This guy. He has the answer for everything, but in his final hours he will find god. If he’s blessed. If not he could spend a entire afterlife in HELL. His choice.👌🏻🌞😃✝️❤️🌹
Note, however, that dogs and horses, not being made in the image of God, can't create anything. Seems by your creating a straw man you missed the point.
@@emmd1234 Lets just face it. Anything that can bring the universe into existence from a singularity so powerful that it is beyond human beings imagination and that caused energy and matter to come into existence out of nothing, with all of the laws of physics and chemistry, is beyond human comprehension. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@emmd1234 I agree with you totally. But the reality is that mankind is out of control and we need help. You know and I know that it is just a matter of time before mankind used their thermonuclear weapons. Our heavenly father will let mankind go only so far. Mankind has already proved his inability to take care of the planet earth and to take care of one another. Soon greed, wars, hate, prejudice, lies, animal species extinction, destroying and the destruction of our planet earth, abuse of animals, the eating of animals, murder, rape, egos, corruption, crooked governments and politicians, misleading religious leaders, dishonest people, aging and death will soon be no more etc... All these things will be done away with and the earth being restored to a paradise earth and fear of man from the animals will be removed. And mankind will be free from death and pain and disease since ageing and getting old will be no more and done away with. Genesis 5:5 Isaiah 11:6-9 Revelation 21:3-4
This isn't as logical as you think it is, if this is the case you're talking about absolute contingency which is just doesn't cut the mustard, logically speaking.
If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? If God is all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent and has a plan for all of us and we are not to know God's plan, then why do people pray to God for his favor, or to change something for them?
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. Douglas Adams
actually the puddle doesn't disappear, it is evaporated into the air, becomes a cloud and returns to the Earth....and this is random??, don't think so.
@@Precious-n4i it's called an analogy. You're hardly destoying the argument by taking it all literaly. Plus your comment is not only begging the question, assuming the conclusion ratger than supporting your own claim, It's also committing a black and white fallacy
@@casparcubitt1117 wow, just because the analogy doesn't really make sense in terms of creation or humans existence, does not mean I don't understand it. I know what the puddle represents, but I'm actually thinking and not just regurgitating what I hear or read. The puddle is part of a system in which it is recycled repeatedly, do you ever think why? A Universe that supplies humans every need, while providing a brain to create their own needs and wants. And you want people to believe its random, or we just happened to show up. You have to realize how senseless that sounds.
@@Precious-n4i " Creation" doesn't make sense it's just something people say that has no actual meaning. What is "creation"? Describe an act of creation where god makes nothing into anything from nothing. You have a God and nothing else and this God does what exactly to create a hydrogen atom from nothing. Go!
@@dimbulb23 Creation is a term only thinkers can understand. We live in a world where objects are created all the time. you will never say oh that building. car or plane just appeared but then when it comes to a star or planet all of a sudden we become dumb. those things just appeared out of nothing. If it takes knowledge to understand this world. then something/someone with knowledge had to create it. period.
Hello! Welcome to the youtube comments section! Here's a few steps you can take to enjoy your time here! 1. scroll back up 2. finish the video 3. close browser If you've completed these steps then you are well on your way to living a happy life where you avoid pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else!
Nubro Zaref but how do you know if there is people whose ultimate happiness consists precisely on getting involved in "pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else"? Just read atheist603 and Typical-Religious-Internet-Atheist-Troll comments above and you'll see what I mean... :)
well typically a debate has more than one person.. and the idea of god doesn't actually need to be "argued" in any way, that's kinda the beauty. This video is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else
@@baterickpatman Probably why he put debate in quotation marks. I agree, religion is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else.
@@cagedgandalf3472 "religion is utterly pointless" What makes you say that? Or a more pertinent question might be, how can you say that anything has a 'point' or 'purpose' at all?
@@nanashi2146 Things have a 'point' because people give them a point. It's a simple fact of reality, that we'd agree with, that people like and dislike, and draw their own meaning from events. Religion is pointless because it's hypocritical to the points we choose. We all want personal freedom, better understanding of the world, love, peace, happiness, etc. The issue is that religion, while it does provide some of these things in parts, it does so while stripping many others away in far greater amounts or does so inconsistently. Just look at how many people want to remove certain people's rights to marriage or free-expression while it isn't the thing that grants those in the first place. Religion causes more harm than good; it's an awful way to get meaning.
The fine-tuning argument is ultimately self-defeating: “This universe is so complex and “fine-tuned”, that can only be explained by a creature which is infinitely more complex and “fine-tuned”, which doesn’t need an explanation of course!” If our great but still far from perfect universe needs a designer, so does the creator of this universe, who is necessarily “greater”, more “fine-tuned” than our universe.
The universe is not eternal though, God is said to be eternal. It is consistent as far as I can see. The argument depends upon the universe having a cause.
@@crabb9966 Depends what you mean by universe. Our (observable) universe? That started with the Big Bang. The whole cosmos? We have no clue. When I talk about the universe, I mean the latter. Consistent, yeah, if the premises where true, but justifying the premises necessarily involves special pleading, that’s my point.
@@LomuHabana observable Universe doesn't seem like it had to start with a big bang event. Seems a big bang event could happen within the " Universe" and not fundamentaly change any observations.
I am a new student of Sean Carroll, just found him and can't wait to see what I learn. Love how he is a very fluid speaker, does not himm or haww.... knows what he is talking about and very vigorous.
I am glad that you benefited from his knowledge, can you think of a practical implications of following his teachings? Such as Anxiety increased or decreased? Motivation for life increased or decreases? Love for others and compassion? Agility meaning quickly come back after being down?
Sean carrol is as bad at science as stephen hawking , stephen hawking never made any contributions tro sceince , his whole spiel about dark stars is rubbish.Try reading his papers he is fucking nutter as is sean carrol, Who claims universes pop in and out of existence with no evidence to support the claim, it is no different than god claims.
TehJumpingJawa except that no mathematical equation would make any useful prediction unless there was a necessary event that proceeded along the same entropic event space whose interactions were anything but “causal”. It’s ridiculous for a determinist to deny causality, necessity etc
@@flyingmonkey3822 No determinist denies the existence of causality or necessity. But the word 'cause' is extremely slippery. There are a whole host of words that people use all the time, but which make very little sense as understood by a layperson, and 'cause' is one of them. 'Time' is another. So is 'free will'. All these words represent incredibly subtle, complex concepts. So when a religious person starts talking about causality they tend to have an extremely simple, blunt understandings of the concept. And if you're trying to deny the existence of uncaused events, like radioactive decay or quantum field fluctuations, then you're just arguing with reality.
@@thesprawl2361 I think that Dr Carroll should be self consistent in his physics. You are of course correct that our definition of a concept should evolve to either encompass new aspects of the thing it is attempting to describe or new words should emerge if the concept is no longer tenable. I very much appreciate the lucidity with which Dr. Carroll speaks, but i find that he also equivocates on definitions. I would like to take his same concept that he uses to describe why the arrow of time moves only in one direction and show why this description is completely consistent with causality and radioactive decay, quantum field evolution, and the beginning of the universe. I very much liked what he said during his debate with Dr William Lane Craig when he said that "our metaphysics should follow our physics", and also thank him for his story about "the principle of sufficient reason" as I also had no idea why it was called that until hearing him speak! I enjoy his lectures, and his contributions to science and especially to his popularizing engagement with quantum theory. I just think that if he's going to take the many worlds interpretation that he's got a LOT of explaining to do, the least of which is that it violates the Born rule (or does not return it) and therefore does not return predictable results. If ever we should abandon a theory, it would be because it predicts nothing. Yet he holds to it as a sledgehammer to the concepts which normal people observe in their everyday lives. He has to justify his reason for thinking that the wave function becomes real at every split, when we definitionally have no evidence for universes that are no longer connected to our own. It also assumes that there is a more fundamental bubble universe that effervesces universes like ours into being. BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not. Purely statistically, it will have such a dilute space to exist as a particle that it will decay eventually. The "cause" is then that the dividing action of universes separating will average out to one in which we see our physics play out. It is not possible for each planck moment to pass without a change in it's universal state, only in it's local state. Interacting with the universe along this splitting paradigm "causes" the events we see. When a portion of the quantum vacuum changes to a state where it has traded regularity in frequency for location we will see it "pop" up a "particle". Is it possible for it to change universal states and not fluctuate? is it necessary that it's variations "unfreeze" and choose another state? When concentrated to a definiteness in one measurable aspect, can it do anything but continue interacting with the ever changing and diluting universal state? I'm not aware of evidence of this. I have more questions regarding how it is that we "jump" planck moments, and why it is that non-local interaction cannot be avoided... but it seems that between choosing A to interact further and Not A to choose to stop interacting... that we have no choice but to interact. If that is not determinism and causality... please help me see where i'm wrong. I'm open to hearing this, it IS all new to me and I don't have a formal education in it. P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist. P2) the universe began to exist. C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing. It's the same thing as the original cosmological argument but with updated assumptions regarding what it means to exist (be able to interact with it) or to begin and cease to begin (depending on it's current state) that are consistent with QM. So, an electron-positron pair that eventually occupy substantially the same space would exist while traveling towards each other and then stop existing in their current form but change form while conserving their properties of momentum etc. This observation can reliably lead us to deduce that there is something more fundamental to the universe.
of course you aren't obligated to interact specifically with anything here i've presented if you just want to argue that words are slippery, then we can both go home saying that sean and WLC are entitled to their own opinions... even to their own facts.
@@flyingmonkey3822 "BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not" ...But that IS the Many Worlds definition of probability. Probability is just the proportion of actual worlds in which an event happened. Count the proportion, and you attain the probability. (...There's a section in his new book where Carroll describes precisely how many worlds comports with the the Born Rule, but it's on my phone. If you have the book it's on pages 146-148.) "P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist. P2) the universe began to exist. C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing." Okay. For the sake of argument let's say I agree with your first premise. (Although what exactly 'more fundamentally existing thing' means I'm not sure. I think you just mean that it precedes it in a chronological sense, but that doesn't make it more fundamental. My mother isn't more fundamental than me just because she 'caused' me. But forget that.) Even if I were to accept the first premise, I most definitely do not accept the second. Firstly, what makes you certain that the universe began to exist? Sure, we had a Big Bang, but you know that many, perhaps most, physicists do not consider that to be the beginning of the universe/multiverse/reality. And again we hit upon the problems of definitions: what does it mean for something to 'begin to exist'? Have you ever seen anything begin to exist? No. You've seen matter and energy change form, you've seen that fundamental relationship fluctuate...but you've never seen something 'begin to exist' in the sense that you're talking about. It's unclear to me how it even makes conceptual sense. ...........
I think that scientists should be very picky about the usage of the word _theory_. Non scientifically educated people confuse _theory_ with _conjecture_ or _supposition_. So, they understand _Supposition of Evolution_ instead of _Explanation of Evolution_.
Richard Gomes Yeah, it's a pity that word was used in a scientific context as it opens the door to deliberate obfuscation by unethical religious types.
I think Dr. Carroll is giving the theologians a very large head start... and then demonstrating that even when given the easiest possible case to make, gods fail spectacularly. He does the best thing possible when dealing wtih pseudoscience: He takes it seriously and then says "What if that's true?" Apply it to biological evolution denial, big bang cosmology denial, climate science denial, abiogenesis denial and it *always* comes back as egg on the face of the denier.
Richard ,you talking nonsense;theory is a specific scientific construct,it is the ignorant that should learn by reading,asking questions, any means accessible what the word theory means depending on context it`s being used .If you bring the information to the lowest denominator nobody will learn anything and knowledge won`t be served and all will stay in darkness.
I hardly think changing "God is not a Good Theory" to "God is not a Good Scientific Theory" is dumbing anything down, and it would address the OP's point that ignorant people, especially the willfully ignorant, will immediately insert their superstition based mythology/conjecture as "also a theory" It's not going to stop them, superstitious people will always just double down when confronted with evidence that they're peddling superstitions, but nothing can be done about that other than teaching kids how to think instead of what to think.
Richard Gomes wouldn’t it be nicer if we could continue the correct usage of the word and simply teach others the proper use? The word theory is used in place of hypothesis frequently and inaccurately.
Who knows. Human think they knows everything but we all know 0.000...to infinity....0 % of the universe. So better accept the fact we don't know anything and live the life happily
If we have each other, 8 billion or so, then we are by definition not alone. We also don't know where we were before this reality or where we go after. An open mind and humility are the best tools in this life.
You're as shallow as Sean. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Your premises don't follow logically. Yes, the universe is 'winding down' in the sense it is expanding and it appears matter will eventually become a diffuse fog of elementary particles. But you've never explained why this necessitates anything supernatural. The first step is to define supernatural and provide evidence. Until then it's just ambiguous speculation.
@@2fast2block Shallow is someone who believes others are shallow and that THEY know the unprovable. spare us you ignorance and talk to yourself in the mirror.
😂😂😂 this guy’s tunnel vision is pretty embarrassing for a “scientist”. Regardless of what your stance is on religion, this guy is basically like “well, I can’t prove based on my formula so it must not be. It couldn’t be that my understanding is limited.”
@@rizeorfall it's not embarrassing in the least. I wouldn't call it "tunnel vision" to dismiss something completely made up. There are THOUSANDS of religions. You may as well say he's got tunnel vision for not believing in fairies or Santa Clause.
@@rizeorfall Except he never said anything as absolute as that and you're 100% strawmanning him. The very first tuing he talks about is the importance of the word "good" in the title of his talk. At no point did he say that god is impossible, or that he certainly doesn't exist. He merely says, as a proper scientist/skeptic should, that the types of god hypotheses he outlined at the start are either useless or much more improbable than naturalistic explanations. There are, actually, god concepts that are impossible or disproven, but he didn't talk about those here.
@@betamusic5487 , Thousands of religions about gods indicates there is an original one. Only the Bible spells it out. That is how an intellectual person can figure it out. Zax is right. He starts with a bad premise then claims it can't be true because it didn't fit his bad premise.
@@Lintpop : Clearly many people believe that but it doesn't make it factual. I don't know that pretending is helpful. Bad information leads to bad choices. We give meaning to our own lives. That we are self-aware in the vastness of space is pretty special and we should appreciate how remarkable it is.
@@lrvogt1257i guess my reply was more in the lines of a simplistic answer. For myself no one can debonk the fact that there is a no God. Unfortunately I can not say the same for person next to me in the store or anyone for that matter. I grew up with the understanding that there is a God, when I was older and ready I challenged the God vs science, did alot of reading and studied apologetics. The end of the day there is more proof that God is the cause of why we are here.
@@Lintpop : I think you were trying to say that you can't disprove god. That's right. You can't disprove a claim that is unfalsifiable. You can only point out the lack of evidence to accept it as fact. You can't prove there are no goblins. You can only speak to the lack of evidence for them. If someone were to catch one, we'd have to accept that as evidence. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can actually demonstrate the supernatural.
Totally awesome. Job needs to hear this presentation. There is no apparent correct explanation or answer for suffering. Our notion of the all knowing and loving being does not comport with the likes of a simple person like myself praying over and over again for the wisdom and understanding to live the best life I can for all those people in my life and me. Having faith in faith is an ask beyond all the extraordinary gifts I have been given. The very need to have to rely on biblical scholars to explain godship is hard to grasp and the Truth , the way and the light should be easily accessible to everyone. Thank you for a well thought out explanation. Keep them coming
I don't see that. Not a large fraction of the universe's mass is in black holes. First of all that wouldn't require any sort of fine tuning because all it requires is a sufficiently large gravitational constant, or a slow enough speed of light, or a large enough mass of elementary particles and density of matter, and with any of those sufficiently large, literally none of the other constants of nature would even matter, and it wouldn't require any of them to be in a precise range but just "greater than or equal to" some number, but it also seems to me that if it was fine tuned for the creation of black holes, the gravitational constant should be a lot larger than it is, or the speed of light would be a lot slower, etcetera. If the gravitational constant was 10^100 times larger and even a single electron couldn't help but be a black hole, wouldn't that universe be much more "fine tuned" for the creation of black holes than this one?
@@medexamtoolscom I don't think mass is the most important thing in the universe. I think it is information. A simple human brain is arguably more complex than a lifeless solar system, with billions of neurons and trillions of synapsis. Scale doesn't say much. Nevertheless, most of the entropy of the universe is concentrated in blackholes. So from that point of view, Hawking were right. Hawkings statment about conditions of blackholes takes into consideration that most blackholes are not primordial and came from stars, and stars from hidrogen and the formation of hidrogen is already fine tuned.
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - George also said if you don’t believe in him he’ll send you to hell where you will be tortured forever and ever…..But he loves you!😂
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - I have debated them ad nauseam and I have come to the conclusion that most of them are innately rotten people. Now that might sound harsh at first, but once you consider that most of them don’t believe any human can be a good person without the fear of believing a sky daddy is going to punish them, it makes perfect sense. They ask me stupid questions like “what’s to stop you from randomly killing people or raping women?” My response is, “oh, so that’s what you were doing prior to being converted?” Or “is that what every non-believer you know is out here doing?” Then I respond with, “statistically speaking most rapists, murderers, and their victims believe in God.”
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - Trust me, I know. Growing up in a catholic school and studying world religion gave me all of the ammunition I needed to fight back against indoctrination. The cult hated me because even as a child I asked a lot of logical questions and refused to take their word for everything. What you stated is an absolute fact. According to their belief system the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. How convenient? That type of system is highly effective for recruiting people, especially considering the estimated 300,000,000 to billions of deaths, rapes, and torturous activities perpetrated toward free thinkers and people of other belief systems over the centuries. My ancestors were read Ephesians 6-5 to keep them in line.
That was George Carlin’s pithy quote about God always needing money. Every religious person should watch the UA-cam video of George Carlin’s excellent and hilarious account of his conversion from a young Catholic believer to a enlightened skeptic. It is transformative.
