I admire the honesty and open-mindedness in this interview. Dr K, by clever questioning seems to draw Prof. Vilenkin out from the attitude ‘there’s no evidence for a personal God’ and ‘we don’t need a extra concept of God for the Laws of Nature’ to ‘consciousness might involve something beyond physics’ and then ‘there could be a transcendent Platonic realm, where the laws of Physics originate’... It’s very refreshing to hear a Physicist go beyond their comfort zone of naturalistic explanations to consider such questions as ‘where do the Laws of Physics exist’.
I am just pointing out that "who" is for persons. I am not talking about proving anything. Also, if the being doing the choosing chooses freely (as against randomly or deterministically- which would imply higher laws, chosen by whom?), I would consider it a person.
I’ve only just come across Prof. Vilenkin, and I don’t pretend to understand a lot of his work. But what a mind! Just unbelievable the intellectual level this guy operates on.
What he felt was: “oh no, not this nonsense again. If the supposed choosing of physical constants is an argument for god, then by that very same argument it also applies to god. Who or what chose _his_ constants? Why can’t those religious folks not just accept we cannot understand our existence, instead of making up some nonsensical unprovable explanation which in turn is just as impossible to understand.”
@@stromboli183 The God or creator of all of these laws of nature and physics, time and space etc... must therefore exist outside of these and therefore would be timeless and ever existent and without limitations even related to these laws and could not be entirely comprehendable by His/its creation. Man has always tried to put God or creator inside of his box of wisdom and understanding and if it does not fit inside this very confined and finite box then this must be proof of non-existence and not necessarily proof of our limitations to understand, comprehend or believe.
@Barry X in that case, the best conclusion we can draw from this, is that we can understand that we cannot understand the nature and origin of existence. And that’s it. Which is fine by me, I can be perfectly happy knowing that we are fundamentally unable to fully comprehend our own reality. However it is utter nonsense to make up some antropomorphic figure, to whom we attribute our existence and creation. And who supposedly has all sorts of preferences and judgements about us, which are all surprisingly human-like (such as thou shalt not fornicate, or not work on a specific day of the week, or not eat a specific species) despite the fact that this supreme being is supposed to be outside or above the limitations of our universe and therefore would not concern himself with such petty nonsense.
@Barry X if we have to conclude that the origin of nature and reality cannot be understood from within the finite confinements of our thinking and imagination, that’s fine but then we have to leave it at that. Claiming that some god was responsible for all this, is in fact the very same mistake you describe: trying to delude ourselves and work around our limitations, and still trying to find some explanation or cause that fits within our limited knowledge and understanding. “Aha, so God created all this, now I know!” No you don’t, that was the whole point, we are fundamentally unable to know. The concept of God is just a way to cover up (or come at peace with) our lack of knowledge and understanding about things we simply cannot know or understand.
@@stromboli183 Just so we are clear, knowing that we cannot truly comprehend or understand the nature and origin of any and all existence actually points to proof of no possible superior being? Additionally if there were a superior being that created all things including humans that being could not possibly display any of those traits in any of the life that this being created? So it would stand to reason (by any outside of humanity observation) that mankind could not have invented a computer or calculator because man can and very often does things like compute and calculate which are surprisingly computer like traits. Kind of an absurd argument and comparison. Because someone cannot comprehend why an all powerful and eternal creator would be bothered with trivial details within some of those creations does not make that being non existent. It may just mean, which would seem reasonable, that we just cannot understand why.
One does not disprove the other. It could be that a higher level of existence (call it God) created the Universe, but it does not have any direct involement in our personal lives. We are just floating on a rock suspended in a vacuum. Higher power maybe doesnt care whether you are a good guy or a sociopath.
@@piholino In respect to my God, the God of The Bible. He is eternal, therefore He wouldn’t have been created. He created the universe in which things must come into being, but He is a transcendental being. Still hurts your brain though lol
Neil deGrasse Tyson isn’t really a scientist, he is more of a public educator/speaker. Tyson hasn’t published notable scientific work. He writes books for a layman audience. And given his success, especially with “astrophysics for people in a hurry”, he is quite good at it. Vilenkin is a one of the most renowned physicists and brilliant minds of our time. Almost everybody can only dream having such intellect and analytical thinking.
Is a theoretical physicist is qualified to give a scientific state of art on what we know about conciousness ? And make speculations on what/who it could originate from ?
The question really shouldn't be whether God exists, but whether there is a personal entity who is acting on our behalf. Otherwise, the "God" question is so pointless that it really is not relevant to our lives. That is, even if people want to point to God as being a person, that does not mean that God is someone we can interact with. God may be so far away (e.g., like an extremely far away black hole) or uninterested (e.g., as in the deist conception of God) that it doesn't matter to our everyday lives. So, we must distinguish between God being a person and God being personal... More to the point, how can we actually know, rather than just strongly believe and fool ourselves into thinking we know, the specific ways that God is active in our lives or the world? This is especially true when so many people who believe contradict each other, and there is nothing objectively to confirm our suspicions. So, practically speaking, how is that situation (i.e., where God exists and is personal but we are not be able to tell) any different from the situation in which God exists but isn't personal, or the situation in which God doesn't exist at all? (Again, practically speaking.) From that perspective, is it any wonder that some people don't believe that God exists and that human attempts to prove God's existence may seem like rationalizations to support their faith (with all due respect)? As Evangelical Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig himself has said: the arguments for God's existence are not the basis of his faith but serve to reinforce his faith.
@Adrian Cano As personal as that experience must be to you, would you mind sharing how that changed your perspective about the world, or "Everything" as you put it? Did it make you believe in God, and if so, why? Did you met him/her/it? Etc etc. Best wishes, A fellow searcher
Where did the energy come from? Energy can’t make itself and energy can’t direct or order itself. Energy is the evidence of God and is often referred to as gods or powers themselves. It’s just that they can’t make themselves so God can’t be limited to limited measurable time and distance. The cause of physical things can’t be physical.
And Buddists and Hindus say that too, right? And panpsychism. And Deists. I don't know why this guy doesn't think energy can't be there forever, or you. Aren't we playing pick the physicist?
Would “a squared” plus “b squared” equal “c squared” if we never wrote it down? Yes. The ratio existed and then humans discovered it. We only invented the symbols to relay the concept.
As regards the laws of physics somehow existing 'out there'... that can be a useful perspective, like numbers somehow existing out there for mathematical platonists. If it's helpful to see things that way, then why not? However, a moment's thought should suffice to see that the laws of physics are man made and are more correctly regarded as a network which we hold up to the 'out there' and which filters the 'out there' back to us in terms of the shapes of the meshes in the net.
Ken Heart Well it's a great and very effective way to scare and oppress people, and gain power over them and enforce all sorts of arbitrary laws. This has been quite a successful business model for many centuries! 👍
Wouldn't you have to talk about it to agree on a definition? That definition could change depending on you you're talking. You only have to agree on the definition with the person you're talking too, but you would have to talk about it first.
The laws of physics alone is not enough to make a universe. You need something that the math and physics works with. what is that "stuff"? And where is it? And where/what did it come from? Numbers themselves, are impotent to do anything. They have no causal properties.
Like Einstein he dismisses the notion of a personal god who intervenes in human affairs. That's all that matters. That shuts down the Christians, the Muslims, and the Hindus. They're the ones who are desperate to believe there's a god who cares about them and listens to their prayers. All the abstract/deistic god talk doesn't matter.
