Dr. Meyer is my hero. I have learned so much from him, especially considering probability as it relates to amino acid sequencing and protein folding. He makes really hard concepts understandable. And he has faced his critics with every book he has written and allowed himself to be grilled by them. He is very impressive and probably the person on Earth I would most like to meet and have coffee with.
//especially considering probability as it relates to amino acid sequencing and protein folding. // I It has been demonstrated - by numerous people - that Meyer, Behe, Dembski, et al, are using bad math to form their calculations.
@@AWOLCOOLBILL do explain. If there are 20 amino acids that form functional proteins, and there is no law of attraction prior to DNA and the cell to sort them into the correct order and no natural selection at this point, and the shortest proteins are about 100 amino acids, how is finding just one functional protein not 20^100 or greater? People can claim this has been debunked, but that doesn't make them right. I've seen really good answers to the counterclaims, and have seen Meyer answering his critics face to face.
I feel so bad for the people at DI. I was on the other side in 2005/2006. In retrospect, given the experience of the Trump era, it’s very obvious they came up against very powerful forces who shut down debate with lies, slander, exaggerations, etc. while feeding the tribal prejudices of their audience. I don’t know if these criticisms of Darwinism are correct, mainly because I haven’t read enough of both sides yet. I’m rusty on my Darwinism; while I was big into New Atheism, I’ve mostly just kept the standard view of evolution as a given since the mid 2000s, and am just starting to dip my toes into the critical side of the argument. But I do know the hysterical attacks aren’t warranted. What’s amazing to me is that the people launching the attacks will then deny that there’s any social pressure against critics of Darwinism, and that the field is an open forum where any valid criticism will be met with open arms, but will then be rigorously scrutinized for what it is. That’s not what I’ve seen. I’ve seen dismissive scoffs. On the rare occasion someone bothers to criticize the arguments being made, they never actually respond to the responses, and accuse DI folks of “refusing to engage with criticism.” It’s gross, and it was actually an early example of the complete disempowerment of conservative forces in the US. It’s beyond plausible deniability at this point.
@@biblicalworldview1: _"People can claim this has been debunked, but that doesn't make them right."_ Exactly right. It's been a point of frustration for me that while the design argument is invincible based on the evidence, detractors don't bother to give logical or data-driven rebuttals. They just declare that it has been debunked. Microbe-to-man evolution is just declared to be the winner in spite of the past century of contrary evidence.
@@martyfromnebraska1045: _"... it’s very obvious they came up against very powerful forces who shut down debate with lies, slander, exaggerations, etc. ..."_ I am pleased that you see with open eyes. I pray that you are but one of a growing number.
I grew up in an atheists’s country and educated as an atheist since my memory ever served. By the age of 17 I was already a committed atheist, (without realizing this was climax of my atheism faith and only went down since then) In my “old” atheists’s world we were certain that universe was infinite in both space and time, past and future. Any other thought was considered a compromise to “crooked” theism. Big bang cosmology was discredited as theists’ desperation attack to undermine atheism and science.(which is quite ironical consider today people in YEC camp discredited big bang cosmology as secular’s plot to undermine Christian faith) I started to study physics around age of 17. It was the second law of thermodynamics throw me first doubt on my atheism faith. As it can not coexist with a universe that’s infinite in time. And then Olber’s paradox tell us that universe can not be infinite in both time and space. That was also time that big bang cosmology was quickly developed and matured. One leading cosmologist who was neither Christian nor theist titled his cosmology book “creation of universe” and introduced concepts of fine tuning and Anthropic principle. The more I learned about physics, the less sense atheism makes to me. By the time I got my Ph.D of physics I had already become a committed theist instead. I was baptized into Christianity six months later.
@@Iverath Please be more accurate as in stating that Steve Meyer is a Philosopher of Science, which is an extremely important field becasue this field is what justifies scientific investigation in its current form. Far too many scientist do not have the necessary background in this field to justify why their work is relevant.
@@hillstrong715 "Please be more accurate as in stating that Steve Meyer is a Philosopher of Science, which is an extremely important field becasue this field is what justifies scientific investigation in its current form. " That's not important if we care more about what can be demonstrated. Then we go to scientists. If we want... not so trustworthy claims, then we go to Meyer.
@@Iverath "what can be demonstrated" by scientists is lacking in two major Life questions. The source and origin of Life (living organisms) and consciousness. Also, science does Not pursue the WHY. Scientists discipline is discovering the HOW. Poets, philosophers, and religions pursues the WHYs.
Here is what I LOVE! I am not a physicist or professional scientist, but this highly intelligent born TEACHER explains it in a way that I can understand! Thank you!!!
Dr. Meyer, i beg you to take good care of your health! Eat well, exercise effectively & get plenty of restful sleep. The world needs you to stick around for a LONG time!
If you don't want to mislead young people, you should fact check Meyer on his claims about science. He is very wrong on a lot of these things. And young people have google to fact check you, then they will just ignore what you say in the future, or just leave the congregation.
@@Iverath Yes? Fact check... Meyer's errors... I'm waiting... (or... just a typical ad hominem attack... not a real objection...) NOT very scientific! 😮
@@Iverath Seeing your responses elsewhere in these comments, when you say [If you don't want to mislead young people, you should fact check Meyer on his claims about science. He is very wrong on a lot of these things.], I suspect that you yourself are just about clueless about the foundations of any field that is in the arena of the sciences. For you to say [And young people have google to fact check you, then they will just ignore what you say in the future, or just leave the congregation] shows that you lack a large amount of rigour in regards to what using Google will do for you in fact checking. Much stuff is incomprehensible without the requisite educational background to understand whether or the information being presented is actually factual or rubbish.
I absolutely love listening to Dr. Meyer. I have to say, there are some things that he says that make me pause, rewind, and listen to again, because of the logic behind it and implications of it; but I still love it anyway. Super thoughtful, and always gives me much to think about. Thanks for continuing to have him on Dr. McDowell!
You should know that the experts in the field don't agree with most of what Meyer says. I think it's important that Christians don't just listen to the people who agree with Christianity, but go to the actual science - not to a philosopher that's not a scientist.
@@Iverath I think a more fair assessment is to say that some experts in the field agree and some disagree. I personally don't think that Christianity has issues with science. Sir Isaac Newton was a mathematician, scientist, and philosopher, and a Christian, and he considered science as a way to better understand God and everything that He created. Your personally beliefs about life do not make you a good or bad scientist. I think people from all religious or non-religious backgrounds could have views on the world that make them willfully ignore evidence that's in front of them. I'll give examples on both sides. Some leaders in Christianity made up false doctrine in the past that said the Earth was the center of the universe. This idea is said nowhere in the bible, but they put it out there as fact anyway. When Galileo (and other scientists of the time for that matter) said otherwise, they killed him for it. I can't say I see that anymore with the Christians who are thinking critically with both the bible and science. What more recent history has shown is the mainstream scientific community having issues with Christianity. For instance, when the big bang theory was first introduced, the mainstream scientific community didn't want to accept it, because the idea that the universe has a beginning is something that the bible states. I'm all for going with the evidence and following it wherever it leads. I just haven't seen any real direct contradictions to the bible, unless you want to take some of the early chapters of Genesis literally. One thing that confused me recently is the idea that was running around the scientific community for a while that we could be living in a massive computer simulation. I haven't heard anything about it recently, so I'm assuming it's been thrown out. What confused me about it was that there were several atheists and agnostics that I listen to, that were seriously pondering this while saying that there is no way God could exist. If we are living in a simulation, then whoever programmed it would have several traits: 1. creator of the simulated universe; 2. ability to intervene or end as they see fit; 3. ability to access all information in the simulated universe. All of these traits would be what we would call a "god" from our perspective. Not advocating for or discounting the theory at all, just saying that saying that God created the universe vs a god-like being created the universe is a distinction without a difference, unless the eternity of a soul is added to that.
@@leftykiller8344 "I think a more fair assessment is to say that some experts in the field agree and some disagree" That depends on what you're talking about, specifically. I guess I can agree in the loosest sense of what you're saying here. "I personally don't think that Christianity has issues with science." This is curious. Do you think any other religion has "issues with science", and what would that look like? "Sir Isaac Newton was a mathematician, scientist, and philosopher, and a Christian, and he considered science as a way to better understand God and everything that He created. " What do you think this shows? "This idea is said nowhere in the bible" But you agree that the creation story of the bible is not in agreement with science, right? " What more recent history has shown is the mainstream scientific community having issues with Christianity. For instance, when the big bang theory was first introduced, the mainstream scientific community didn't want to accept it, because the idea that the universe has a beginning is something that the bible states. " Well, it's not a settled issue yet whether the universe had a beginning or not. If you're referring to the big bang theory, then that doesn't deal with the beginning of everything that began to expand in the big bang. It's not like Christianity has settled this. "I haven't heard anything about it recently, so I'm assuming it's been thrown out." Are you aware that nobody in science takes Christianity as a hypothesis for the beginning of everything seriously? What conclusion do you draw from the fact that Christianity has been "thrown out" of science? "If we are living in a simulation..." Why are you talking to me about something I don't believe in? It's like me talking to you about how Mohammad wasn't really getting revelations in a cave. ", unless the eternity of a soul is added to that." How did Christians prove that souls exist?
@@Iverath You ask [But you agree that the creation story of the bible is not in agreement with science, right?] and based on the actual data collected, I think the data is in more agreement with the bible than with the current evolutionary interpretations of that data. But you do have to access the data that was available in the 1970's and 1980's to see just how that data was interpreted by the evolutionary biologists of that time. It is interesting that you say [Well, it's not a settled issue yet whether the universe had a beginning or not]. The situation at this time (as it has also been in the past) is that there is NOTHING settled in science. We have all sorts of interpretation of the available data and as more data is obtained, what may have been the consensus view in an earlier time is overturned by a later time. It should be always remembered that [science is never settled] and if someone tells you this, they are blowing smoke in your face for their own political ends. In your question of [Are you aware that nobody in science takes Christianity as a hypothesis for the beginning of everything seriously?] there is an implicit claim being made by you and as you have provided NO evidence to support this claim, one can be fully justified in saying that your claim is unproven and ridiculous. Just to let you know, scientific investigation (what you appear to be calling science) is not able or even capable of working properly with one off events. This is a philosophical hazard that far too many people (including professional scientists) miss and only destroys in the minds of the general public any reputation that scientififc investigation may have. I do have to ask why you would ask an irrelevant question like [How did Christians prove that souls exist?] when this subject is a philosophical or religious question and is not (certainly at this point in time) a question that can even be investigated by any of the methods of scientific investigation.
@@hillstrong715 "I think the data is in more agreement with the bible than with the current evolutionary interpretations of that dat" I'm sorry, but you have been misinformed. First: there are two different creation orders in the bible. Secondly, the order in which things are created is wrong. We're talking "any third grader would know this" wrong. "The situation at this time (as it has also been in the past) is that there is NOTHING settled in science. We have all sorts of interpretation of the available data and as more data is obtained" So would you say you think the germ theory of disease could be overturned tomorrow? "there is an implicit claim being made by you and as you have provided NO evidence to support this claim, one can be fully justified in saying that your claim is unproven and ridiculous." Show me a physics paper that invokes the power of prayer, Jesus, or souls. Show me mother Mary in chemistry - can she really turn into toast? I didn't think I'd have to support claims to the obvious. Don't take this the wrong way, but have you ever tried to read any scientific papers? II mean, it's fine if you don't, but then you'll have to realize people like me recognize that fact by how you present yourself. "Just to let you know, scientific investigation (what you appear to be calling science) is not able or even capable of working properly with one off events." So forensic science is just bunk? The murder only happened once! Just curious, what method to find truth do you use, given that you don't seem to prefer science? "I do have to ask why you would ask an irrelevant question like [How did Christians prove that souls exist?] when this subject is a philosophical or religious question and is not (certainly at this point in time) a question that can even be investigated by any of the methods of scientific investigation." If the Christian is going to use "souls" as a part of an argument, he first needs to prove that souls exist. Does that sound fair to you?
In terms of the question explored here, which is basically "If there's this powerful, creator-God, Who/what created HIm?" I think the best answer from a Christian perspective I've ever heard went something like: "Well, consider this: You ask God this question after your death as you find yourself standing before Him. What will you do if God says: 'I created YOU and YOU are responsible to ME! So what did you do about my Son?' "
This was amazing! I have always said, Science is the study of God. Thank you Sean, you are truly incredible and as a new Christian, I have learned so much from you!
Everytime Dr Sean says "Got it." I'm like.. really? Becauae i had to rewind and put it on 0.75 speed, and i wish he would've elaborated more 😂 my brain hurts 😂
This is the first bit of apologetic content in years which I have found intellectually satisfying. I love that Stephen is almost always the smartest person in the room but he uses his smarts to lift the understanding of others.
Ask any physicist if they agree with Meyer on the majority of these points. If the experts don't agree with this guy, why are Christians listening to him? Could it be to cement their already held beliefs?
@@Iverath I am far more interested in if Meyer agrees with reality than I am in the opinions of a currated selection of motivated God haters. Appeal to authority is always a fallacy btw.
@@KevTCC So you aren't aware that there are a lot of Christians that are scientists? What conspiracy theory do you have about them? "Appeal to authority is always a fallacy btw." Look up the fallacy. Do you know the exception?
So good! Meyer's grasp of his myriad subjects and his ability to talk cogently, from beginning to end of a complex series of thoughts without meandering or wasting time reminds me of William Lane Craig.
I loved this conversation! Thank you to both of you so much for your time and this ministry. God bless you Sean and Steve! I am heading over to Amazon right now to order the book.
I think this is why some scientist have insinuated that our universe may be a simulation. Such a belief escapes the constraints of physics by being able to say "physics may be different outside of the simulation". The irony is that it points even more to an intelligent creator of this "simulation". A dog chasses it's tail. lol
Indeed. Every attempt to escape the need for a creator invokes things that need a creator even more. I was intrigued to learn that quantum cosmology merely shifts the need to a different reason.
