In the vast interplay of creation and the cosmos, quantum physics offers a fascinating lens through which to explore the fundamental nature of reality. At its core, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe operates on principles that defy classical intuition. Matter and energy exist not as fixed entities but as probabilities, where particles can be in multiple states or locations simultaneously this phenomenon is known as superposition. Once measured, however, their position or state collapses into one definitive outcome. Moreover, the concept of quantum entanglement challenges our understanding of space and time, showing that particles can become instantaneously linked, regardless of the distance between them. This mysterious interconnectedness hints at a deeper, unseen order to the cosmos. As we probe deeper into the nature of the universe from the birth of stars to the origins of space-time itself we uncover a reality that, at the quantum level, seems far stranger and more wondrous than we could have ever imagined. This quantum framework doesn't just explain how particles behave; it also opens new possibilities, suggesting that the very fabric of creation might be governed by principles that transcend our classical understanding of the cosmos.
Yes, it's called a Creator. Everything in science is based on subjective interpretations of the results of our experiments . We actually don't know what is ultimate reality. It's all religion, it's all just beliefs
Science is a religion. Religion was the source of science. Religion as a philosophy of morality and science as a philosophy of nature. . Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason. There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other. . Is science squeezing religion into a smaller and smaller corner , as science explains naturally what religion used to explain supernaturally ? How far will this process go ? Will religion become less and less relevant ? Religion claims to address issues which science cannot address , like spirituality or morality . But are these legitimate categories of knowledge ? . Anthony Clifford Grayling is an English philosopher who founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities , an independent undergraduate college in London . .
Please how did Mohammad fly to heaven on a winged horse? How did Jesus rise from underground after three days.... Religion is based on faith without evidence. Science is based on facts. If you are from a first world country and typed this I'm highly disappointed....
So science can’t explain why something exist instead of nothing and this scholar thinks that means science can’t address the issue of creation, which is a non sequitur.
Perhaps existence is a necessary condition, if as they say, the idea of "no prior state" - effectively nothingness - is logical nonsense? Science really is a great tool to help us discover how things work (at least at scales comprehensible to us). It is a fount of knowledge. But it can't tell us why. For meaning, we will have to look elsewhere. Or forgo it entirely. Pretty bleak options...
I don't get this "question of existence" dodge. There is no question of "Existence." Something exists - that we know to be true. Existence is undeniable original, fundamental brute fact cause. You can't escape Existence. From Existence everything else MUST follow. And what follows is the question of whether God exists. If God does exist, then what does his existence consist of? After all, a claim of existence can't be defined by nothingness, but by somethingness. Hello?
3:13 ... some theists have taken great excitement in modern cosmology because since Einstein and Fredman and the expanding universe big bang shows that there was a beginning to the universe 【they may not understand the word "beginning" in Hebrew and Greek according to the English versions. Actually, the word "beginning" in Gen 1:1 & John 1:1 is not with definite article】other theists and perhaps you're in this category really are ambivalent to whether the universe had a beginning or the universe didn't have a beginning because the deeper question is the ontological existence of the whole thing whether it's has a beginning or no beginning is that correct? 3:42 DBH: I'm fascinated by modern cosmology don't get me wrong I love reading it but I don't confuse it with the sort of questions that touch upon the issue of God or the issue of creation uh you know what if Roger Penrose is right and we're bouncing through one universe after another as each one exhausts its energetic potential it becomes a limit state 4:10 【Roger Penrose's CCC truly shows the mechanism how the background for multiverse, no bouncing at all.】
...Tell them I Am that I AM. The Prior State was Eternity. All Every & Every All from which GOD took a small section and set it aside. Creating GOD'S Garden. The Big Bang which set in motion the very first moments of Time/Space, Entropy, the marvelous Finely Tuned Planet Earth, which is comprised of All Every & Every All. Man was told to rule over Every All & All Every. In a very short time, Man has mastered much knowledge. First Flight to traveling to the Moon, landing, exploring, & return flight to Earth. What an incredible accomplishment, 60 years. The study of cuddle fish, octopus, camaflog. So many sciences, engineering, math, chemistry. Man's knowledge growth. Interesting only Man tracks time. We learn by observing backwards. Reverse Engineering, observing backwards developing our knowledge and concepts. We have so much more to learn, we must keep open minds, to continue to grow, learn, & develop, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail,.. captivus brevis... you tube...Blessings...