Some one said that God is an idea invented by human But I thing that some human actually invented the statement that ((God is an idea invented by human))
Richard Gamrát I even think that a human invented the idea that there is an infinite recursive tower of humans inventing humans inventing humans inventing ... (ad infinitum) ... humans inventing God. In fact, now that I think of, I think a human even invented the concept of transcendence beyond any infinite level of infinite recursive inventions to the ∞-th power.
Anton kruglyk Not sure if I follow. They say God is merely an idea, invented by humans. Exactly what does that statement make pointless, or how is it circular?
Anton kruglyk The Pythagoras theorem is not so much an idea created by humans, but rather a concept _discovered_ by humans. And within this particular discovery is an implicit proof of its unquestionable truth. This is not at all the case with the idea of God. This idea of God was not a result of logic or reason, but (unlike Pythagoras’ theorem) a product of mere fantasy. Which also corresponds with the fact that 1. there is absolutely zero proof for it, and 2. there are numerous alternative ideas, variations on the fantasy (like Thor, Shiva, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, etc), none of which having any more reason to be considered potentially true than the others. The reason we say “God is just an idea” is that people begin with the idea (or fantasy) and then start “reasoning” from there, as if it’s already true. It should be the other way round, you search and think and through reason or intuition you may come up with an idea for a potential answer. And only if “checks out” i.e. it’s verifiable and consistent, it makes sense to consider it true. The idea of God only makes sense if you reason from the assumption that God exists. This is a fundamental difference from other ideas such as the Big Bang or Pythagoras’ theorem.
Anton kruglyk No, I’m not saying God is an idea and therefore not true. I’m only saying: God is an idea, made up by humans, just like Thor, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Shiva, Zeus, et cetera. And therefore there is absolutely zero reason to assume it’s true, for any one of these ideas more so than the others. That doesn’t mean we’re 100% sure God or Shiva do _not_ exist, but by all means let’s not take these ideas too seriously until we find an _actual_ argument to do so. Just the fact that someone came up with those ideas are no reason at all to grant them any serious consideration. Also, Ockham’s Razor. Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And likewise, claims without arguments can be discarded without arguments.
Nature has the overwhelming impression of being cold, and impersonal. And there are enough clues in nature that might indicate some kind of transcendent realm of creativity. So whatever road you walk you are faced with absurd miracles; naturalism or creative force. To say that life and purposes of life emerged from senselessness is equally absurd. The human mind constructs reasons and purposes. I agree that there is absolutely nothing of a personal God built into nature. We simply don't know enough to derive a definitive answer from current evidences about a realm beyond observation.
At 3:05 RLK "The cause is one-direction. The physics cause the consciousness, but consciousness has no independent existence to influence the laws of physics." Nature does not make plutonium; it is made by human consciousness. Consciousness yields JWST so we can see the past of our collective history. Only consciousness would be interested in taking a peek to its past, no other force of nature can build its own eyes to see itself. It is not an epiphenomenon; it extends the laws of physics into domains where physics cannot go on its own. We build watches.
In this interview Dr. Vilenkin mentions there was no space, no time and no matter. In Genesis 1:1 says something about that. "In the beginning (time) God created the heavens ( space) and the earth. (matter)." I believe in the personal God of the Bible. That does not mean that I am as intelligent as Dr. Vilenkin, just have insight that he lacks. Proverbs 9:7 reads, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God and insight is the knowledge of the Holy One."
*God* is an idea invented by the human mind. This quote applies to that idea: _It is hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if the cat does not exist._ -Confucius *_1_* _...Death is nothing to us because good and evil lie in sensation, which ends with death. Thus believing death is nothing to us makes a mortal life happy by ending the yearning for immortality...If we don’t fear death, why should we fear life?...Thus dreaded death is nothing to us because when we are, death is not and when death is, we are not…._ -Epicurus, _Letter to Menoeceus_ (third paragraph) *_2_* The *_Tetrapharmakos_* (τετραφάρμακος), *_The Four-part Remedy,_* as expressed by Epicurean Philodemus of Gadara and preserved in _Herculaneum Papyrus_ 1005, 4.9-14: _Don’t fear god._ _Don’t fear death._ _The good is easy to get._ _The bad is easy to bear._ Here there’s wisdom for 7.5 billion people, many of whom *_believe in_* God(s) and heaven and hell but live *_as if_* these things didn’t exist. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
totalfreedom45 so is the love for our children and parents. You only dig them because of evolution. They are inconsequential relationships. Meaningless in the universal scheme of things. Useful but artificial. We are only a moist pile of quantum particles behaving in a evolved way to make more conscious piles of quantum particles. Purpose ( what started the purpose) to replicate and evolve ( for what?). I don’t believe it. Most high profile scientist give no less than a 20 percent chance that we are in a simulation created by higher beings, but give 0 percent chance that there is a god/creator.
Anything that ends in -s or -n you all believe. Seems like a wise man when you hear "Balardicus" or "Agernis" but you should know that those are made-up names and are dummies.
@@dougg1075 And who is running their simulator? All finite world theories have a beginning, and All infinite theories like PTU or Infinite Multiverse are not observable by definition. From Bayes which measures the probability of theories, you get 0 for PTU or multiverse and 100% for God. You claim to give 0 when you can't since you live in the probabilistic world as being a contingent thing, so there is no 0 even if you make YOURSElF god and claim it. 0 - is the reason why God doesn't exist, no matter how many times you repeat it in your incoherent worldview. Also you straight up lie. Even here even he doesn't know, he doesn't know, not that is 0... And 99% of them.
The God view and the Science view are not actually in contradiction. The 2 worldviews serve different purposes. It all depends on the aims one wishes to achieve. You don't use a pair of scissors to hammer in a nail, or a hammer to cut a piece of paper.
That’s a good analogy science describes the world in one sense, yet God would describe it in another, it’s like this, I throw a can at my friend, it lands just beside him, now why did it do that? One might say well the certain momentum of wind combined with gravity, actualized the potential of the cam missing the mark, or someone could just say i sucked at throwing, both explanations are true, yet both serve different purposes
The Kalam Cosmological Argument An argument that Uses the most fundamental laws of contemporary physics and engineering. To prove. The presence. Of God. Allah. 1-Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existe. 2-The universe began to exist.( The Big Bang Theory of the Universe postulates a beginning.)+(the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). In a closed system the available energy will become less and less until until finally you have no available energy at all (you have reached a state of entropy).simply The universe is running out of energy.which also points us to a universe that has a definite beginning. 3-therefore, the universe has a cause. In Holy Quran the Word of God, THE ‘BIG BANG’ VERSE اَوَ لَمۡ یَرَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اَنَّ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ کَانَتَا رَتۡقًا فَفَتَقۡنٰہُمَا ؕ وَ جَعَلۡنَا مِنَ الۡمَآءِ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ حَیٍّ ؕ اَفَلَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We opened them out (fafataqnahuma)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:31 Al-Anbiya) The universe is running out of energy VERSE ﴿٨﴾ أَوَلَمْ يَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۗ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّهِمْ لَكَافِرُونَ 8. Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah did not create the heavens and the earth, and what is between them, except in truth, and for a specific duration. But most people, regarding meeting their Lord, are in denial. ( The Romans
These folks never discuss NDE’s. They have been under intense scientific scrutiny and the VERIDCAL aspects of some of them cannot be denied. Sanjosemike
I agree and I believe it's because it forces a person to be unable to explain something and its uncomfortable. They're personally comforting to me because I experienced alot during my time as a hospice nurse.