I don't have an issue with religions until they "Christians" try to prohibit subjects being taught in public schools. I don't have a problem with religions until they directly interfer with government. I don't have a problem with "Christians" until they try to interfer with my life. As you can see, I have many reasons to have problems with religion.
Well very ironic you say that when the law you live under says what “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." if you live in the u.s.a then you literally living in a country built on Christian belief and morals “thou shall not kill” ect ect without the law of that first came from god their would be no “law” in modern society if it was left to us “humans” all morality would be Relative, the law could be whatever it wants but no the us law is actually built in godly principles and then you say “interfere” with the government or do this or do that you that’s not “Christians” that’s just a few bad apples in the butch you look at they hate and the bad side? You say you don’t have a issues until the “Christians” what about the Terrorist yelling allah and giving the muslim religion a bad name? Or the buddist who put THIER kids through the extreme to be enlightened? Those people don’t speak for the rest of the “religion” you’re talking about It’s incredibly small minded to take a small group of people and group them up and give a negative intent,I’m black and everytime a cop kills one of my people do I group up all the cops in a butch no cause that’s unfair and wrong ,do you know that the most Christians are in Asia not in the us or the uk or canda but Asia and I’m just saying that to open your eyes and stop looking through this thick lenses you got on, you decided to take a Critical thinking video and make this negative comment, grow up dude….
@@manmadetunao2597 The pledge of allegiance isn't a law. It is also actually a relatively recent innovation. dating only back to the old anti-communist scares.
@@lexireina3641 well if you actually read my comment I never said it was the law I said THW country was built on Christian belief which it is and second recent? You’re saying thw 1700s we’re recent? That was 3 Centuries ago,that’s not recent buddy you know what is recent the civil rights moment which was only 56 years ago and Yk how Martin Luther king convinced the government and who talked to about why blacks are equal to whites ja because every man created by god is equal and that’s what he pushes and preached and why as a black man I can sit where I want and drink where I want it was only 50 years ago where I couldn’t now that’s recent not 300 years ago where as a black man I would Be in chains
@@manmadetunao2597 Funny you should say that, considering that those "Christian" beliefs you say the country was founded on didn't stop said founders from keeping you in chains. But then, if you read your Bible, you'll find that your God is pretty cool with slavery. Encourages submission to one's masters, no less.
...and atheists interfere with ours...like propagandizing them in your secular schools headed by your academic mentors who does early sexualization of them and push evolution onto them. Your worldview makes for a unsuccessful civilization, not a successful one. Your worldview shows a lot of garbage out from the garbage in you take in...such as twice the suicide rate for kids you bring up in your fatalism. The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to not have the federal government to tell the states what religion or type of Christian sect to have. Even President Jefferson took money out of the US treasury to pay for Bibles for schools. A 1892 Supreme Court ruling said we are a Christian nation. Another thing. There are two types of Christianity. One is true Gospel and the other are Christian cults. The difference? The true Gospel is salvation without works and is a GIFT for mere faith and grace without merit...the cults believe it is grace with WORKS and it s possible to lose salvation off and on. Here is a video giving the true Gospel of how to get the gift of eternal life. ua-cam.com/video/Wh1VU-_OF98/v-deo.html
I'd say it's fairer to put it like this: 1. We don't know if a naturalistic universe would be expected to produce any life (although we can continue to investigate and maybe we'll find out that it would or wouldn't.) 2. On many religions (e.g. the Abrahamic religions), it is fully expected that the universe would produce life. (It's logically impossible for those religions to be true, and for no life to exist.) Therefore, according to our current knowledge at least, the existence of life gives some evidence for those religions over naturalism. But "Religion" shouldn't then claim that God is therefore the logically necessary answer. For that to be the case, it would have to be shown that an atheistic universe certainly would not produce life. But even if all kinds of multiverse were disproven, blind chance is still given as a logical possibility. So this would be beyond the scope of the Fine Tuning Argument.
@@keithhamilton2240 The universe comes from a burnt out star from another universe. There are an infinity of mathematical infinities but just one infinity
@@whirledpeas3477 I hope you'r not insinuating scientism or some form of positivism (the view that science is the ONLY way to truth) this is a position largely abandoned by philosophers of science, since it cannot bear the weight of its own princilple (that truth only come from sciense), it cannot itself be proven scientifically. Though, I agree "God is it's concious matter", sounds like some strange Chopra stuf.
The wordsmith? Is it bad to use words or philosophical language to define something? I do not know if that was what you intended to say. No matter; let me try to "wordsmith" a description of God: God is a peronal being with thoughts (aboutnes), similarly to us, though not analogus to us. And he is not constrained by time, space or matter (timeless, spaceless and immaterial) In other word the ucaused first cause, or the unmoved mover. This is a very narrow and minimal description, and a fuller description would probably take thousands of pages, with a lot of philosophical speculations (ehmm... Aquinas).
Gotta love the Sean! He’s super smart, super logical, and sometimes funny. I love the beginning where he shows the 3 ways of looking at god. It’s just how a scientific mind would begin - by grouping like things. It’s a taxonomic view.
@@con.troller4183 Wish there was an easy way to get them to understand that. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca Even Obama and Biden know that.
@@graveseeker Instead of being disqualified from office for believing in talking snakes and zombie saviors, you can't get elected unless you profess that you do.
Three wise men once learned about a Deity by answering a foolish series of questions: was she really a virgin? Should we really believe this story? Isnt there a more plausible explanation for this birth? Hell no, it's a miracle! Come! Let us adore him! Worship this infant!
I appreciate Dr. Carroll taking the time and effort to explain what the parameters of his philosophy was. I write fiction novels with settings based in mythologies. We may disagree on a personal level, but your presentation, specifically its scaffold, gave me a number of new relatable perspectives for my characters. Thank you
The spiritual world it appears to be, a subset of existence, probably totally unlike the materistic world that humans live in, such as the micro level of quantum mechanics which differs from classical physics, but we cannot explain the processes, only observe the outcomes. It's a peculiar mystery that intrigues me.
@@keyissues1027 I think it's understandable, so no big mystery, that there are fundamental limits to how we can figure out deterministic laws about the objects that make up ourselves. In other words: Observations (measurement results) cannot in principle be separated from what is observed.
@@keyissues1027 humans don’t live in the physical realm alone, we are also rational constructs that exist metaphysically in a timeless and essential (eternal and spiritual) fashion.
The explanation to the question of 'why?' related to something always just creates a new question of 'why?', in my mind at least. It is an infinitely recursive question that loses meaning when you start asking it about the more and more fundamental low-level things in our reality.
There is a principle in philosophy elucidated by The Munchhausen Trilemma. All factual statements rest on chains of reasoning that are either circular, infinite in regress, or brute assertion. Therefore, our question should always be not "what is really true?" but instead rather "what is reasonable given the constraints we agree to for purposes of this conversation or investigation?" The latter question can be commonly answered by people who employ good logic; the former is more of a personal choice.
@@kennethbransford820 If you want to think God guided evolution that's one thing. But the idea that life forms on Earth have a common ancestor is well-established.
@@superdog797 HOW, is it well established? How did amino acids come together by accident? How, did the individual amino acids get their properly shaped isomers or enantiomers ? Why, are ALL, of OUR, amino acids right handed? If, life was by accident? The mixture of right and left handed amino acids would be the same. The chirality wouldn't be there. It would be non chiral. No one knows what the first step was for life. You comment ====> "common ancestor is well-established."< ==== This is showing you to be a liar. You don't know. All the worlds scientists don't know. ===== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@kennethbransford820 Life's amino acids are left-handed. It's completely false to say that both enantiomers should be present, and in equal mixtures, in living systems "just because". There are different theories as to why left-handed amino acids exist in life's proteins but it's safe to say nobody knows why the LUCA had left-handed amino acids. I don't know why you think that's a particularly important point. A universal common ancestor is indeed well-established, and since you seem to be interested in chemistry and likely science in general you should perhaps be asking why people think there is a LUCA instead of just disagreeing on little to no basis. Like I said, believing that God or an intelligence guided the emergence of lifeforms is one thing, but to suggest organisms on Earth don't share a LUCA is just ridiculous and betrays a failure to grasp why it is that people are so sure there was a LUCA. Think about a few questions from both an intelligent design perspective as well as an evolutionary perspective, and give me your answers and thoughts. Why do all lifeforms on Earth have DNA, RNA, ribosomes, a small group of about 20 amino acids, and a lipid cell membrane? Why are all multicellular organisms eukaryotes? Why are all lifeforms carbon-based? Do you think all humans have a common ancestor? If so, why? Do you think all cats have a common ancestor? If so, why? Do you think all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor? Why? Do you think all insects have a common ancestor? I could go on with questions like this but I'd like to hear your response. Have you heard of the term "nested hierarchy"? Do you know what it means, and how it relates to evolutionary theory?
Sean Carroll! You have a gift for explaining & conveying answers with facts in complete detail & properties summed up in the most efficient dialogue that's impossible to not grasp.
Let neuroscience study how human need for safety, hope and meaning created a God out of nowhere. Or not. My personal belief is that we, people in the 21st century, are obliged to talk about God, only because our ancestors set it on the table at the very beginning. Thousands of years ago, people had no better tools than religion in order to understand the world around them. But, hey! Today we are not obliged to ruminate all this stuff about God and life after death etc. Also our ancestors had to make rituals around the tribe's fire. But hey! This isn't mandatory for us today. Let's move on. Lets forget about this once and for all. We have no reason thinking about Gods and life after death. Today our life is different. Let's free ourselves. Lets save time and energy for real problems that actually exist today. Existential problems. Ochham's razor, afterall, dictates us towards more empirical, materialistic, physical studies of the world. If no ancestor of ours had ever thought about the existence of God, then I have no doubt that nobody would still argue about this stuff. Lets leave the "Neanderthal's beliefs" behind. Its ok. This is not our problem any more. We are mature now. We can handle our own existence better. We dont need mommy's/daddy's hug (God). We don't need existential comfort in order to move on with our lives. We are free and powerful to explore and taste the world! No God has ever existed. In any form. We don't need to think about it. We dont have to argue about it. We don't have to apologise for that. This is TOTALLY OK!
He's got no gift except if you call lying a gift. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
He's not. Well known in science that he is a how can we put it.... snake oil salesman. Well known that his backing of Kaku is a cartel within science talking absolute nonsense with string theory. He can conceive 26 dimensions but the god hypothesis for him is nonsensical. I neither believe nor disbelieve but Dr Carroll is a well known vagabond and lover of Dr Kaku. He's no smarter than a graduate student. Even Penrose can't stand either of them.
"You don't say that the integers are ontologically extravagant because there is and infinite number of them." at 40:40 is a great example. It made me laugh pretty hard while thinking about it.
Postulating that mathematical objects are real entities, that they should be part of our ontology, *is* ontologically extravagant. You can say that mathematical objects shouldn't be considered "things". I.e., you can say that "there is" should be understood to mean something different when you say "there is a city in Nebraska with over 150 zipcars" than it does when you say "there is a prime that can be written as the sum of five cubes but not as the sum of two cubes". And if you do that, your list of "things" is a lot smaller. The question is whether you've gained anything by that. I think that including mathematical objects in your ontology is perfectly reasonable, but that's because I think that being ontologically extravagant is perfectly ok. If there's an empirical reason to believe that some type of things is scarce, then there's an empirical reason to doubt a hypothesis that entails the existence of lots of things of that type. But beyond the scope of such an empirical basis, there's no good reason to insist that ontologies have to be small.
@@johnholmes912 People say all the time that infinite quantities are impossible but can never prove that to be true. It's just a false mantra they repeat, why I don't know.
runamokkk They don't just claim to know their gods, they claim to know about all gods. Think about it. If they claim it was their own gods who created the universe then they're making two claims, one ridiculous and the other completely fucking outrageous. The ridiculous claim is that magic/the supernatural is real and their gods used it to conjure the universe. The completely fucking outrageous claim they're simultaneously making is that all other gods invented by all the other humans on the planet are all false. At least 3,000 named gods that we know of, people who claim their gods created the universe are insisting that all those other gods aren't real. If you're ever stuck in a cafe waiting for Godot, try asking one of them what specific criteria they applied to each of those other gods to determine they were false. Godot and all his family, friends, relatives, his neighbors, and his neighbors relatives will all arrive long before you'll get a straight answer from a fundie.
The comment above me is the perfect example of what I said earlier. Surely he must be the leading theist/physicist to have such insight into what a 'GOD' is. He's probably smarter than Einstein and all others that came before him. He doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants for he is the Giant.
@@Jonathan-Pilkington "Yea we should envy your UA-cam education" Hey, I worked hard on my UA-cam university degree. Since you have a real degree, please give your science how creation happened without God. In other words, give me a good laugh, you clown.
@@Jonathan-Pilkington Me, "Since you have a real degree, please give your science how creation happened without God." Your educated answer: "how creation happened"“ :D" You must be proud. Oh, remember they're delaying student loan payments. Yours must have cost a fortune.
GOD = immorality justified. FUCK YOU enabler of racism, rape, child genital mutilation, Need I go on for the immorality of religion and its practices. All of these practices are exclusively middle eastern religions.
@@ossiedunstan4419 ah, ha caught you....you definitely do believe in God...you don't get that upset or make this many comments over the Easter Bunny.....Lol
Prove it!! Sean Carrol isn't even Real and I'm surprised that so many people believe he actually exists!!! People are so gullible.... It's obvious that Sean Carrol is made up!!!
David Belcher, I take it from your use of "!!!!" 's that you are a bit bent out of shape. "Sean Carrol isn't even Real".....wow. What are you so angry about? Is it because people don't believe exactly as you do?
I have had some chats with the person calling himself Sean Carrol. He seems as real to me as you or anyone else. I happen to be a brown teddy bear so feel free to doubt my existence but someone presumably is typing this message on my behalf.
***** not pretend, they are sure no one has absolute knowledge. Scientists are trying they can have absolute knowledge. The want to become gods the very idea atheists are denying.
Theists pretend that 'God' did it , there is no such evidence. It's intellectual laziness. Do you have an issue humans acquiring knowledge? Or would you prefer when atheists were ignorantly burned because someone like you said they secretly whated to be gods? Are you a young earth creationist too?
@@esausjudeannephew6317 Ee, fuck yeah? Like for now he is t h e best. But I consider not only the substance but also the form. He freaking nails every crucial point with his accent, modulation of voice etc. when it's necesarry. Tyson for instance is god awful (considering all the hype). But to be fair I havent watched him a lot (but again maybe because he is so bad, lol).
But he speaks nonsense. You can see that , no? His science is based on nothing. He can not even master his ONLY instrument, Thought. Total abandonment of REASON.
i saw this in my recommended and immediately watched it, I recognized Sean from watching Veritasium and i had no idea he had talks on this topic, something ive been interested in ever since i left christianity
Yes a single particle universe is plausible. Who made the particle? Again, Sean can not get around the pesky making something from nothing problem... I know several high level particle physicists professors at Cal Tech who were so intimidated by him while he was there that they hid their deep belief in Christianity. We can only love and pray for Sean.
@@jamesrichards3086 the question "who made the particle?" cannot be answered without first making the assumption that everything that exists must have a creator. you cannot answer such a question until you can demonstrate that the question even has an answer (through proving or justifying said assumption)
@@Abstract_zx I never understand why people conclude that the only possible answer for these kinds of questions is a creator. "If answer is unattainable, answer must be a creator". Like, no? The answer could be anything and maybe there even is no answer. No one can possibly know, yet so many people have a need to make the conclusion of a creator. Clearly the faith itself is not enough to them so they have to seek additional cope by "justifying" it to others and coming to conclusions about "how it works".
@@denisdelinger3265 the thing that baffles me is the assumption that the originator of everything is a conscious creator. consciousness is an extremely complex property so out of anything i could possibly assume about what our universe came from, a conscious being would probably be one of the least likely some argue that a conscious being is the only thing capable of creating something new, but they have no basis for that assumption, or even the assumption that our universe even had an origin point some say that only a being with free will can create something truly new and creative like a universe or an artwork, but this inherently relies on the assumption that free will exists, implying that some influence exists in the mind other than the predictable interactions between neurons and cells and chemicals. this assumption is also unfounded. in fact, to assume that there is a supernatural influence in your chain of logic to prove a divine creator (a type of supernatural influence) is a circular argument and a fallacy
@@denisdelinger3265 doesn't Science use one theory and only one theory to assume the possible explanation to something?Why when its used with God you have a problem?You say it can be anything ,anything how?Lmao logic will then have to defy anything Creation theory is no way far fetched at all Your assumption that it can be anything it is because you not even specific at all which means that explaination can br outside the frames of logic and if so then no answer will be thought of instead of intelligent Design
Brilliant stuff from Carroll. Such an honest search for truth compared to the apologetics. Carroll " The logic is NOT ' I see that energy is conserved' therefore energy is conserved. The logic is 'I see that energy is conserved' therefore I make a hypothesis...and then I go out and test that hypothesis". I would challenge any creationist( old or new earth) or Intelligent design proponents to use that kind of thinking to support your claims. For me this type of thinking is what has taught us what we know about medicine, modern agriculture and technology, whereas theistic theories have demonstrated very little of actual use.
ShowMe Agree completely on your philosophy of science. However, religions have been enormously useful in encoding "how to" type information distilled over thousands of years, for example take the greek mythical constellations: in part, they are mnemonic devices for remembering the star patterns so useful in agriculture and navigation. Granted, one could use Ptolemaic calculations to navigate without reference to any mythology (and they did), but the point remains that religion served to teach about the star patterns and their movement. Like song, story and myth in general, religion is partly a form of preservation of lessons learned over the deep time of human existence.