I never tire of listening to Dr Stephen Meyer. He really is one of the great minds of our day and expresses his position with such eloquence and reasonableness one is compelled to entertain his arguments. I've have recently been grappling with the concept of the 'Infinite' universe and with that comes the notion that anything.. and everything is possible... and an infinite number of times. On top of that there is the multi-verse theory where we are just one of any infinite array of possible universes. All of this hypothesizing still requires causes. There would still need to be a universe generator that churns out universes with different values so there was a chance that some type of conscience life like ours could exist. Where did the generator come from? Both naturalistic/materialist world view and theist world view require believing in miraculous singular events. We do know that our universe gives rise to life but why should it emerge at all? How does non living, unconscious stardust give rise to living consciousness that can observe itself? Why is there anything at all and not nothing? Wouldn't nothing be more likely than something? Extrapolating on our infinite universe and with it infinite possibilities. There is somewhere out there where Richard Dawkins is a theist debating William Craig the atheist. Thank-you Sean and Stephen for your contributions to the world. Regards Scott😊
Everything that is needed to guarantee no possibility for life is present in the universe.but the universe has been fine tuned.also if the universe is undirected we would find chaos instead of order
If there are an unimaginable number of universes, then there is one that had the features such that made all the other universes impossible. That would leave only one universe. Hence, the multiverse is refuted. Cheers
@@Terrylb285 then in that case there will most certainly be a universe generated that prohibits all other universes from being produced. This is because all possible universes will occur. The result is the one universe we have. That must follow from an infinite number of universe generations right?
No matter what they will always plead infinity . And what people don’t realize the multiverse is a just a theory,it cannot be observed,measured,tested,because at this point it only exists in the mind
I'm not smart enough to keep up with all the threads of thoughts from these 2 brilliant minds 😅 is this more or less a master class on logical evangelism to scientists??😂❤🎉
Meyer is not a scientist. He's saying things that scientists would not agree with. Remember: just because you don't understand it, doesn't make these people smarter than you, it's a common trick to use jargon to impress the people who have not studied the field. I'd encourage you to fact check Meyer by talking to physicists, or to check what the consensus is. I know Meyer is wrong about a lot of things, but don't take my word for it, ask an actual scientist.
@@Iverath Please describe one thing they would not agree with and why. By the way he does say that a few things, like the whole quantum area are up for debate, particularly whether scientific instruments are not sophisticated enough to detect causes to certain events or whether they "just happen".
@@Iverath You say [I'd encourage you to fact check Meyer by talking to physicists, or to check what the consensus is] and yet you appear to fail to understand just how diverse the views are that exist within the broader physics community nor do you appear to understand the very large disputes that are going on in many different areas of physics. You also do not appear to understand that just because there is a consensus does not mean that that consensus is valid, logical or rational. Many times it is not. Now you do make a claim with [I know Meyer is wrong about a lot of things] and yet you have not, as far as I can see, presented any evidence to support this claim of yours. So, I will not take your word for it and as I have had discussion with actual scientists, I will certainly not your word for it.
Thank You Dr.Sean 1st time seeing Dr.Stephen Meyer . I heard of The Fine Tuned explanation the other day from Eric Metaxas with guest Melissa Cain Travis ( Very Rich) ,understanding/argument that is Wonderful . 8th grade Ed. can grasp this . Points Father God reasons/why`s
Wow so cool, the first i saw or heard of him was on the Expelled documentary with Ben Stein on Intelligent Design 👍🏼 Jonathan Wells would be another great guest to talk to as well regarding Biology
Love the visual "red shift" from blue light to red light on the book shelf behind Sean. What are the chances of Sean's jacket being the same color as Steve's wall AND the blue in Steve's shirt being the same shde of blue on Sean's bookshelf (over Seans shoulder)?
As always awesome stuff. There's a book with a similar title called: Return of The Gods by Johnathan Chan. This author looked at ancient inscription referring to deities worshipped by ancient tribes and the relevance it has to our day. The similarities he found is striking! It would be amazing to see do an interview with this author (Jonathan Cahn).
Everyone mostly uses inferred rather than direct experiences all day long. After an event has passed, you are only left with a detachment from the objects and those who designed and interacted with them.
About quantum physics applied to emergence of our Universe: The Jury is out - it's incomplete, so ultimately, anything that postulates a quantum "something" that might "rescue" physics from embracing the existence of God is fraught with uncertainty.
Very interesting 🧐 beginning of things? I think it’s like being in a classroom: The teacher 👩🏫👨🏽🏫makes the pupils in the classroom and they are accountable to the teacher 🧑🏫. Outside of the classroom we can’t go; what’s the purpose of knowing outside where we can’t get?
Great discussion. I believe Dr Russell Humphreys could add something to the theological implications of where we're positioned in the universe. The fact that we're just about dead center of these universe, surrounded by spherical shells of galaxies. Layers of galaxies, empty space, then more galaxies, empty space again, etc. A phenomenon that would not be apparent except from the center.
Not true. If our Universe was two dimensional, it would be shaped like the surface of a sphere with the galaxies spread out evenly across it. Then, as with our Universe, you can look in any direction and you would see pretty much the same thing. So, even if you traveled to the most distant galaxy spotted by JWST so far and studied the night sky, the Universe would look very similar to the way it does in our night sky, surrounded by galaxies as far as the telescopes can see. We are inside the Big Bang. The expansion took place all around us, and every other galaxy in the Universe.
Regarding the "pro atom:" no expert here, but it seems to me that if we back extrapolate everything into this one tiny little ball of energy, then that point of energy would already be subject to the laws of thermodynamics. So applying the second law, it could never self-start because with what is it trying to equilibrate? All the energy is already compacted in one singularity. Also, wouldn't this also mean everything would have already been entangled?
The Earth is not the center of the Solar System nor is it the center of the Milky-way Galaxy. To claim the Earth/ Milky-way Galaxy is the center of the Universe to my mind is self centered. May be the Andromeda Galaxy is the center of the universe from its perspective? Where do you claim this hypothetical center to be located?
Somewhat off topic, but I’ve been digging into Discovery Institute stuff and it’s on my mind, so: I feel so bad for the people at DI. I was on the other side in 2005/2006. In retrospect, given the experience of the Trump era, it’s very obvious they came up against very powerful forces who shut down debate with lies, slander, and exaggerations that feed into the tribal prejudices of their audience. I don’t know if their criticisms of Darwinism are correct, mainly because I haven’t read enough of both sides yet. I’m rusty on my Darwinism; while I was big into New Atheism, I’ve mostly just kept the standard view of evolution as a given since the mid 2000s, and am just starting to dip my toes into the critical side of the argument. But I do know the hysterical attacks aren’t warranted. What’s amazing to me is that the people launching the attacks will then deny that there’s any social pressure against critics of Darwinism, and that the field is an open forum where any valid criticism will be met with open arms, but will then be rigorously scrutinized for what it is. That’s not what I’ve seen. I’ve seen dismissive scoffs. On the rare occasion someone bothers to criticize the arguments being made, they never respond to rejoinders, and accuse DI folks of “refusing to engage with criticism.” It’s gross, and it was actually an early example of the complete disempowerment of conservative forces in the US. It’s beyond plausible deniability at this point. Additionally, it’s become clear to me that atheistic evolution has taken on a religious significance to a large segment of the population, and this segment is disproportionately represented in elite institutions.
Nobody teaches "Darwinism" -- that's just a term made up by creationists designed to denigrate evolutionary biologists. It's okay to be rusty, but if you believe the "enemies of the DI" were the first to be dismissive and scoffing, then you don't know anything about the history of the DI and their tactics. The problem for the DI wasn't shunning or disempowerment, it was their inability to present a strong enough case for an alternative theory to evolution to be taken seriously enough to warrant a vigorous debate in the scientific community. It was fellows of the DI who chose to spend their time writing populist books about their theories rather than do the actual science required of anyone who proposes a completely new hypothesis claiming to overturn everything we thought we knew about how life evolved. Seriously, they made grand predictions about how "Darwinism" would fall within a decade, and ID would assume its rightful place in the spotlight, and then just sat back and (apparently) expected it to happen. That's not how science works. To take an example from this video, the Big Bang theory was scoffed at for years after it was first proposed, and you know what happened? Those who believed there was something to the theory didn't just sit back and whine about being ignored, they rolled up their sleeves and put in the work, gathering and analyzing the data, and publishing paper after paper until the establishment were forced to admit "Yep, you were right." So if you want to blame anyone, blame the leading lights of the DI who allowed the field to languish in obscurity and resentment while they made a very nice living from publishing books and the lecture circuit. While I don't begrudge anyone making a living, it was their choice to do it that way and leave ID no further along than it was 25 years ago. Why should scientists take ID seriously when IDists are not doing anything to warrant it?
@@EnglishMike: _"... their inability to present a strong enough case for an alternative theory to evolution to be taken seriously enough ..."_ Hah! The notion that all life evolved from a microbe is 19th century mythology that can 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 be believed by faith with no support from modern molecular biology. *Mike:* _"... , the Big Bang theory was scoffed at for years after it was first proposed, ..."_ The Big Bang theory posits an ORIGIN of the universe. It replaced various theories that say the universe existed forever. Didn't you notice that takes an enormous step TOWARD the Biblical account?
Sean, I'm trying to learn all of what it means to be a Christian but I have hurdles to deal with. One being...... does the Christian world view hold that there is no other life in the universe outside of planet earth? I often find myself wondering if a similar biblical history has ever occurred on some other world within our own galaxy or on some other world in some other galaxy in this universe that God created. I can't currently believe that planet earth contains the only intelligent life in the universe....why would God do that? If the Christian world view says we are it........then I've got a huge problem.
@@Iverath You are showing an enormous amount of ignorance here when you say [Christianity: "just don't question where god came from, and we have an answer to these questions!"], profound ignorance on your part about the beliefs of Christianity. Mayhaps, you should study Christianity first before opening your mouth and uttering foolish things as you have already done. In fact, mayhaps you should study a number of different scientific field first before commenting anywhere to just increase your basic understanding of what scientific investigation can and cannot do.
@@Jdelli0916 You say that [You wrote all of that and literally said nothing at all] and yet the advice given was to study the subject areas before opening ones trap. Perhaps you should do the same.
1:04:00 That's why God is worth worshiping. We can't begin to explain or comprehend a Being that created the entire universe, and all the complexities of lifeforms on earth; a Being that is unmade without a beginning or an end. Yet has bestowed upon us a hope of eternal life and love through a personal relationship that is felt no matter what trials we face in a world run by evil. I agree that God is the best explanation for the life I experience and the universe I see, and the best hope in solving the 2 biggest problems man faces: sin and death.
Steven Myers' work is one of the things that brought me to Christianity. God is not just some fantasy that does have to correlate to reality. To me God has to be an objective truth not a subjective one. and therefore there would be evidence and logic to his existence. And Mr Myers is one of the people that helped me find it.
Causality comes first or proper hermeneutics? Prefer the latter, personally, as human observations and deductions made mistakes so many times, they even render the rise of relativism.
In the Cosmological Argument it is assumed that the Causality Principle was operating without time. That's like assuming the Laws of Gravity and Motion were in effect before matter and space existed. Both assumptions seem nonsensical. How did the universe begin? We don't know, and may never know. But Meyer's answer is just an excuse to stop thinking about it.
@@EnglishMike "In the Cosmological Argument it is assumed that the Causality Principle was operating without time." - No it isn't. Have you ever read anything on the Kalam cosmological argument? Because I have studied this argument for years and I have NEVER heard any proponent of the argument claim that causes can produce effects outside of time. I think you are confusing the causal principle in the Kalam (Whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its beginning) with the principle of sufficient reason in the contingency argument (Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause). "How did the universe begin? We don't know, and may never know. " - So then you must be able to refute the Kalam cosmological argument. I'm all ears... "But Meyer's answer is just an excuse to stop thinking about it." - How is it an excuse to stop thinking about it? That makes no sense at all. Additionally, taking your reasoning seriously, any answers for anything would be "an excuse to stop thinking about it", since once you have the answer to a question, you don't need to keep looking for answers. I have no idea why you are so committed to ignorance instead of being committed to knowledge and truth.
@@EnglishMike "Agreed" - See my response to the OP. "especially since we're not allowed to question how God (a far more complex entity than the Universe) came about." - No one is stopping you from asking why God exists. In fact, if you had ever bothered to look up the response to this question, you would have your answer and wouldn't be asking the question anymore. So I have to wonder why you invent the absurd idea that you aren't allowed to ask questions about God instead of actually researching the question to find answers.
@@jackplumbridge2704Oh, maybe it's something to do with the fact that apologists always couch their argument for the existence of God as being far more likely than the Universe having a material cause. I get that the audience for this type of stuff isn't atheists at all -- their channels and businesses depend on support from Christians so their content is designed to satisfy Christians. I am sure there's all kinds of philosophical arguments in favor of (and against) the existence of God, but frankly, philosophy isn't an interest of mine, which is something I have in common with most Christians. Their faith isn't based on philosophical arguments, that's for sure. For me, the existence of an omnipotent omniscience supernatural creator only makes the question of why anything exists orders of magnitude harder to solve because not only do you have to argue for something, you have to argue for a bunch of characteristics we have no actual evidence that they can exist at all, let alone in a single being. I like Sean Carroll's take -- perhaps existence is a more natural state of being than non-existence (in terms of their being something rather than nothing). It's not a solution, but it's a refreshingly different way to look at the issue.
//whereas there was a huge range of other possible values that were much more likely// You cannot determine "much more likely" because you only have one set of data; data that is derived from our universe. There is no comparative data from another universe. If you have a bag full of balls, and you pull out a blue one, would it be "much more likely" that you could have pulled out a red one? There is no way to tell because you don't know the colors of any of the balls still in the bag. They could all be blue. You cannot determine what is "much more likely." It is possible that all the constants in any universe (if there are there universes) are exactly the same as the constants in our universe. The "range" would be irrelevant. Nothing would be more likely, or less likely, than what they are in our universe.
I do think his answer, stated that way, could lead to your response. Yet, there is no doubt that what he was saying is, it is much more likely to not pick the one thing you are looking for when there are 1x10 to the 180 power (whatever that number is) than the one you want. So you are not arguing with his question but shifting it to something he did not say or mean.
Let’s separate the 2 things, existence of God which I believe in and believing that the bible is the true revelation of God because these are 2 separate things
The CCC model invokes such physics that it would not be a stretch of the imagination to call it alien, let alone the amount of agency bestowed upon it.