If you would like to know more about how - the origin of the universe, consciousness and God are all connected - check out 'God Speaks' by Meher Baba or - ua-cam.com/video/MIW4MvpMyUY/v-deo.html
Where did the laws of physics come from, who did the choosing and what is the reality of consciousness? You need to answer these questions before asserting that there is no evidence for a personal god.
Moayad Salih- Asking 'Where did the laws of physics come from' is sensible, while asking 'who did the choosing' is presumptuous because it presumes someone or something must have chosen them. There's no reason to think they were chosen anymore than an object chooses to fall to the ground when it's dropped. Asking, 'what is the reality of consciousness?' isn't even a sensible question because it exists. That makes no more sense than asking something like, 'what is the reality of carbon?' or anything else that exists. How is consciousness in and of itself evidence of god in any kind of way? Most things that exist doesn't seem to be conscious, so consciousness doesn't seem relevant as to whether god exists or not.
WheelieBinMonster - You don't understand probability. As far as we know there are very few places complex life can exist. Based on the limited evidence we have most of the universe contains no life, and complex life is extraordinarily rare. We know this because most of the universe consists of space; life can't exist in space. That we happen to be on one of the few planets (perhaps the only planet; we don't know) with complex life is not evidence the laws of physics were chosen by anything. In a universe with billions of galaxies and at least trillions of planets, it's entirely plausible that at least one of those planets (earth) would produce complex life. That is apparently what happened. We also don't understand enough about physics and cosmology to know if there are other ways the universe could have evolved. Perhaps the fundamental nature of physics means there were no other ways for the universe to evolve; again, we don't know. Your lottery analogy revolves around a misunderstanding of probability and a baseless presumption.
Moayad Salih don't you have it backwards. You are engaged in a logical fallacy of incredulity. That is really poor reasoning. You have a phenomenon you can't explain at this point in time, so you make up a cause without any evidence the cause even exists. That is the hypothesis you need to prove, and no one has been able to do that! We have a prominent scientist that knows very well the cosmological constance's and finds no evidence for a god , especially a personal god. A non existent hypothesis can not cause anything. What is your best proof a god exists or existed?
lawrence krauss said that the laws of physics emerged from the big bang together with matter, space & time. and consciousness is an emerging phenomenom of the brain
نادر الی راحمان theories are the proven thing. you mean hypothesis. And yes, the only thing pending for a universe to be brought out of nothing is to prove that the laws come at existence with the rest of the universe. theres good rason to believe that happened, at least more than bronze age myths. so dont you worry, yet. i bet that all of you theists are shitting your pants right now not wanting this to be proven, but its going to be a-ok. consciousness is an emerging property of brains though, this is for sure.
But where did the meta-laws, or the underlying framework of reality come from, in which physics itself was to emerge along with its laws and the phenomena that are subject to these laws (such as the big bang, space, time, matter and energy). The only logical, reasonable conclusion that scientists can come to in the end, is that logic and reason are fundamentally, inherently incomplete. And that science will never prove the correctness or even the plausibility of science.
JJ Delamo I happen to know that book. It’s a complete joke. First of all it doesn’t disprove evolution at all. It grossly misinterprets some arguments from evolution and frames it in a mathematically incorrect way. Second of all, even if it would disprove evolution (which it doesn’t) then that is still by no means a proof for God. Not even remotely. Third of all.. if life as we know it is too complex, too specific, and too unlikely to arise from mere chance. Then a supernatural hyper intelligent being that is capable of creating this complex universe, is then (by that very same argument) itself _definitely_ too complex and too unlikely to arise from mere chance. So our creator must then _certainly_ have a creator of its own. Let’s call Him HyperGod. He is then the True Alpha and Omega, the Creator of God and All Divine and Supernatural Existence. To summarize: • Evolution (life emerged spontaneously) is very unlikely. • Intelligent design (life was created by God) and God emerged spontaneously, is somewhat less unlikely. • However my new theory of Recursive Meta Design: life was created by God and God was created by HyperGod, is therefore the most probable and complete explanation. *It not only explains where life comes from, but also where God comes from!* Checkmate, atheists and non-hyper-theists! 👍
The "Big Mystery" is not why Consciousness exists. The "Big Mystery" is why we still believe that "matter" --- an ontologically real substance outside Consciousness --- exists.
Nick. You say: We have something out there that exists, even when we lose consciousness. This “solidity” is matter. We have ample evidence for this “matter”. LHC probes this realm wonderfully. So do our telescopes... Response: Think about it. No evidence of the substance called "matter" can exist. Why? Because "matter" -- an ontologically real substance outside Consciousness -- can not be known or experienced. When you touch a table you feel a sensation of pressure (solidity). Sensation is "qualia" and not "matter". "Matter" is, on materialism, presumed to exist "behind" the qualia, so to speak. So no, there is no evidence that "matter" exists. And hence logically no way of knowing if "matter" produces Consciousness. LHC can not probe that which is outside Consciousness --- whatever they discover is not "matter". But dont take my word for it ... Google it. You say: I consider one of the Big Mysteries is - how do Matter/Energy actually relate to Consciousness? Response: Yes. The interaction problem. But since "matter" is not experienced or known logically only one ontologically real substance exists: Consciousness.
You say: When you go to sleep and wake up, you do not find your house in a completely mixed up random state. You can set an alarm clock and wake up. This is in the world of "matter". It is really quite reliable! Response: Sure there is an objective world outside bodies -- not just outside Consciousness. And again: "Matter" is defined as an *ontologically real substance outside Consciousness*.
You say: We get "qualia" of a table. Then look away. Then look back. The table is "mysteriously / inexplicably" still there ! This is what we know of matter. We can zoom in more and find its quantum nature. It is hard to dissect Consciousness in the same way. Response: Again: This happens in Consciousness --- not outside Consciousness . Right..?
You say: The table can go in and out of any particular Consciousness. But the fact that it remains even when not being "experienced as qualia" is evidence of a material world. You have your consciousness, I have mine, etc. Response: You assume that Consciousness is inside bodies and that it is produced by "matter". This is materialism. But "matter" is never experienced -- all we experience is inside Consciousness. Tables, chairs and cars are inside Consciousness and hence can not be made of a different ontologically real substance. Tables, chairs and cars logically must be made of Consciousness. Even on materialism we do not experience "matter". Their current idea is that we experience the brains representation/simulation of "matter". Here is the argument: *P1. Only one ontologically real substance can exist* --- Due to the interaction problem dualism is false, and non-dualism, aka monism, is true. Hence the fundamental nature of things is reducible to and derived from one substance; one basic element *P2. Consciousness exists* --- Consciousness self-evidently exists. Gross perceptual appearances (aka matter) and subtle perceptual appearances (aka mind) exist in Consciousness and hence can not be ontologically different substances *C1. Only Consciousness exists* --- The fundamental nature of things is reducible to and derived from one substance; one basic element: Consciousness
Midiwave Productions, You seem to be dancing around the problem of hard solipsism. None of us can prove we are not a brain in a vat or the only consciousness that actually exists. Once we agree that we are in fact separate consciousnesses then we can objectively agree that matter exists, not because we can touch it but because we have designed apparatus that give us all the same views of it. Matter if therefore objectively real. As far as consciousness itself goes, it so far hasn't been shown to be anything more than the chemical processes that we, as collections of complex chemical systems call the specific processes that take place in our brains. There is no evidence that consciousness is anything more than purely material in nature, as are all things. If we agree to dismiss hard solipsism then it seems to me that the only currently viable option (I want to stress currently viable), the only option supported by objective evidence, is one of hard reality, that everything is physical in nature. All of the things that most people refer to as immaterial are in fact completely material, the mind, mathematics, logic, etc. are aspects of the chemical processes taking place in our living brains. Of course if you drill down, even matter itself is a view of the underlying fields that exist everywhere, the quantum fields that permeate spacetime. In another sense, nothing really exists, not even consciousness, because as far as we can tell, the sum of everything that exists is zero. We not only came from nothing, we still are nothing. I think the important thing is to not get too woo about it all and accept that parts of nothing can and do exist as physical objects and that those physical objects can engage in processes that allow us to view ourselves as individuals that can come to agreement on some form of objective reality, reality that we all observe in the same way when it is presented to us through instrumentation that we view as separate from ourselves. That separation of instrumentation is a critical aspect of creating objective reality because we know that the processes that produce consciousness in our brains are not at all objective. We do not see like cameras, hear like microphones, or feel like pressure and temperature sensors. That does not mean that all of reality is already objective because there are still large parts of it that we have not been able to measure in unambiguous ways that we can all agree on, but we are getting closer to that goal every day. Hopefully, even if we were ever able to come to such an understanding of reality there would still be room to be diverse and fascinating creatures living in a universe full of wonders.