As expected, nothing but insults from the usual suspects. Not of which address his central question. Science and physics are doing a very good job of explaining the how of our universe. But nothing about explaining the why. If one accepts that each state succeeded a preceding one, going infinitely back in even time, the central question is still not answered. Why anything? What is the original state? What is the original action? Far more interesting questions, than snidely offering insults from behind the safety of the keyboard.
Who gets to define Why, you? Religion? Which religion? Like other brainwashed whiners, from behind your safe keyboard, you fail to see the very same fallacious regression you accuse skeptics of espousing. What created your creator? He’s too complex to be uncreated. Same empty arguments. Science seeks evidence; theists barf bereft arguments.
There is no why for Existence. Asking questions is what humans do. Existence just is, always was, and always shall be. Existence is eternal, unchanging and immutable, yet also in a constant flux, kindling in measures and extinguishing in measures. Try to escape Existence. You can't do it. 😂
The real important "why" is why a theologian or philosopher are to be granted any more credibility for their conjectures as to this ontology. Particularly so when the contents of such things reek of presupposition and apologetic bias for a minded creator entity with convenient qualities that align with existing religious structures and content.
To some of us, the fact that DBH is making his argument is evidence against the existence of his/your God. We perceive this because if your God were real and omnipotent, it wouldn't need him, you, or any other mental-masturbating apologist.
@@worldnotworld Ontological explanations for the existence of God are uninteresting to me when it comes to ontology, as they do nothing to question the ontology of why God exists as compared to nothing. You could do an infinite regression of God and all his possible natures, and verify his existence so accurately, but I would regard it as an interesting line of inquiry but entirely separate to this discussion. The ontology of ontology that is, as asserting philosophically or theologically that God must exist does nothing to answer the question as to why God exists. Even if you say "that question doesn't make sense," it reveals the arrogance of the theist to presume their narrow rationalistic inquiry terminating in a God is an explanation for everything.
@@thomabow8949 Oddly enough, your answer suggests that you would do well to read none other than David Bentley Hart on these questions, and you might then find them genuinely very interesting. What you see as supposedly needing "explaining" -- the existence of God -- does indeed collapse into an infinite regress if God is thought of as one "grandest thing" among all the other things in the universe. But that's not the attitude of classical monotheism, which is more on the order of an understanding God as _being itself._ Certainly the questions don't terminate with that idea; they only just get going! And certainly the "reality" of God in the abstract doesn't magically "explain" everything. But it does suggest a limit point, the shape of a terminus: what it would mean for there to be a source of the being of things. You should read _The Experience of God,_ which is an account not (as the title sorta suggests) of personal experience, but of the philosophical traditions of monotheism. These traditions are not "narrow rationalistic inquiry," as you put it. Neither are Hart's views here, in fact.
Science advances by eliminating false hypotheses. God, as an explanation of why the universe exists, is the best example. Aristotle posited that the universe's existence provided evidence for multiple gods. Agreed. After you accept God for an explanation, you must explain the existence of that god, the god behind him, and the god behind him ad infinitum. "Why does the universe exist?' does not lead you to God; rather, it leads to rethinking the notion of "why" as tied to causality.
@@TheCrossroads533 Basically for any given explanation for why the universe exists, we can ask why that explanation is the answer. You get an infinite regression of why questions. Any parent of a 2 year old will confirm this.