I wouldn't try to deny that. Go back far enough and religion and science would have been nearly the same discipline...an effort to explain the world we live. And I wouldn't deny the use of any philosophy to ask further questions. Unfortunately many religious philosophies have stopped asking questions, and claim to have all the anwsers.
The problem with scientists trying to figure out the idea of God is that scientists are intelligent people. A large number of people in this world see things in very simple terms and refuse to try to learn anything else.
So then it wouldn't be the problem of the "scientist". It would be the fault of the PEOPLE they're talking to, and those who educated them or failed to educate them properly. Get your point straight.
u claim ignorance is bliss? the fact that scientists are intelligent is not a problem, it's a fact of life and perhaps an advantage that has enabled SO MUCH positive change in the world. would 500 praying believers build a bridge? or would construction workers (who themselves, might or might not be believers) actually do the job while theists bang their foreheads or close their eyes and mumble in delusion? weeeeee
The theory of God is based on the axiom that, nothing can come into being without a cause. The theory immediately fails, or should I say, contradicts itself when you ask the question how God comes into being. This theory is completely inconsistent...
The first example of a particle floating in one direction universe does not disprove the necessary being type of God. For example, where did the laws of Newton come from? The particle and space being infinite does not absolve that something was necessary, even if it was the particle and law themselves that are the necessary parts.
I enjoy Carrol but he is not omniscient, as I am sure he would agree. Anyone who thinks there is proof for the non-existence of God is not a scientist.
With an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes to go, a universe capable of spawning life was an inevitability. We aren't lucky, we just are because the universe is.
@@TheLiving_Cross Infinity is a very, very long time. Time for infinite universes before ours and an infinite number after. Who knows how many had or will have intelligent beings to create imaginary gods?
He hates what science shows. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
Maybe that's where it belongs but that's not where it is going to happen. Religion is a public phenomenon and it will have to be fought out (maybe literally) in the public sphere, as it has been for millennia.
The people who call themselves atheist online are almost always scientism rationalists and utilitarians, which is another religion. You try to convince people that there is no God, they will make you their God and worship you.
@@roseCatcher_ Not by my definition of religion which always includes supernatural (non) phenomena. No rituals, no prayer, no talismans, no book of ancient rules/silly stories, no boogeyman and no dogma. Show me proof of a god and I'll believe though I won't worship.
Aha! Someone else noticed! I've been leaving comments saying he sounds like Alan Alda and I keep seeing stupid comments like that he sounds like Stephen Hawking's text to speech program.
I can see why he would call it a "theory." It attempts to explain, although without the scientific evidence and rigor needed to be a scientific theory. He definitely should have looked for a different word. Heck, the God "hypothesis" wouldn't work either. A hypothesis requires to be precise, testable and observable statement. None of which, the idea of "God" is. Maybe the God "speculation" works.
"Because you have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:" Isaiah 28:15
@@boterlettersukkel Its all around you... one word.. PURPOSE. Any form of matter with a purpose has been designed by a mind because only a mind can have purpose.. so by this principle a leaf is no different from say a solar cell. What is more we can observe that both the leaf and the solar cell were the result of information and information always has both meaning and purpose and always comes from a mind.
@@boterlettersukkel fully expected of someone who does not want to see the evidence.. Jesus described such people as 'blind' and he was right. Define "evidence"?
@Hilmar Zonneveld Its an "old" claim because it has always been true.. You first need to understand something about science "THERE ARE NO PROOFS IN SCIENCE".. Ok only falsifications.. The principle (more than a theory), is established by (1) repeated observation that information never comes from anywhere else but a mind and (2) Now we have fast computers all attempts to model a natural origin of information have failed (see Tierra).. BUT we all know you will never accept these facts because it goes against your Anti-God PHILOSOPHY.. which ends up being Anti-Science.
problem solving and testing . this includes building faster computers and AI if the calculations become too complex , run simulations .... be open to change ,
If this is an attempt to promote the God theory, sorry. But your statement is self-refuting. If the universe is more complicated than any human mind can comprehend, then ydk it to be the case that God exists.
I am surprised that many of these commenters bothered to listen to this lecture. It’s obvious that they don’t understand or maybe don’t want to understand the information presented. The ones I am referring to are not interested in entertaining any ideas that disprove the fairy tales and factually incorrect information that they find in their “Bronze Age goat herder’s guide to the universe”. It’s like the last approximately 1800 years of human advances never happened and I say approximately1800 years because the “Bronze Age goat herder’s guide to the universe” wasn’t even written until approximately 200 years after the events in the new version were supposed to have happened. I know all the equivocations about the little fragments of words, sentences, and papers that they use trying to give the impression that their imaginary driver of the universe got religion between the old and new versions of their “Bronze Age goat herder’s guide to the universe”
Not only is Sean Carroll one of my favourite science communicators, but also-as I have now found-he leads very rational discussion about theology. I love it! :)
@@jgalt308 "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." this is the defination of rational according to google so since theology is based on logic hence it is rational. So now will you answer my question.
@@slashmonkey8545 Why? You didn't answer mine. What is logical about theology? What is the evidence that supports the logic? BTW Science has the same problem and they both end up in the same place taking different paths.
Can’t the “everything that has a beginning has a cause argument” simply be broken by the question who created god? And if they say god in infinite and un caused then they have used your argument for an un causal universe. Then you can just ask them why not forget the first un caused god and simplify basically the same argument to understand un caused universe models. Am I missing something here? Cause this seems way to easy and obvious.
@@Mars-fu8wb You follow the Aquinas' argument that in order for anything to exist there has to be a unique, immaterial object whose essence is to exist?
It would be infinite regression aka absurdity like parallel dimensions and all that nonsense fairy tale stuff like evolution which isnt even science at all...
Can’t say I’ve ever heard the problem of instruction laid out that clearly or named. I’ve heard it, I’ve even sort of used it, but never made it that clear. It’s in the running for my favorite
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole.....
Sean Carroll will blow your mind…especially if you have a basic understanding of physics. He recently sat down with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and it was incredible. So much more interesting than…because god did it.
In Sean's attempted refutation of what he classifies as "logical" God-theories, he asserts a universe can exist as a single particle moving according to Newtonian laws through a spatiotemporal nexus, and yet he offers no explanation for how such a spatiotemporal nexus could have come into being, what could have caused it and filled it with sufficient energy to produce a particle in motion. That is the whole point of notions of necessary being and first causes, that relations within spatiotemporality imply casuality and that casuality requires an origin. Unless of course, you think the universe is infinite and eternal, in which case you can explained nothing as you have merely asserted that literally everything possible always already exists.
Of course he didn't explain it...! He cannot; nor can anyone else. In fact... Gasp...! Shock...! Physics cannot define time, matter, energy, space, force, universe, or any other "fundamental" quantity it uses. So how do you expect them to actually explain anything consistently...? Ironically, Sean Carroll himself (60 symbols video I think) mocks the existence of 17 different models or theories for quantum mechanics. But hey, it's a good job. Do you know what the best jobs in the world are: Weather man Doctor (doctor's bury their mistakes) Politician Cosmologist Guaranteed paycheck and you never get fired for being wrong....
You totally read my mind!!! ☺️ I was looking in the comments section to see if anyone noted before I commented. Sean Carroll completely 100% misses the points m for God’s existence!!!
Bobby Osborne Not really, it’s supposed to be an ontological argument where you show that that’s aren’t any inconsistencies within the definitions themselves. Still, I agree with you, there are MAJOR gaps in Sean’s reasoning on this.
The entropy argument is very fascinating, and the whole lecture is well put-together and a great challenge for any apologeticist to try and overcome. However, I think when you say things like, "I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other," I just get the feeling it would take most theologians about 7 seconds to come up with a counter argument - and that's if they were distracted.
@@alankoslowski9473 I think maybe quoting 1 Corinthians 13 which describes the uselessness of all action without love would alone fry the "God didn't tell us to love each other," argument, let alone a vast number of similar sections of the Bible that encourage loving. "Love your neighbour as yourself," is in there, as is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and other instructions on love and compassion. Saying that stuff isn't in there ("I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other") belies a lack of knowledge about theological teaching - and that's just on that one religious text. There are plenty of others. It's not a good argument.
@@ghr8184 But it's not consistent, and there's much lacking in scripture, such as equal rights for everyone. It's also complete devoid of modern practical science. As he says, if it were written by an omniscient god, why isn't there anything about the germ theory of disease? I think his point is that it's evident the bible was written by humans during a particular historical period rather than being the inerrant word of god since so much of the bible is is lacking and erroneous.
@@alankoslowski9473 Perhaps I was unclear in what I was specifically saying. I was not addressing Carroll's whole lecture or even that whole section. I was specifically speaking to his saying that God (he is mostly using the example of the Christian God) didn't tell us to love each other. It explicitly says this exact thing multiple times throughout the Bible. It's literally right in there. Either Carroll doesn't know this or he is discounting these statements based on something he doesn't specifically indicate here, but that specific statement makes him sound like he really hasn't done his research on that specific statement's full implications regarding the Christian Bible. Making that statement in front of an apologeticist or theologian would be like jumping into a school of piranhas. And, yes, I know that piranhas don't really strip flesh from bone in seconds like in a cartoon. However, the overall point I'm making, I think is clear, even if I opened myself up to critique with a poorly-chosen analogy - especially if there were any marine biologists around. Which makes it the perfect analogy to describe my point about saying, "The Bible doesn't tell us to love each other," in the presence of a hypothetical theologian. Again: I like the lecture overall, and I think Carroll's main points are clear, intact, and challenging. He just has one poorly selected phrase.
@@ghr8184 Understood. Though he probably rehearsed the lecture, I don't t think he was reading directly from a script, so at least some of it was improvised. Considering this, I guess some inaccuracies are expected.
It was a good lecture! :D I believe that reality is cyclic simply because we see so many cycles around us. So I also don't think that the Big Bang was the beginning. It was just the beginning of a new cycle.
If there even was a big bang... If there was I do agree though, a single big bang is not how things typically work. Thing happen a lot/infinitely or not at all.
@@wolferup This of course leads to the issue of there being anything at all. Nothing at all forever makes more sense than a singular big bang and eternal expansion. There is something missing.
The nature of 'irrationality' is simply inconsistency. And the inconsistency pertains to 'apple to apples,' not 'apples to oranges.' In other words, when opposing narratives, contexts, world views interact, 'irrationality' may be claimed by one's opponent when their opponent is being consistent with their world view, while countering theirs. Gotta watch out for that fallacy.
If there are many worlds, I'm pretty sure that I will be convinced of their existence in some of them. The only thing I can tell is this world is not one of those. I wonder which copies of Sean Carroll will convince me, and which ones won't.
To make the presentation a lot simpler: when we consider the probability of a universe with exactly this parameter naturally existing vs the probability of a god existing with an particular intention which brought about a universe with exactly this parameter, Occam's razor prefers the former as it contains one fewer assumption.
A lot of Christians think that "lying for Jesus" is O.K. because "the core idea" is what is important to spread. And that "core idea for salvation" in their mind is, to many of the worst of them, just a handful of sentence-long ideas (and a ritual 1 time action for the anti-Anabaptists a.k.a modern Baptists) in like manner to the also disingenuous "easy conversion sentence" of Muslims and their ritual "pillars" such as charity (often seen as only to the in-group or possible converts). Religions are false on their very face, but still useful as tools and, on the darker end, to make other people into manageable tools.
@@letsomethingshine I'm unaware of any Christians who lie for Jesus. Can you name them? If they are big name types, like William Lane Craig for example, then you and I can call them, have a three way phone call and you can demonstrate how they lie for Jesus. I'm dead serious btw, let's call them. On a different matter, I'd like to make you aware of something. Darwinian Evolution has been falsified by the Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life, and kind only brings forth after it's kind. That law has never been violated. Never. It is observable, testable and repeatable with 100% accuracy. The men and women who peddle the mythology of Darwinian Evolution ought to be aware of this. I can only assume that they are lying for Darwin because they are so deeply opposed the the alternative of Biblical Creation.
@@lukehelpmetakethisdangmaskoff_Evolution by Natural Selection_ is actually not a hypothesis anymore, it's widely accepted as a fact. Also, _Biogenesis_ is just a law, so it currently has no clear explanation. hence it isn't a fact. Besides, you clearly doesn't even know what _Evolution_ means. _Evolution_ is just the *_factual, proved_* process by which life varies and adapts to its environment. It makes no statement about what caused it to happen in the first place. Even at that, some of the things that supported the _Hypothesis of Biogenesis_ , such as organic molecules originating only in living things (which is actually why they were called _organic_ in the first place) and then later we found that we can make organic molecules artificially with inorganic ones. Biblical creation is not an alternative. It has no ground, no consistency, no evidence, and even the things it gets right were already known or theorized by civilizations prior to the bible. This is not to say there aren't alternative explanations to the world which doesn't rely on science, but the bible isn't one of them.
I find it ironic he uses Newton's Law of Motion equation (10:03): “He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.” ― Isaac Newton
Nowhere in Newton's Laws of Motion is there a trace of God; they are "agnostic", if you will. Newton's own personal opinions and supernatural beliefs have nothing to do with his contributions to science. And the quote itself is highly dubious; it is certainly possible that Newton may have had such opinions, but that quote is probably apocryphal.
feinorgh I agree that being atheist, theist or agnostic has nothing to do with science, but it helped shape his critical thinking skills. Was it beneficial? As voted one of the greatest scientists that ever lived by his peers, I would say so. “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” ― Isaac Newton supernatural beliefs? for example: The bible has always talked about alternate universes called heaven or hell, places we cannot see or touch. Did you know string theory mathematical models suggest extra dimensions or alternate universes. Does this prove heaven or hell? No, but we do have the phenomenon of documented NDEs that scientists cannot fully explain. In short, a new hypothesis is created.
David Henry His religious thinking was a product of the time and place he existed in. Surely it shaped his thinking, with that I agree fully, but it still left no mark at all on the scientific theories themselves. This is the strength of science; the bad ideas, even from great scientists, get weeded out. E.g. we do not engage in alchemy anymore, because the premise that it builds upon we now know is false. Likewise, the premise that somebody had to put the planets in motion may be false too. The inferences you draw from the Bible in relation to string theory is also highly dubious. The concepts are logically separate. It bears the distinct trace of trying to justify belief in the supernatural by invoking mathematical models that have nothing to do with the concepts of heaven and hell as described in the Bible or other holy tests. They are not hypotheses, they are conjectures. And just because we cannot fully explain NDE, or even consciousness itself, does not mean that we should invoke religious beliefs in trying to explain them, It is enough to say we do not know, until we do.
David Henry I would say that his invocation of God as an explanation (later in life) was not beneficial. When he discovered the laws of motion, gravity, and optics he did not make a single mention of a god or some type of grand architect/creator/etc. Newton used God as an explanation when he could not solve the multi-body problem for how our solar system remained stable. He could solve a two-body problem easily, but anything more than that perplexed him. In his ignorance and at the limits of his knowledge, he gave up and invoked intelligent design. Over a century after his death, Pierre Simone LaPlace solved this problem by expanding Newton's calculus and inventing what we now call perturbation theory. When Napoleon read LaPlace's "Celestial Mechanics" he asked why he didn't include "the Architect" and his intervention in the regulation of the cosmos, Laplace replied, "Sir, I had no need of that hypothesis." Science has had a consistent track record of finding rational explanations for unexplained phenomena, so I don't think it's beneficial to anyone to simply give up and say, "God did it.". Even if that ended up being a true statement, it encourages intellectual laziness and lessens the drive to find the answers.
MelkorHimself If you use Occam's razor and you don't have much knowledge about the universe, like Newton in his time, you may get to the conclusion that the simplest explanation would be a god ( even if there would be serious counter arguments ). However, the more we know about a phenomenon, the more natural it appears to be. It is the same with the universe: the more you learn about physics and the cosmology, the more you look at it like a natural object. That's why most physicists, and probably even more so cosmologists, don't believe in god. The same thing happened with life and biology: before Darwin, it seemed to be not natural, hence the invocation of god for the complexity and diversity of life. So the application of Occam's razor depends on the knowledge available at a particular time, and Newton would probably not have been theist nowadays.
He is definitely becoming one of my favorite scientists/philosophers because he speaks so calmly and clearly about these subjects. While I get why many popular atheists feel a need to be adversarial, his affect makes me want to consider the substance of what he says.
Good God I feel sorry Sean is not very intelligent or coherent debater - he just says over and over I'm not convinced by theism and here are some equations. Brother - not a good logician at all.
@@examiningkubrickphilosofia1530 if that's what you think he says over and over, I know you're not intelligent enough to understand the discussion. Your ears are obviously controlled by your biases.
@@neverest187 LOL I've read Sean and listened to him a few times. He's just very dogmatic and not a good philosopher I can always study more physics but really my lack of formal training is not the issue- he just is not willing to engage with real arguments for theism. Can you show me where he does?