He can’t comprehend the fact that Yahweh exist outside of time. Yahweh Don’t exist he’s existence itself. Alpha omega beginning and the end. Yahweh created time King of eternity the everlasting Elohim Yahweh always existed he just IS The Great I Am To Deny Yahweh is to deny your very existence. We are Dust we’re Nothing . we only came to be, through the breath of life Yahweh breath into us. Ruach Hakadesh allows us to exist people are so ungrateful SMH I can’t anymore I’m Done with these angry people There just clay dust without that breath of life.
try telling dr dawkins this, see what he says.[for people to stupid to understand my ironic statement, i will repeat i believe in a creator, and i love the fact that this vilenkin, is actually backing in some ways what i believe.] he is noting the reality of physics and the fact that the physics is present, which could be the sign of a desginer] i m believe in id, and i disagree w dawkins. its called irony.]
@UCOfa7LYrMw9M-sal14LPirQ I apologize, I completely misunderstood you and apologize for the snide as well - it's just that I'm so sick of these mindless dawkins/harris/hithchens admirers... My wrong...
@@firstviktor3856 i believe in god, i was being ironic ,mate.in other words, i m glad that vilenkin is stating that physics might show the possability of a designer. i think dawins is arrogant to disregard the reality of physics and math in the universe , to show a possable designer.
@@firstviktor3856 thank you. i m sick of the new athiests as well, and i argue with them on youtube. i see design everywhere. thank you for your apology, and have a nice day.
Hi Sunshine, if you have a problem considering that God is the "Consciousness of Universe" then don't, but don't frame it as silly or craziness for your short sightedness. It is the Apex on the top of the triangle that balances energy and matter and forms the Holy Trinity. May you enjoy peace an prosperity, while you manifest all the necessary Love an Light of Life!
Lizica Dumitru, what bias!!! Consciousness is universal, you're the only one that shows bias here. Show me if everyone has Consciousness how is this Bias. Show me that this is all I ask!
Steve-o no Steve. Some people believe God is the universe. In which case you gain nothing by changing the name to god . Some say god is love. Again nothing gained. It is said, God is the greatest thing conceivable That which nothing greater can be conceived. That does not make it real!. You need to prove it by evidence. Until now at least there is 0 evidence for the existence of any God's. There have been proposed 10,000 God's though out history 9,999 have been abandoned by almost everyone, The evidence for the abrahamic god is to me a childrens fairytale. I stand with Einstein and Spinoza. Here's a letter from Einstein The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
It seems possible to me that there may be some sort of conscious fundament underlying material reality. But the likelihood that "it" has much to do with the fractured fairy tales that mankind has dreamed up about "it" seems minuscule, indeed.
I believe in a creator. I’m cool with people who don’t. I’m not cool with people saying there is no god as a matter of fact. People need to get religion and old stories in a book and start thinking differently about reality and how ignorant we are as to what the hell it is.
@@dougg1075 god is as likely as the tooth fairy. If you can't conclude something doesn't exist because one can't disprove a negative, you must concede everything is possible including the tooth fairy and Zeus if that were the case. Fortunately that is not how we prove or disprove existence. A fact is a statement that is consistent with objective reality or can be proven with evidence. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability - that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means) the god hypothesis fails as a matter of fact . Therefore it is not a matter of fact that GOD exists. But what I can say is . It is a matter of fact that god doesn't exist under the definition of a fact.
I admire the honesty and open-mindedness in this interview. Dr K, by clever questioning seems to draw Prof. Vilenkin out from the attitude ‘there’s no evidence for a personal God’ and ‘we don’t need a extra concept of God for the Laws of Nature’ to ‘consciousness might involve something beyond physics’ and then ‘there could be a transcendent Platonic realm, where the laws of Physics originate’...
It’s very refreshing to hear a Physicist go beyond their comfort zone of naturalistic explanations to consider such questions as ‘where do the Laws of Physics exist’.
IMPRESSIVE !
But is it
It's interesting that he starts by rejecting a *personal* God, and ends up wondering *who* did the choosing of the laws of physics.
I don't see that as being proof of a personal God even if some sort of being did choose the laws of physics.
I am just pointing out that "who" is for persons. I am not talking about proving anything. Also, if the being doing the choosing chooses freely (as against randomly or deterministically- which would imply higher laws, chosen by whom?), I would consider it a person.
Vilenkin seems humble.
I’ve only just come across Prof. Vilenkin, and I don’t pretend to understand a lot of his work. But what a mind! Just unbelievable the intellectual level this guy operates on.
the best I can do is recognizing the mystery that is the universe which also is the mystery that is me...
He doesnt seem like he believes in God but the last bit near end "who did the choosing" .... he felt it.
What he felt was: “oh no, not this nonsense again. If the supposed choosing of physical constants is an argument for god, then by that very same argument it also applies to god. Who or what chose _his_ constants? Why can’t those religious folks not just accept we cannot understand our existence, instead of making up some nonsensical unprovable explanation which in turn is just as impossible to understand.”
@@stromboli183 The God or creator of all of these laws of nature and physics, time and space etc... must therefore exist outside of these and therefore would be timeless and ever existent and without limitations even related to these laws and could not be entirely comprehendable by His/its creation. Man has always tried to put God or creator inside of his box of wisdom and understanding and if it does not fit inside this very confined and finite box then this must be proof of non-existence and not necessarily proof of our limitations to understand, comprehend or believe.
@Barry X in that case, the best conclusion we can draw from this, is that we can understand that we cannot understand the nature and origin of existence. And that’s it. Which is fine by me, I can be perfectly happy knowing that we are fundamentally unable to fully comprehend our own reality.
However it is utter nonsense to make up some antropomorphic figure, to whom we attribute our existence and creation. And who supposedly has all sorts of preferences and judgements about us, which are all surprisingly human-like (such as thou shalt not fornicate, or not work on a specific day of the week, or not eat a specific species) despite the fact that this supreme being is supposed to be outside or above the limitations of our universe and therefore would not concern himself with such petty nonsense.