The universe is limited in time is significant for cosmological argument. One of the most famous cosmological arguments for God is from Thomas Aquinas, who credited God as first cause. While Thomas asserted that there must be a first cause, otherwise there will be no subsequent causes and effects, later thinkers often walk way back from effect to cause and allows an infinite chain of effect to cause to avoid the first cause. But this requires universe to have infinite past. Another alternative to defeat cosmological argument is to reject causation all together, like David Humes did, but apparently this is too much to give up so few atheist will take this route. Some modern thinkers like Hawking seems giving up the effort of getting rid of first cause, instead, he attributed first cause to natural law. But this is more of deism idea, not atheism idea.
The unlimited time idea has many problems. Dr. James Tour really details how the more time you have the more problems you have for abiogenesis, being that chemical compounds are very volatile. Dr. Stephen Meyer summed it pretty good for trying to explain the universe without cause. In that approach we couldn't even trust our own minds because all we ever observe is cause and effect, without it, a hippo could appear in your lap as you read this. Life would be absurd without cause and effect. The idea of natural law being the prime first cause is a cop out at best. It's just another excuse of many to avoid the belief in God.
Tell me you didn’t watch and comprehend the video without telling me you didn’t. By the way, God of the gaps was created by a Christian to tell other Christian’s that they shouldn’t just fill the the name God into naturalistic processes that bridge the Gap when there is an empty spot in a naturalistic process. Ie: wolves becoming dogs. What the brilliant scientist Dr Stephen Meyer is doing is deductive reasoning. He’s explains a whole naturalistic process then he’s observing potential causes. Then selecting theism to be the most probable cause. A naturalistic process can’t explain why a naturalistic process is a thing at all. The naturalistic process can only explain its functions once it is known. It can’t explain why it came to be. So as a proper thinking person you need to explore why it came to be. You’re more than welcome to think that it was just necessary or it was just blind chance. That’s your choice!!
Was a rogue wave quantum fluctuation with such specific properties that its initial conditions were set, dialed to within an inch of gravitational force, across the expanse of a specific expansion rate of the universe that all constants of the material mapped precisely to mathematical dimensions of time and space with an exact amount of energy, a specific frequency and an obligatory vibration sufficient enough so that in the vastness of reality just the precise level of Hall effects at the only point in its vastness that could create both the states required to start and then to maintain life. To that which appears accidental the known initial conditions being unknown a habitable planet in a Goldilocks of conditions and time, space and matter.
i'd like to know, how in the name of god,, do you measure 300,00 or 900,000 light yrs. why not say, we don't have a clue how far they are, except it is a long long way.
Atheism is actually a fair new phenomenon. Human beings prefer to have explanation for things, and when there isn't one, they invoke god or gods. That's what's as old as the beginning of time -- well, the human race anyway.
It is a world view argument (not cosmological perse) - John Lennox is a great source for those on both sides of this "issue". The simple fact is we can only see back as far as the big bang - we have no sight of what was before. Sure, we have a far from complete understanding and yes calculations of the age of this universe will change as more discoveries are made. This is just basic science - with better tools, we discover more and adjust/adapt or replace our theories. I see no conflict between the big bang and genesis. I am of the view that the language in scripture is full of metaphors as a result it is guidance not a scientific text. I reject the open hostility and hostile language of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens and their kind; but so also do I reject the absolutist language used by literalists - many of whom have not understood the first few paragraphs of genesis. - quite clearly the earth is older than 6000 years and Genesis does not state it is -- look for the reference to "days". Both "God made it" and "there is no God" are simplistic absolutes; as are the created gods (Thor etc). These are not my God - who made everything - everything we know and everything we do not know. Everytime one of these folk tyr to ampermorphise or diminish God their cases FAIL.
No matter the flaws in the constantly re evaluated and researched models proposed by cosmologists...most of them still make far more sense than the proposition that .."a magic creator god,whose existence we cannot physically demonstrate or verify, made it all "... The current answer is simply...At present we do not know...
@@capecarver True...But the burden of proof is on those who are making the claim..To claim...well you cannot prove it isn't god...is completely pointless...If you are adding a creator god to the list of possibilities you need to do the following...Show,with verifiable evidence than a god or some gods ACTUALLY do exist...Then show that that god or those gods CAN create universes,then confirm that that or those gods actually DO create universes,and finally confirm that this god or gods created THIS universe...Please present you demonstrable verifiable evidence for the above,then we can add a creator god to the list of possibilities..From there you will need to demonstrate that this creator god is the one you believe in..Not one of the 1000s of other creator gods that are,or have been worshipped on this earth. Please show us your evidence..
@@capecarver Please explain what is my belief ...As a materialist,naturalist l am simply stating that no one has shown me sufficient evidence to convince me that anything outside the natural world exists...Thats all...I am not claiming that nothing exists outside the natural world in fact,if you could demonstrate to me in a verifiable way that something does exist out side os the naturalmworld...I would change my belief...Please explain the burden of proof in my "looking at the evidence l remain unconvinced.." position...What am l claiming or asserting that requires a burden of proof...???
@@michaelabbott9080 Perhaps nothing. I don't know. Maybe you're just quibbling. But if you assert that the origin of the universe was entirely the result of unprovoked "natural" forces, then I will ask for proof of that assertion.
I’m not totally thrilled with how Sean brings these guests on unchallenged. But it’s Sean’s show and I can always decide not to watch it. And anyone who does basic google searches can find many counterpoints to Meyer’s views, not just with cosmology but also evolutionary theory. That said… I’m not sure why the cyclic universe or Penrose’s model (or similar) are necessarily incompatible with theism. One could envision the “grand universe” as a giant (infinite?) chain of temporal universes. I suppose one could then posit that God created the chain so to speak. And (in the Christian view) He can relate to creatures like humans in the present universe but in some far distant or future universe (in the cyclic model) He could relate to other different sentient creatures. After all, in the Genesis story there is a flood and humanity is begun again. Why could an infinite being, for reasons sufficient to Them, not do similarly with a setup for universes?
The problem with the cyclic universe is the creation and recreation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics where no matter what energy disperses over time.
@@BillHirsch1417 I don’t think it is anywhere near settled that the conservation of energy is violated. Penrose tries to figure out ways around that with the CCC model. I’d note Meyer is not a cosmologist. But… That’s not really my point. My point is that Meyer is critiquing all these “eternal” models because there must have been some beginning for theism to be true - but there doesn’t have to be *a* beginning 14 odd billion years ago. Theism could be true *and* God could be maintaining a cyclic universe for much longer than that. I’m not saying that is necessarily the situation, just that it is “one possible world” compatible with theism. Therefore Meyer’s critiques of these models are red herrings. They aren’t as incompatible with theism as Meyer is suggesting.
"God could be maintaining a cyclic universe" If you believe in the Genesis story that could not be the case. He made everything good, that means you can't have things that were bad in the world until Adam and Eve sinned (and possibly Satan "before") Entropy is a negative chaotic force which doesn't help with the creation of good.
@@Roescoe even if I agreed with Biblical inerrancy (which I don’t) I could legitimately disagree with you. Do you agree that God could have created separate universes with no causal linkages, and stuff is going on there which God has decided not to reveal to us? Suppose our human-containing universe is Universe A and then next one over is unconnected and call it Universe B. There could be sentient dolphins equipped with souls on “Earth 2” in the Universe B - and if you disagree with that possibility then you are actually limiting God’s omnipotence, wouldn’t you be? And maybe (also, for reasons maybe only known to God) the sentient and soul possessing dolphins in Universe B may not yet be fallen - perhaps Satan the aquatic snake has not yet entered the oceanic “garden of Eden” on Earth 2 to tempt the dolphins. Now, I think we are at the point where you would agree that Universe A and B could both exist under God’s purview “right now”. If so, then let’s change the setup: a cyclic case where Universe B existed “prior” to Universe A, but they are not causally connected in any way. I see no differences if God has two (or more, up to infinite) separate universes that are separated either spatially (ie different bubbles of space with God knows what “in between”) or temporally (which could be two instances in a cyclic chain).
@@mikelsikel73 Yes, I don't know what I don't know. Talking about stuff that has no causal link to ourselves is pretty silly wouldn't you agree? Basically, sure God could have done that, but what relevance does that have to us? Also based on the nature of God being a designer and involved throughout, he demonstrates love to us specifically. If we use the pattern of marriage which He references over and over as an analogy to the Church and Jesus, the God you propose would be a polygamist, that would be contrary to the laws He set up for us. Perhaps you could argue He does live tby the same laws, but that would then say he is illogical, which gets into a whole other set of issues.
General relativity is a theory of gravitation that explains the gravitational interaction between various objects in space. One of the main assumptions in cosmology that people tend to stumble over is the assumption that light years in outer space equals the same measure of distance and passage of time on Earth. However, in general relativity, the local rate of time and the measure of distance depend on the amount of matter or mass in the vicinity. When we observe other galaxies, we are effectively looking at vastly differing measures of time and distance relative to our observations of objects locally inside the mass of the Milky Way. This can lead to a number of observed phenomena in outer space, such as redshift, superluminal motion, and the apparent faster motion of the outer spiral arms of galaxies. The expansion of the universe is not required to explain the observed redshift of light from distant galaxies. As predicted by general relativity, the expansion of space between galaxies due to the absence of matter in our line of sight, where there is less acceleration, can explain the observed redshift without the need for a universe expanding into oblivion. The vacuum energy of space is due to frame dragging of black holes that are growing from consuming spacetime. Recent findings have found that dark energy or vacuum energy is associated with black holes that are growing in size. In summary, general relativity is a theory that explains the interaction of gravitational forces between objects in space. The measure of distance and time in outer space depends on the amount of matter or mass in the vicinity, and this can lead to various observed phenomena, such as redshift and superluminal motion. The expansion of the universe is not required to explain these phenomena, and the vacuum energy of space is due to the frame dragging of black holes that are growing in size.
Yeah that's why I'm not really sold on the inferences of galaxies and other solar systems existing, based on observation from earth alone. It's folks looking up at the sky, no one has "been there" well very few claim it and it's not easily testable if they have or haven't.
“I was speeding” isn’t required to explain why the police radar measured my car’s Doppler shift and calculated my speed at 15 over. Maybe my car just experienced time differently because fat Albert was in it. But just like for redshift, we experimentally know what causes it. Expansion is not an assumption, but a heavily tested and confirmed hypothesis that even Meyer and McDowell accept in this video. That is quite the physics fantasy you have constructed.
@@Tinesthia I would dispute "we experimentally know what causes it." since I've never seen people manipulate planetary motion. Everything else is on point.
What he’s saying as far as connectivity to a mind is just not making any sense. I would like someone to tell me how I’m wrong here. This is very long I know, but I would rather be thoughtful and thorough than someone be confused on a point. I Loved this conversation (I put part 3 below; it was too long for one comment. Thank you for those who read) 1.) I really like that he says math comes from minds. That’s different from the system itself because our extrapolation/approximation of us trying to quantify the systems of this universe is not the literal function of those systems. He clarified this which I liked and then went completely back on it with ‘before matter existed there was math and math comes from minds’. No no no. He literally just quantified this. We don’t know how dimensions operate or how what we know came into being. This is what math is, our best guess and quantification until we really know and can still use math to further understand. Just because space and time may not have existed in the universe’s impetus that we can decipher, does not mean that the math which by definition can quantify even the primordial if we have the technology, had to come from a mind. There is no math, there is that which we don’t understand that we are using math to quantify. So in short, we made math, math describes the system, the system we don’t know which came before the system we do know is irrelevant, the math to quantify that unknown is all he cares about, it is only math before the system we know, math comes from minds, therefore a mind is the beginning. This just seemed like the most articulate circular reasoning argument I think I’ve ever heard. This might sound harsh but I have to express why that doesn’t sound good at all. 2.) I as he also expressed didn’t like the quantum mechanics question. Stuff does not “pop into existence”. We don’t know where it comes from. Basic common misconception so I’m glad the question was asked. But he completely bobbled it with what I know to be rudimentary knowledge of particles combining it with a cosmic wave function which I didn’t understand the connection there at all. Maybe I didn’t understand what it was he was trying to get at, but this is really the only thing I think he could’ve meant. The process of us observing the particle changes its normal function because that’s the only way we can measure it. This is why we can only get its position or its velocity. It acts differently if it’s not being measured because us measuring it messes with its natural flow. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether it collapses or not nor a cosmic wave function. Just so I’m being crystal clear, with our technology now, we will mess up its normal function when we observe it because we lack the technologically prowess to measure any other way. This process does not collapse anything. He falsely equates the observer as the cause for it this cosmic wave function collapsing. This is the only way an observer would have anything to do with this and that’s not how this works. We can observe it collapsing; it did not collapse because we observed it. I have no idea why he would say that. So the “cosmic observer” point of it being possible here to being possible in a grander scale made no sense at all. We don’t know why it would collapse, but it would be nonsensical to presume a mind or observer has anything to do with it. This on top of that if the universe did “pop into existence”, it did so from whatever place quantum particles come from. I really really like his Humeian and Kantian perspective of cause. This I wholeheartedly agree with. I know he was trying to work with something impossible to touch on, but he shouldn’t’ve tried to sound like he knew what we can’t know at this time. We don’t know barely anything about the origins of the universe. We can only give our best guess based on the incredible circuity of us not having the technology yet. This is like Eratosthenes measuring the circumference of the Earth. He did so well but it wasn’t perfectly accurate. He did the best he could with what limited access he had. This is even worse. It is way harder and way more complex. This isn’t simple geometry. He basically said that Einstein, Penrose and all others have this gap where they don’t know how it works. For Dr. Meyer this means a potential theistic implication. This is basic God of the Gaps. We don’t know how Baryonic Nucleuo-Synthesis happens. We know it has to and we know how other subatomic particles do it but we don’t know how Baryons do. Does this mean for him that’s theistic implications? Just because science hasn’t gotten that far yet doesn’t mean it’s proof of theism. It’s like with geocentric and heliocentric. Saying the possibility is still open and the position of a God existing is intellectually consistent is fine, but trying to find his hand in everything is the definition of confirmation bias. Look objectively, if it’s divine, that’s great! If not, that’s just as cool! Don’t force it because this is how every theist has messed up this point in all of human history.