Sean Carroll has always been one of my favorite skeptics because he acknowledges the difficulties of the arguments and doesn't go off the cliff of arrogance. He is honest that there are many conceptions of God, most of them too vague to properly discuss, and so he can't possibly hope to fully dispell the notion in such a short lecture. His main argument seems to be that many notions of God do not add any explanatory power to nature that cannot be described using different words. If God operates by physical laws, then why not just speak of the physical laws and be done with it? This is actually very close to the position that I have tentatively settled on. I believe that God is equal with the universe, because no matter how God behaves, any time we notice a pattern we simply call it a law. Since the universe is by definition everything, it must include God and any line between the two as we continue to dissect and analyze reality must be arbitrary. It is a matter of semantics. So I am perfectly happy to ignore God and simply talk about the universe - except that there are a few points we should acknowledge about this strange universe: ONE: The universe at least has the illusion of behaving in a creative, intelligently directed, loving way. Furthermore, it appears that it WANTS TO BE FOUND OUT. This happens at many levels. Biologists have started to resort to the quantum Zeno effect to explain evolution. There is much more order than necessary, requiring an explanation beyond purely the anthropic principle. Carroll hints at this by saying there is no reason for all the other galaxies. In another lecture he talked about the bare minimum for life being Boltzmann brains, rather than the whole universe we see. We also seem to be on a privileged planet with a transparent atmosphere and the moon being the right size and distance so we could verify general relativity during an eclipse. The more disasters we avoid that at one time experts thought were very legitimate (resource depletion, nuclear war), the more suspicious I become. It looks like the universe is intelligent-like enough for it to pass a Turing test. While a multiverse could explain some of the illusion of intelligence, we don't know that intelligence isn't actually a manifestation of some sort of multiverse. Nobody knows how consciousness works, and some have suggested it uses quantum superpositions of many realities, so we are again bogged down in semantics. TWO: The universe will never be completely understandable to a finite mind. It is in some sense infinite. Many scientists take seriously that it might be infinite in spatial extent, meaning there is no such thing as a closed system and we cannot rely on thermodynamics to prohibit perpetual motion machines, time travel, entropy reversal, and miracles. Many theories we've made contain mathematical singularities where they break down, giving us infinities and ambiguous answers. Removing these singularities tends to make them pop up somewhere else. Theories predict weird things such as negative energy, which could give rise to their own sorts of infinities. Chaos theory means that not all of the seeds of the future are in the present, bringing the infinitesimals into reality. The incompleteness theorems predict an infinite number of axioms. Even in a simple universe, wherever there are living mathematicians, knowledge of these axioms can affect their behavior and influence on the universe in unpredictable ways. The bottom line is that there will always be something "outside" our descriptions of the universe. So, there might be no God, but we seem to live in a universe that is intelligent, cares for us, and is forever beyond our complete understanding. That sounds an awful lot like some conceptions of God. The reason I like using the religous language sometimes instead of the scientific is to communicate with others. Many people have had encounters with the spiritual world. These encounters could very well have been a combination of hallucinations and wishful thinking, but such is the case with all of our percieved reality. At some point, one simply has to accept that one will never know anything for sure (even mathematical theorems could have mistakes) and move forward in faith on what seems likely.
Allah/Yahweh the judeo Christian God doesn't seem like such a bad answer when there are people claiming to be eyewitness to things supernatural. Especially with religions so opposed to substances that could lead to hallucinations, I see your need to justify naturally, but the bible never claims miracles arent supernatural.
Mostly theologians who focus on science and the existence of God do not argue that there is conclusive proof and furthermore that this is purposeful because it would not allow for the existence of faith and development of faith. I don’t have time to explain these things here, but there have been whole books and articles written on the topic from multiple different perspectives and logic, so if you are curious, look into it more deeply.
So to summarize, our current understanding of how the universe works has little room for justifying the existence of God? It makes me wonder how much of the universe we actually understand? How developed is our actual understanding? How smart can we get? Are we really so smart that we should be able to use mathematics and physics to describe God? If so, how could we consider it still God? If not, then why argue it should still fit our theoretical construct? I can appreciate that nature will still exist even without our knowledge of it...that is knowledge and science only exists to help "us" understand nature not that nature obeys only what we understand. I also don't have the arrogance to believe that we are capable to understand EVERYTHING in nature. I know this concept of limitless is the the point of conflict because if limitless is real then we will never be able to grasp and this simply doesn't satisfy those who marvel in human achievements. If we believe limitless is real then we faith because it always will be beyond human conception. So the logic shows God isn't a good theory? I have to agree because yes "theory" is a way "binding" the concept of God to our limited capacity of understanding. Thus the "Logic" must conclude the existence of God to be false but the reality of things is "fuzzy" (Lotfy Zada) not logical. Even Aristotle showed this. It is only another tool to be used in limited context.
Apologies for the misspelling, The scientist name was showed that "fuzziness" is more universal than logic, was Lotfi Zadeh. As I said above, the idea that God does not make for a good theory may be true in the context as he describes, but this definitely doesn't mean one can conclude that God doesn't exist as this can implicitly imply. The result is always the same- One can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. Even logically this shows to be a futile argument. Which also means the result leaves one to act on faith to settle on either account. Stuart Chase quotes, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.” Neither precept fits into our construct of rationale. Because there is no proof for God's existence we either can conclude we need no proof or that any proof we don't know about isn't possible. Both are unscientific and thus concluded on faith. Those "I don't knows" have a lot to gamble on. These divisions will not change. So lets be careful what we ask for. What answer do we expect when we ask another why they believe in God? What is our expectation, our intentions, what is the condition of our heart? If we ask this while holding our preconceptions, it will only further bind us within our "limited" human reasoning. If it's sincere then we are giving room to "limitless" possibilities- just as in eternity with our decision of faith.
But Kyeol, the problem is that you claim to already understand that the universe was created by this being you call "God." You don't know this. You just believe it, and it is not a rational belief.
KW: The result is always the same- One can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. Even logically this shows to be a futile argument. Which also means the result leaves one to act on faith to settle on either account. GW: Sorry, but you are mistaken about this. There are many good disproofs of the existence of God and there are no good proofs of his existence. KW: Stuart Chase quotes, "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." GW: Mr. Chase is just mistaken. Nobody should believe that something exists on the basis of insufficient evidence. Proof and disproof of God are possible, and disproof has been provided. KW: So lets be careful what we ask for. What answer do we expect when we ask another why they believe in God? GW: We should expect an answer based on reason, of course! KW: What is our expectation, our intentions, what is the condition of our heart? If we ask this while holding our preconceptions, it will only further bind us within our "limited" human reasoning. If it's sincere then we are giving room to "limitless" possibilities- just as in eternity with our decision of faith.? GW: We should not decide whether God exists on the basis of “our heart.” Something does not exist merely because we want it to exist. This is not a question for faith to decide, but for reason to decide.
I am willing to bet that after his presentation, he does NOT pass a gold bucket around asking for money; & claiming that if you do not put money in the bucket, that you are doomed for all eternity.
Well, no physics isn't in the extortion business. It just casually informs us that the Universe is heading towards heat death and there's nothing we can do about it.
@@paulzapodeanu9407 well... all I’m saying is the Sean Carroll is not doing charity work. He is a faculty member at CalTech who also wrote some books on the side. He clearly makes some decent of money- well earned money btw. Besides... most churches simply passes the “bucket” around. Most churches don’t claim that you won’t have salvation if you don’t give some money. Only in “prosperity churches” would you find some sort of rhetoric like that... which most traditional Christians won’t agree with.
I never once heard that in a Church in my life. Donate or perish. That's total BS..Tell us the truth, you have no clue what happens in a church do you. In the general scheme of things, man hasnt been able to even control fire much less understand the universe in less than a blink of the eye on the evolutionary timescale. But yet you are certain you have all the intelligence and knowledge to tell others you have all the answers and they are the fools. People didn't even accept Newtons ideas on solar rotation and that was just pure calculation to prove. You all would have been flat earthers back then wouldnt you. Never learn.
@@EmptyMirrorMindful 🤦 I was forced to attend church, twice a week, for the 1st 18 years of my life. I know what went on in that church. I have been to other churches as well. I no longer attend church. I never was a flat-earther, nor a Young Earth Creationist. & yes, I'm telling you the truth.
"An idea about the universe that may be true or false" That's a hypothesis. A theory is a hypothesis that has, for all intents and purposes, been proven.
Right! I hate being a grammar snoot but dislike the conflation of the words hypothesis and theory. Unfortunately too many scientists do this especially when communicating with a lay audience.
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 Right! It's "fingernails on the chalkboard" for me when I hear "string theory" ,which has been written about enough in popular science literature that its almost a household phrase. Same with the "multi-verse theory"! I'm OK with "string-cheese theory", though!
If there are many worlds, I'm pretty sure that I will be convinced of their existence in some of them. The only thing I can tell is this world is not one of those. I wonder which copies of Sean Carroll will convince me, and which ones won't.
The term Theory in science has a more robust meaning. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
I hate that this is the case honestly. It creates so much unnecessary confusion. Its very difficult to convince someone that a word doesn't mean what they think it does.
The rain falls down....therefor god???? The sun shines....therefor god??? The colour is red....therefor god?? Batman says: bang crash boooom.....therefor god...getting tired of religious people with the explanation: .therefor god....
@@Calligraphybooster how was anything created naturally? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2blockYou've missed the entire point of his argument. His argument was never against a God and the creation of the Universe. He never said it's not possible. In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree. His argument is that at this point in time God is not a good theory. He then explained this with a very well researched, thought out and fair set of follow ups including the weaknesses in a lot of Scientific theories and the positives in God's. He however proved multiple times that although it is a theory at this point in time it is far from the best. He even took the best argument for God (by a long way).
@@matwatson7947 he's a typical 'maybe this, maybe that' actor atheist who will NOT give the glory to God. He loves his act of "In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree." but his empty pride can't get him to admit that God has ALL the evidence and he has NONE.
@Ranjit Tyagi I have no idea what you mean by "spirituality". I looked it up in my dictionary and I still don't know what it means. Can you give me an example. That might help.
Hi Sean,…The way I am understanding this is, the approach or an idea of the purpose of existence itself.. Is there a reason,purpose or explanation for existence itself.. What is the purpose of existence,is existence a requirement, does existence have a purpose and self awareness,is existence sentient?
Break The Loop, you are clown material. All the evidence for the resurrection shows you are a fool. Keep believing what you have chosen and when you face your final minutes seek Him
if you focus on studying one religion, you'll be hooked for life. But if you study two, you'll be done in an hour.
If you will learn science you wont even touch religions
Exactly, I was a Muslim.....then I studied other religions and then come to the conclusion: Islam is just another religion.
?????????????????????????//
@@npc_citizen9276 So you believe life originated from a "Primordial Soup". Hahaha, ROFLOL!
This guy. He has the answer for everything, but in his final hours he will find god. If he’s blessed. If not he could spend a entire afterlife in HELL. His choice.👌🏻🌞😃✝️❤️🌹
Native Americans have a saying
if dogs and horses could draw their gods
their gods would look like dogs and horses
Steve, some artists act like animals, does that mean they are their own god?
Note, however, that dogs and horses, not being made in the image of God, can't create anything. Seems by your creating a straw man you missed the point.
@@emmd1234 Lets just face it. Anything that can bring the universe into existence from a singularity so powerful that it is beyond human beings imagination and that caused energy and matter to come into existence out of nothing, with all of the laws of physics and chemistry, is beyond human comprehension. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@emmd1234 I agree with you totally. But the reality is that mankind is out of control and we need help. You know and I know that it is just a matter of time before mankind used their thermonuclear weapons. Our heavenly father will let mankind go only so far. Mankind has already proved his inability to take care of the planet earth and to take care of one another. Soon greed, wars, hate, prejudice, lies, animal species extinction, destroying and the destruction of our planet earth, abuse of animals, the eating of animals, murder, rape, egos, corruption, crooked governments and politicians, misleading religious leaders, dishonest people, aging and death will soon be no more etc... All these things will be done away with and the earth being restored to a paradise earth and fear of man from the animals will be removed. And mankind will be free from death and pain and disease since ageing and getting old will be no more and done away with. Genesis 5:5 Isaiah 11:6-9 Revelation 21:3-4
@@moongoonrex I don't think you've realized how you've just made their argument for them.
Hit the nail on the head at ~14:00. We might PREFER to have a “why,” but it could be that the universe just IS.
Exactly. We humans often perceive ourselves as having a reason for doing something, but there's no reason to assume fundamental nature does.
Then determinism is out.
This isn't as logical as you think it is, if this is the case you're talking about absolute contingency which is just doesn't cut the mustard, logically speaking.
@@emmashalliker6862 If determinism isn't absolute, it is out.
@@emmashalliker6862 Your statement is ambiguous. Care to elaborate?
If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? If God is all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent and has a plan for all of us and we are not to know God's plan, then why do people pray to God for his favor, or to change something for them?
And furthermore, if God is omnipotent, why does he not just reveal himself to everybody?
I guess He wants us to believe. It is "like" understanding someone with whom you talk online especially far away
@elsaroman5916 it's like he has been ghosting us after his last text message about 2000 years ago and expect us to believe he is real. 🤣
God didn't make you as an atheist.You choose to believe satan.And you choose to suppress the truth and deny the obvious
@@allstarwatt7246 but why would that be the right thing to do?
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
Douglas Adams
actually the puddle doesn't disappear, it is evaporated into the air, becomes a cloud and returns to the Earth....and this is random??, don't think so.
@@Precious-n4i it's called an analogy. You're hardly destoying the argument by taking it all literaly. Plus your comment is not only begging the question, assuming the conclusion ratger than supporting your own claim, It's also committing a black and white fallacy
@@casparcubitt1117 wow, just because the analogy doesn't really make sense in terms of creation or humans existence, does not mean I don't understand it. I know what the puddle represents, but I'm actually thinking and not just regurgitating what I hear or read. The puddle is part of a system in which it is recycled repeatedly, do you ever think why?
A Universe that supplies humans every need, while providing a brain to create their own needs and wants. And you want people to believe its random, or we just happened to show up. You have to realize how senseless that sounds.
@@Precious-n4i " Creation" doesn't make sense it's just something people say that has no actual meaning. What is "creation"? Describe an act of creation where god makes nothing into anything from nothing. You have a God and nothing else and this God does what exactly to create a hydrogen atom from nothing. Go!
@@dimbulb23 Creation is a term only thinkers can understand. We live in a world where objects are created all the time. you will never say oh that building. car or plane just appeared but then when it comes to a star or planet all of a sudden we become dumb. those things just appeared out of nothing.
If it takes knowledge to understand this world. then something/someone with knowledge had to create it. period.
Hello! Welcome to the youtube comments section! Here's a few steps you can take to enjoy your time here!
1. scroll back up
2. finish the video
3. close browser
If you've completed these steps then you are well on your way to living a happy life where you avoid pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else!
Nubro Zaref but how do you know if there is people whose ultimate happiness consists precisely on getting involved in "pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else"? Just read atheist603 and Typical-Religious-Internet-Atheist-Troll comments above and you'll see what I mean... :)
*****
don't give him the attention mate, he has no argument, he has only hate and ignorance.
nuckable lol
Thanks for saving my soul from this misery I keep falling into!
Funny, but false. I have learned a lot through commenting on YT.
This is probably the best '"debate" you will ever see on the existence of god. Carroll argues both sides well and fairly.
well typically a debate has more than one person.. and the idea of god doesn't actually need to be "argued" in any way, that's kinda the beauty. This video is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else
@@baterickpatman Probably why he put debate in quotation marks. I agree, religion is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else.
@@cagedgandalf3472 "religion is utterly pointless" What makes you say that? Or a more pertinent question might be, how can you say that anything has a 'point' or 'purpose' at all?
@@nanashi2146 in the simplest form of all things, it shows that nothing is special
@@nanashi2146 Things have a 'point' because people give them a point. It's a simple fact of reality, that we'd agree with, that people like and dislike, and draw their own meaning from events.
Religion is pointless because it's hypocritical to the points we choose. We all want personal freedom, better understanding of the world, love, peace, happiness, etc. The issue is that religion, while it does provide some of these things in parts, it does so while stripping many others away in far greater amounts or does so inconsistently.
Just look at how many people want to remove certain people's rights to marriage or free-expression while it isn't the thing that grants those in the first place. Religion causes more harm than good; it's an awful way to get meaning.
The fine-tuning argument is ultimately self-defeating:
“This universe is so complex and “fine-tuned”, that can only be explained by a creature which is infinitely more complex and “fine-tuned”, which doesn’t need an explanation of course!”
If our great but still far from perfect universe needs a designer, so does the creator of this universe, who is necessarily “greater”, more “fine-tuned” than our universe.
The universe is not eternal though, God is said to be eternal. It is consistent as far as I can see. The argument depends upon the universe having a cause.
@@crabb9966 Depends what you mean by universe. Our (observable) universe? That started with the Big Bang. The whole cosmos? We have no clue. When I talk about the universe, I mean the latter. Consistent, yeah, if the premises where true, but justifying the premises necessarily involves special pleading, that’s my point.
@@LomuHabana I only answered your question
@@crabb9966 Where did I pose a question?
@@LomuHabana observable Universe doesn't seem like it had to start with a big bang event.
Seems a big bang event could happen within the " Universe" and not fundamentaly change any observations.
I am a new student of Sean Carroll, just found him and can't wait to see what I learn. Love how he is a very fluid speaker, does not himm or haww.... knows what he is talking about and very vigorous.
I am glad that you benefited from his knowledge, can you think of a practical implications of following his teachings?
Such as
Anxiety increased or decreased?
Motivation for life increased or decreases?
Love for others and compassion?
Agility meaning quickly come back after being down?
Isn't that lovely; John k.
Sean carrol is as bad at science as stephen hawking , stephen hawking never made any contributions tro sceince , his whole spiel about dark stars is rubbish.Try reading his papers he is fucking nutter as is sean carrol, Who claims universes pop in and out of existence with no evidence to support the claim, it is no different than god claims.
@@ossiedunstan4419 wait a minute, God will be proven to all when they pass away.
Unlike all the science here say.
@@ossiedunstan4419 thank you sir :) not everyone is gullible, good job!
I'd never considered that this universe has conditioned my mind into expecting causality be a universal property.
TehJumpingJawa except that no mathematical equation would make any useful prediction unless there was a necessary event that proceeded along the same entropic event space whose interactions were anything but “causal”. It’s ridiculous for a determinist to deny causality, necessity etc
@@flyingmonkey3822 No determinist denies the existence of causality or necessity. But the word 'cause' is extremely slippery. There are a whole host of words that people use all the time, but which make very little sense as understood by a layperson, and 'cause' is one of
them. 'Time' is another. So is 'free will'.