@Barry X if we have to conclude that the origin of nature and reality cannot be understood from within the finite confinements of our thinking and imagination, that’s fine but then we have to leave it at that. Claiming that some god was responsible for all this, is in fact the very same mistake you describe: trying to delude ourselves and work around our limitations, and still trying to find some explanation or cause that fits within our limited knowledge and understanding.
“Aha, so God created all this, now I know!” No you don’t, that was the whole point, we are fundamentally unable to know. The concept of God is just a way to cover up (or come at peace with) our lack of knowledge and understanding about things we simply cannot know or understand.
@@stromboli183 Just so we are clear, knowing that we cannot truly comprehend or understand the nature and origin of any and all existence actually points to proof of no possible superior being? Additionally if there were a superior being that created all things including humans that being could not possibly display any of those traits in any of the life that this being created? So it would stand to reason (by any outside of humanity observation) that mankind could not have invented a computer or calculator because man can and very often does things like compute and calculate which are surprisingly computer like traits. Kind of an absurd argument and comparison. Because someone cannot comprehend why an all powerful and eternal creator would be bothered with trivial details within some of those creations does not make that being non existent. It may just mean, which would seem reasonable, that we just cannot understand why.
I really enjoyed that, thank you, good questions, interesting answers.
START: "I don't believe in a personal god", END: "... and who did the choosing..." 😎
This caught my attention too!
One does not disprove the other. It could be that a higher level of existence (call it God) created the Universe, but it does not have any direct involement in our personal lives. We are just floating on a rock suspended in a vacuum.
Higher power maybe doesnt care whether you are a good guy or a sociopath.
@@dragangasic5680 Who created that higher level? Very interesting questions. Brain starts hurting.
@@piholino In respect to my God, the God of The Bible. He is eternal, therefore He wouldn’t have been created. He created the universe in which things must come into being, but He is a transcendental being. Still hurts your brain though lol
Asking who is a shitty assumption on his part
this man is so underrated. Neil DE grass Tyson can only dream to have a brain like Vilenkin
I feel the same.
Neil deGrasse Tyson isn’t really a scientist, he is more of a public educator/speaker. Tyson hasn’t published notable scientific work. He writes books for a layman audience.
And given his success, especially with “astrophysics for people in a hurry”, he is quite good at it.
Vilenkin is a one of the most renowned physicists and brilliant minds of our time. Almost everybody can only dream having such intellect and analytical thinking.
Is a theoretical physicist is qualified to give a scientific state of art on what we know about conciousness ? And make speculations on what/who it could originate from ?
The correct question is " is the truth lies in the speculations or is it beyond our daily conversations"
Who did the choosing? Who made the options to be chosen from?
This mystery, so exciting and awe-inspiring
Why ask “who”? Your question makes assumptions we shouldn’t make.
@@hensonsf2701 because its common sense
@@asrulismail1513 No it isn’t. It is assuming a “who”. That’s not how sense, logic, or reason works. Try again.
@@hensonsf2701 it is to the majority of us if you think hard enough.
@@asrulismail1513 Argument ad populum is a fallacy. Try again, bud.
I just don't know why the god question is brought up so much knowing nobody can answer that and shouldn't matter at all to science
I think it is just because we don't know.
The question really shouldn't be whether God exists, but whether there is a personal entity who is acting on our behalf. Otherwise, the "God" question is so pointless that it really is not relevant to our lives. That is, even if people want to point to God as being a person, that does not mean that God is someone we can interact with. God may be so far away (e.g., like an extremely far away black hole) or uninterested (e.g., as in the deist conception of God) that it doesn't matter to our everyday lives. So, we must distinguish between God being a person and God being personal... More to the point, how can we actually know, rather than just strongly believe and fool ourselves into thinking we know, the specific ways that God is active in our lives or the world? This is especially true when so many people who believe contradict each other, and there is nothing objectively to confirm our suspicions. So, practically speaking, how is that situation (i.e., where God exists and is personal but we are not be able to tell) any different from the situation in which God exists but isn't personal, or the situation in which God doesn't exist at all? (Again, practically speaking.) From that perspective, is it any wonder that some people don't believe that God exists and that human attempts to prove God's existence may seem like rationalizations to support their faith (with all due respect)? As Evangelical Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig himself has said: the arguments for God's existence are not the basis of his faith but serve to reinforce his faith.
When you have an NDE like me it changes your perception about Everything. I feel sorry for Scientist who puts God Aside as whatever.
@Adrian Cano As personal as that experience must be to you, would you mind sharing how that changed your perspective about the world, or "Everything" as you put it? Did it make you believe in God, and if so, why? Did you met him/her/it? Etc etc.
Best wishes,
A fellow searcher
Where did the energy come from? Energy can’t make itself and energy can’t direct or order itself. Energy is the evidence of God and is often referred to as gods or powers themselves. It’s just that they can’t make themselves so God can’t be limited to limited measurable time and distance. The cause of physical things can’t be physical.
And Buddists and Hindus say that too, right? And panpsychism. And Deists. I don't know why this guy doesn't think energy can't be there forever, or you. Aren't we playing pick the physicist?
Would “a squared” plus “b squared” equal “c squared” if we never wrote it down? Yes. The ratio existed and then humans discovered it. We only invented the symbols to relay the concept.
Too many scientists stumble at the very basics of philosphy and here's another.
Where did he stumble?
@@cliffdee2 Asking for direct physical evidence of something that brought physicality itself into existence which is a category error.
@@LogosTheos If God interacts with the universe then there must be physical evidence for this interaction.
@@LogosTheos do you know of any evidence at all? Is there some type of non physical evidence for god?
As regards the laws of physics somehow existing 'out there'... that can be a useful perspective, like numbers somehow existing out there for mathematical platonists. If it's helpful to see things that way, then why not? However, a moment's thought should suffice to see that the laws of physics are man made and are more correctly regarded as a network which we hold up to the 'out there' and which filters the 'out there' back to us in terms of the shapes of the meshes in the net.
We cannot even agree on the simplest definition of "God" - so how can we even talk about it?
Ken Heart Well it's a great and very effective way to scare and oppress people, and gain power over them and enforce all sorts of arbitrary laws. This has been quite a successful business model for many centuries! 👍
@@stromboli183 Very true, let's hope that people are beginning to think for themselves nowadays.
We cannot even agree on the simplest definition of "Government, Climate, Politics, Art, Language" - so how can we even talk about it?
@@mlong168 stop talking about it, I don't agree.
Wouldn't you have to talk about it to agree on a definition? That definition could change depending on you you're talking. You only have to agree on the definition with the person you're talking too, but you would have to talk about it first.
Excellent... thanks 🙏.
3:17 because it's undeniable sir
The laws of physics alone is not enough to make a universe. You need something that the math and physics works with. what is that "stuff"? And where is it? And where/what did it come from? Numbers themselves, are impotent to do anything. They have no causal properties.
What is concept of 4 and why emergence of it is curious?
"...there's some platonic world where the mathematical world of physics 'exist', even prior to the universe." That figures :)
Like Einstein he dismisses the notion of a personal god who intervenes in human affairs. That's all that matters. That shuts down the Christians, the Muslims, and the Hindus. They're the ones who are desperate to believe there's a god who cares about them and listens to their prayers. All the abstract/deistic god talk doesn't matter.
Some one said that God is an idea invented by human But I thing that some human actually invented the statement that ((God is an idea invented by human))
Actually I think that some human invented the statment that some human actually invented the statement that God is an idea invented by human.
Richard Gamrát I even think that a human invented the idea that there is an infinite recursive tower of humans inventing humans inventing humans inventing ... (ad infinitum) ... humans inventing God.