3.) The Last part that didn’t make sense for me was what he said about it being the best explanation that everything came from one mind rather than simplicity. This is the most important part of everything I’ve said. This I seriously disagree with on the most fundamental level. Firstly, an Omni-Deity not only is inconsistent with the Bible and every religious text, but the omnis are all at odds with each other or the individual concept itself straight up can’t exist ever. Secondly, infinite regress is the gotcha that compounds with this. If all you have is the simplest building blocks, pure simplicity, that makes sense. Under no circumstances at the beginning of all things can you have a mind. It’s actually impossible. This leads to three, the reason it’s impossible is because of what a mind has. Knowledge, Wisdom, Intelligence, and most importantly *Experience*. Experience is not something you have it’s something you gain. All of the attributes must be gained through experience. How do you have experience if you came from nothing? You can’t. Fourthly, it gets worse. Why is it considered so much that a God made us? We are so wonderful and so unique that we had to be made, but we are flawed. Flawed with basic human problems as everyone is. But still, we are so special that we had to be made, but the literal definition of perfection that we come from is even more special. However, this can come from nothing. Understand why that sounds so incredibly ridiculous. If it’s uniqueness, beauty, love, art, logic, etc. that makes us special but he’s even more so, then the reason for us needing to be made falls completely flat. If he could, then by definition we could. Fifthly, the universe is capricious. Random interactions showcasing the most circuitous routes and convoluted laws to get things done. They make sense and are cool, but I could imagine easily better, more efficient, and more effective ways the universe could be. If a deity did make this universe it would not look like intensely complex systems that all come from a greater simplicity. Eventually all things have to come to a simplicity. Basic building blocks and energy of some type could’ve always existed. Something that would need to have been cultivated by those, not so much. Life came from the simplest forms and AI came from the simplest algorithms. Sixthly, I like what Dr Meyer said about the potential of seeing God’s influence in our daily lives. This is something that I really like talking about but this really narrows things down. If this is true that he interferes/interacts it means he’s either designed the universe in a way that he could manipulate it while it’s in motion. The machine is on and the cogs can be replaced without turning it off because you can’t. Life can’t be turned on and off at the hand of a switch and the universe is like a life-form. To say it’s possible, sure I guess, but to believe something untestable and formulate your whole life around it is strange. We might never be able to test for that. One the other hand, this should be testable that constant tinkering from outside of all things is taking place. If it does happen then it can be testable, measurable, and therefore quantifiable. If it’s not happening then God probably isn’t outside of the universe. Seventhly and lastly, with the hand of god hovering above idea, something that is “like us” probably should come from similar origins. To compound with point 1 & 6, I think it’s logical to imagine that a deity with more likely powers than the Omni(s) would be a higher dimensional product of this universe not the universe of it. This would allow him to tinker all he wants using the tools available to him consistent with the universal laws. As I stated above, if you have random interaction upon random interaction starting from the simplest place, you get the most random results which literally explains everything we see. Not logical construction other than the interactions that are happening. This creates laws from that primal state: simplicity and caprice to complexity, complexity to circuity and convolution, circuity and convolution to now. This makes sense when you think that a product is trying to make the most out of what it’s got. This would be the God. He would be like us, he would think somewhat like us, and he would be able to interact with us. Higher yes, higher dimensionally speaking. This doesn’t make him better that doesn’t make him master, that makes him a lifeform that we should respect equal to ourselves. If he did cultivate humanity, not create cultivate using the available pre-existing resources, conditions, and materials, we should be grateful, but not subservient. Even if he was all powerful still the same applies. If not doesn’t sound equal to me, that doesn’t sound good to me. This good message, this deity as a product of our universe is the one from the holy books. You can’t have one from outside, on all fronts it makes no sense. I’ll close: The Greeks of Antiquity came up with the omnis to define the idea of the highest possible being. Only recently in modern theism is this where I’ve seen this concept intermingled with the people of the book (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) which should’ve stayed in the philosophers head as a passing thought. This does not and has never described those deities. Modern theism’s interpretation and teaching is that they want to worship the highest possible being but that goes against the original meanings of the words in the text. Plus, mistranslation upon mistranscription upon purposeful changes upon the aforementioned compounded with purposeful changes upon parablepsis occasion by homoeoteleuton, sleepy scribes, scribes not understanding the line so they change it, etc, really doesn’t help either. But even if we were working with the original wording, thinking that way twists the words. Don’t make some being that’s logically inconsistent the one you’re worshipping because he would in essence be higher than one of this universe. Maybe you wouldn’t be worshipping the highest being, but you’d be worshipping the right one, the one that’s consistent with the texts, and the one that would be more likely to exist in the first place. Do not want anything to be true, know it to be true because it is testable and consistent with its foundations and thereby the foundations of everything. He seems like a great guy and very knowledgeable/intelligent. He just also seems to have a really bad case of confirmation bias. The only part I’m really not sure with was the cosmic observer thing. I feel like I didn’t understand what he was saying but I listened back 5 times and it didn’t make any more sense the further I tried. I asked my sister who’s in a Grad-PhD program for Astro-Physics and she had no idea what he was trying to say either. If I dropped the ball on that, someone let me know. I would also be very excited to engage with anyone on this whole post if there’s anyone willing.
Honestly I think you would benefit far more by having a debater on to oppose Meyer. A lot of his points I thought were easily dismissible as they were for the most part just assumptions. While I highly doubt the format of your show will change I thought it was worth mentioning. Believe it or not there are some pleasant atheists out there. Just as long as you don't invite someone like Professor Dave, who even I would want to avoid
Unfortunately, in my experience arguing with atheists online, they tend to become abusive. For example, they often accuse me of lying and those associated with the Discovery Center as "charlatans" who lie all the time. I suppose there are some "pleasant" atheists, but I have found most of them not just argumentative, but dismissive and even nasty. I was an atheist once. I tried not to behave that way. I think if you want to see some "reasonable" atheists, they will not be arguing with you about science, but rather philosophical issues, like suffering, evil, natural disasters, the apparent "triumph" of horrible dictators over the centuries, the Holocaust, etc. I am not an atheist, but I understand those philosophical arguments. Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Back to the unmoved mover argument. Speaking of the UNIverse we posit what we want to prove. Uní-one thing. This is the beginning of dualism. What is beyond the universe since it is limited? Speaking rather of the cosmos there is no limitation. Did the cosmos have a beginning? is like asking if god had a beginning. It’s meaningless. If you have being, can you ever have not being? The word that you speak is spoken….forever was is and will be. Was the beginning of the universe always going to be the beginning? Then that statement has no beginning. We have no idea about anything beyond our experience and will never know that which is beyond experience. We are to God what my dog is to me. The finite can never comprehend the infinite.
Even if true, you're still light years away from connecting the Cosmological, Ontological, or Teleological argument to a jealous god who thinks the sun revolves around the earth.
Events that were "supernatural" previously: Lighting, Earthquakes, Tides ... Black Holes, Quantum Particles. . Science found an explanation to all of these and more and in NO CASE the answer was "an invisible sky god did it." LOL
@@Mark-cd2wf Bible: God just created everything ... you don't need to ask how or why. Bible: He works in mysterious ways ... don't ask too many questions. Bible: Faith in things unseen ... blind faith is good for you. Bible: Don't test the lord ... he will get angry. Bible: Lean not in your own understanding ... just obey. Be Gullible, Stay Gullible and Don't test or ask too many questions. LOL
@@Mark-cd2wf "He deals with this fallacy @1:05." He spouts some nonsense about it-is-beyond-mans-intellectual level YOUR calling it a fallacy does NOT make it so. What I wrote is A FACT. LOL
@Mike failed hypothesis? 😂😂 the laws of thermodynamics states that energy can't be destroyed or created so there has to be an aether, aether is also the spiritual so what you're saying is there is no spiritual?
Sorry to say this but that professor seems to be struggling to make is point, seems he has anxiety in answering questions posed to him, he didn't convince me, phantom field. The Interviewer Shaun had a better and closer understanding the Universe, and by the way, by the way Einstein was wrong about our universe. As in our Universe is non-physical.
@@EnglishMike Hiya Mike, Well Einstein was obviously right in the Universe from a Physical viewpoint, however the Universe, as in everything else that exists in it is at its foundation anything but physical, and Einstein's formula falls by the wayside at this foundation point, the foundation point is frequency, vibration, with the next level up Energy. In the vibration and frequency level (Mass) doesn't exist. Also technically at the level of Frequency and Vibration, neither does (Light) exist. Hopefully you can see where this is going, as two variables have been removed from the formula. The. Then (Energy). Only manifests at the next level when frequency and Mass sort of exist. So hopefully you can now see what I was trying to explain.
This guy is a philosopher, not a scientist. Not an expert on the subject. Origin of the universe consensus says non-scientist Stephen Meyer is wrong about the universe having a beginning. Will you trust the experts or the two non-experts in this video? Thinks some scientist in the 60's is relevant to today's science and scientists. He continues to talk about beginnings, like the Christian god somehow (in a very special pleading way) escapes this problem. He's wrong about there being a "definite beginning to the universe". And he's doubly wrong by pointing to BGV for this, as the scientists in question don't agree with him. Why do no Christians understand this? "There is no matter to do the causing". This is not in accordance with science. Perhaps we should ask an actual scientist about these things. "We need to invoke an entity..." which can cause things. NOTICE: he's not explaining how he knows this entity actually has these properties. Heck, all these things wrong and I'm only 10 minutes into the video. Will my fingers break before I get to the end? To be continued, maybe. Cont: The way Meyer describes scientific papers/scientists to have trying to "get away" from problem of a beginning is not even accurate. If Christians are against lying, why are you guys not calling Meyer out on this? This guy thinks mathematics existed before the physical universe? Math is a language created by humans, we have lots of evidence of this. Continuing evidence. 00:36:00 He's asked about nature being around for ever. His answer? He assumes that it had a beginning. Surprised Sean didn't call this out. This guy doesn't even know that "observer" in physics don't refer to "some guy observing stuff" but the measurement itself. Please do your research. ~"everythiing has to affirm something as the primary cause." This is why nature is better than god: we know for a fact nature exists. An explanation that rests on things we know exists (and everyone agrees on) is much better than an explanation that rests on a being that only some people agree exists.
*Iverath:* _"This guy thinks mathematics existed before the physical universe?"_ Does math require the existence of matter, energy or time? Does the existence of math require anything in the universe? Didn't the concepts expressed by math equations exist before they were figured out and written down? So why do you think mathematics _didn't_ pre-exist?
@@KenJackson_US "So why do you think mathematics didn't pre-exist?" Because it's an invention. We know this because we have people throughout time that invented things like numbers, zero, etc. If you want to believe that it pre-existed us, you're welcome, but don't expect me to accept it without some kind of evidence.
Dr. Meyer is my hero. I have learned so much from him, especially considering probability as it relates to amino acid sequencing and protein folding. He makes really hard concepts understandable. And he has faced his critics with every book he has written and allowed himself to be grilled by them. He is very impressive and probably the person on Earth I would most like to meet and have coffee with.
//especially considering probability as it relates to amino acid sequencing and protein folding. // I
It has been demonstrated - by numerous people - that Meyer, Behe, Dembski, et al, are using bad math to form their calculations.
@@AWOLCOOLBILL do explain. If there are 20 amino acids that form functional proteins, and there is no law of attraction prior to DNA and the cell to sort them into the correct order and no natural selection at this point, and the shortest proteins are about 100 amino acids, how is finding just one functional protein not 20^100 or greater? People can claim this has been debunked, but that doesn't make them right. I've seen really good answers to the counterclaims, and have seen Meyer answering his critics face to face.
I feel so bad for the people at DI. I was on the other side in 2005/2006. In retrospect, given the experience of the Trump era, it’s very obvious they came up against very powerful forces who shut down debate with lies, slander, exaggerations, etc. while feeding the tribal prejudices of their audience.
I don’t know if these criticisms of Darwinism are correct, mainly because I haven’t read enough of both sides yet. I’m rusty on my Darwinism; while I was big into New Atheism, I’ve mostly just kept the standard view of evolution as a given since the mid 2000s, and am just starting to dip my toes into the critical side of the argument. But I do know the hysterical attacks aren’t warranted.
What’s amazing to me is that the people launching the attacks will then deny that there’s any social pressure against critics of Darwinism, and that the field is an open forum where any valid criticism will be met with open arms, but will then be rigorously scrutinized for what it is. That’s not what I’ve seen. I’ve seen dismissive scoffs. On the rare occasion someone bothers to criticize the arguments being made, they never actually respond to the responses, and accuse DI folks of “refusing to engage with criticism.” It’s gross, and it was actually an early example of the complete disempowerment of conservative forces in the US. It’s beyond plausible deniability at this point.
@@biblicalworldview1: _"People can claim this has been debunked, but that doesn't make them right."_
Exactly right. It's been a point of frustration for me that while the design argument is invincible based on the evidence, detractors don't bother to give logical or data-driven rebuttals. They just declare that it has been debunked. Microbe-to-man evolution is just declared to be the winner in spite of the past century of contrary evidence.
@@martyfromnebraska1045: _"... it’s very obvious they came up against very powerful forces who shut down debate with lies, slander, exaggerations, etc. ..."_
I am pleased that you see with open eyes. I pray that you are but one of a growing number.
I grew up in an atheists’s country and educated as an atheist since my memory ever served. By the age of 17 I was already a committed atheist, (without realizing this was climax of my atheism faith and only went down since then)
In my “old” atheists’s world we were certain that universe was infinite in both space and time, past and future. Any other thought was considered a compromise to “crooked” theism. Big bang cosmology was discredited as theists’ desperation attack to undermine atheism and science.(which is quite ironical consider today people in YEC camp discredited big bang cosmology as secular’s plot to undermine Christian faith)
I started to study physics around age of 17. It was the second law of thermodynamics throw me first doubt on my atheism faith. As it can not coexist with a universe that’s infinite in time. And then Olber’s paradox tell us that universe can not be infinite in both time and space. That was also time that big bang cosmology was quickly developed and matured. One leading cosmologist who was neither Christian nor theist titled his cosmology book “creation of universe” and introduced concepts of fine tuning and Anthropic principle. The more I learned about physics, the less sense atheism makes to me.
By the time I got my Ph.D of physics I had already become a committed theist instead. I was baptized into Christianity six months later.
Wow, thanks for sharing!
Amen! A Romans 15:13 blessing to you.