All these words represent incredibly subtle, complex concepts. So when a religious person starts talking about causality they tend to have an extremely simple, blunt understandings of the concept.
And if you're trying to deny the existence of uncaused events, like radioactive decay or quantum field fluctuations, then you're just arguing with reality.
@@thesprawl2361 I think that Dr Carroll should be self consistent in his physics. You are of course correct that our definition of a concept should evolve to either encompass new aspects of the thing it is attempting to describe or new words should emerge if the concept is no longer tenable. I very much appreciate the lucidity with which Dr. Carroll speaks, but i find that he also equivocates on definitions. I would like to take his same concept that he uses to describe why the arrow of time moves only in one direction and show why this description is completely consistent with causality and radioactive decay, quantum field evolution, and the beginning of the universe.
I very much liked what he said during his debate with Dr William Lane Craig when he said that "our metaphysics should follow our physics", and also thank him for his story about "the principle of sufficient reason" as I also had no idea why it was called that until hearing him speak! I enjoy his lectures, and his contributions to science and especially to his popularizing engagement with quantum theory.
I just think that if he's going to take the many worlds interpretation that he's got a LOT of explaining to do, the least of which is that it violates the Born rule (or does not return it) and therefore does not return predictable results. If ever we should abandon a theory, it would be because it predicts nothing. Yet he holds to it as a sledgehammer to the concepts which normal people observe in their everyday lives. He has to justify his reason for thinking that the wave function becomes real at every split, when we definitionally have no evidence for universes that are no longer connected to our own. It also assumes that there is a more fundamental bubble universe that effervesces universes like ours into being. BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not. Purely statistically, it will have such a dilute space to exist as a particle that it will decay eventually. The "cause" is then that the dividing action of universes separating will average out to one in which we see our physics play out. It is not possible for each planck moment to pass without a change in it's universal state, only in it's local state. Interacting with the universe along this splitting paradigm "causes" the events we see. When a portion of the quantum vacuum changes to a state where it has traded regularity in frequency for location we will see it "pop" up a "particle". Is it possible for it to change universal states and not fluctuate? is it necessary that it's variations "unfreeze" and choose another state? When concentrated to a definiteness in one measurable aspect, can it do anything but continue interacting with the ever changing and diluting universal state? I'm not aware of evidence of this. I have more questions regarding how it is that we "jump" planck moments, and why it is that non-local interaction cannot be avoided... but it seems that between choosing A to interact further and Not A to choose to stop interacting... that we have no choice but to interact. If that is not determinism and causality... please help me see where i'm wrong. I'm open to hearing this, it IS all new to me and I don't have a formal education in it.
P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist.
P2) the universe began to exist.
C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing.
It's the same thing as the original cosmological argument but with updated assumptions regarding what it means to exist (be able to interact with it) or to begin and cease to begin (depending on it's current state) that are consistent with QM. So, an electron-positron pair that eventually occupy substantially the same space would exist while traveling towards each other and then stop existing in their current form but change form while conserving their properties of momentum etc. This observation can reliably lead us to deduce that there is something more fundamental to the universe.
of course you aren't obligated to interact specifically with anything here i've presented if you just want to argue that words are slippery, then we can both go home saying that sean and WLC are entitled to their own opinions... even to their own facts.
@@flyingmonkey3822 "BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not"
...But that IS the Many Worlds definition of probability. Probability is just the proportion of actual worlds in which an event happened. Count the proportion, and you attain the probability.
(...There's a section in his new book where Carroll describes precisely how many worlds comports with the the Born Rule, but it's on my phone. If you have the book it's on pages 146-148.)
"P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist.
P2) the universe began to exist.
C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing."
Okay. For the sake of argument let's say I agree with your first premise. (Although what exactly 'more fundamentally existing thing' means I'm not sure. I think you just mean
that it precedes it in a chronological sense, but that doesn't make it more fundamental. My mother isn't more fundamental than me just because she 'caused' me. But forget that.)
Even if I were to accept the first premise, I most definitely do not accept the second. Firstly, what makes you certain that the universe began to exist? Sure, we had a Big Bang, but you know that many, perhaps most, physicists do not consider that to be the beginning of the universe/multiverse/reality.
And again we hit upon the problems of definitions: what does it mean for something to 'begin to exist'? Have you ever seen anything begin to exist? No. You've seen matter and energy change form, you've seen that fundamental relationship fluctuate...but you've never seen something 'begin to exist' in the sense that you're talking about. It's unclear to me how it even makes conceptual sense.
...........
I think that scientists should be very picky about the usage of the word _theory_. Non scientifically educated people confuse _theory_ with _conjecture_ or _supposition_. So, they understand _Supposition of Evolution_ instead of _Explanation of Evolution_.
Richard Gomes Yeah, it's a pity that word was used in a scientific context as it opens the door to deliberate obfuscation by unethical religious types.
I think Dr. Carroll is giving the theologians a very large head start... and then demonstrating that even when given the easiest possible case to make, gods fail spectacularly.
He does the best thing possible when dealing wtih pseudoscience: He takes it seriously and then says "What if that's true?"
Apply it to biological evolution denial, big bang cosmology denial, climate science denial, abiogenesis denial and it *always* comes back as egg on the face of the denier.
Richard ,you talking nonsense;theory is a specific scientific construct,it is the ignorant that should learn by reading,asking questions, any means accessible what the word theory means depending on context it`s being used .If you bring the information to the lowest denominator nobody will learn anything and knowledge won`t be served and all will stay in darkness.
I hardly think changing "God is not a Good Theory" to "God is not a Good Scientific Theory" is dumbing anything down, and it would address the OP's point that ignorant people, especially the willfully ignorant, will immediately insert their superstition based mythology/conjecture as "also a theory"
It's not going to stop them, superstitious people will always just double down when confronted with evidence that they're peddling superstitions, but nothing can be done about that other than teaching kids how to think instead of what to think.
Richard Gomes wouldn’t it be nicer if we could continue the correct usage of the word and simply teach others the proper use? The word theory is used in place of hypothesis frequently and inaccurately.
The older I get the more certain I am: we are aware and we are alone.
So be kind to each other.
We’re all we’ve got.
Who knows. Human think they knows everything but we all know 0.000...to infinity....0 % of the universe.
So better accept the fact we don't know anything and live the life happily
If we have each other, 8 billion or so, then we are by definition not alone. We also don't know where we were before this reality or where we go after. An open mind and humility are the best tools in this life.
You're as shallow as Sean. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Your premises don't follow logically. Yes, the universe is 'winding down' in the sense it is expanding and it appears matter will eventually become a diffuse fog of elementary particles.
But you've never explained why this necessitates anything supernatural. The first step is to define supernatural and provide evidence. Until then it's just ambiguous speculation.
@@2fast2block Shallow is someone who believes others are shallow and that THEY know the unprovable. spare us you ignorance and talk to yourself in the mirror.
One of the better talks I have ever seen, no matter the subject. Well prepared, well researched, well thought through. Kind of amazing tbh.
😂😂😂 this guy’s tunnel vision is pretty embarrassing for a “scientist”. Regardless of what your stance is on religion, this guy is basically like “well, I can’t prove based on my formula so it must not be. It couldn’t be that my understanding is limited.”
@@rizeorfall it's not embarrassing in the least. I wouldn't call it "tunnel vision" to dismiss something completely made up. There are THOUSANDS of religions. You may as well say he's got tunnel vision for not believing in fairies or Santa Clause.
@@rizeorfall Except he never said anything as absolute as that and you're 100% strawmanning him. The very first tuing he talks about is the importance of the word "good" in the title of his talk. At no point did he say that god is impossible, or that he certainly doesn't exist. He merely says, as a proper scientist/skeptic should, that the types of god hypotheses he outlined at the start are either useless or much more improbable than naturalistic explanations. There are, actually, god concepts that are impossible or disproven, but he didn't talk about those here.
@@rizeorfall If anything is embarrassing it's your ability to interpret reality. He says the absolute opposite to what you suggest and many times.
@@betamusic5487 ,
Thousands of religions about gods indicates there is an original one. Only the Bible spells it out. That is how an intellectual person can figure it out. Zax is right. He starts with a bad premise then claims it can't be true because it didn't fit his bad premise.
"A wise man knows he knows nothing" -Socrates
A religious man thinks he knows the truth of the universe.
@@lrvogt1257 it seems to work better knowing your not floating on a rock in space for absolutely no reason at all.
@@Lintpop : Clearly many people believe that but it doesn't make it factual. I don't know that pretending is helpful. Bad information leads to bad choices. We give meaning to our own lives. That we are self-aware in the vastness of space is pretty special and we should appreciate how remarkable it is.
@@lrvogt1257i guess my reply was more in the lines of a simplistic answer. For myself no one can debonk the fact that there is a no God. Unfortunately I can not say the same for person next to me in the store or anyone for that matter. I grew up with the understanding that there is a God, when I was older and ready I challenged the God vs science, did alot of reading and studied apologetics. The end of the day there is more proof that God is the cause of why we are here.
@@Lintpop : I think you were trying to say that you can't disprove god. That's right. You can't disprove a claim that is unfalsifiable. You can only point out the lack of evidence to accept it as fact. You can't prove there are no goblins. You can only speak to the lack of evidence for them. If someone were to catch one, we'd have to accept that as evidence.
There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can actually demonstrate the supernatural.
~50:30 = some of the most powerful & thought provoking words I have ever heard from a human being thus far.
You need Matt Dillahunty!!
But that’s the problem of evil...
There are many philosophers that spoke about it!
Evil is proof of objective morality. Where does evil come from? A bunch of hydrogen atoms bouncing? That’s Sean’s position
@@patricksee10 indeed i think this is one of the weakest arguments.f
For me how the world goes is evidence for free will and the fall of man.
Wait until next year when you're in 4th grade and you meet new friends.
Totally awesome. Job needs to hear this presentation. There is no apparent correct explanation or answer for suffering. Our notion of the all knowing and loving being does not comport with the likes of a simple person like myself praying over and over again for the wisdom and understanding to live the best life I can for all those people in my life and me. Having faith in faith is an ask beyond all the extraordinary gifts I have been given. The very need to have to rely on biblical scholars to explain godship is hard to grasp and the Truth , the way and the light should be easily accessible to everyone. Thank you for a well thought out explanation.
Keep them coming
According to Hawking, if the universe was tine tuned for anything, it was fine tuned to the creation of black holes.
I don't see that. Not a large fraction of the universe's mass is in black holes. First of all that wouldn't require any sort of fine tuning because all it requires is a sufficiently large gravitational constant, or a slow enough speed of light, or a large enough mass of elementary particles and density of matter, and with any of those sufficiently large, literally none of the other constants of nature would even matter, and it wouldn't require any of them to be in a precise range but just "greater than or equal to" some number, but it also seems to me that if it was fine tuned for the creation of black holes, the gravitational constant should be a lot larger than it is, or the speed of light would be a lot slower, etcetera. If the gravitational constant was 10^100 times larger and even a single electron couldn't help but be a black hole, wouldn't that universe be much more "fine tuned" for the creation of black holes than this one?
@@medexamtoolscom uhhh yeah I’m going with Hawking
@@medexamtoolscom I don't think mass is the most important thing in the universe. I think it is information. A simple human brain is arguably more complex than a lifeless solar system, with billions of neurons and trillions of synapsis. Scale doesn't say much.
Nevertheless, most of the entropy of the universe is concentrated in blackholes. So from that point of view, Hawking were right.
Hawkings statment about conditions of blackholes takes into consideration that most blackholes are not primordial and came from stars, and stars from hidrogen and the formation of hidrogen is already fine tuned.
@@medexamtoolscom
I think Hawking got it.
He kinda gave the background work the once over !!
I came to a similar idea but from studying language and meaning. How is that, I wonder?
Lets see here, the god that humans created is supposed to be omnipotent & omniscient, BUT HE NEEDS YOUR MONEY ! I say holy crap !
George said it a little better!
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - George also said if you don’t believe in him he’ll send you to hell where you will be tortured forever and ever…..But he loves you!😂
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - I have debated them ad nauseam and I have come to the conclusion that most of them are innately rotten people. Now that might sound harsh at first, but once you consider that most of them don’t believe any human can be a good person without the fear of believing a sky daddy is going to punish them, it makes perfect sense. They ask me stupid questions like “what’s to stop you from randomly killing people or raping women?” My response is, “oh, so that’s what you were doing prior to being converted?” Or “is that what every non-believer you know is out here doing?” Then I respond with, “statistically speaking most rapists, murderers, and their victims believe in God.”
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - Trust me, I know. Growing up in a catholic school and studying world religion gave me all of the ammunition I needed to fight back against indoctrination. The cult hated me because even as a child I asked a lot of logical questions and refused to take their word for everything. What you stated is an absolute fact. According to their belief system the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. How convenient? That type of system is highly effective for recruiting people, especially considering the estimated 300,000,000 to billions of deaths, rapes, and torturous activities perpetrated toward free thinkers and people of other belief systems over the centuries. My ancestors were read Ephesians 6-5 to keep them in line.
That was George Carlin’s pithy quote about God always needing money. Every religious person should watch the UA-cam video of George Carlin’s excellent and hilarious account of his conversion from a young Catholic believer to a enlightened skeptic. It is transformative.
I don't have an issue with religions until they "Christians" try to prohibit subjects being taught in public schools. I don't have a problem with religions until they directly interfer with government. I don't have a problem with "Christians" until they try to interfer with my life. As you can see, I have many reasons to have problems with religion.
Well very ironic you say that when the law you live under says what “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." if you live in the u.s.a then you literally living in a country built on Christian belief and morals “thou shall not kill” ect ect without the law of that first came from god their would be no “law” in modern society if it was left to us “humans” all morality would be Relative, the law could be whatever it wants but no the us law is actually built in godly principles and then you say “interfere” with the government or do this or do that you that’s not “Christians” that’s just a few bad apples in the butch you look at they hate and the bad side? You say you don’t have a issues until the “Christians” what about the Terrorist yelling allah and giving the muslim religion a bad name? Or the buddist who put THIER kids through the extreme to be enlightened? Those people don’t speak for the rest of the “religion” you’re talking about It’s incredibly small minded to take a small group of people and group them up and give a negative intent,I’m black and everytime a cop kills one of my people do I group up all the cops in a butch no cause that’s unfair and wrong ,do you know that the most Christians are in Asia not in the us or the uk or canda but Asia and I’m just saying that to open your eyes and stop looking through this thick lenses you got on, you decided to take a Critical thinking video and make this negative comment, grow up dude….
@@manmadetunao2597 The pledge of allegiance isn't a law. It is also actually a relatively recent innovation. dating only back to the old anti-communist scares.
@@lexireina3641 well if you actually read my comment I never said it was the law I said THW country was built on Christian belief which it is and second recent? You’re saying thw 1700s we’re recent? That was 3
Centuries ago,that’s not recent buddy you know what is recent the civil rights moment which was only 56 years ago and Yk how Martin Luther king convinced the government and who talked to about why blacks are equal to whites ja because every man created by god is equal and that’s what he pushes and preached and why as a black man I can sit where I want and drink where I want it was only 50 years ago where I couldn’t now that’s recent not 300 years ago where as a black man I would
Be in chains
@@manmadetunao2597 Funny you should say that, considering that those "Christian" beliefs you say the country was founded on didn't stop said founders from keeping you in chains. But then, if you read your Bible, you'll find that your God is pretty cool with slavery. Encourages submission to one's masters, no less.
...and atheists interfere with ours...like propagandizing them in your secular schools headed by your academic mentors who does early sexualization of them and push evolution onto them. Your worldview makes for a unsuccessful civilization, not a successful one. Your worldview shows a lot of garbage out from the garbage in you take in...such as twice the suicide rate for kids you bring up in your fatalism.
The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to not have the federal government to tell the states what religion or type of Christian sect to have. Even President Jefferson took money out of the US treasury to pay for Bibles for schools. A 1892 Supreme Court ruling said we are a Christian nation.
Another thing. There are two types of Christianity. One is true Gospel and the other are Christian cults. The difference? The true Gospel is salvation without works and is a GIFT for mere faith and grace without merit...the cults believe it is grace with WORKS and it s possible to lose salvation off and on. Here is a video giving the true Gospel of how to get the gift of eternal life.
ua-cam.com/video/Wh1VU-_OF98/v-deo.html
An atheist - i don't know
Religion - i don't know so God is the answer
I'd say it's fairer to put it like this:
1. We don't know if a naturalistic universe would be expected to produce any life (although we can continue to investigate and maybe we'll find out that it would or wouldn't.)
2. On many religions (e.g. the Abrahamic religions), it is fully expected that the universe would produce life. (It's logically impossible for those religions to be true, and for no life to exist.)
Therefore, according to our current knowledge at least, the existence of life gives some evidence for those religions over naturalism.
But "Religion" shouldn't then claim that God is therefore the logically necessary answer.
For that to be the case, it would have to be shown that an atheistic universe certainly would not produce life. But even if all kinds of multiverse were disproven, blind chance is still given as a logical possibility. So this would be beyond the scope of the Fine Tuning Argument.
What's funny is that atheism is closer to religion than you think. You might mean agnosticism.
sean is one of the BEST
And Jesus is the best, bar none!
It's amazing how God loves Baseball if you live in America
But seems to hate my team, which is most unhelpful.
@@cuzned1375
Same 😂
Used to. Then All Star game moved to Denver.
lol
I usually like to ask for a comprehensive definition of "God". After that comes the fun of the wordsmith...
God is the universe. God is it's conscious matter.
Intelligent comment award 👏, science is much more important than poetry.
@@keithhamilton2240 The universe comes from a burnt out star from another universe. There are an infinity of mathematical infinities but just one infinity
@@whirledpeas3477 I hope you'r not insinuating scientism or some form of positivism (the view that science is the ONLY way to truth) this is a position largely abandoned by philosophers of science, since it cannot bear the weight of its own princilple (that truth only come from sciense), it cannot itself be proven scientifically.