In fact, now that I think of, I think a human even invented the concept of transcendence beyond any infinite level of infinite recursive inventions to the ∞-th power.
Anton kruglyk Not sure if I follow. They say God is merely an idea, invented by humans. Exactly what does that statement make pointless, or how is it circular?
Anton kruglyk The Pythagoras theorem is not so much an idea created by humans, but rather a concept _discovered_ by humans. And within this particular discovery is an implicit proof of its unquestionable truth.
This is not at all the case with the idea of God. This idea of God was not a result of logic or reason, but (unlike Pythagoras’ theorem) a product of mere fantasy. Which also corresponds with the fact that 1. there is absolutely zero proof for it, and 2. there are numerous alternative ideas, variations on the fantasy (like Thor, Shiva, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, etc), none of which having any more reason to be considered potentially true than the others.
The reason we say “God is just an idea” is that people begin with the idea (or fantasy) and then start “reasoning” from there, as if it’s already true. It should be the other way round, you search and think and through reason or intuition you may come up with an idea for a potential answer. And only if “checks out” i.e. it’s verifiable and consistent, it makes sense to consider it true.
The idea of God only makes sense if you reason from the assumption that God exists. This is a fundamental difference from other ideas such as the Big Bang or Pythagoras’ theorem.
Anton kruglyk No, I’m not saying God is an idea and therefore not true. I’m only saying: God is an idea, made up by humans, just like Thor, Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Shiva, Zeus, et cetera. And therefore there is absolutely zero reason to assume it’s true, for any one of these ideas more so than the others. That doesn’t mean we’re 100% sure God or Shiva do _not_ exist, but by all means let’s not take these ideas too seriously until we find an _actual_ argument to do so.
Just the fact that someone came up with those ideas are no reason at all to grant them any serious consideration.
Also, Ockham’s Razor.
Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And likewise, claims without arguments can be discarded without arguments.
Nature has the overwhelming impression of being cold, and impersonal. And there are enough clues in nature that might indicate some kind of transcendent realm of creativity. So whatever road you walk you are faced with absurd miracles; naturalism or creative force.
To say that life and purposes of life emerged from senselessness is equally absurd. The human mind constructs reasons and purposes.
I agree that there is absolutely nothing of a personal God built into nature. We simply don't know enough to derive a definitive answer from current evidences about a realm beyond observation.
At 3:05 RLK "The cause is one-direction. The physics cause the consciousness, but consciousness has no independent existence to influence the laws of physics." Nature does not make plutonium; it is made by human consciousness. Consciousness yields JWST so we can see the past of our collective history. Only consciousness would be interested in taking a peek to its past, no other force of nature can build its own eyes to see itself. It is not an epiphenomenon; it extends the laws of physics into domains where physics cannot go on its own. We build watches.
Who created Existence? Who created eternity, time, space and all the fundamental categories? The question is in itself an answer... ;)
El-Andalussi computer simulation?
That's called begging the question... It's a logical fallacy
In this interview Dr. Vilenkin mentions there was no space, no time and no matter. In Genesis 1:1 says something about that. "In the beginning (time) God created the heavens ( space) and the earth. (matter)." I believe in the personal God of the Bible. That does not mean that I am as intelligent as Dr. Vilenkin, just have insight that he lacks. Proverbs 9:7 reads, "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God and insight is the knowledge of the Holy One."
*God* is an idea invented by the human mind. This quote applies to that idea: _It is hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if the cat does not exist._ -Confucius
*_1_* _...Death is nothing to us because good and evil lie in sensation, which ends with death. Thus believing death is nothing to us makes a mortal life happy by ending the yearning for immortality...If we don’t fear death, why should we fear life?...Thus dreaded death is nothing to us because when we are, death is not and when death is, we are not…._ -Epicurus, _Letter to Menoeceus_ (third paragraph)
*_2_* The *_Tetrapharmakos_* (τετραφάρμακος), *_The Four-part Remedy,_* as expressed by Epicurean Philodemus of Gadara and preserved in _Herculaneum Papyrus_ 1005, 4.9-14:
_Don’t fear god._
_Don’t fear death._
_The good is easy to get._
_The bad is easy to bear._
Here there’s wisdom for 7.5 billion people, many of whom *_believe in_* God(s) and heaven and hell but live *_as if_* these things didn’t exist. 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌
totalfreedom45 so is the love for our children and parents. You only dig them because of evolution. They are inconsequential relationships. Meaningless in the universal scheme of things. Useful but artificial. We are only a moist pile of quantum particles behaving in a evolved way to make more conscious piles of quantum particles. Purpose ( what started the purpose) to replicate and evolve ( for what?).
I don’t believe it.
Most high profile scientist give no less than a 20 percent chance that we are in a simulation created by higher beings, but give 0 percent chance that there is a god/creator.
Anything that ends in -s or -n you all believe. Seems like a wise man when you hear "Balardicus" or "Agernis" but you should know that those are made-up names and are dummies.
@@dougg1075 And who is running their simulator? All finite world theories have a beginning, and All infinite theories like PTU or Infinite Multiverse are not observable by definition. From Bayes which measures the probability of theories, you get 0 for PTU or multiverse and 100% for God. You claim to give 0 when you can't since you live in the probabilistic world as being a contingent thing, so there is no 0 even if you make YOURSElF god and claim it. 0 - is the reason why God doesn't exist, no matter how many times you repeat it in your incoherent worldview.
Also you straight up lie. Even here even he doesn't know, he doesn't know, not that is 0... And 99% of them.
Sometime mathematician think math is also human invention, its like, where is infinitesimal come from?, or infinite regression?
The God view and the Science view are not actually in contradiction. The 2 worldviews serve different purposes. It all depends on the aims one wishes to achieve. You don't use a pair of scissors to hammer in a nail, or a hammer to cut a piece of paper.
That’s a good analogy science describes the world in one sense, yet God would describe it in another, it’s like this, I throw a can at my friend, it lands just beside him, now why did it do that? One might say well the certain momentum of wind combined with gravity, actualized the potential of the cam missing the mark, or someone could just say i sucked at throwing, both explanations are true, yet both serve different purposes
Deep! Now for a toke. Where the hell did I put that pinner spliff?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
An argument that Uses the most fundamental laws of
contemporary physics and engineering. To prove. The presence. Of God. Allah.
1-Whatever begins to exist, has a cause of its existe.
2-The universe began to exist.( The Big Bang Theory of the Universe postulates a beginning.)+(the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). In a closed system the available energy will become less and less until
until finally you have no available energy at all (you have reached a state of entropy).simply The universe is running out of energy.which also points us to a universe that has a definite
beginning.
3-therefore, the universe has a cause.
In Holy Quran the Word of God,
THE ‘BIG BANG’ VERSE
اَوَ لَمۡ یَرَ الَّذِیۡنَ کَفَرُوۡۤا اَنَّ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَ الۡاَرۡضَ کَانَتَا رَتۡقًا فَفَتَقۡنٰہُمَا ؕ وَ جَعَلۡنَا مِنَ الۡمَآءِ کُلَّ شَیۡءٍ حَیٍّ ؕ اَفَلَا یُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ
Do not the disbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were a closed-up mass (ratqan), then We opened them out (fafataqnahuma)? And We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe? (21:31 Al-Anbiya)
The universe is running out of energy VERSE
﴿٨﴾ أَوَلَمْ يَتَفَكَّرُوا فِي أَنْفُسِهِمْ ۗ مَا خَلَقَ اللَّهُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا إِلَّا بِالْحَقِّ وَأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى ۗ وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِنَ النَّاسِ بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّهِمْ لَكَافِرُونَ
8. Do they not reflect within themselves? Allah did not create the heavens and the earth, and what is between them, except in truth, and for a specific duration. But most people, regarding meeting their Lord, are in denial. ( The Romans
These folks never discuss NDE’s. They have been under intense scientific scrutiny and the VERIDCAL aspects of some of them cannot be denied.