YEC reject the Big Bang because they have painted themselves into a corner of 6000 year old universe.
Funny, the more I learn about physics the more atheism makes sense to me
Steve Meyer is one of my favorite people to listen to.
Sean is so good at letting people work through their statements and thoughts. Loved this one guys.
I love listening to Dr. Meyer anytime I can. I learn so much! He is such a great teacher!!
Thanks Sean and Dr. Meyer for doing this. When I consider origins it starts to blow my mind. Go look at the night sky and consider the source...
Amen 🙏 I had a Psalm 19 moment too, even when I was an atheist.
This scientist is very articulate and knowledgeable. Thank you both for sharing this info.
He's not a scientist. He's a philosopher.
So not an expert in origin of universe studies.
@@Iverath Please be more accurate as in stating that Steve Meyer is a Philosopher of Science, which is an extremely important field becasue this field is what justifies scientific investigation in its current form. Far too many scientist do not have the necessary background in this field to justify why their work is relevant.
@@hillstrong715 "Please be more accurate as in stating that Steve Meyer is a Philosopher of Science, which is an extremely important field becasue this field is what justifies scientific investigation in its current form. "
That's not important if we care more about what can be demonstrated. Then we go to scientists. If we want... not so trustworthy claims, then we go to Meyer.
@@Iverath "what can be demonstrated" by scientists is lacking in two major Life questions.
The source and origin of Life (living organisms) and consciousness.
Also, science does Not pursue the WHY. Scientists discipline is discovering the HOW. Poets, philosophers, and religions pursues the WHYs.
@@steveflorida8699 Christianity also lack these answers. What's your point?
Here is what I LOVE! I am not a physicist or professional scientist, but this highly intelligent born TEACHER explains it in a way that I can understand! Thank you!!!
Dr. Meyer, i beg you to take good care of your health! Eat well, exercise effectively & get plenty of restful sleep. The world needs you to stick around for a LONG time!
Dr Meyer has been a great blessing to me in my efforts with young people!
Awesome!
If you don't want to mislead young people, you should fact check Meyer on his claims about science.
He is very wrong on a lot of these things.
And young people have google to fact check you, then they will just ignore what you say in the future, or just leave the congregation.
@@Iverath
Yes?
Fact check...
Meyer's errors... I'm waiting...
(or... just a typical ad hominem attack... not a real objection...)
NOT very scientific! 😮
@@eswn1816 Check my top comment, I go into detail there.
@@Iverath Seeing your responses elsewhere in these comments, when you say [If you don't want to mislead young people, you should fact check Meyer on his claims about science. He is very wrong on a lot of these things.], I suspect that you yourself are just about clueless about the foundations of any field that is in the arena of the sciences.
For you to say [And young people have google to fact check you, then they will just ignore what you say in the future, or just leave the congregation] shows that you lack a large amount of rigour in regards to what using Google will do for you in fact checking. Much stuff is incomprehensible without the requisite educational background to understand whether or the information being presented is actually factual or rubbish.
I absolutely love listening to Dr. Meyer. I have to say, there are some things that he says that make me pause, rewind, and listen to again, because of the logic behind it and implications of it; but I still love it anyway. Super thoughtful, and always gives me much to think about. Thanks for continuing to have him on Dr. McDowell!
You should know that the experts in the field don't agree with most of what Meyer says.
I think it's important that Christians don't just listen to the people who agree with Christianity, but go to the actual science - not to a philosopher that's not a scientist.
@@Iverath I think a more fair assessment is to say that some experts in the field agree and some disagree. I personally don't think that Christianity has issues with science. Sir Isaac Newton was a mathematician, scientist, and philosopher, and a Christian, and he considered science as a way to better understand God and everything that He created. Your personally beliefs about life do not make you a good or bad scientist. I think people from all religious or non-religious backgrounds could have views on the world that make them willfully ignore evidence that's in front of them. I'll give examples on both sides. Some leaders in Christianity made up false doctrine in the past that said the Earth was the center of the universe. This idea is said nowhere in the bible, but they put it out there as fact anyway. When Galileo (and other scientists of the time for that matter) said otherwise, they killed him for it. I can't say I see that anymore with the Christians who are thinking critically with both the bible and science. What more recent history has shown is the mainstream scientific community having issues with Christianity. For instance, when the big bang theory was first introduced, the mainstream scientific community didn't want to accept it, because the idea that the universe has a beginning is something that the bible states. I'm all for going with the evidence and following it wherever it leads. I just haven't seen any real direct contradictions to the bible, unless you want to take some of the early chapters of Genesis literally. One thing that confused me recently is the idea that was running around the scientific community for a while that we could be living in a massive computer simulation. I haven't heard anything about it recently, so I'm assuming it's been thrown out. What confused me about it was that there were several atheists and agnostics that I listen to, that were seriously pondering this while saying that there is no way God could exist. If we are living in a simulation, then whoever programmed it would have several traits: 1. creator of the simulated universe; 2. ability to intervene or end as they see fit; 3. ability to access all information in the simulated universe. All of these traits would be what we would call a "god" from our perspective. Not advocating for or discounting the theory at all, just saying that saying that God created the universe vs a god-like being created the universe is a distinction without a difference, unless the eternity of a soul is added to that.
@@leftykiller8344 "I think a more fair assessment is to say that some experts in the field agree and some disagree"
That depends on what you're talking about, specifically. I guess I can agree in the loosest sense of what you're saying here.
"I personally don't think that Christianity has issues with science."
This is curious. Do you think any other religion has "issues with science", and what would that look like?
"Sir Isaac Newton was a mathematician, scientist, and philosopher, and a Christian, and he considered science as a way to better understand God and everything that He created. "
What do you think this shows?
"This idea is said nowhere in the bible"
But you agree that the creation story of the bible is not in agreement with science, right?
" What more recent history has shown is the mainstream scientific community having issues with Christianity. For instance, when the big bang theory was first introduced, the mainstream scientific community didn't want to accept it, because the idea that the universe has a beginning is something that the bible states. "
Well, it's not a settled issue yet whether the universe had a beginning or not. If you're referring to the big bang theory, then that doesn't deal with the beginning of everything that began to expand in the big bang. It's not like Christianity has settled this.
"I haven't heard anything about it recently, so I'm assuming it's been thrown out."
Are you aware that nobody in science takes Christianity as a hypothesis for the beginning of everything seriously? What conclusion do you draw from the fact that Christianity has been "thrown out" of science?
"If we are living in a simulation..."
Why are you talking to me about something I don't believe in? It's like me talking to you about how Mohammad wasn't really getting revelations in a cave.
", unless the eternity of a soul is added to that."
How did Christians prove that souls exist?
@@Iverath You ask [But you agree that the creation story of the bible is not in agreement with science, right?] and based on the actual data collected, I think the data is in more agreement with the bible than with the current evolutionary interpretations of that data. But you do have to access the data that was available in the 1970's and 1980's to see just how that data was interpreted by the evolutionary biologists of that time.
It is interesting that you say [Well, it's not a settled issue yet whether the universe had a beginning or not]. The situation at this time (as it has also been in the past) is that there is NOTHING settled in science. We have all sorts of interpretation of the available data and as more data is obtained, what may have been the consensus view in an earlier time is overturned by a later time. It should be always remembered that [science is never settled] and if someone tells you this, they are blowing smoke in your face for their own political ends.
In your question of [Are you aware that nobody in science takes Christianity as a hypothesis for the beginning of everything seriously?] there is an implicit claim being made by you and as you have provided NO evidence to support this claim, one can be fully justified in saying that your claim is unproven and ridiculous.
Just to let you know, scientific investigation (what you appear to be calling science) is not able or even capable of working properly with one off events. This is a philosophical hazard that far too many people (including professional scientists) miss and only destroys in the minds of the general public any reputation that scientififc investigation may have.
I do have to ask why you would ask an irrelevant question like [How did Christians prove that souls exist?] when this subject is a philosophical or religious question and is not (certainly at this point in time) a question that can even be investigated by any of the methods of scientific investigation.
@@hillstrong715 "I think the data is in more agreement with the bible than with the current evolutionary interpretations of that dat"
I'm sorry, but you have been misinformed. First: there are two different creation orders in the bible. Secondly, the order in which things are created is wrong. We're talking "any third grader would know this" wrong.
"The situation at this time (as it has also been in the past) is that there is NOTHING settled in science. We have all sorts of interpretation of the available data and as more data is obtained"
So would you say you think the germ theory of disease could be overturned tomorrow?
"there is an implicit claim being made by you and as you have provided NO evidence to support this claim, one can be fully justified in saying that your claim is unproven and ridiculous."
Show me a physics paper that invokes the power of prayer, Jesus, or souls. Show me mother Mary in chemistry - can she really turn into toast?
I didn't think I'd have to support claims to the obvious. Don't take this the wrong way, but have you ever tried to read any scientific papers? II mean, it's fine if you don't, but then you'll have to realize people like me recognize that fact by how you present yourself.
"Just to let you know, scientific investigation (what you appear to be calling science) is not able or even capable of working properly with one off events."
So forensic science is just bunk? The murder only happened once!
Just curious, what method to find truth do you use, given that you don't seem to prefer science?
"I do have to ask why you would ask an irrelevant question like [How did Christians prove that souls exist?] when this subject is a philosophical or religious question and is not (certainly at this point in time) a question that can even be investigated by any of the methods of scientific investigation."
If the Christian is going to use "souls" as a part of an argument, he first needs to prove that souls exist. Does that sound fair to you?
I love Dr Meyer's video with Hoover❤ amazing insight and wisdom 🙌 praise the Lord ❤
This is so helpful ! Can’t thank you gentleman enough !
In terms of the question explored here, which is basically "If there's this powerful, creator-God, Who/what created HIm?" I think the best answer from a Christian perspective I've ever heard went something like: "Well, consider this: You ask God this question after your death as you find yourself standing before Him. What will you do if God says: 'I created YOU and YOU are responsible to ME! So what did you do about my Son?' "
Psalm 19...the HEAVENS declared the glory of God...
"Stand still, and consider the wondrous works of God." Job 37:14
This was amazing! I have always said, Science is the study of God. Thank you Sean, you are truly incredible and as a new Christian, I have learned so much from you!
Everytime Dr Sean says "Got it." I'm like.. really? Becauae i had to rewind and put it on 0.75 speed, and i wish he would've elaborated more 😂 my brain hurts 😂
This is the first bit of apologetic content in years which I have found intellectually satisfying. I love that Stephen is almost always the smartest person in the room but he uses his smarts to lift the understanding of others.
Ask any physicist if they agree with Meyer on the majority of these points.
If the experts don't agree with this guy, why are Christians listening to him? Could it be to cement their already held beliefs?
@@Iverath I am far more interested in if Meyer agrees with reality than I am in the opinions of a currated selection of motivated God haters.
Appeal to authority is always a fallacy btw.
@@KevTCC So you aren't aware that there are a lot of Christians that are scientists? What conspiracy theory do you have about them?
"Appeal to authority is always a fallacy btw."
Look up the fallacy. Do you know the exception?
@@Iverath do you not understand your silly online atheist games don't work with me? Well you just learned. Don't waste any more of your time.
Lol it’s always “this position is out of power [presently].”
That’s what any appeal to authority fundamentally is.
So good! Meyer's grasp of his myriad subjects and his ability to talk cogently, from beginning to end of a complex series of thoughts without meandering or wasting time reminds me of William Lane Craig.
This should be interesting. Very much excited!
It's a great conversation!
Another shit show about creation.
I loved this conversation! Thank you to both of you so much for your time and this ministry. God bless you Sean and Steve! I am heading over to Amazon right now to order the book.
Nice! Dr. Meyer is very knowledgeable on topics such as this
Knowledge ➞ Wisdom ➞ Proper Application
Steve - Would you be willing to write a Coles notes edition for each of your books? It would be great to offer to seekers.
Great idea!
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..... Praise Yahuah El Shaddai, Sovereign King of the universe.
Thank you, Dr. Meyer. 🙏🏼
I have no idea what's going on but I'm here for it.
This was fascinating. Hard to follow occasionally, haha. But fascinating. I learned a lot.
I think this is why some scientist have insinuated that our universe may be a simulation. Such a belief escapes the constraints of physics by being able to say "physics may be different outside of the simulation". The irony is that it points even more to an intelligent creator of this "simulation". A dog chasses it's tail. lol
Indeed. Every attempt to escape the need for a creator invokes things that need a creator even more. I was intrigued to learn that quantum cosmology merely shifts the need to a different reason.
We might need a part 2
God made it!
I never tire of listening to Dr Stephen Meyer. He really is one of the great minds of our day and expresses his position with such eloquence and reasonableness one is compelled to entertain his arguments. I've have recently been grappling with the concept of the 'Infinite' universe and with that comes the notion that anything.. and everything is possible... and an infinite number of times. On top of that there is the multi-verse theory where we are just one of any infinite array of possible universes. All of this hypothesizing still requires causes. There would still need to be a universe generator that churns out universes with different values so there was a chance that some type of conscience life like ours could exist. Where did the generator come from? Both naturalistic/materialist world view and theist world view require believing in miraculous singular events. We do know that our universe gives rise to life but why should it emerge at all? How does non living, unconscious stardust give rise to living consciousness that can observe itself? Why is there anything at all and not nothing? Wouldn't nothing be more likely than something? Extrapolating on our infinite universe and with it infinite possibilities. There is somewhere out there where Richard Dawkins is a theist debating William Craig the atheist. Thank-you Sean and Stephen for your contributions to the world. Regards Scott😊
Everything that is needed to guarantee no possibility for life is present in the universe.but the universe has been fine tuned.also if the universe is undirected we would find chaos instead of order
If there are an unimaginable number of universes, then there is one that had the features such that made all the other universes impossible. That would leave only one universe.
Hence, the multiverse is refuted. Cheers
Maybe there is an infinite number of universe generators
@@Terrylb285 then in that case there will most certainly be a universe generated that prohibits all other universes from being produced. This is because all possible universes will occur. The result is the one universe we have. That must follow from an infinite number of universe generations right?
No matter what they will always plead infinity . And what people don’t realize the multiverse is a just a theory,it cannot be observed,measured,tested,because at this point it only exists in the mind
Tku Sean, I love and appreciate Dr Meyer. May God continue blessing his work 🙏✝️😃
👊
Imagine Dr Meyer debate Prof Dave next lol. I would travel to watch that
"Professor" (cough) Dave would likely default to his usual nasty, puerile, insulting, punk debate style.
