaker addressed this answer, which can be paraphrased, "The laws of Nature keep the electron in its orbit". His response is to ask where the laws of Nature came from.
@@meofamily4 Why do they have to come from somewhere?
The matter is an effect without a cause, according to your question. @mcmanustony
@@pigzcanfly444 matter didn't exist at the time of the singularity.
Leaning so hard on words like "compells" is like equating the phrase "scientists believe" from certain data to believe in a religion. Scientitss mean that they "ratoinally infer from the data" whiich is what THEY mean buy"believe". IN this case, dozens if not hundreds of scientists actualy investigate the question of altruism. This is a nonsense lecture.
Thanks for alerting everyone to the fact you didn’t understand it.
Carry on.
Here's a question genius. What did the Big Bang...Bang when there was no matter to Bang?
Genesis 1:1-31
There is no Big Bang, its just the current model used to explain background radiation, blue shift in stars (debated), the timeline for coalecance of matter (debated).
There's an answer to that, Carl, but I don't think you'll find it convincing.
Start with nothing, which is to say, a vacuum.
In the vacuum, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle says that energy (which is the same as matter) can fluctuate, by a small amount: for a very short period of time, the energy in the vacuum can be high enough to represent the existence of a particle, let us say a proton.
Then at that particular moment, in the one-quadrillionth of a second that the proton winked into existence, a phase shift -- similar to the freezing of water, going from a liquid phase into a solid phase -- took over.
This phase shift (which is called "Inflation") satisfies the known equations of the laws of physics, and it multiplies the matter in the real world by doubling every ten-to-the-minus-ten seconds. In a very short period of time, something less than a minute or two, all the matter in the universe cascaded into existence.
And then expanded. The period of inflation stopped at that point.
@@meofamily4 lol the proton "winked" into existence.... just like a man can get pregnant and we can't define a woman (hint hint: adult FEMALE)
@@meofamily4
The principal of physical science is
1. Observation
2. Record the Data
3. Publish the results.
What you have presented is rhetorical theory.
No one was there to observe the Big Bang...Bang so it is not science that you are presenting but science fiction in your attempted explanation.
At best what you are presenting is faith therefore your are documenting the faith of your religion.
But your religion is not based on sound doctrine, so it is a false teaching.
Yet, if you repent and believe the Gospel you can be saved and understand doctrine (Acts 2:38; Isaiah 28:10)
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Cor 2:13-14 (KJV)
Matter came into being when the hot, dense state expanded and cooled to a point where it could exist. This is well known.
I know of a lot of things
about the little things
but I don't know enough
about Thee
At least they're looking. What are you lot doing? 😂
Berlinski- failed academic and grifting fraud- is doing what he had done for a living for decades: sneering at his betters for money.
I don’t have to look because I already found the answer. Hopefully many more will find it.
@@gregkemp1389 and the answer to biodiversity, the origin of the universe, the formation of galaxies, the laws of physics and chemistry......The Baby Jesus!
Lazy, vacuous nonsense.
Pearlman SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model is due to replace the competing SCM-LCDM as the new standard, after consideration and dissemination. Panning out for a decade and recently gaining traction of ResearchGate.
'on' researchgate.
For six months
very nice
Seek salvation:
John 14:6
John 1:1-14
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
John 3:16
Saying it's God still leaves questions. What is God? What if the creator is a more advanced civilization that simulated the universe in a lab? What if the big bang is the opposite end of a black hole? Why are we so certain there weren't many big bangs?
The begining of the Big Bang? 😂 And where is the center of the universe? 😂😂😂 Im still wating for the map. 🙋♂️
It’s you dude, clearly.
@ncsgif3685 One thing is to BELIEVE in a Big Bang theory and the other thing is to measure it. 🤷🏻♂️By the way, if im the center of the universe as you say, please dont tell them, they are gonna measure up me. 🤦♂️
@@ncsgif3685 Funny thing is that what you wrote is actually true. And it is true for everybody everywhere.
@@vharboe In the end, we are all here in ONE planet and we have to aknowledge we came from our parents... Some people lose their humanity. Specially the egomaniacs who thinks about controlling life on earth. Thay are very sick at heart. 🙋♂️
What compels the electron to orbit the nucleus is a *minimum amount of intelligence (orchestration).* ... It's not a byproduct of chance, random fluctuations, nor is it a God-level form of intelligence. It's just enough intelligence to facilitate whatever requires orchestration. 14 billion years later, that "minimal amount of intelligence" has evolved into sentient self-aware lifeforms.
What compels the “just enough intelligence” it as though you never listened to Bolinski’s argument
@@neilpreston239 *"What compels the “just enough intelligence” it as though you never listened to Bolinski’s argument"*
... Intelligence is never satisfied with the status quo. Intelligence constantly requires *new information* to avoid stagnation. An almighty deity or a totally benign universe would not have the same compulsion.
BTW: It is more "intelligent" to thoroughly explore someone's position before marginalizing it (and the messenger).
You try to explain away complexity as simplicity evolved, yet all the mechanics in question never evolved. Evolution itself did not evolve. Physics did not evolve. So you are back to square one.
@ *"You try to explain away complexity as simplicity evolved, yet all the mechanics in question never evolved"*
... Evolution logically moves from simplicity to complexity. If you created a 4-billion-year-long line chart starting with prokaryotes and ending with self-aware humans, it would be a *consistently upward-directional chart.* ... That's a fact!
*"Evolution itself did not evolve."*
... That is a non sequitur. Evolution is the *process* that moves information from simplicity to higher complexity. You are a living example of this fact. What you are saying is tantamount to something like "music is not musical" or "math is not mathematical" which is pure nonsense.
*"So you are back to square one."*
... (see above).
@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC you think you get it but you don't. You rely on base assumptions which you cannot explain and which do not agree with your theories. No logical cohesion.
Uh huh!
Thank god we didn't stop our curiosity with Genesis 1 and the separate, conflicting account in Genesis 2.
Gensis 1 and 2 are not conflicting, your just room temperature I.Q
Yes indeed, God created this universe for us to discover and enjoy discovering.
@Polynuttery Shame about those for whom life is drudgery and death.
@@steveburris6543 Is it ?
Berlinsky, you are a liar. That physicist never happened.
Disgusting to imagine that a liar like that would probably press that button.
Kant. Not impressed.
What a wast of 17'1 minets of my life. Waffling is so mind numbing. Please no more.
Y’all still believe in hocus pocus in 2025 😂😂😂😂😂