Sanjosemike
Which aspects?
Or proven.
Was really hoping for a bit of elaboration
I agree and I believe it's because it forces a person to be unable to explain something and its uncomfortable. They're personally comforting to me because I experienced alot during my time as a hospice nurse.
@@jonathanjones770 Thanks for your reply and God bless you for being a hospice nurse!
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Multi verse means in a parallel universe the Earth is flat. Multi universe believers should be called "flat earthers"
If you would like to know more about how - the origin of the universe, consciousness and God are all connected - check out 'God Speaks' by Meher Baba or - ua-cam.com/video/MIW4MvpMyUY/v-deo.html
Where did the laws of physics come from, who did the choosing and what is the reality of consciousness? You need to answer these questions before asserting that there is no evidence for a personal god.
Begging the question with a side of God of the gaps.
s c Don't you know that it makes far more sense to start with a conclusion and back into your beliefs? :P
Moayad Salih-
Asking 'Where did the laws of physics come from' is sensible, while asking 'who did the choosing' is presumptuous because it presumes someone or something must have chosen them. There's no reason to think they were chosen anymore than an object chooses to fall to the ground when it's dropped.
Asking, 'what is the reality of consciousness?' isn't even a sensible question because it exists. That makes no more sense than asking something like, 'what is the reality of carbon?' or anything else that exists.
How is consciousness in and of itself evidence of god in any kind of way? Most things that exist doesn't seem to be conscious, so consciousness doesn't seem relevant as to whether god exists or not.
WheelieBinMonster -
You don't understand probability. As far as we know there are very few places complex life can exist. Based on the limited evidence we have most of the universe contains no life, and complex life is extraordinarily rare. We know this because most of the universe consists of space; life can't exist in space.
That we happen to be on one of the few planets (perhaps the only planet; we don't know) with complex life is not evidence the laws of physics were chosen by anything. In a universe with billions of galaxies and at least trillions of planets, it's entirely plausible that at least one of those planets (earth) would produce complex life. That is apparently what happened.
We also don't understand enough about physics and cosmology to know if there are other ways the universe could have evolved. Perhaps the fundamental nature of physics means there were no other ways for the universe to evolve; again, we don't know.
Your lottery analogy revolves around a misunderstanding of probability and a baseless presumption.
Moayad Salih don't you have it backwards. You are engaged in a logical fallacy of incredulity.
That is really poor reasoning.
You have a phenomenon you can't explain at this point in time, so you make up a cause without any evidence the cause even exists.
That is the hypothesis you need to prove, and no one has been able to do that!
We have a prominent scientist that knows very well the cosmological constance's and finds no evidence for a god , especially a personal god.
A non existent hypothesis can not cause anything. What is your best proof a god exists or existed?
lawrence krauss said that the laws of physics emerged from the big bang together with matter, space & time. and consciousness is an emerging phenomenom of the brain
LOL
Good theory, but still unproven
نادر الی راحمان theories are the proven thing. you mean hypothesis. And yes, the only thing pending for a universe to be brought out of nothing is to prove that the laws come at existence with the rest of the universe. theres good rason to believe that happened, at least more than bronze age myths. so dont you worry, yet. i bet that all of you theists are shitting your pants right now not wanting this to be proven, but its going to be a-ok. consciousness is an emerging property of brains though, this is for sure.
But where did the meta-laws, or the underlying framework of reality come from, in which physics itself was to emerge along with its laws and the phenomena that are subject to these laws (such as the big bang, space, time, matter and energy).
The only logical, reasonable conclusion that scientists can come to in the end, is that logic and reason are fundamentally, inherently incomplete. And that science will never prove the correctness or even the plausibility of science.
JJ Delamo I happen to know that book. It’s a complete joke. First of all it doesn’t disprove evolution at all. It grossly misinterprets some arguments from evolution and frames it in a mathematically incorrect way. Second of all, even if it would disprove evolution (which it doesn’t) then that is still by no means a proof for God. Not even remotely.
Third of all.. if life as we know it is too complex, too specific, and too unlikely to arise from mere chance. Then a supernatural hyper intelligent being that is capable of creating this complex universe, is then (by that very same argument) itself _definitely_ too complex and too unlikely to arise from mere chance. So our creator must then _certainly_ have a creator of its own. Let’s call Him HyperGod. He is then the True Alpha and Omega, the Creator of God and All Divine and Supernatural Existence.
To summarize:
• Evolution (life emerged spontaneously) is very unlikely.
• Intelligent design (life was created by God) and God emerged spontaneously, is somewhat less unlikely.
• However my new theory of Recursive Meta Design: life was created by God and God was created by HyperGod, is therefore the most probable and complete explanation. *It not only explains where life comes from, but also where God comes from!*
Checkmate, atheists and non-hyper-theists! 👍
Hamza Tzortzis: According to Alexander Vilenkin ...................
Alexander Vilenkin : I don't believe in a personal god......
😂😂😂😂
@Sad Cube Yes, but Hamza seems to advocate that Vilenkin statement adds validity to his belief system.
@Sad Cube Well, Hamza should mention that Vilenkin's belief when he quoted him. Rather it would seem cunning of him glossing over this fact.
Any respectable god should be able to break and violate the physical laws at will
Gave it a 👎 then changed it to a 👍 because of the guy giving the interview.
He’s awesome.
Shake and bake!
Why did you give it a dislike?
The "Big Mystery" is not why Consciousness exists. The "Big Mystery" is why we still believe that "matter" --- an ontologically real substance outside Consciousness --- exists.
Nick. You say: We have something out there that exists, even when we lose consciousness. This “solidity” is matter. We have ample evidence for this “matter”. LHC probes this realm wonderfully. So do our telescopes...
Response: Think about it. No evidence of the substance called "matter" can exist. Why? Because "matter" -- an ontologically real substance outside Consciousness -- can not be known or experienced. When you touch a table you feel a sensation of pressure (solidity). Sensation is "qualia" and not "matter". "Matter" is, on materialism, presumed to exist "behind" the qualia, so to speak. So no, there is no evidence that "matter" exists. And hence logically no way of knowing if "matter" produces Consciousness. LHC can not probe that which is outside Consciousness --- whatever they discover is not "matter". But dont take my word for it ... Google it.
You say: I consider one of the Big Mysteries is - how do Matter/Energy actually relate to Consciousness?
Response: Yes. The interaction problem. But since "matter" is not experienced or known logically only one ontologically real substance exists: Consciousness.
You say: When you go to sleep and wake up, you do not find your house in a completely mixed up random state. You can set an alarm clock and wake up. This is in the world of "matter". It is really quite reliable!
Response: Sure there is an objective world outside bodies -- not just outside Consciousness. And again: "Matter" is defined as an *ontologically real substance outside Consciousness*.
You say: We get "qualia" of a table. Then look away. Then look back. The table is "mysteriously / inexplicably" still there ! This is what we know of matter. We can zoom in more and find its quantum nature. It is hard to dissect Consciousness in the same way.