Stephen Meyers is great. I encourage everyone to read his books, especially "Return of the God Hypothesis."
I'm not smart enough to keep up with all the threads of thoughts from these 2 brilliant minds 😅 is this more or less a master class on logical evangelism to scientists??😂❤🎉
Meyer is not a scientist. He's saying things that scientists would not agree with.
Remember: just because you don't understand it, doesn't make these people smarter than you, it's a common trick to use jargon to impress the people who have not studied the field.
I'd encourage you to fact check Meyer by talking to physicists, or to check what the consensus is.
I know Meyer is wrong about a lot of things, but don't take my word for it, ask an actual scientist.
@@Iverath Please describe one thing they would not agree with and why. By the way he does say that a few things, like the whole quantum area are up for debate, particularly whether scientific instruments are not sophisticated enough to detect causes to certain events or whether they "just happen".
@@Roescoe See my original comment, I've listed some of my disagreements there. I posted it 1 day ago so sort by new.
@@Iverath You say [I'd encourage you to fact check Meyer by talking to physicists, or to check what the consensus is] and yet you appear to fail to understand just how diverse the views are that exist within the broader physics community nor do you appear to understand the very large disputes that are going on in many different areas of physics.
You also do not appear to understand that just because there is a consensus does not mean that that consensus is valid, logical or rational. Many times it is not.
Now you do make a claim with [I know Meyer is wrong about a lot of things] and yet you have not, as far as I can see, presented any evidence to support this claim of yours. So, I will not take your word for it and as I have had discussion with actual scientists, I will certainly not your word for it.
@@hillstrong715
👏 Mike drop....
Thank You Dr.Sean 1st time seeing Dr.Stephen Meyer . I heard of The Fine Tuned explanation the other day from Eric Metaxas with guest Melissa Cain Travis ( Very Rich) ,understanding/argument that is Wonderful . 8th grade Ed. can grasp this . Points Father God reasons/why`s
If the universe is unfolding then who folded it?
Pretty awesome stuff, thanks 🙏
Excellent discussion.
he is the best
Wow so cool, the first i saw or heard of him was on the Expelled documentary with Ben Stein on Intelligent Design 👍🏼 Jonathan Wells would be another great guest to talk to as well regarding Biology
Love the visual "red shift" from blue light to red light on the book shelf behind Sean.
What are the chances of Sean's jacket being the same color as Steve's wall AND the blue in Steve's shirt being the same shde of blue on Sean's bookshelf (over Seans shoulder)?
The answer to everything is METAPHYSICS, the thing that cannot be challenged in any way. What an extra ordinary answer.
Well, what do you expect on an apologetics channel?
@Dr. Sean McDowell Do you all have any resources on reconciling the Big Bang with Genesis?
I don't really think they are compatible except in the sense that they agree that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning.
Look up the lecture or read “7 days that divide the world” from Dr John Lenox of Oxford. Brilliant and Simple.
Navigating Genesis by Hugh Ross is pretty good.
As always awesome stuff. There's a book with a similar title called: Return of The Gods by Johnathan Chan. This author looked at ancient inscription referring to deities worshipped by ancient tribes and the relevance it has to our day. The similarities he found is striking! It would be amazing to see do an interview with this author (Jonathan Cahn).
Everyone mostly uses inferred rather than direct experiences all day long. After an event has passed, you are only left with a detachment from the objects and those who designed and interacted with them.
About quantum physics applied to emergence of our Universe:
The Jury is out - it's incomplete, so ultimately, anything that postulates a quantum "something" that might "rescue" physics from embracing the existence of God is fraught with uncertainty.
Very interesting 🧐 beginning of things? I think it’s like being in a classroom:
The teacher 👩🏫👨🏽🏫makes the pupils in the classroom and they are accountable to the teacher 🧑🏫. Outside of the classroom we can’t go; what’s the purpose of knowing outside where we can’t get?
Sooooooooooo convoluted. I still don’t see a god.
Great discussion. I believe Dr Russell Humphreys could add something to the theological implications of where we're positioned in the universe.
The fact that we're just about dead center of these universe, surrounded by spherical shells of galaxies. Layers of galaxies, empty space, then more galaxies, empty space again, etc. A phenomenon that would not be apparent except from the center.
Not true. If our Universe was two dimensional, it would be shaped like the surface of a sphere with the galaxies spread out evenly across it. Then, as with our Universe, you can look in any direction and you would see pretty much the same thing.
So, even if you traveled to the most distant galaxy spotted by JWST so far and studied the night sky, the Universe would look very similar to the way it does in our night sky, surrounded by galaxies as far as the telescopes can see.
We are inside the Big Bang. The expansion took place all around us, and every other galaxy in the Universe.
Regarding the "pro atom:" no expert here, but it seems to me that if we back extrapolate everything into this one tiny little ball of energy, then that point of energy would already be subject to the laws of thermodynamics. So applying the second law, it could never self-start because with what is it trying to equilibrate? All the energy is already compacted in one singularity. Also, wouldn't this also mean everything would have already been entangled?
Do they discuss the tour vs professor dave debate?
Has S. MEYER considered zero point energy instead of red shift for reason of longer wavelengths toward the edge of universe?
Plesse cite reference(s) for origin of science consensus that universe did not have a beginning.
Life is Eternal,
our local Universe was Born,
the Parents-Principle is valid for
all Life-Unit's including our Universe.
The Earth is not the center of the Solar System nor is it the center of the Milky-way Galaxy. To claim the Earth/ Milky-way Galaxy is the center of the Universe to my mind is self centered. May be the Andromeda Galaxy is the center of the universe from its perspective? Where do you claim this hypothetical center to be located?
Somewhat off topic, but I’ve been digging into Discovery Institute stuff and it’s on my mind, so:
I feel so bad for the people at DI. I was on the other side in 2005/2006. In retrospect, given the experience of the Trump era, it’s very obvious they came up against very powerful forces who shut down debate with lies, slander, and exaggerations that feed into the tribal prejudices of their audience.
I don’t know if their criticisms of Darwinism are correct, mainly because I haven’t read enough of both sides yet. I’m rusty on my Darwinism; while I was big into New Atheism, I’ve mostly just kept the standard view of evolution as a given since the mid 2000s, and am just starting to dip my toes into the critical side of the argument. But I do know the hysterical attacks aren’t warranted.
What’s amazing to me is that the people launching the attacks will then deny that there’s any social pressure against critics of Darwinism, and that the field is an open forum where any valid criticism will be met with open arms, but will then be rigorously scrutinized for what it is. That’s not what I’ve seen. I’ve seen dismissive scoffs. On the rare occasion someone bothers to criticize the arguments being made, they never respond to rejoinders, and accuse DI folks of “refusing to engage with criticism.” It’s gross, and it was actually an early example of the complete disempowerment of conservative forces in the US. It’s beyond plausible deniability at this point. Additionally, it’s become clear to me that atheistic evolution has taken on a religious significance to a large segment of the population, and this segment is disproportionately represented in elite institutions.
While it's sad that you keep "the standard view of evolution", it's clear that you see an awful lot with unbiased eyes.
Nobody teaches "Darwinism" -- that's just a term made up by creationists designed to denigrate evolutionary biologists. It's okay to be rusty, but if you believe the "enemies of the DI" were the first to be dismissive and scoffing, then you don't know anything about the history of the DI and their tactics.
The problem for the DI wasn't shunning or disempowerment, it was their inability to present a strong enough case for an alternative theory to evolution to be taken seriously enough to warrant a vigorous debate in the scientific community. It was fellows of the DI who chose to spend their time writing populist books about their theories rather than do the actual science required of anyone who proposes a completely new hypothesis claiming to overturn everything we thought we knew about how life evolved.
Seriously, they made grand predictions about how "Darwinism" would fall within a decade, and ID would assume its rightful place in the spotlight, and then just sat back and (apparently) expected it to happen. That's not how science works. To take an example from this video, the Big Bang theory was scoffed at for years after it was first proposed, and you know what happened? Those who believed there was something to the theory didn't just sit back and whine about being ignored, they rolled up their sleeves and put in the work, gathering and analyzing the data, and publishing paper after paper until the establishment were forced to admit "Yep, you were right."
So if you want to blame anyone, blame the leading lights of the DI who allowed the field to languish in obscurity and resentment while they made a very nice living from publishing books and the lecture circuit. While I don't begrudge anyone making a living, it was their choice to do it that way and leave ID no further along than it was 25 years ago. Why should scientists take ID seriously when IDists are not doing anything to warrant it?
@@EnglishMike: _"... their inability to present a strong enough case for an alternative theory to evolution to be taken seriously enough ..."_
Hah! The notion that all life evolved from a microbe is 19th century mythology that can 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 be believed by faith with no support from modern molecular biology.
*Mike:* _"... , the Big Bang theory was scoffed at for years after it was first proposed, ..."_
The Big Bang theory posits an ORIGIN of the universe. It replaced various theories that say the universe existed forever. Didn't you notice that takes an enormous step TOWARD the Biblical account?
Sean, I'm trying to learn all of what it means to be a Christian but I have hurdles to deal with. One being...... does the Christian world view hold that there is no other life in the universe outside of planet earth?
I often find myself wondering if a similar biblical history has ever occurred on some other world within our own galaxy or on some other world in some other galaxy in this universe that God created. I can't currently believe that planet earth contains the only intelligent life in the universe....why would God do that?
If the Christian world view says we are it........then I've got a huge problem.
Science: Just give us one free miracle and we'll figure out the rest. 😆
Christianity: "just don't question where god came from, and we have an answer to these questions!"
@@Iverath You are showing an enormous amount of ignorance here when you say [Christianity: "just don't question where god came from, and we have an answer to these questions!"], profound ignorance on your part about the beliefs of Christianity. Mayhaps, you should study Christianity first before opening your mouth and uttering foolish things as you have already done. In fact, mayhaps you should study a number of different scientific field first before commenting anywhere to just increase your basic understanding of what scientific investigation can and cannot do.
@@hillstrong715You wrote all of that and literally said nothing at all.
@@Jdelli0916 You say that [You wrote all of that and literally said nothing at all] and yet the advice given was to study the subject areas before opening ones trap. Perhaps you should do the same.
Actually, they need TWO.
So it's just further entropy. What they'd like to prove is that entropy reverses, which is against all our intuitions.
Fantastic. Such clear explanations!!!
1:04:00 That's why God is worth worshiping. We can't begin to explain or comprehend a Being that created the entire universe, and all the complexities of lifeforms on earth; a Being that is unmade without a beginning or an end. Yet has bestowed upon us a hope of eternal life and love through a personal relationship that is felt no matter what trials we face in a world run by evil. I agree that God is the best explanation for the life I experience and the universe I see, and the best hope in solving the 2 biggest problems man faces: sin and death.
Steven Myers' work is one of the things that brought me to Christianity. God is not just some fantasy that does have to correlate to reality. To me God has to be an objective truth not a subjective one. and therefore there would be evidence and logic to his existence. And Mr Myers is one of the people that helped me find it.
Just gotta say “WOW”!
Causality comes first or proper hermeneutics? Prefer the latter, personally, as human observations and deductions made mistakes so many times, they even render the rise of relativism.
In the Cosmological Argument it is assumed that the Causality Principle was operating without time. That's like assuming the Laws of Gravity and Motion were in effect before matter and space existed. Both assumptions seem nonsensical. How did the universe begin? We don't know, and may never know. But Meyer's answer is just an excuse to stop thinking about it.
Agreed, especially since we're not allowed to question how God (a far more complex entity than the Universe) came about.
@@EnglishMike "In the Cosmological Argument it is assumed that the Causality Principle was operating without time." - No it isn't. Have you ever read anything on the Kalam cosmological argument? Because I have studied this argument for years and I have NEVER heard any proponent of the argument claim that causes can produce effects outside of time.
I think you are confusing the causal principle in the Kalam (Whatever begins to exist must have a cause of its beginning) with the principle of sufficient reason in the contingency argument (Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature, or in an external cause).
"How did the universe begin? We don't know, and may never know. " - So then you must be able to refute the Kalam cosmological argument. I'm all ears...
"But Meyer's answer is just an excuse to stop thinking about it." - How is it an excuse to stop thinking about it? That makes no sense at all.
Additionally, taking your reasoning seriously, any answers for anything would be "an excuse to stop thinking about it", since once you have the answer to a question, you don't need to keep looking for answers.
I have no idea why you are so committed to ignorance instead of being committed to knowledge and truth.
@@EnglishMike "Agreed" - See my response to the OP.
"especially since we're not allowed to question how God (a far more complex entity than the Universe) came about." - No one is stopping you from asking why God exists.
In fact, if you had ever bothered to look up the response to this question, you would have your answer and wouldn't be asking the question anymore.
So I have to wonder why you invent the absurd idea that you aren't allowed to ask questions about God instead of actually researching the question to find answers.
@@jackplumbridge2704Oh, maybe it's something to do with the fact that apologists always couch their argument for the existence of God as being far more likely than the Universe having a material cause.
I get that the audience for this type of stuff isn't atheists at all -- their channels and businesses depend on support from Christians so their content is designed to satisfy Christians.
I am sure there's all kinds of philosophical arguments in favor of (and against) the existence of God, but frankly, philosophy isn't an interest of mine, which is something I have in common with most Christians. Their faith isn't based on philosophical arguments, that's for sure.
For me, the existence of an omnipotent omniscience supernatural creator only makes the question of why anything exists orders of magnitude harder to solve because not only do you have to argue for something, you have to argue for a bunch of characteristics we have no actual evidence that they can exist at all, let alone in a single being.
I like Sean Carroll's take -- perhaps existence is a more natural state of being than non-existence (in terms of their being something rather than nothing).
It's not a solution, but it's a refreshingly different way to look at the issue.
BORING IT IS, BUT WELL DONE. Maybe a debate between sabine hossenfelder and stephen meyer?
//whereas there was a huge range of other possible values that were much more likely// You cannot determine "much more likely" because you only have one set of data; data that is derived from our universe. There is no comparative data from another universe.
If you have a bag full of balls, and you pull out a blue one, would it be "much more likely" that you could have pulled out a red one? There is no way to tell because you don't know the colors of any of the balls still in the bag. They could all be blue.