If you’re talking about “gods” (contra God), then yes, this reasoning about an infinite regress holds. But no classical theistic tradition thinks God is a god in the sense of a mighty yet finite localised being. God is not one being among others. Indeed, the infinite regress argument logically leads to a necessary (i.e., not contingent) cause of all since infinite regresses are illogical. In philosophical theology, this first cause is what is meant by “God.” One would need to understand the reasoning and tradition behind this insight before making a cogent argument about God, creation, and cosmology (as Hart most definitely does).
@@MatthewAnslow Thanks. Aristotle's Prime Mover is not a god. He is a first cause with no identity, residence, or attributes. THE METAPHYSICS implies many such causes, but The Philosopher is not forthcoming on how there can be multiple causes for the universe.
@@angel4everable I’d probably quibble over the details of that reading of Aristotle, but it’s fine as far as it goes. It’s also a moot point since the classical theistic tradition develops beyond Aristotle, albeit influenced by his metaphysics.
A lot rambling. Lack physic emperism. He pictures Universe It is not consistency with honestly view about reality of Universe. Lack experiement. Senseless.
Whoa! The very second of creation is fundamental to the point and there is nothing that says a higher level of existence didn’t start the Big Bang.
In the vast interplay of creation and the cosmos, quantum physics offers a fascinating lens through which to explore the fundamental nature of reality. At its core, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe operates on principles that defy classical intuition. Matter and energy exist not as fixed entities but as probabilities, where particles can be in multiple states or locations simultaneously this phenomenon is known as superposition. Once measured, however, their position or state collapses into one definitive outcome. Moreover, the concept of quantum entanglement challenges our understanding of space and time, showing that particles can become instantaneously linked, regardless of the distance between them. This mysterious interconnectedness hints at a deeper, unseen order to the cosmos. As we probe deeper into the nature of the universe from the birth of stars to the origins of space-time itself we uncover a reality that, at the quantum level, seems far stranger and more wondrous than we could have ever imagined. This quantum framework doesn't just explain how particles behave; it also opens new possibilities, suggesting that the very fabric of creation might be governed by principles that transcend our classical understanding of the cosmos.
Yes, it's called a Creator.
Everything in science is based on subjective interpretations of the results of our experiments . We actually don't know what is ultimate reality. It's all religion, it's all just beliefs
Science is a religion.
Religion was the source of science.
Religion as a philosophy of morality and science as a philosophy of nature.
.
Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason.
There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.)
Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
.
Is science squeezing religion into a smaller and smaller corner , as science explains naturally what religion used to explain supernaturally ? How far will this process go ? Will religion become less and less relevant ? Religion claims to address issues which science cannot address , like spirituality or morality . But are these legitimate categories of knowledge ?
.
Anthony Clifford Grayling is an English philosopher who founded and became the first Master of New College of the Humanities , an independent undergraduate college in London .
.
Please how did Mohammad fly to heaven on a winged horse? How did Jesus rise from underground after three days.... Religion is based on faith without evidence. Science is based on facts. If you are from a first world country and typed this I'm highly disappointed....
@@xtopher960Commenter questioned whether religion even addresses legitimate categories of knowledge.
We can't wrap our heads around life and death to the observers the universe ends and begins from with in
So science can’t explain why something exist instead of nothing and this scholar thinks that means science can’t address the issue of creation, which is a non sequitur.
Does something come from nothing, or does something comes from something ?
Neither
@@donaldmcronald8989 Than somethingness is something that always "was" "is" and will always "be"
@@williamburts3114 That's correct. There is no creator because there is no creation.
Perhaps existence is a necessary condition, if as they say, the idea of "no prior state" - effectively nothingness - is logical nonsense?
Science really is a great tool to help us discover how things work (at least at scales comprehensible to us). It is a fount of knowledge. But it can't tell us why. For meaning, we will have to look elsewhere. Or forgo it entirely.
Pretty bleak options...