Though, I agree "God is it's concious matter", sounds like some strange Chopra stuf.
The wordsmith? Is it bad to use words or philosophical language to define something?
I do not know if that was what you intended to say. No matter; let me try to "wordsmith" a description of God:
God is a peronal being with thoughts (aboutnes), similarly to us, though not analogus to us. And he is not constrained by time, space or matter (timeless, spaceless and immaterial)
In other word the ucaused first cause, or the unmoved mover.
This is a very narrow and minimal description, and a fuller description would probably take thousands of pages, with a lot of philosophical speculations (ehmm... Aquinas).
Please enable community subtitles for translations.
No.
Gotta love the Sean!
He’s super smart, super logical, and sometimes funny.
I love the beginning where he shows the 3 ways of looking at god. It’s just how a scientific mind would begin - by grouping like things. It’s a taxonomic view.
Better hope he's there to greet you in eternity.
@@moongoonrex which god/goddess? proof?
@@graveseeker moongoonrex is just an atheist who disbelieves in one fewer god than the rest of us.
@@con.troller4183 Wish there was an easy way to get them to understand that.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Even Obama and Biden know that.
@@graveseeker Instead of being disqualified from office for believing in talking snakes and zombie saviors, you can't get elected unless you profess that you do.
If you close your eyes he sounds like John Mulaney is giving a Physics lecture.
Sounds more like a hybrid of Fozzie Bear and Kermit the Frog to me.
{:-:-:}
OMG I WAS THINKING EXACTLY THAT great minds think alike
Oh no.
Now I can’t unhear it, and I’m just waiting for him to talk about playing Tom Jones on a Chicago diner jukebox…
A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.
It's better to cum in the sink, than sink in the cum.
😎🤘
A fool will reveal itself in any statement or question.
Three wise men once learned about a Deity by answering a foolish series of questions: was she really a virgin? Should we really believe this story? Isnt there a more plausible explanation for this birth? Hell no, it's a miracle! Come! Let us adore him! Worship this infant!
Not if the wise man is indoctrinated by science.
I appreciate Dr. Carroll taking the time and effort to explain what the parameters of his philosophy was. I write fiction novels with settings based in mythologies. We may disagree on a personal level, but your presentation, specifically its scaffold, gave me a number of new relatable perspectives for my characters. Thank you
The spiritual world it appears to be, a subset of existence, probably totally unlike the materistic world that humans live in, such as the micro level of quantum mechanics which differs from classical physics, but we cannot explain the processes, only observe the outcomes. It's a peculiar mystery that intrigues me.
@@keyissues1027 What is the spiritual world?
@@keyissues1027 I think it's understandable, so no big mystery, that there are fundamental limits to how we can figure out deterministic laws about the objects that make up ourselves. In other words: Observations (measurement results) cannot in principle be separated from what is observed.
@@keyissues1027 humans don’t live in the physical realm alone, we are also rational constructs that exist metaphysically in a timeless and essential (eternal and spiritual) fashion.
@@keyissues1027 navigate the (infinite) mystery with the Logos (God) and turn the peculiar mysteries into esoteric knowledge like a true sage does.
If you don't watch but just listen, it's very easy to convince yourself that young Alan Alda is giving this lecture.
',
'
0.
Religion is just man’s need to understand and control things but what we fail to realize is that we are ultimately ignorant.
Wrong
@@_.ian. right
The explanation to the question of 'why?' related to something always just creates a new question of 'why?', in my mind at least. It is an infinitely recursive question that loses meaning when you start asking it about the more and more fundamental low-level things in our reality.
There is a principle in philosophy elucidated by The Munchhausen Trilemma. All factual statements rest on chains of reasoning that are either circular, infinite in regress, or brute assertion. Therefore, our question should always be not "what is really true?" but instead rather "what is reasonable given the constraints we agree to for purposes of this conversation or investigation?" The latter question can be commonly answered by people who employ good logic; the former is more of a personal choice.
@@superdog797 ==== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@kennethbransford820 If you want to think God guided evolution that's one thing. But the idea that life forms on Earth have a common ancestor is well-established.
@@superdog797 HOW, is it well established? How did amino acids come together by accident? How, did the individual amino acids get their properly shaped isomers or enantiomers ? Why, are ALL, of OUR, amino acids right handed? If, life was by accident? The mixture of right and left handed amino acids would be the same. The chirality wouldn't be there. It would be non chiral. No one knows what the first step was for life. You comment ====> "common ancestor is well-established."< ==== This is showing you to be a liar. You don't know. All the worlds scientists don't know. ===== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@kennethbransford820 Life's amino acids are left-handed. It's completely false to say that both enantiomers should be present, and in equal mixtures, in living systems "just because". There are different theories as to why left-handed amino acids exist in life's proteins but it's safe to say nobody knows why the LUCA had left-handed amino acids. I don't know why you think that's a particularly important point.
A universal common ancestor is indeed well-established, and since you seem to be interested in chemistry and likely science in general you should perhaps be asking why people think there is a LUCA instead of just disagreeing on little to no basis.
Like I said, believing that God or an intelligence guided the emergence of lifeforms is one thing, but to suggest organisms on Earth don't share a LUCA is just ridiculous and betrays a failure to grasp why it is that people are so sure there was a LUCA.
Think about a few questions from both an intelligent design perspective as well as an evolutionary perspective, and give me your answers and thoughts.
Why do all lifeforms on Earth have DNA, RNA, ribosomes, a small group of about 20 amino acids, and a lipid cell membrane?
Why are all multicellular organisms eukaryotes?
Why are all lifeforms carbon-based?
Do you think all humans have a common ancestor? If so, why?
Do you think all cats have a common ancestor? If so, why?
Do you think all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor? Why?
Do you think all insects have a common ancestor?
I could go on with questions like this but I'd like to hear your response. Have you heard of the term "nested hierarchy"? Do you know what it means, and how it relates to evolutionary theory?
Sean Carroll! You have a gift for explaining & conveying answers with facts in complete detail & properties summed up in the most efficient dialogue that's impossible to not grasp.
Let neuroscience study how human need for safety, hope and meaning created a God out of nowhere. Or not. My personal belief is that we, people in the 21st century, are obliged to talk about God, only because our ancestors set it on the table at the very beginning. Thousands of years ago, people had no better tools than religion in order to understand the world around them. But, hey! Today we are not obliged to ruminate all this stuff about God and life after death etc. Also our ancestors had to make rituals around the tribe's fire. But hey! This isn't mandatory for us today. Let's move on. Lets forget about this once and for all. We have no reason thinking about Gods and life after death. Today our life is different. Let's free ourselves. Lets save time and energy for real problems that actually exist today. Existential problems. Ochham's razor, afterall, dictates us towards more empirical, materialistic, physical studies of the world. If no ancestor of ours had ever thought about the existence of God, then I have no doubt that nobody would still argue about this stuff. Lets leave the "Neanderthal's beliefs" behind. Its ok. This is not our problem any more. We are mature now. We can handle our own existence better. We dont need mommy's/daddy's hug (God). We don't need existential comfort in order to move on with our lives. We are free and powerful to explore and taste the world! No God has ever existed. In any form. We don't need to think about it. We dont have to argue about it. We don't have to apologise for that. This is TOTALLY OK!
He's got no gift except if you call lying a gift. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block you've just convinced me with your babbling you're smarter than Sean Carroll, I am now a discovery institute CREATARD, also TNX
He's not. Well known in science that he is a how can we put it.... snake oil salesman. Well known that his backing of Kaku is a cartel within science talking absolute nonsense with string theory. He can conceive 26 dimensions but the god hypothesis for him is nonsensical. I neither believe nor disbelieve but Dr Carroll is a well known vagabond and lover of Dr Kaku. He's no smarter than a graduate student. Even Penrose can't stand either of them.
What facts for whom?
"You don't say that the integers are ontologically extravagant because there is and infinite number of them." at 40:40 is a great example. It made me laugh pretty hard while thinking about it.
Caught him saying arh
Postulating that mathematical objects are real entities, that they should be part of our ontology, *is* ontologically extravagant. You can say that mathematical objects shouldn't be considered "things". I.e., you can say that "there is" should be understood to mean something different when you say "there is a city in Nebraska with over 150 zipcars" than it does when you say "there is a prime that can be written as the sum of five cubes but not as the sum of two cubes". And if you do that, your list of "things" is a lot smaller.
The question is whether you've gained anything by that. I think that including mathematical objects in your ontology is perfectly reasonable, but that's because I think that being ontologically extravagant is perfectly ok. If there's an empirical reason to believe that some type of things is scarce, then there's an empirical reason to doubt a hypothesis that entails the existence of lots of things of that type. But beyond the scope of such an empirical basis, there's no good reason to insist that ontologies have to be small.
integers don't exist, and if they did you could never have an infinite quantity of them
@@johnholmes912 People say all the time that infinite quantities are impossible but can never prove that to be true. It's just a false mantra they repeat, why I don't know.
@@superdog797 Check out Hilbert's Hotel. That's an argument against actual infinites.
So many people who are leading experts in theology and physics in the comment section. How have we not heard of your wisdom before.
I don't anyone here claimed to be a leading expert in physics, but there are many comments here from people who claim to know god.
runamokkk They don't just claim to know their gods, they claim to know about all gods.
Think about it. If they claim it was their own gods who created the universe then they're making two claims, one ridiculous and the other completely fucking outrageous.
The ridiculous claim is that magic/the supernatural is real and their gods used it to conjure the universe.
The completely fucking outrageous claim they're simultaneously making is that all other gods invented by all the other humans on the planet are all false.
At least 3,000 named gods that we know of, people who claim their gods created the universe are insisting that all those other gods aren't real.
If you're ever stuck in a cafe waiting for Godot, try asking one of them what specific criteria they applied to each of those other gods to determine they were false. Godot and all his family, friends, relatives, his neighbors, and his neighbors relatives will all arrive long before you'll get a straight answer from a fundie.
Many religious people cannot even define god or god's characteristics. Thus, they don't even know their god.
The comment above me is the perfect example of what I said earlier. Surely he must be the leading theist/physicist to have such insight into what a 'GOD' is. He's probably smarter than Einstein and all others that came before him. He doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants for he is the Giant.
like who? Could you give some examples?
thank God for this video
You’re welcome!
7:30 to 8:22 is one of my favourite points.
One of my favourite science educators.
Poor you.
@@2fast2block Yea we should envy your UA-cam education
@@Jonathan-Pilkington "Yea we should envy your UA-cam education"
Hey, I worked hard on my UA-cam university degree. Since you have a real degree, please give your science how creation happened without God.
In other words, give me a good laugh, you clown.
2fast2block „how creation happened“ :D
@@Jonathan-Pilkington Me, "Since you have a real degree, please give your science how creation happened without God."
Your educated answer: "how creation happened"“ :D"
You must be proud. Oh, remember they're delaying student loan payments. Yours must have cost a fortune.
Someone read Oolid Coluphids " Who is this God person anyway?" series of books from the future.
I just LURVE any and ALL references to H2G2 -- in any and ALL contexts!
Sorry, there are no books from the future but there is one available today that explains today, Falun Gong.
GOD = Geometrically Ordered Dynamics.
To me He is my Loving Heaving Feather who has always been good to me
@@daniesteenkamp1985 what about humans who are raped or molested abused? Who are killed for no reason?
GOD = immorality justified.
FUCK YOU enabler of racism, rape, child genital mutilation, Need I go on for the immorality of religion and its practices.
All of these practices are exclusively middle eastern religions.
@@ossiedunstan4419 ah, ha caught you....you definitely do believe in God...you don't get that upset or make this many comments over the Easter Bunny.....Lol
Did this work with another language? Lol
Excellent video. Very interesting, informative, logical, and worthwhile video. A must see video for everyone.
// A must see video for everyone // The people that need to watch it , probably will never see it !
@@peterjames7073 Unfortunately you're right, but I've sent the link out to several people that should watch it.
@@robertschlesinger1342 It's like Dog Poop.
The people who Need to pick their Dog's Poop, will never watch a video about Dog Poop.
This man is a great man.
Prove it!! Sean Carrol isn't even Real and I'm surprised that so many people believe he actually exists!!! People are so gullible.... It's obvious that Sean Carrol is made up!!!
David Belcher, I take it from your use of "!!!!" 's
that you are a bit bent out of shape.
"Sean Carrol isn't even Real".....wow. What are you so angry about? Is it because people don't believe exactly as you do?
I have had some chats with the person calling himself Sean Carrol. He seems as real to me as you or anyone else. I happen to be a brown teddy bear so feel free to doubt my existence but someone presumably is typing this message on my behalf.
Lucky!
In fact, he is the up~there genius, all he is missing the Equation, the ~Quanta.
Since when the limitation of human mind become absolute knowledge.
Tell that to those theists who pretend to know everything.
***** not pretend, they are sure no one has absolute knowledge. Scientists are trying they can have absolute knowledge. The want to become gods the very idea atheists are denying.
Theists pretend that 'God' did it , there is no such evidence. It's intellectual laziness.
Do you have an issue humans acquiring knowledge?
Or would you prefer when atheists were ignorantly burned because someone like you said they secretly whated to be gods?
Are you a young earth creationist too?
***** well if you think this cosmos create itself without outside power and intelligent then good luck with that.
There you go again, pretending you know.
Damn, he's a good speaker.
You think so?
@@esausjudeannephew6317 Ee, fuck yeah? Like for now he is t h e best. But I consider not only the substance but also the form. He freaking nails every crucial point with his accent, modulation of voice etc. when it's necesarry.
Tyson for instance is god awful (considering all the hype). But to be fair I havent watched him a lot (but again maybe because he is so bad, lol).
Brian Greene is also a really good speaker.
But he speaks nonsense. You can see that , no? His science is based on nothing. He can not even master his ONLY instrument, Thought. Total abandonment of REASON.
@@gammaraygem it's only nothing if you deny thousands of years of reason, logic and what you can see with your own eyes.
i saw this in my recommended and immediately watched it, I recognized Sean from watching Veritasium and i had no idea he had talks on this topic, something ive been interested in ever since i left christianity
Yes a single particle universe is plausible. Who made the particle? Again, Sean can not get around the pesky making something from nothing problem... I know several high level particle physicists professors at Cal Tech who were so intimidated by him while he was there that they hid their deep belief in Christianity. We can only love and pray for Sean.
@@jamesrichards3086 the question "who made the particle?" cannot be answered without first making the assumption that everything that exists must have a creator. you cannot answer such a question until you can demonstrate that the question even has an answer (through proving or justifying said assumption)
@@Abstract_zx I never understand why people conclude that the only possible answer for these kinds of questions is a creator. "If answer is unattainable, answer must be a creator". Like, no? The answer could be anything and maybe there even is no answer. No one can possibly know, yet so many people have a need to make the conclusion of a creator. Clearly the faith itself is not enough to them so they have to seek additional cope by "justifying" it to others and coming to conclusions about "how it works".
@@denisdelinger3265 the thing that baffles me is the assumption that the originator of everything is a conscious creator. consciousness is an extremely complex property so out of anything i could possibly assume about what our universe came from, a conscious being would probably be one of the least likely
some argue that a conscious being is the only thing capable of creating something new, but they have no basis for that assumption, or even the assumption that our universe even had an origin point
some say that only a being with free will can create something truly new and creative like a universe or an artwork, but this inherently relies on the assumption that free will exists, implying that some influence exists in the mind other than the predictable interactions between neurons and cells and chemicals. this assumption is also unfounded.
in fact, to assume that there is a supernatural influence in your chain of logic to prove a divine creator (a type of supernatural influence) is a circular argument and a fallacy
@@denisdelinger3265 doesn't Science use one theory and only one theory to assume the possible explanation to something?Why when its used with God you have a problem?You say it can be anything ,anything how?Lmao logic will then have to defy anything
Creation theory is no way far fetched at all
Your assumption that it can be anything it is because you not even specific at all
which means that explaination can br outside the frames of logic and if so then no answer will be thought of instead of intelligent Design
beautiful lecture
Brilliant stuff from Carroll. Such an honest search for truth compared to the apologetics. Carroll " The logic is NOT ' I see that energy is conserved' therefore energy is conserved. The logic is 'I see that energy is conserved' therefore I make a hypothesis...and then I go out and test that hypothesis".
I would challenge any creationist( old or new earth) or Intelligent design proponents to use that kind of thinking to support your claims.
For me this type of thinking is what has taught us what we know about medicine, modern agriculture and technology, whereas theistic theories have demonstrated very little of actual use.
ShowMe Agree completely on your philosophy of science. However, religions have been enormously useful in encoding "how to" type information distilled over thousands of years, for example take the greek mythical constellations: in part, they are mnemonic devices for remembering the star patterns so useful in agriculture and navigation.
Granted, one could use Ptolemaic calculations to navigate without reference to any mythology (and they did), but the point remains that religion served to teach about the star patterns and their movement.
Like song, story and myth in general, religion is partly a form of preservation of lessons learned over the deep time of human existence.
I wouldn't try to deny that. Go back far enough and religion and science would have been nearly the same discipline...an effort to explain the world we live.
And I wouldn't deny the use of any philosophy to ask further questions.
Unfortunately many religious philosophies have stopped asking questions, and claim to have all the anwsers.
ShowMe i know, rait! they go by 'god is beyond all human knowledge' and then proceed to say exactly what he does all day.
N Marbletoe Yep. that one always gets me.
ShowMe Even if energy is conserved, what is the source of the energy?
The problem with scientists trying to figure out the idea of God is that scientists are intelligent people. A large number of people in this world see things in very simple terms and refuse to try to learn anything else.
What do know
agreed. physicist should learn psychology and philosophy. God is not just about the universe, it is also about our psyche and art.