You cannot determine what is "much more likely." It is possible that all the constants in any universe (if there are there universes) are exactly the same as the constants in our universe. The "range" would be irrelevant. Nothing would be more likely, or less likely, than what they are in our universe.
I do think his answer, stated that way, could lead to your response. Yet, there is no doubt that what he was saying is, it is much more likely to not pick the one thing you are looking for when there are 1x10 to the 180 power (whatever that number is) than the one you want. So you are not arguing with his question but shifting it to something he did not say or mean.
Nope. I am directly responding to his false notion of 'much more likely'. @@kickman9154
Can it be determined if space matter is going away from us in every direction?
Yes. The red-shift is apparent no matter which way we point our telescopes.
Go to Hugh ross ,,,,reasons to believe
Let’s separate the 2 things, existence of God which I believe in and believing that the bible is the true revelation of God because these are 2 separate things
The CCC model invokes such physics that it would not be a stretch of the imagination to call it alien, let alone the amount of agency bestowed upon it.
If this is the future of scientific understanding, humanity is doomed.
Humanity is, in fact, doomed. Not because of minds like Dr. Myers’ … but Because of minds like yours!
Nobody can comprehend infinity
🤯 Come Again
The universe is limited in time is significant for cosmological argument. One of the most famous cosmological arguments for God is from Thomas Aquinas, who credited God as first cause. While Thomas asserted that there must be a first cause, otherwise there will be no subsequent causes and effects, later thinkers often walk way back from effect to cause and allows an infinite chain of effect to cause to avoid the first cause. But this requires universe to have infinite past.
Another alternative to defeat cosmological argument is to reject causation all together, like David Humes did, but apparently this is too much to give up so few atheist will take this route.
Some modern thinkers like Hawking seems giving up the effort of getting rid of first cause, instead, he attributed first cause to natural law. But this is more of deism idea, not atheism idea.
The unlimited time idea has many problems. Dr. James Tour really details how the more time you have the more problems you have for abiogenesis, being that chemical compounds are very volatile.
Dr. Stephen Meyer summed it pretty good for trying to explain the universe without cause. In that approach we couldn't even trust our own minds because all we ever observe is cause and effect, without it, a hippo could appear in your lap as you read this. Life would be absurd without cause and effect.
The idea of natural law being the prime first cause is a cop out at best. It's just another excuse of many to avoid the belief in God.
_the idea of natural law being the prime first cause is a cop out at best_
False. God as the first cause is the cop out.
Aquinas didn’t prove a god-he showed double standards and special pleading.
And infinite chain is a possibility.
So, if it can't be explained - then it's god, until it is explained 😂
Tell me you didn’t watch and comprehend the video without telling me you didn’t.
By the way, God of the gaps was created by a Christian to tell other Christian’s that they shouldn’t just fill the the name God into naturalistic processes that bridge the Gap when there is an empty spot in a naturalistic process. Ie: wolves becoming dogs.
What the brilliant scientist Dr Stephen Meyer is doing is deductive reasoning. He’s explains a whole naturalistic process then he’s observing potential causes. Then selecting theism to be the most probable cause.
A naturalistic process can’t explain why a naturalistic process is a thing at all. The naturalistic process can only explain its functions once it is known. It can’t explain why it came to be. So as a proper thinking person you need to explore why it came to be.
You’re more than welcome to think that it was just necessary or it was just blind chance. That’s your choice!!
- the compositional planet of Earth
Was a rogue wave quantum fluctuation with such specific properties that its initial conditions were set, dialed to within an inch of gravitational force, across the expanse of a specific expansion rate of the universe that all constants of the material mapped precisely to mathematical dimensions of time and space with an exact amount of energy, a specific frequency and an obligatory vibration sufficient enough so that in the vastness of reality just the precise level of Hall effects at the only point in its vastness that could create both the states required to start and then to maintain life. To that which appears accidental the known initial conditions being unknown a habitable planet in a Goldilocks of conditions and time, space and matter.
Dr. Meyer has disrupted the culture…Return of the God Hypothesis indeed!
i'd like to know, how in the name of god,, do you measure 300,00 or 900,000 light yrs. why not say, we don't have a clue how far they are, except it is a long long way.
Godless men who will not simply believe God. That's all old as the beginning of time
Atheism is actually a fair new phenomenon. Human beings prefer to have explanation for things, and when there isn't one, they invoke god or gods. That's what's as old as the beginning of time -- well, the human race anyway.
The Sun, moon and stars were placed in the firmament. I am sure these are good men but i choose to believe the Words of Yahuah in the Bible.
It is a world view argument (not cosmological perse) - John Lennox is a great source for those on both sides of this "issue". The simple fact is we can only see back as far as the big bang - we have no sight of what was before. Sure, we have a far from complete understanding and yes calculations of the age of this universe will change as more discoveries are made. This is just basic science - with better tools, we discover more and adjust/adapt or replace our theories.
I see no conflict between the big bang and genesis. I am of the view that the language in scripture is full of metaphors as a result it is guidance not a scientific text.
I reject the open hostility and hostile language of the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens and their kind; but so also do I reject the absolutist language used by literalists - many of whom have not understood the first few paragraphs of genesis. - quite clearly the earth is older than 6000 years and Genesis does not state it is -- look for the reference to "days".
Both "God made it" and "there is no God" are simplistic absolutes; as are the created gods (Thor etc). These are not my God - who made everything - everything we know and everything we do not know. Everytime one of these folk tyr to ampermorphise or diminish God their cases FAIL.
No matter the flaws in the constantly re evaluated and researched models proposed by cosmologists...most of them still make far more sense than the proposition that .."a magic creator god,whose existence we cannot physically demonstrate or verify, made it all "... The current answer is simply...At present we do not know...
....and cannot rule out said creator.
@@capecarver True...But the burden of proof is on those who are making the claim..To claim...well you cannot prove it isn't god...is completely pointless...If you are adding a creator god to the list of possibilities you need to do the following...Show,with verifiable evidence than a god or some gods ACTUALLY do exist...Then show that that god or those gods CAN create universes,then confirm that that or those gods actually DO create universes,and finally confirm that this god or gods created THIS universe...Please present you demonstrable verifiable evidence for the above,then we can add a creator god to the list of possibilities..From there you will need to demonstrate that this creator god is the one you believe in..Not one of the 1000s of other creator gods that are,or have been worshipped on this earth. Please show us your evidence..
@@michaelabbott9080 Materialists have not met the "burden of proof" of their belief either.
@@capecarver Please explain what is my belief ...As a materialist,naturalist l am simply stating that no one has shown me sufficient evidence to convince me that anything outside the natural world exists...Thats all...I am not claiming that nothing exists outside the natural world in fact,if you could demonstrate to me in a verifiable way that something does exist out side os the naturalmworld...I would change my belief...Please explain the burden of proof in my "looking at the evidence l remain unconvinced.." position...What am l claiming or asserting that requires a burden of proof...???
@@michaelabbott9080 Perhaps nothing. I don't know. Maybe you're just quibbling.
But if you assert that the origin of the universe was entirely the result of unprovoked "natural" forces, then I will ask for proof of that assertion.
Read the Bible.
I’m not totally thrilled with how Sean brings these guests on unchallenged. But it’s Sean’s show and I can always decide not to watch it. And anyone who does basic google searches can find many counterpoints to Meyer’s views, not just with cosmology but also evolutionary theory.
That said… I’m not sure why the cyclic universe or Penrose’s model (or similar) are necessarily incompatible with theism. One could envision the “grand universe” as a giant (infinite?) chain of temporal universes. I suppose one could then posit that God created the chain so to speak. And (in the Christian view) He can relate to creatures like humans in the present universe but in some far distant or future universe (in the cyclic model) He could relate to other different sentient creatures. After all, in the Genesis story there is a flood and humanity is begun again. Why could an infinite being, for reasons sufficient to Them, not do similarly with a setup for universes?
The problem with the cyclic universe is the creation and recreation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics where no matter what energy disperses over time.
@@BillHirsch1417 I don’t think it is anywhere near settled that the conservation of energy is violated. Penrose tries to figure out ways around that with the CCC model. I’d note Meyer is not a cosmologist.
But… That’s not really my point. My point is that Meyer is critiquing all these “eternal” models because there must have been some beginning for theism to be true - but there doesn’t have to be *a* beginning 14 odd billion years ago. Theism could be true *and* God could be maintaining a cyclic universe for much longer than that. I’m not saying that is necessarily the situation, just that it is “one possible world” compatible with theism. Therefore Meyer’s critiques of these models are red herrings. They aren’t as incompatible with theism as Meyer is suggesting.
"God could be maintaining a cyclic universe" If you believe in the Genesis story that could not be the case. He made everything good, that means you can't have things that were bad in the world until Adam and Eve sinned (and possibly Satan "before") Entropy is a negative chaotic force which doesn't help with the creation of good.
@@Roescoe even if I agreed with Biblical inerrancy (which I don’t) I could legitimately disagree with you. Do you agree that God could have created separate universes with no causal linkages, and stuff is going on there which God has decided not to reveal to us? Suppose our human-containing universe is Universe A and then next one over is unconnected and call it Universe B. There could be sentient dolphins equipped with souls on “Earth 2” in the Universe B - and if you disagree with that possibility then you are actually limiting God’s omnipotence, wouldn’t you be? And maybe (also, for reasons maybe only known to God) the sentient and soul possessing dolphins in Universe B may not yet be fallen - perhaps Satan the aquatic snake has not yet entered the oceanic “garden of Eden” on Earth 2 to tempt the dolphins. Now, I think we are at the point where you would agree that Universe A and B could both exist under God’s purview “right now”. If so, then let’s change the setup: a cyclic case where Universe B existed “prior” to Universe A, but they are not causally connected in any way. I see no differences if God has two (or more, up to infinite) separate universes that are separated either spatially (ie different bubbles of space with God knows what “in between”) or temporally (which could be two instances in a cyclic chain).
@@mikelsikel73 Yes, I don't know what I don't know. Talking about stuff that has no causal link to ourselves is pretty silly wouldn't you agree? Basically, sure God could have done that, but what relevance does that have to us?
Also based on the nature of God being a designer and involved throughout, he demonstrates love to us specifically. If we use the pattern of marriage which He references over and over as an analogy to the Church and Jesus, the God you propose would be a polygamist, that would be contrary to the laws He set up for us. Perhaps you could argue He does live tby the same laws, but that would then say he is illogical, which gets into a whole other set of issues.
👍
General relativity is a theory of gravitation that explains the gravitational interaction between various objects in space. One of the main assumptions in cosmology that people tend to stumble over is the assumption that light years in outer space equals the same measure of distance and passage of time on Earth. However, in general relativity, the local rate of time and the measure of distance depend on the amount of matter or mass in the vicinity.
When we observe other galaxies, we are effectively looking at vastly differing measures of time and distance relative to our observations of objects locally inside the mass of the Milky Way. This can lead to a number of observed phenomena in outer space, such as redshift, superluminal motion, and the apparent faster motion of the outer spiral arms of galaxies.
The expansion of the universe is not required to explain the observed redshift of light from distant galaxies. As predicted by general relativity, the expansion of space between galaxies due to the absence of matter in our line of sight, where there is less acceleration, can explain the observed redshift without the need for a universe expanding into oblivion.
The vacuum energy of space is due to frame dragging of black holes that are growing from consuming spacetime. Recent findings have found that dark energy or vacuum energy is associated with black holes that are growing in size.
In summary, general relativity is a theory that explains the interaction of gravitational forces between objects in space. The measure of distance and time in outer space depends on the amount of matter or mass in the vicinity, and this can lead to various observed phenomena, such as redshift and superluminal motion. The expansion of the universe is not required to explain these phenomena, and the vacuum energy of space is due to the frame dragging of black holes that are growing in size.
This was a very interesting post. Thank you
@Jungle Jargon So how does this information effect the theories of the Origin of the Universe?
Yeah that's why I'm not really sold on the inferences of galaxies and other solar systems existing, based on observation from earth alone. It's folks looking up at the sky, no one has "been there" well very few claim it and it's not easily testable if they have or haven't.
“I was speeding” isn’t required to explain why the police radar measured my car’s Doppler shift and calculated my speed at 15 over. Maybe my car just experienced time differently because fat Albert was in it.
But just like for redshift, we experimentally know what causes it.
Expansion is not an assumption, but a heavily tested and confirmed hypothesis that even Meyer and McDowell accept in this video. That is quite the physics fantasy you have constructed.
@@Tinesthia I would dispute "we experimentally know what causes it." since I've never seen people manipulate planetary motion. Everything else is on point.
What he’s saying as far as connectivity to a mind is just not making any sense. I would like someone to tell me how I’m wrong here. This is very long I know, but I would rather be thoughtful and thorough than someone be confused on a point. I Loved this conversation
(I put part 3 below; it was too long for one comment. Thank you for those who read)
1.) I really like that he says math comes from minds. That’s different from the system itself because our extrapolation/approximation of us trying to quantify the systems of this universe is not the literal function of those systems. He clarified this which I liked and then went completely back on it with ‘before matter existed there was math and math comes from minds’. No no no. He literally just quantified this. We don’t know how dimensions operate or how what we know came into being. This is what math is, our best guess and quantification until we really know and can still use math to further understand. Just because space and time may not have existed in the universe’s impetus that we can decipher, does not mean that the math which by definition can quantify even the primordial if we have the technology, had to come from a mind. There is no math, there is that which we don’t understand that we are using math to quantify.
So in short, we made math, math describes the system, the system we don’t know which came before the system we do know is irrelevant, the math to quantify that unknown is all he cares about, it is only math before the system we know, math comes from minds, therefore a mind is the beginning. This just seemed like the most articulate circular reasoning argument I think I’ve ever heard. This might sound harsh but I have to express why that doesn’t sound good at all.