Response: Again: This happens in Consciousness --- not outside Consciousness . Right..?
You say: The table can go in and out of any particular Consciousness. But the fact that it remains even when not being "experienced as qualia" is evidence of a material world. You have your consciousness, I have mine, etc.
Response: You assume that Consciousness is inside bodies and that it is produced by "matter". This is materialism. But "matter" is never experienced -- all we experience is inside Consciousness. Tables, chairs and cars are inside Consciousness and hence can not be made of a different ontologically real substance. Tables, chairs and cars logically must be made of Consciousness. Even on materialism we do not experience "matter". Their current idea is that we experience the brains representation/simulation of "matter". Here is the argument:
*P1. Only one ontologically real substance can exist*
--- Due to the interaction problem dualism is false, and non-dualism, aka monism, is true. Hence the fundamental nature of things is reducible to and derived from one substance; one basic element
*P2. Consciousness exists*
--- Consciousness self-evidently exists. Gross perceptual appearances (aka matter) and subtle perceptual appearances (aka mind) exist in Consciousness and hence can not be ontologically different substances
*C1. Only Consciousness exists*
--- The fundamental nature of things is reducible to and derived from one substance; one basic element: Consciousness
Midiwave Productions, You seem to be dancing around the problem of hard solipsism. None of us can prove we are not a brain in a vat or the only consciousness that actually exists. Once we agree that we are in fact separate consciousnesses then we can objectively agree that matter exists, not because we can touch it but because we have designed apparatus that give us all the same views of it. Matter if therefore objectively real. As far as consciousness itself goes, it so far hasn't been shown to be anything more than the chemical processes that we, as collections of complex chemical systems call the specific processes that take place in our brains. There is no evidence that consciousness is anything more than purely material in nature, as are all things. If we agree to dismiss hard solipsism then it seems to me that the only currently viable option (I want to stress currently viable), the only option supported by objective evidence, is one of hard reality, that everything is physical in nature. All of the things that most people refer to as immaterial are in fact completely material, the mind, mathematics, logic, etc. are aspects of the chemical processes taking place in our living brains. Of course if you drill down, even matter itself is a view of the underlying fields that exist everywhere, the quantum fields that permeate spacetime. In another sense, nothing really exists, not even consciousness, because as far as we can tell, the sum of everything that exists is zero. We not only came from nothing, we still are nothing. I think the important thing is to not get too woo about it all and accept that parts of nothing can and do exist as physical objects and that those physical objects can engage in processes that allow us to view ourselves as individuals that can come to agreement on some form of objective reality, reality that we all observe in the same way when it is presented to us through instrumentation that we view as separate from ourselves. That separation of instrumentation is a critical aspect of creating objective reality because we know that the processes that produce consciousness in our brains are not at all objective. We do not see like cameras, hear like microphones, or feel like pressure and temperature sensors. That does not mean that all of reality is already objective because there are still large parts of it that we have not been able to measure in unambiguous ways that we can all agree on, but we are getting closer to that goal every day. Hopefully, even if we were ever able to come to such an understanding of reality there would still be room to be diverse and fascinating creatures living in a universe full of wonders.
He can’t comprehend
the fact that Yahweh exist outside of time.
Yahweh Don’t exist he’s existence itself.
Alpha omega beginning and the end.
Yahweh created time
King of eternity the everlasting Elohim
Yahweh always existed he just IS The Great I Am
To Deny Yahweh is to deny your very existence.
We are Dust we’re Nothing .
we only came to be, through the breath of life Yahweh breath into us.
Ruach Hakadesh
allows us to exist people are so ungrateful SMH
I can’t anymore I’m Done with these angry people
There just clay dust without that breath of life.
try telling dr dawkins this, see what he says.[for people to stupid to understand my ironic statement, i will repeat i believe in a creator, and i love the fact that this vilenkin, is actually backing in some ways what i believe.] he is noting the reality of physics and the fact that the physics is present, which could be the sign of a desginer] i m believe in id, and i disagree w dawkins. its called irony.]
rd dawkins? Do you know who Vilenkin is, you waste of protoplasm?
@UCOfa7LYrMw9M-sal14LPirQ I apologize, I completely misunderstood you and apologize for the snide as well - it's just that I'm so sick of these mindless dawkins/harris/hithchens admirers... My wrong...
@@firstviktor3856 i believe in god, i was being ironic ,mate.in other words, i m glad that vilenkin is stating that physics might show the possability of a designer. i think dawins is arrogant to disregard the reality of physics and math in the universe , to show a possable designer.
@@ifyoueverfind78 I'm with you 100%
@@firstviktor3856 thank you. i m sick of the new athiests as well, and i argue with them on youtube. i see design everywhere. thank you for your apology, and have a nice day.
Hi Sunshine, if you have a problem considering that God is the "Consciousness of Universe" then don't, but don't frame it as silly or craziness for your short sightedness. It is the Apex on the top of the triangle that balances energy and matter and forms the Holy Trinity. May you enjoy peace an prosperity, while you manifest all the necessary Love an Light of Life!
Wow that was really a good read. You are making me think in a different way a little thank you.
s c your bias is showing 😏
Lizica Dumitru, what bias!!! Consciousness is universal, you're the only one that shows bias here. Show me if everyone has Consciousness how is this Bias. Show me that this is all I ask!
Steve-o no Steve.
Some people believe God is the universe. In which case you gain nothing by changing the name to god .
Some say god is love.
Again nothing gained. It is said,
God is the greatest thing conceivable
That which nothing greater can be conceived.
That does not make it real!.
You need to prove it by evidence.
Until now at least there is 0 evidence for the existence of any God's.
There have been proposed 10,000 God's though out history 9,999 have been abandoned by almost everyone,
The evidence for the abrahamic god is to me a childrens fairytale.
I stand with Einstein and Spinoza.
Here's a letter from Einstein
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.
Fernando Dosa I just call it as I see it. Not changing anything sorry you don't have the foresight to see it mabe someday you'll understand.
There are no laws of physics
What?
It seems possible to me that there may be some sort of conscious fundament underlying material reality. But the likelihood that "it" has much to do with the fractured fairy tales that mankind has dreamed up about "it" seems minuscule, indeed.
Open-minded Skeptic Thats because you did 0 research on historical Jesus Christ.
OK, so Vilenkin is a Platonist?
Get over it there is no god time to get.real.
Joegeorge There is a God get over it get real!
I believe in a creator. I’m cool with people who don’t. I’m not cool with people saying there is no god as a matter of fact. People need to get religion and old stories in a book and start thinking differently about reality and how ignorant we are as to what the hell it is.
@@dougg1075 god is as likely as the tooth fairy.
If you can't conclude something doesn't exist because one can't disprove a negative, you must concede everything is possible including the tooth fairy and Zeus if that were the case. Fortunately that is not how we prove or disprove existence.
A fact is a statement that is consistent with objective reality or can be proven with evidence. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability - that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experiments or other means) the god hypothesis fails as a matter of fact .
Therefore it is not a matter of fact that GOD exists.
But what I can say is .
It is a matter of fact that god doesn't exist under the definition of a fact.
Fernando Dosa we will all find out in the end. If I’m wrong I won’t know it. If your wrong.. you’ll know it.
@@dougg1075 not necessarily. You are assuming the biblical narrative is correct ,which it is not.
to many false stories.
It also depends on which God.
Two words dark matter
I'm sick of hearing about