So then it wouldn't be the problem of the "scientist". It would be the fault of the PEOPLE they're talking to, and those who educated them or failed to educate them properly. Get your point straight.
@@dannysze8183 i hope u were being sarcastic
u claim ignorance is bliss? the fact that scientists are intelligent is not a problem, it's a fact of life and perhaps an advantage that has enabled SO MUCH positive change in the world. would 500 praying believers build a bridge? or would construction workers (who themselves, might or might not be believers) actually do the job while theists bang their foreheads or close their eyes and mumble in delusion? weeeeee
"The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you" -Neil deGrasse Tyson
if the universe is supreme the pantheist is right and the atheist is wrong.
@@BryceCarmony supremacy is irrelevant!
Science sambo! Wheres bowtie bozo the other pseudo scientist?
Tyson needs to stick to chicken he cant do science. Science is for white guys not gers.
@@BryceCarmony the christian is right
Personally, I love the idea that the few billion galaxies were created just for my amusement
A few billion ?
There are at least 100 billion galaxies, according to physics.org !
@@lewis72 Eh, only a few
You have to share, though..
🤣😂
@@froop2393 and that's only _this_ universe...
The theory of God is based on the axiom that, nothing can come into being without a cause. The theory immediately fails, or should I say, contradicts itself when you ask the question how God comes into being. This theory is completely inconsistent...
Special pleading is a logical fallacy dishonest theists use when they are bullshitting atheists. They just hate it when atheists don't fall for it.
Eithan A
Wow 😮 you really don’t know both sides of this do you??
Imagine a hairy-headed bald person - @new name - does he exist because I put the idea of such a person in your mind?
Religious indoctrination is a bitch. Adult children believing in a fairy tale. Smfh
There's always another turtle. God is infinity.
"God likes to act as if God does not exist. God like to obey the laws of physics." Very sly
@F m It wasn't a typo, I meant sly. It was funny and I agree.
That makes no sense.
@@mr.punkie5872 chicho
@@mr.punkie5872 Yes, it does.
@@niccolop.carlyle4621 Explain
The first example of a particle floating in one direction universe does not disprove the necessary being type of God. For example, where did the laws of Newton come from? The particle and space being infinite does not absolve that something was necessary, even if it was the particle and law themselves that are the necessary parts.
Sean Carrol gets it all right. He's the quantum-powered man!
nope - misrepresents Aristotle revealing his deep lack of a philosophical education, which I can prove
I enjoy Carrol but he is not omniscient, as I am sure he would agree. Anyone who thinks there is proof for the non-existence of God is not a scientist.
@@jakeolthof Interesting point! 👍🏿
OK. Game, set, match because "Kevin says..." We should have ask him 6 or 7 years ago.
UA-cam, thank you for showing me this man!
The Bible: thank you for revealing to me the truth.
You should write a book which comes with a box of tissues.
I really enjoyed his God Theory vs. Multiverse and String Theories probability explanation.
With an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes to go, a universe capable of spawning life was an inevitability. We aren't lucky, we just are because the universe is.
@@graveseeker What?
@@TheLiving_Cross Infinity is a very, very long time. Time for infinite universes before ours and an infinite number after. Who knows how many had or will have intelligent beings to create imaginary gods?
@@graveseeker That literally makes no sense.
@@TheLiving_Cross Makes way more sense than does gawd (even though it is almost certainly just as false)..
Magnificent ! Either position you have regarding the subject Dr Carroll makes it easy to follow and understand
For smart assets
He hates what science shows. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
The god debate belongs on a psychiatrists couch. People give up their delusions only voluntarily.
Maybe that's where it belongs but that's not where it is going to happen. Religion is a public phenomenon and it will have to be fought out (maybe literally) in the public sphere, as it has been for millennia.
Religion and logic don't mix well. =)
The people who call themselves atheist online are almost always scientism rationalists and utilitarians, which is another religion. You try to convince people that there is no God, they will make you their God and worship you.
@@scambammer6102 Religion is deadly.
@@roseCatcher_ Not by my definition of religion which always includes supernatural (non) phenomena. No rituals, no prayer, no talismans, no book of ancient rules/silly stories, no boogeyman and no dogma. Show me proof of a god and I'll believe though I won't worship.
My father was like God, he was never there.
...jeeesus....
"Through hims you move and breath and have your being. without him there is nothing."
are you black
LoL
@Pvsitions just a question. :D im black too so
Carroll's voice has a timbre similar to Alan Alda's.
Aha! Someone else noticed! I've been leaving comments saying he sounds like Alan Alda and I keep seeing stupid comments like that he sounds like Stephen Hawking's text to speech program.
I was thinking the same thing. Plus he looks like Gerald Casale.
Yea if Sean pinched his nose while he spoke it’d be even closer
Never thought of this before, but I can surely hear the resemblance.
I could picture him brewing up some Gin in the lab, just like Hawkeye Pierce .
God is not a "theory." Calling God a theory elevates the idea of God beyond where it deserves to be.
I can see why he would call it a "theory." It attempts to explain, although without the scientific evidence and rigor needed to be a scientific theory. He definitely should have looked for a different word. Heck, the God "hypothesis" wouldn't work either. A hypothesis requires to be precise, testable and observable statement. None of which, the idea of "God" is. Maybe the God "speculation" works.
Amen!
"Because you have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:"
Isaiah 28:15
Try again when you have EVIDENCE for your god.
@@boterlettersukkel Its all around you... one word.. PURPOSE. Any form of matter with a purpose has been designed by a mind because only a mind can have purpose.. so by this principle a leaf is no different from say a solar cell. What is more we can observe that both the leaf and the solar cell were the result of information and information always has both meaning and purpose and always comes from a mind.
@@mikebellamy So....
No EVIDENCE.
Got it.
@@boterlettersukkel fully expected of someone who does not want to see the evidence.. Jesus described such people as 'blind' and he was right. Define "evidence"?
@Hilmar Zonneveld Its an "old" claim because it has always been true.. You first need to understand something about science
"THERE ARE NO PROOFS IN SCIENCE".. Ok only falsifications..
The principle (more than a theory), is established by (1) repeated observation that information never comes from anywhere else but a mind and (2) Now we have fast computers all attempts to model a natural origin of information have failed (see Tierra)..
BUT we all know you will never accept these facts because it goes against your Anti-God PHILOSOPHY.. which ends up being Anti-Science.
Interesting to see him talking about football, goalies, and letting goals in; ie. real football, not American Football!
Real gay football
American football is real too, butthead.
@@trigonzobob I'm leaning more towards Beavis, but thanks for your kind words.
Excellent presentation 👏
Obviously the universe is more complicated than any human mind can comprehend , including Sean Carroll's
problem solving and testing . this includes building faster computers and AI if the calculations become too complex , run simulations .... be open to change ,
At least he is not arrogant enough to know the origin of the cosmos because of an old book
And yet reprogramming his comprehension analysing and predicting how nature works is pretty much what a theoretical physicist does.
Ydk that to be true
If this is an attempt to promote the God theory, sorry. But your statement is self-refuting. If the universe is more complicated than any human mind can comprehend, then ydk it to be the case that God exists.
Very good lecture. Thanks a lot.
I think the only thing missing from this was a mic drop and a peace sign as he kicks the door open to leave.
Nah. He'd have to be arrogant to do that.
A statement of a true believer.
I am surprised that many of these commenters bothered to listen to this lecture. It’s obvious that they don’t understand or maybe don’t want to understand the information presented. The ones I am referring to are not interested in entertaining any ideas that disprove the fairy tales and factually incorrect information that they find in their “Bronze Age goat herder’s guide to the universe”. It’s like the last approximately 1800 years of human advances never happened and I say approximately1800 years because the “Bronze Age goat herder’s guide to the universe” wasn’t even written until approximately 200 years after the events in the new version were supposed to have happened. I know all the equivocations about the little fragments of words, sentences, and papers that they use trying to give the impression that their imaginary driver of the universe got religion between the old and new versions of their “Bronze Age goat herder’s guide to the universe”
Well said. You got it right about them.
The Bronze age goat herders guide to the universe meaning the Bible? But what about the Thorah and the Quaran?
30:11 Rebuttal of the Fine-Tuning Argument.
Not only is Sean Carroll one of my favourite science communicators, but also-as I have now found-he leads very rational discussion about theology. I love it! :)
a rational discussion about an irrational topic...is rational?
@@jgalt308 Whats irrational about it?
@@slashmonkey8545 What is rational about it?
@@jgalt308 "based on or in accordance with reason or logic."
this is the defination of rational according to google so since theology is based on logic hence it is rational. So now will you answer my question.
@@slashmonkey8545 Why? You didn't answer mine.
What is logical about theology?
What is the evidence that supports the logic?
BTW Science has the same problem and they both end up in the same place taking different paths.
9:25 but if you invented or even imagined a universe without God, wouldn't you be that universe's God?
Not if it's only an imagined universe rather than one that physically exists.
@@alankoslowski9473 and if it's only imagined, who is doing the imagining? I would call that imaginer God
@@SmiteTVnet No, the humans who imagined god are doing the imagining. If something doesn't exist it can't imagine anything.
@Scott Scotty my point is if you were imaginary you wouldn't know it, whether or not we called the imaginer bernice or God or chipmunk
@Scott Scotty I think there is if you are trying to communicate with believers in any useful manner
Can’t the “everything that has a beginning has a cause argument” simply be broken by the question who created god? And if they say god in infinite and un caused then they have used your argument for an un causal universe. Then you can just ask them why not forget the first un caused god and simplify basically the same argument to understand un caused universe models. Am I missing something here? Cause this seems way to easy and obvious.
Look up essence/existence distinction
Adam Małysz essence would still be somthing rather then nothing
@@Mars-fu8wb You follow the Aquinas' argument that in order for anything to exist there has to be a unique, immaterial object whose essence is to exist?
Adam Małysz no I haven’t read that I’ll check it out
It would be infinite regression aka absurdity like parallel dimensions and all that nonsense fairy tale stuff like evolution which isnt even science at all...
24:10 " We should not think of the big bang as the beginning of the universe, we should think it as the end of our understanding"
It isn't. It may not even be the end of our observational data.
Hope we're not stuck in a time loop of 10 billion yrs. This all sounds familiar.
Can’t say I’ve ever heard the problem of instruction laid out that clearly or named. I’ve heard it, I’ve even sort of used it, but never made it that clear. It’s in the running for my favorite
I agree wholeheartedly 👍
@@oma_elite What on earth does the man's sexuality have to do with any of this?
What are the "mathematical problems" with the theory of evolution?
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole.....
Sean Carroll will blow your mind…especially if you have a basic understanding of physics. He recently sat down with Neil DeGrasse Tyson and it was incredible. So much more interesting than…because god did it.
In Sean's attempted refutation of what he classifies as "logical" God-theories, he asserts a universe can exist as a single particle moving according to Newtonian laws through a spatiotemporal nexus, and yet he offers no explanation for how such a spatiotemporal nexus could have come into being, what could have caused it and filled it with sufficient energy to produce a particle in motion.
That is the whole point of notions of necessary being and first causes, that relations within spatiotemporality imply casuality and that casuality requires an origin. Unless of course, you think the universe is infinite and eternal, in which case you can explained nothing as you have merely asserted that literally everything possible always already exists.
Of course he didn't explain it...! He cannot; nor can anyone else. In fact... Gasp...! Shock...! Physics cannot define time, matter, energy, space, force, universe, or any other "fundamental" quantity it uses. So how do you expect them to actually explain anything consistently...?
Ironically, Sean Carroll himself (60 symbols video I think) mocks the existence of 17 different models or theories for quantum mechanics. But hey, it's a good job.
Do you know what the best jobs in the world are:
Weather man
Doctor (doctor's bury their mistakes)
Politician
Cosmologist
Guaranteed paycheck and you never get fired for being wrong....
You totally read my mind!!! ☺️ I was looking in the comments section to see if anyone noted before I commented. Sean Carroll completely 100% misses the points m for God’s existence!!!
My problem is, he had to imagine it, so in essence he creates these hypothetical universes.
eric thefathead
Making a straw man fallacy is unacceptable, even if your profession is “science”. Doesn’t matter. Period. 😑
Bobby Osborne
Not really, it’s supposed to be an ontological argument where you show that that’s aren’t any inconsistencies within the definitions themselves. Still, I agree with you, there are MAJOR gaps in Sean’s reasoning on this.
The entropy argument is very fascinating, and the whole lecture is well put-together and a great challenge for any apologeticist to try and overcome.
However, I think when you say things like, "I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other," I just get the feeling it would take most theologians about 7 seconds to come up with a counter argument - and that's if they were distracted.
A response sure. But a good response? Probably not.
@@alankoslowski9473 I think maybe quoting 1 Corinthians 13 which describes the uselessness of all action without love would alone fry the "God didn't tell us to love each other," argument, let alone a vast number of similar sections of the Bible that encourage loving. "Love your neighbour as yourself," is in there, as is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and other instructions on love and compassion. Saying that stuff isn't in there ("I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other") belies a lack of knowledge about theological teaching - and that's just on that one religious text. There are plenty of others. It's not a good argument.
@@ghr8184 But it's not consistent, and there's much lacking in scripture, such as equal rights for everyone.
It's also complete devoid of modern practical science. As he says, if it were written by an omniscient god, why isn't there anything about the germ theory of disease?
I think his point is that it's evident the bible was written by humans during a particular historical period rather than being the inerrant word of god since so much of the bible is is lacking and erroneous.
@@alankoslowski9473 Perhaps I was unclear in what I was specifically saying. I was not addressing Carroll's whole lecture or even that whole section. I was specifically speaking to his saying that God (he is mostly using the example of the Christian God) didn't tell us to love each other. It explicitly says this exact thing multiple times throughout the Bible. It's literally right in there. Either Carroll doesn't know this or he is discounting these statements based on something he doesn't specifically indicate here, but that specific statement makes him sound like he really hasn't done his research on that specific statement's full implications regarding the Christian Bible. Making that statement in front of an apologeticist or theologian would be like jumping into a school of piranhas.
And, yes, I know that piranhas don't really strip flesh from bone in seconds like in a cartoon. However, the overall point I'm making, I think is clear, even if I opened myself up to critique with a poorly-chosen analogy - especially if there were any marine biologists around.
Which makes it the perfect analogy to describe my point about saying, "The Bible doesn't tell us to love each other," in the presence of a hypothetical theologian.
Again: I like the lecture overall, and I think Carroll's main points are clear, intact, and challenging. He just has one poorly selected phrase.
@@ghr8184 Understood. Though he probably rehearsed the lecture, I don't t think he was reading directly from a script, so at least some of it was improvised. Considering this, I guess some inaccuracies are expected.
It was a good lecture! :D I believe that reality is cyclic simply because we see so many cycles around us. So I also don't think that the Big Bang was the beginning. It was just the beginning of a new cycle.
If there even was a big bang...
If there was I do agree though, a single big bang is not how things typically work. Thing happen a lot/infinitely or not at all.
@@nosirrahx ok Stephen Hawking
@@wolferup This of course leads to the issue of there being anything at all. Nothing at all forever makes more sense than a singular big bang and eternal expansion. There is something missing.
Your thought has been counted. Next.
According to my spiritual master the earth has been destroyed and recreated 81 times.
Also it's rich hearing a theologian of all people accusing someone of irrationality.
The nature of 'irrationality' is simply inconsistency. And the inconsistency pertains to 'apple to apples,' not 'apples to oranges.' In other words, when opposing narratives, contexts, world views interact, 'irrationality' may be claimed by one's opponent when their opponent is being consistent with their world view, while countering theirs. Gotta watch out for that fallacy.
If there are many worlds, I'm pretty sure that I will be convinced of their existence in some of them. The only thing I can tell is this world is not one of those. I wonder which copies of Sean Carroll will convince me, and which ones won't.
@@keithboynton kinda like evolution its always false
To make the presentation a lot simpler: when we consider the probability of a universe with exactly this parameter naturally existing vs the probability of a god existing with an particular intention which brought about a universe with exactly this parameter, Occam's razor prefers the former as it contains one fewer assumption.
40:40 William Lane Craig does do that thing with integers in his book then lies about mathematicians.
A lot of Christians think that "lying for Jesus" is O.K. because "the core idea" is what is important to spread. And that "core idea for salvation" in their mind is, to many of the worst of them, just a handful of sentence-long ideas (and a ritual 1 time action for the anti-Anabaptists a.k.a modern Baptists) in like manner to the also disingenuous "easy conversion sentence" of Muslims and their ritual "pillars" such as charity (often seen as only to the in-group or possible converts). Religions are false on their very face, but still useful as tools and, on the darker end, to make other people into manageable tools.
@@letsomethingshine I'm unaware of any Christians who lie for Jesus. Can you name them? If they are big name types, like William Lane Craig for example, then you and I can call them, have a three way phone call and you can demonstrate how they lie for Jesus. I'm dead serious btw, let's call them.
On a different matter, I'd like to make you aware of something. Darwinian Evolution has been falsified by the Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life, and kind only brings forth after it's kind. That law has never been violated. Never. It is observable, testable and repeatable with 100% accuracy. The men and women who peddle the mythology of Darwinian Evolution ought to be aware of this. I can only assume that they are lying for Darwin because they are so deeply opposed the the alternative of Biblical Creation.
@@lukehelpmetakethisdangmaskoff_Evolution by Natural Selection_ is actually not a hypothesis anymore, it's widely accepted as a fact. Also, _Biogenesis_ is just a law, so it currently has no clear explanation. hence it isn't a fact.
Besides, you clearly doesn't even know what _Evolution_ means. _Evolution_ is just the *_factual, proved_* process by which life varies and adapts to its environment. It makes no statement about what caused it to happen in the first place.
Even at that, some of the things that supported the _Hypothesis of Biogenesis_ , such as organic molecules originating only in living things (which is actually why they were called _organic_ in the first place) and then later we found that we can make organic molecules artificially with inorganic ones.