2.) I as he also expressed didn’t like the quantum mechanics question. Stuff does not “pop into existence”. We don’t know where it comes from. Basic common misconception so I’m glad the question was asked. But he completely bobbled it with what I know to be rudimentary knowledge of particles combining it with a cosmic wave function which I didn’t understand the connection there at all. Maybe I didn’t understand what it was he was trying to get at, but this is really the only thing I think he could’ve meant. The process of us observing the particle changes its normal function because that’s the only way we can measure it. This is why we can only get its position or its velocity. It acts differently if it’s not being measured because us measuring it messes with its natural flow. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether it collapses or not nor a cosmic wave function. Just so I’m being crystal clear, with our technology now, we will mess up its normal function when we observe it because we lack the technologically prowess to measure any other way. This process does not collapse anything. He falsely equates the observer as the cause for it this cosmic wave function collapsing. This is the only way an observer would have anything to do with this and that’s not how this works. We can observe it collapsing; it did not collapse because we observed it. I have no idea why he would say that. So the “cosmic observer” point of it being possible here to being possible in a grander scale made no sense at all. We don’t know why it would collapse, but it would be nonsensical to presume a mind or observer has anything to do with it. This on top of that if the universe did “pop into existence”, it did so from whatever place quantum particles come from. I really really like his Humeian and Kantian perspective of cause. This I wholeheartedly agree with. I know he was trying to work with something impossible to touch on, but he shouldn’t’ve tried to sound like he knew what we can’t know at this time.
We don’t know barely anything about the origins of the universe. We can only give our best guess based on the incredible circuity of us not having the technology yet. This is like Eratosthenes measuring the circumference of the Earth. He did so well but it wasn’t perfectly accurate. He did the best he could with what limited access he had. This is even worse. It is way harder and way more complex. This isn’t simple geometry. He basically said that Einstein, Penrose and all others have this gap where they don’t know how it works. For Dr. Meyer this means a potential theistic implication. This is basic God of the Gaps. We don’t know how Baryonic Nucleuo-Synthesis happens. We know it has to and we know how other subatomic particles do it but we don’t know how Baryons do. Does this mean for him that’s theistic implications? Just because science hasn’t gotten that far yet doesn’t mean it’s proof of theism. It’s like with geocentric and heliocentric. Saying the possibility is still open and the position of a God existing is intellectually consistent is fine, but trying to find his hand in everything is the definition of confirmation bias. Look objectively, if it’s divine, that’s great! If not, that’s just as cool! Don’t force it because this is how every theist has messed up this point in all of human history.
3.) The Last part that didn’t make sense for me was what he said about it being the best explanation that everything came from one mind rather than simplicity.
This is the most important part of everything I’ve said. This I seriously disagree with on the most fundamental level.
Firstly, an Omni-Deity not only is inconsistent with the Bible and every religious text, but the omnis are all at odds with each other or the individual concept itself straight up can’t exist ever.
Secondly, infinite regress is the gotcha that compounds with this. If all you have is the simplest building blocks, pure simplicity, that makes sense. Under no circumstances at the beginning of all things can you have a mind. It’s actually impossible.
This leads to three, the reason it’s impossible is because of what a mind has. Knowledge, Wisdom, Intelligence, and most importantly *Experience*. Experience is not something you have it’s something you gain. All of the attributes must be gained through experience. How do you have experience if you came from nothing? You can’t.
Fourthly, it gets worse. Why is it considered so much that a God made us? We are so wonderful and so unique that we had to be made, but we are flawed. Flawed with basic human problems as everyone is. But still, we are so special that we had to be made, but the literal definition of perfection that we come from is even more special. However, this can come from nothing. Understand why that sounds so incredibly ridiculous. If it’s uniqueness, beauty, love, art, logic, etc. that makes us special but he’s even more so, then the reason for us needing to be made falls completely flat. If he could, then by definition we could.
Fifthly, the universe is capricious. Random interactions showcasing the most circuitous routes and convoluted laws to get things done. They make sense and are cool, but I could imagine easily better, more efficient, and more effective ways the universe could be. If a deity did make this universe it would not look like intensely complex systems that all come from a greater simplicity. Eventually all things have to come to a simplicity. Basic building blocks and energy of some type could’ve always existed. Something that would need to have been cultivated by those, not so much. Life came from the simplest forms and AI came from the simplest algorithms.
Sixthly, I like what Dr Meyer said about the potential of seeing God’s influence in our daily lives. This is something that I really like talking about but this really narrows things down. If this is true that he interferes/interacts it means he’s either designed the universe in a way that he could manipulate it while it’s in motion. The machine is on and the cogs can be replaced without turning it off because you can’t. Life can’t be turned on and off at the hand of a switch and the universe is like a life-form. To say it’s possible, sure I guess, but to believe something untestable and formulate your whole life around it is strange. We might never be able to test for that. One the other hand, this should be testable that constant tinkering from outside of all things is taking place. If it does happen then it can be testable, measurable, and therefore quantifiable. If it’s not happening then God probably isn’t outside of the universe.
Seventhly and lastly, with the hand of god hovering above idea, something that is “like us” probably should come from similar origins. To compound with point 1 & 6, I think it’s logical to imagine that a deity with more likely powers than the Omni(s) would be a higher dimensional product of this universe not the universe of it. This would allow him to tinker all he wants using the tools available to him consistent with the universal laws. As I stated above, if you have random interaction upon random interaction starting from the simplest place, you get the most random results which literally explains everything we see. Not logical construction other than the interactions that are happening. This creates laws from that primal state: simplicity and caprice to complexity, complexity to circuity and convolution, circuity and convolution to now. This makes sense when you think that a product is trying to make the most out of what it’s got. This would be the God. He would be like us, he would think somewhat like us, and he would be able to interact with us. Higher yes, higher dimensionally speaking. This doesn’t make him better that doesn’t make him master, that makes him a lifeform that we should respect equal to ourselves. If he did cultivate humanity, not create cultivate using the available pre-existing resources, conditions, and materials, we should be grateful, but not subservient. Even if he was all powerful still the same applies. If not doesn’t sound equal to me, that doesn’t sound good to me. This good message, this deity as a product of our universe is the one from the holy books. You can’t have one from outside, on all fronts it makes no sense.
I’ll close:
The Greeks of Antiquity came up with the omnis to define the idea of the highest possible being. Only recently in modern theism is this where I’ve seen this concept intermingled with the people of the book (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) which should’ve stayed in the philosophers head as a passing thought. This does not and has never described those deities. Modern theism’s interpretation and teaching is that they want to worship the highest possible being but that goes against the original meanings of the words in the text. Plus, mistranslation upon mistranscription upon purposeful changes upon the aforementioned compounded with purposeful changes upon parablepsis occasion by homoeoteleuton, sleepy scribes, scribes not understanding the line so they change it, etc, really doesn’t help either. But even if we were working with the original wording, thinking that way twists the words. Don’t make some being that’s logically inconsistent the one you’re worshipping because he would in essence be higher than one of this universe. Maybe you wouldn’t be worshipping the highest being, but you’d be worshipping the right one, the one that’s consistent with the texts, and the one that would be more likely to exist in the first place. Do not want anything to be true, know it to be true because it is testable and consistent with its foundations and thereby the foundations of everything.
He seems like a great guy and very knowledgeable/intelligent. He just also seems to have a really bad case of confirmation bias.
The only part I’m really not sure with was the cosmic observer thing. I feel like I didn’t understand what he was saying but I listened back 5 times and it didn’t make any more sense the further I tried. I asked my sister who’s in a Grad-PhD program for Astro-Physics and she had no idea what he was trying to say either. If I dropped the ball on that, someone let me know. I would also be very excited to engage with anyone on this whole post if there’s anyone willing.
Honestly I think you would benefit far more by having a debater on to oppose Meyer. A lot of his points I thought were easily dismissible as they were for the most part just assumptions. While I highly doubt the format of your show will change I thought it was worth mentioning. Believe it or not there are some pleasant atheists out there. Just as long as you don't invite someone like Professor Dave, who even I would want to avoid
Could you possibly elaborate on those assumptions you eluded to?
Unfortunately, in my experience arguing with atheists online, they tend to become abusive. For example, they often accuse me of lying and those associated with the Discovery Center as "charlatans" who lie all the time. I suppose there are some "pleasant" atheists, but I have found most of them not just argumentative, but dismissive and even nasty.
I was an atheist once. I tried not to behave that way. I think if you want to see some "reasonable" atheists, they will not be arguing with you about science, but rather philosophical issues, like suffering, evil, natural disasters, the apparent "triumph" of horrible dictators over the centuries, the Holocaust, etc.
I am not an atheist, but I understand those philosophical arguments.
Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)
Back to the unmoved mover argument. Speaking of the UNIverse we posit what we want to prove. Uní-one thing. This is the beginning of dualism. What is beyond the universe since it is limited? Speaking rather of the cosmos there is no limitation. Did the cosmos have a beginning? is like asking if god had a beginning. It’s meaningless. If you have being, can you ever have not being? The word that you speak is spoken….forever was is and will be. Was the beginning of the universe always going to be the beginning? Then that statement has no beginning. We have no idea about anything beyond our experience and will never know that which is beyond experience. We are to God what my dog is to me. The finite can never comprehend the infinite.
Even if true, you're still light years away from connecting the Cosmological, Ontological, or Teleological argument to a jealous god who thinks the sun revolves around the earth.
Which Bible verse says that? I haven't seen it
@@brianedwards644 cause it´s not in there. Methodological materialism begins in Genesis. Those things in the sky? Lights. Not gods.
Well darn it! No matter what we do, we end up requiring the Lord God's input.
Shame we never get it then.
@@EnglishMike You don't get it? What's holding you back?
No we don’t end up requiring a gods input
@@therick363 Sorry, I forgot the tags.
Events that were "supernatural" previously: Lighting, Earthquakes, Tides ... Black Holes, Quantum Particles.
.
Science found an explanation to all of these and more and in NO CASE the answer was "an invisible sky god did it."
LOL
Christians tend to think that "having an answer" is enough. They tend to forget the "showing that this is the correct answer" part.
Dr. Meyer agrees with you. He deals with this fallacy @1:05.
@@Mark-cd2wf Bible: God just created everything ... you don't need to ask how or why.
Bible: He works in mysterious ways ... don't ask too many questions.
Bible: Faith in things unseen ... blind faith is good for you.
Bible: Don't test the lord ... he will get angry.
Bible: Lean not in your own understanding ... just obey.
Be Gullible, Stay Gullible and Don't test or ask too many questions.
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 Where did Dr. Meyer say any of these things?
@@Mark-cd2wf "He deals with this fallacy @1:05."
He spouts some nonsense about it-is-beyond-mans-intellectual level
YOUR calling it a fallacy does NOT make it so. What I wrote is A FACT.
LOL
Sheesh
- E/lementary A/tmospheric R/egulates T/hrough H/ydrogen
You talk about god while at the same time talk about einstein whose THEORY didn't even include the aether, aether being the spiritual lol
Aether is just failed hypothesis -- the history of science is littered with them, they're the cost of doing science.
@Mike failed hypothesis? 😂😂 the laws of thermodynamics states that energy can't be destroyed or created so there has to be an aether, aether is also the spiritual so what you're saying is there is no spiritual?
Sorry to say this but that professor seems to be struggling to make is point, seems he has anxiety in answering questions posed to him, he didn't convince me, phantom field. The Interviewer Shaun had a better and closer understanding the Universe, and by the way, by the way Einstein was wrong about our universe. As in our Universe is non-physical.
Never a good sign when you include the words "Einstein was wrong" in a comment about the Universe...
@@EnglishMike Hiya Mike, Well Einstein was obviously right in the Universe from a Physical viewpoint, however the Universe, as in everything else that exists in it is at its foundation anything but physical, and Einstein's formula falls by the wayside at this foundation point, the foundation point is frequency, vibration, with the next level up Energy. In the vibration and frequency level (Mass) doesn't exist. Also technically at the level of Frequency and Vibration, neither does (Light) exist. Hopefully you can see where this is going, as two variables have been removed from the formula. The. Then (Energy). Only manifests at the next level when frequency and Mass sort of exist. So hopefully you can now see what I was trying to explain.
This guy is a philosopher, not a scientist. Not an expert on the subject.
Origin of the universe consensus says non-scientist Stephen Meyer is wrong about the universe having a beginning. Will you trust the experts or the two non-experts in this video?
Thinks some scientist in the 60's is relevant to today's science and scientists. He continues to talk about beginnings, like the Christian god somehow (in a very special pleading way) escapes this problem.
He's wrong about there being a "definite beginning to the universe". And he's doubly wrong by pointing to BGV for this, as the scientists in question don't agree with him. Why do no Christians understand this?
"There is no matter to do the causing".
This is not in accordance with science. Perhaps we should ask an actual scientist about these things.
"We need to invoke an entity..." which can cause things. NOTICE: he's not explaining how he knows this entity actually has these properties.
Heck, all these things wrong and I'm only 10 minutes into the video.
Will my fingers break before I get to the end?
To be continued, maybe.
Cont:
The way Meyer describes scientific papers/scientists to have trying to "get away" from problem of a beginning is not even accurate. If Christians are against lying, why are you guys not calling Meyer out on this?
This guy thinks mathematics existed before the physical universe? Math is a language created by humans, we have lots of evidence of this. Continuing evidence.
00:36:00 He's asked about nature being around for ever. His answer? He assumes that it had a beginning. Surprised Sean didn't call this out.
This guy doesn't even know that "observer" in physics don't refer to "some guy observing stuff" but the measurement itself. Please do your research.
~"everythiing has to affirm something as the primary cause."
This is why nature is better than god: we know for a fact nature exists.
An explanation that rests on things we know exists (and everyone agrees on) is much better than an explanation that rests on a being that only some people agree exists.
*Iverath:* _"This guy thinks mathematics existed before the physical universe?"_
Does math require the existence of matter, energy or time? Does the existence of math require anything in the universe? Didn't the concepts expressed by math equations exist before they were figured out and written down? So why do you think mathematics _didn't_ pre-exist?
*Iverath:* _"This guy is a philosopher, not a scientist."_
What does the *"Ph"* in "PhD" stand for?
"Origin of the universe consensus" Haha yes of course truth is decided by consensus not logically formed arguments.
@@KenJackson_US "So why do you think mathematics didn't pre-exist?"
Because it's an invention. We know this because we have people throughout time that invented things like numbers, zero, etc.
If you want to believe that it pre-existed us, you're welcome, but don't expect me to accept it without some kind of evidence.
@@KenJackson_US "What does the "Ph" in "PhD" stand for?"
Isn't it "philosophie"?
Do you know the difference between phd and "actual scientist"?