I think there is a problem when we gave attributes to God so God must not have an attributes and that is the end point.
I don't get this "question of existence" dodge. There is no question of "Existence." Something exists - that we know to be true. Existence is undeniable original, fundamental brute fact cause. You can't escape Existence. From Existence everything else MUST follow. And what follows is the question of whether God exists. If God does exist, then what does his existence consist of? After all, a claim of existence can't be defined by nothingness, but by somethingness. Hello?
Hello BrownGreen, you do you thing I do existe? I love and care about you 😎 Philippe ID
@@Henri-y8t
Yes, I think you exist and I care for you too. 😮
@@browngreen933 You are great my freind BrownGreen, love you ID 😎 Philippe
The mental gymnastics a creationist has to make is actually somewhat impressive
Having three names and adopting a smug condescending attitude with a slight British accent helps too.
Robert and David took advantage of the Mens Wearhouse's Buy One Get One Half Off sale.
#Twinsies
remarkable مميز
concealing tumpers coincidence furthermore
3:13 ... some theists have taken great excitement in modern cosmology because since Einstein and Fredman and the expanding universe big bang shows that there was a beginning to the universe 【they may not understand the word "beginning" in Hebrew and Greek according to the English versions. Actually, the word "beginning" in Gen 1:1 & John 1:1 is not with definite article】other theists and perhaps you're in this category really are ambivalent to whether the universe had a beginning or the universe didn't have a beginning because the deeper question is the ontological existence of the whole thing whether it's has a beginning or no beginning is that correct? 3:42 DBH: I'm fascinated by modern cosmology don't get me wrong I love reading it but I don't confuse it with the sort of questions that touch upon the issue of God or the issue of creation uh you know what if Roger Penrose is right and we're bouncing through one universe after another as each one exhausts its energetic potential it becomes a limit state 4:10 【Roger Penrose's CCC truly shows the mechanism how the background for multiverse, no bouncing at all.】
Masterclass from DBH here
...Tell them I Am that I AM. The Prior State was Eternity. All Every & Every All from which GOD took a small section and set it aside. Creating GOD'S Garden. The Big Bang which set in motion the very first moments of Time/Space, Entropy, the marvelous Finely Tuned Planet Earth, which is comprised of All Every & Every All. Man was told to rule over Every All & All Every. In a very short time, Man has mastered much knowledge. First Flight to traveling to the Moon, landing, exploring, & return flight to Earth. What an incredible accomplishment, 60 years. The study of cuddle fish, octopus, camaflog. So many sciences, engineering, math, chemistry. Man's knowledge growth. Interesting only Man tracks time. We learn by observing backwards. Reverse Engineering, observing backwards developing our knowledge and concepts. We have so much more to learn, we must keep open minds, to continue to grow, learn, & develop, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail,.. captivus brevis... you tube...Blessings...
Your shift key is malfunctioning.
As expected, nothing but insults from the usual suspects. Not of which address his central question. Science and physics are doing a very good job of explaining the how of our universe. But nothing about explaining the why. If one accepts that each state succeeded a preceding one, going infinitely back in even time, the central question is still not answered. Why anything? What is the original state? What is the original action? Far more interesting questions, than snidely offering insults from behind the safety of the keyboard.
Who gets to define Why, you? Religion? Which religion? Like other brainwashed whiners, from behind your safe keyboard, you fail to see the very same fallacious regression you accuse skeptics of espousing. What created your creator? He’s too complex to be uncreated. Same empty arguments. Science seeks evidence; theists barf bereft arguments.
Maybe 'why' is just a bad question regarding existence
There is no why for Existence. Asking questions is what humans do. Existence just is, always was, and always shall be. Existence is eternal, unchanging and immutable, yet also in a constant flux, kindling in measures and extinguishing in measures. Try to escape Existence. You can't do it. 😂
The real important "why" is why a theologian or philosopher are to be granted any more credibility for their conjectures as to this ontology. Particularly so when the contents of such things reek of presupposition and apologetic bias for a minded creator entity with convenient qualities that align with existing religious structures and content.