Biblical creation is not an alternative. It has no ground, no consistency, no evidence, and even the things it gets right were already known or theorized by civilizations prior to the bible. This is not to say there aren't alternative explanations to the world which doesn't rely on science, but the bible isn't one of them.
@@m4riel thanks for your comment. I'll get back to, busy weekend for me. Have a great 4th if you are from the USA!
@@m4riel " and then later we found that we can make organic molecules artificially with inorganic ones."
Okay just finished the video, this guy is amazing! Really loved the video!
“Professing themselves to be wise; they became fools.”
I find it ironic he uses Newton's Law of Motion equation (10:03): “He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.”
― Isaac Newton
Nowhere in Newton's Laws of Motion is there a trace of God; they are "agnostic", if you will. Newton's own personal opinions and supernatural beliefs have nothing to do with his contributions to science. And the quote itself is highly dubious; it is certainly possible that Newton may have had such opinions, but that quote is probably apocryphal.
feinorgh I agree that being atheist, theist or agnostic has nothing to do with science, but it helped shape his critical thinking skills. Was it beneficial? As voted one of the greatest scientists that ever lived by his peers, I would say so.
“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” ― Isaac Newton
supernatural beliefs? for example: The bible has always talked about alternate universes called heaven or hell, places we cannot see or touch. Did you know string theory mathematical models suggest extra dimensions or alternate universes. Does this prove heaven or hell? No, but we do have the phenomenon of documented NDEs that scientists cannot fully explain. In short, a new hypothesis is created.
David Henry His religious thinking was a product of the time and place he existed in. Surely it shaped his thinking, with that I agree fully, but it still left no mark at all on the scientific theories themselves. This is the strength of science; the bad ideas, even from great scientists, get weeded out. E.g. we do not engage in alchemy anymore, because the premise that it builds upon we now know is false. Likewise, the premise that somebody had to put the planets in motion may be false too.
The inferences you draw from the Bible in relation to string theory is also highly dubious. The concepts are logically separate. It bears the distinct trace of trying to justify belief in the supernatural by invoking mathematical models that have nothing to do with the concepts of heaven and hell as described in the Bible or other holy tests. They are not hypotheses, they are conjectures. And just because we cannot fully explain NDE, or even consciousness itself, does not mean that we should invoke religious beliefs in trying to explain them, It is enough to say we do not know, until we do.
David Henry I would say that his invocation of God as an explanation (later in life) was not beneficial. When he discovered the laws of motion, gravity, and optics he did not make a single mention of a god or some type of grand architect/creator/etc. Newton used God as an explanation when he could not solve the multi-body problem for how our solar system remained stable. He could solve a two-body problem easily, but anything more than that perplexed him. In his ignorance and at the limits of his knowledge, he gave up and invoked intelligent design. Over a century after his death, Pierre Simone LaPlace solved this problem by expanding Newton's calculus and inventing what we now call perturbation theory. When Napoleon read LaPlace's "Celestial Mechanics" he asked why he didn't include "the Architect" and his intervention in the regulation of the cosmos, Laplace replied, "Sir, I had no need of that hypothesis."
Science has had a consistent track record of finding rational explanations for unexplained phenomena, so I don't think it's beneficial to anyone to simply give up and say, "God did it.". Even if that ended up being a true statement, it encourages intellectual laziness and lessens the drive to find the answers.
MelkorHimself If you use Occam's razor and you don't have much knowledge about the universe, like Newton in his time, you may get to the conclusion that the simplest explanation would be a god ( even if there would be serious counter arguments ).
However, the more we know about a phenomenon, the more natural it appears to be. It is the same with the universe: the more you learn about physics and the cosmology, the more you look at it like a natural object. That's why most physicists, and probably even more so cosmologists, don't believe in god.
The same thing happened with life and biology: before Darwin, it seemed to be not natural, hence the invocation of god for the complexity and diversity of life.
So the application of Occam's razor depends on the knowledge available at a particular time, and Newton would probably not have been theist nowadays.
He is definitely becoming one of my favorite scientists/philosophers because he speaks so calmly and clearly about these subjects.
While I get why many popular atheists feel a need to be adversarial, his affect makes me want to consider the substance of what he says.
I would hardly call him calm.
Good God I feel sorry Sean is not very intelligent or coherent debater - he just says over and over I'm not convinced by theism and here are some equations. Brother - not a good logician at all.
@@examiningkubrickphilosofia1530 if that's what you think he says over and over, I know you're not intelligent enough to understand the discussion. Your ears are obviously controlled by your biases.
@@neverest187 LOL I've read Sean and listened to him a few times.
He's just very dogmatic and not a good philosopher
I can always study more physics but really my lack of formal training is not the issue- he just is not willing to engage with real arguments for theism. Can you show me where he does?
@@examiningkubrickphilosofia1530 What's a real argument for theism? There are so many different kinds to choose from.
Sean Carroll has always been one of my favorite skeptics because he acknowledges the difficulties of the arguments and doesn't go off the cliff of arrogance. He is honest that there are many conceptions of God, most of them too vague to properly discuss, and so he can't possibly hope to fully dispell the notion in such a short lecture.
His main argument seems to be that many notions of God do not add any explanatory power to nature that cannot be described using different words. If God operates by physical laws, then why not just speak of the physical laws and be done with it?
This is actually very close to the position that I have tentatively settled on. I believe that God is equal with the universe, because no matter how God behaves, any time we notice a pattern we simply call it a law. Since the universe is by definition everything, it must include God and any line between the two as we continue to dissect and analyze reality must be arbitrary. It is a matter of semantics. So I am perfectly happy to ignore God and simply talk about the universe - except that there are a few points we should acknowledge about this strange universe:
ONE: The universe at least has the illusion of behaving in a creative, intelligently directed, loving way. Furthermore, it appears that it WANTS TO BE FOUND OUT. This happens at many levels. Biologists have started to resort to the quantum Zeno effect to explain evolution. There is much more order than necessary, requiring an explanation beyond purely the anthropic principle. Carroll hints at this by saying there is no reason for all the other galaxies. In another lecture he talked about the bare minimum for life being Boltzmann brains, rather than the whole universe we see. We also seem to be on a privileged planet with a transparent atmosphere and the moon being the right size and distance so we could verify general relativity during an eclipse. The more disasters we avoid that at one time experts thought were very legitimate (resource depletion, nuclear war), the more suspicious I become. It looks like the universe is intelligent-like enough for it to pass a Turing test. While a multiverse could explain some of the illusion of intelligence, we don't know that intelligence isn't actually a manifestation of some sort of multiverse. Nobody knows how consciousness works, and some have suggested it uses quantum superpositions of many realities, so we are again bogged down in semantics.
TWO: The universe will never be completely understandable to a finite mind. It is in some sense infinite. Many scientists take seriously that it might be infinite in spatial extent, meaning there is no such thing as a closed system and we cannot rely on thermodynamics to prohibit perpetual motion machines, time travel, entropy reversal, and miracles. Many theories we've made contain mathematical singularities where they break down, giving us infinities and ambiguous answers. Removing these singularities tends to make them pop up somewhere else. Theories predict weird things such as negative energy, which could give rise to their own sorts of infinities. Chaos theory means that not all of the seeds of the future are in the present, bringing the infinitesimals into reality. The incompleteness theorems predict an infinite number of axioms. Even in a simple universe, wherever there are living mathematicians, knowledge of these axioms can affect their behavior and influence on the universe in unpredictable ways. The bottom line is that there will always be something "outside" our descriptions of the universe.
So, there might be no God, but we seem to live in a universe that is intelligent, cares for us, and is forever beyond our complete understanding. That sounds an awful lot like some conceptions of God.
The reason I like using the religous language sometimes instead of the scientific is to communicate with others. Many people have had encounters with the spiritual world. These encounters could very well have been a combination of hallucinations and wishful thinking, but such is the case with all of our percieved reality. At some point, one simply has to accept that one will never know anything for sure (even mathematical theorems could have mistakes) and move forward in faith on what seems likely.
Nor in many lifetimes
Thank you. I fully agree.
Seek and you shall find. To find God one has to begin with an open heart. Curiousness is in all of us.
Allah/Yahweh the judeo Christian God doesn't seem like such a bad answer when there are people claiming to be eyewitness to things supernatural. Especially with religions so opposed to substances that could lead to hallucinations, I see your need to justify naturally, but the bible never claims miracles arent supernatural.
Mostly theologians who focus on science and the existence of God do not argue that there is conclusive proof and furthermore that this is purposeful because it would not allow for the existence of faith and development of faith. I don’t have time to explain these things here, but there have been whole books and articles written on the topic from multiple different perspectives and logic, so if you are curious, look into it more deeply.
So what you are saying is, If there is not enough proof, believe it anyway!!! Sounds sensible!
Faith seems unnecessary. As an art form, I guess religions are fine. I just prefer other art forms.
So to summarize, our current understanding of how the universe works has little room for justifying the existence of God?
It makes me wonder how much of the universe we actually understand?
How developed is our actual understanding? How smart can we get? Are we really so smart that we should be able to use mathematics and physics to describe God? If so, how could we consider it still God? If not, then why argue it should still fit our theoretical construct? I can appreciate that nature will still exist even without our knowledge of it...that is knowledge and science only exists to help "us" understand nature not that nature obeys only what we understand. I also don't have the arrogance to believe that we are capable to understand EVERYTHING in nature. I know this concept of limitless is the the point of conflict because if limitless is real then we will never be able to grasp and this simply doesn't satisfy those who marvel in human achievements. If we believe limitless is real then we faith because it always will be beyond human conception.
So the logic shows God isn't a good theory? I have to agree because yes "theory" is a way "binding" the concept of God to our limited capacity of understanding. Thus the "Logic" must conclude the existence of God to be false but the reality of things is "fuzzy" (Lotfy Zada) not logical. Even Aristotle showed this. It is only another tool to be used in limited context.
Apologies for the misspelling, The scientist name was showed that "fuzziness" is more universal than logic, was Lotfi Zadeh. As I said above, the idea that God does not make for a good theory may be true in the context as he describes, but this definitely doesn't mean one can conclude that God doesn't exist as this can implicitly imply.
The result is always the same- One can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. Even logically this shows to be a futile argument. Which also means the result leaves one to act on faith to settle on either account.
Stuart Chase quotes,
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”
Neither precept fits into our construct of rationale. Because there is no proof for God's existence we either can conclude we need no proof or that any proof we don't know about isn't possible. Both are unscientific and thus concluded on faith. Those "I don't knows" have a lot to gamble on. These divisions will not change.
So lets be careful what we ask for. What answer do we expect when we ask another why they believe in God? What is our expectation, our intentions, what is the condition of our heart? If we ask this while holding our preconceptions, it will only further bind us within our "limited" human reasoning. If it's sincere then we are giving room to "limitless" possibilities- just as in eternity with our decision of faith.
But Kyeol, the problem is that you claim to already understand that the universe was created by this being you call "God." You don't know this. You just believe it, and it is not a rational belief.
KW: The result is always the same- One can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. Even logically this shows to be a futile argument. Which also means the result leaves one to act on faith to settle on either account.
GW: Sorry, but you are mistaken about this. There are many good disproofs of the existence of God and there are no good proofs of his existence.
KW: Stuart Chase quotes, "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."
GW: Mr. Chase is just mistaken. Nobody should believe that something exists on the basis of insufficient evidence. Proof and disproof of God are possible, and disproof has been provided.
KW: So lets be careful what we ask for. What answer do we expect when we ask another why they believe in God?
GW: We should expect an answer based on reason, of course!
KW: What is our expectation, our intentions, what is the condition of our heart? If we ask this while holding our preconceptions, it will only further bind us within our "limited" human reasoning. If it's sincere then we are giving room to "limitless" possibilities- just as in eternity with our decision of faith.?
GW: We should not decide whether God exists on the basis of “our heart.” Something does not exist merely because we want it to exist. This is not a question for faith to decide, but for reason to decide.
I'll get back to you in a bit :)
disproofs of God? you have some wild delusions my friend
I am willing to bet that after his presentation, he does NOT pass a gold bucket around asking for money; & claiming that if you do not put money in the bucket, that you are doomed for all eternity.
Well... he does get paid to teach as a faculty member
Well, no physics isn't in the extortion business. It just casually informs us that the Universe is heading towards heat death and there's nothing we can do about it.
@@paulzapodeanu9407 well... all I’m saying is the Sean Carroll is not doing charity work. He is a faculty member at CalTech who also wrote some books on the side. He clearly makes some decent of money- well earned money btw.
Besides... most churches simply passes the “bucket” around. Most churches don’t claim that you won’t have salvation if you don’t give some money. Only in “prosperity churches” would you find some sort of rhetoric like that... which most traditional Christians won’t agree with.
I never once heard that in a Church in my life. Donate or perish. That's total BS..Tell us the truth, you have no clue what happens in a church do you. In the general scheme of things, man hasnt been able to even control fire much less understand the universe in less than a blink of the eye on the evolutionary timescale. But yet you are certain you have all the intelligence and knowledge to tell others you have all the answers and they are the fools. People didn't even accept Newtons ideas on solar rotation and that was just pure calculation to prove. You all would have been flat earthers back then wouldnt you. Never learn.
@@EmptyMirrorMindful 🤦 I was forced to attend church, twice a week, for the 1st 18 years of my life.
I know what went on in that church. I have been to other churches as well.
I no longer attend church.
I never was a flat-earther, nor a Young Earth Creationist.
& yes, I'm telling you the truth.
"An idea about the universe that may be true or false"
That's a hypothesis.
A theory is a hypothesis that has, for all intents and purposes, been proven.
Right! I hate being a grammar snoot but dislike the conflation of the words hypothesis and theory. Unfortunately too many scientists do this especially when communicating with a lay audience.
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 Right! It's "fingernails on the chalkboard" for me when I hear "string theory" ,which has been written about enough in popular science literature that its almost a household phrase. Same with the "multi-verse theory"! I'm OK with "string-cheese theory", though!
If there are many worlds, I'm pretty sure that I will be convinced of their existence in some of them. The only thing I can tell is this world is not one of those. I wonder which copies of Sean Carroll will convince me, and which ones won't.
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 evolition is not even a theory as nobody lives long enough to witness it so its unfalsifiable
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 you have never seen bacteria mutate to anything other than bacteria... its not science. We only degrade. Devolution is real.
The term Theory in science has a more robust meaning.
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
I hate that this is the case honestly. It creates so much unnecessary confusion. Its very difficult to convince someone that a word doesn't mean what they think it does.
Awesome, I think I have to watch it again to fully get a grasp on a lot of it though.
Aaawwww fyi watched it 5 times ......didnt help 😁😁😁
@@jimanderson2518 it's okay, you'll get the hang of it, I had to go back a few minutes to fully digest too
Giorgio : God is an alien who pretend to be god
Michael : Or is he ??
I am an Alien pretending to be God, or am I?
You both are way behind
Did you get his autograph?
Tide goes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication -- you can't explain that.
0dWHOHWb0 what?
Ahhh yes, that meme is truly Bill O'Reilly's great contribution to the world.
The rain falls down....therefor god???? The sun shines....therefor god??? The colour is red....therefor god?? Batman says: bang crash boooom.....therefor god...getting tired of religious people with the explanation: .therefor god....
@@frrebrreb4296 You are aware, therefore GOD!
Apparently you just did.
This definition of theory much better defines hypothesis.
“Everything happens for a reason”
But in what context?
Myles Ricker ask more questions....
Ask what u mean by god
Since there r many
I’m sorry, what?
To wake us the fuc up😏💞
In All contexts, there are no un-caused events.
He demonstrates how important it is to be well-spoken. It is asif he summons great notions and make them float on his words.
I don't think we can draw a complete narrative about a spiritual being because we are not spiritual in nature, not in this plane of existence.
@@keyissues1027 we are indeed not created in his image.
@@Calligraphybooster how was anything created naturally? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2blockYou've missed the entire point of his argument. His argument was never against a God and the creation of the Universe. He never said it's not possible. In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree.
His argument is that at this point in time God is not a good theory. He then explained this with a very well researched, thought out and fair set of follow ups including the weaknesses in a lot of Scientific theories and the positives in God's.
He however proved multiple times that although it is a theory at this point in time it is far from the best.
He even took the best argument for God (by a long way).
@@matwatson7947 he's a typical 'maybe this, maybe that' actor atheist who will NOT give the glory to God. He loves his act of "In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree." but his empty pride can't get him to admit that God has ALL the evidence and he has NONE.
The first line in the Bible that was later removed by an editor...
"You're not going to believe this hypothesis".
LOL and ROLF and whatever else. And you missed April Fools by 8 days
@@greywolf271
So you think I'm kidding ?
@Ranjit Tyagi
You must care about something.
Your feet, perhaps.
@Ranjit Tyagi
I've never heard a book call for violence.
Give me an example.
I'd like to hear it.
@Ranjit Tyagi
I have no idea what you mean by "spirituality".
I looked it up in my dictionary and I still don't know what it means.
Can you give me an example.
That might help.
Hi Sean,…The way I am understanding this is, the approach or an idea of the purpose of existence itself.. Is there a reason,purpose or explanation for existence itself.. What is the purpose of existence,is existence a requirement, does existence have a purpose and self awareness,is existence sentient?
Man created god, not the other way around.
Break The Loop, you are clown material. All the evidence for the resurrection shows you are a fool. Keep believing what you have chosen and when you face your final minutes seek Him
@@michaelbrickley2443 LOL, at "all the evidence forthe resurrection" -- y'all should notice there is *none* :-)
In a special way the gods created man..
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ So you're a polytheist? 5000 gods to choose from, just maybe one created man :-)
@@theskett no, lol, what I meant was that the myths of the gods also created man..