To some of us, the fact that DBH is making his argument is evidence against the existence of his/your God. We perceive this because if your God were real and omnipotent, it wouldn't need him, you, or any other mental-masturbating apologist.
😅😂😂😂😂😂
explicity صراحة
ontological وجودي
Arrogant charlatan spewing god of the gaps nonsense.
Arrogant charlatan not understanding Hart in the slightest
@@worldnotworld Ontological explanations for the existence of God are uninteresting to me when it comes to ontology, as they do nothing to question the ontology of why God exists as compared to nothing. You could do an infinite regression of God and all his possible natures, and verify his existence so accurately, but I would regard it as an interesting line of inquiry but entirely separate to this discussion. The ontology of ontology that is, as asserting philosophically or theologically that God must exist does nothing to answer the question as to why God exists. Even if you say "that question doesn't make sense," it reveals the arrogance of the theist to presume their narrow rationalistic inquiry terminating in a God is an explanation for everything.
@@thomabow8949 Oddly enough, your answer suggests that you would do well to read none other than David Bentley Hart on these questions, and you might then find them genuinely very interesting. What you see as supposedly needing "explaining" -- the existence of God -- does indeed collapse into an infinite regress if God is thought of as one "grandest thing" among all the other things in the universe. But that's not the attitude of classical monotheism, which is more on the order of an understanding God as _being itself._ Certainly the questions don't terminate with that idea; they only just get going! And certainly the "reality" of God in the abstract doesn't magically "explain" everything. But it does suggest a limit point, the shape of a terminus: what it would mean for there to be a source of the being of things. You should read _The Experience of God,_ which is an account not (as the title sorta suggests) of personal experience, but of the philosophical traditions of monotheism. These traditions are not "narrow rationalistic inquiry," as you put it. Neither are Hart's views here, in fact.
regress تراجع
imponderable غير قابل للقياس
theisism توحيد
articulation التعبير
Science advances by eliminating false hypotheses. God, as an explanation of why the universe exists, is the best example. Aristotle posited that the universe's existence provided evidence for multiple gods. Agreed. After you accept God for an explanation, you must explain the existence of that god, the god behind him, and the god behind him ad infinitum. "Why does the universe exist?' does not lead you to God; rather, it leads to rethinking the notion of "why" as tied to causality.
Say what?
@@TheCrossroads533 Basically for any given explanation for why the universe exists, we can ask why that explanation is the answer. You get an infinite regression of why questions. Any parent of a 2 year old will confirm this.
If you’re talking about “gods” (contra God), then yes, this reasoning about an infinite regress holds. But no classical theistic tradition thinks God is a god in the sense of a mighty yet finite localised being. God is not one being among others. Indeed, the infinite regress argument logically leads to a necessary (i.e., not contingent) cause of all since infinite regresses are illogical. In philosophical theology, this first cause is what is meant by “God.” One would need to understand the reasoning and tradition behind this insight before making a cogent argument about God, creation, and cosmology (as Hart most definitely does).
@@MatthewAnslow Thanks. Aristotle's Prime Mover is not a god. He is a first cause with no identity, residence, or attributes. THE METAPHYSICS implies many such causes, but The Philosopher is not forthcoming on how there can be multiple causes for the universe.
@@angel4everable I’d probably quibble over the details of that reading of Aristotle, but it’s fine as far as it goes. It’s also a moot point since the classical theistic tradition develops beyond Aristotle, albeit influenced by his metaphysics.
Can't listen those s-letters😎.
ambivalent متناقض
contingency طوارء
A lot rambling. Lack physic emperism. He pictures Universe It is not consistency with honestly view about reality of Universe. Lack experiement. Senseless.
Hmm, just waffle.😂