@J w nobody knows

@J w time had a beginning. but the universe, the inventor of time, didn't appear to have come from nothing. something was always there.

When you say forever you are implying time. And time was brought into existence. There is no time when it was brought into existence.

These are all questions that cosmologists are wrestling with. I seems incontrovertible that our local universe.... all the matter and radiation that we can or ever will see directly expanded from an initial event (commonly called the big bang). The big bang was not an explosion as such but more likely (Krauss and others) a phase transition on a grand scale. Think of how bubbles form in boiling water where pockets of steam are formed and expand seemingly from "nowhere". It is certainly possible that our universe is just one such bubble in an imaginably larger sea of space..... or whatever it is out there. The multiverse hypothesis is not only a good idea, but is a required component in some models of the cosmos. Whatever the case, the fact is that our little 4+ billion year solar system is existing in the very very early stages of the larger 14+ billion year old universe. We live at time when we can still see lots of galaxies and have the ability to ask these kind of questions. A trillion years from now, creatures will look out from some future solar system and only see that the lie in one big galaxy (formed by the merging of our current local group of galaxies). All radiation from farther galaxies will have receded beyond the "cosmic horizion" and will forever be undetectable to them. These future civilizations will incorrectly conclude the same thing that astronomers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did.... that our galaxy is the only one. In a trillion or two years even the wavelengths of the CMB will have stretched to the point of not being detectable. Naturally, for us, Hubble changed all that and we know that there are many many billions (perhaps lots more than that) of other galaxies out there, almost surely with creatures looking at their sky and seeing a little dot called the Milky Way galaxy.

@@fraser_mr2009 for sure. There must be an uncreated beginning-less existence to avoid an infinite regression

nah, both are unimaginable

@@Matty94 Not if you imagine space being nothing. If space empty of content is nothing. What is nothing? Maybe nothing has to be mathematical.

Quantum fields fluctuating is the default. Absolute nothing is never the default.

Its galaxies all the way down.

@@fraser_mr2009 don't mathematics have in them descriptive attributes? If you can describe it with mathematics, is it "nothing"?

An honest answer, but not an ultimate one.

😂😂😂😂😂

But the path to that point is clear and without magic..humanity has only just started its scientific journey

tynome63 Yep.....And they get regular big pay checks...telling us all about “What they don’t know”....Hundreds maybe thousands of these “Qualified?” Individuals all repeating stuff that is all in a £10 book......Science has to start moving them on to find out what next...too Not know.....Ah yep we will go back to the 1970’s or maybe even BCE...?

Every episode can be summed up as “I don’t know” but he asks anyway.

@@AlexandriaOccasional-Cortex You are the one who is irritating because your comment is nonsense. Do not talk of the Bible if you are ignorant of the contents of this Book of God. The scholars and teachers of this Book will only laugh at your ignorance of the Word of God. Your proud experts: astrophysicists, cosmologists and astronomers until now eventhough they combine their intellect, they cannot comprehend the secrets of the universe. Why? Because their minds are short to understand it. Let us admit that our brain is not designed to fathom the infinite creations of God. Only God is the authority in this issue because He is the creator of heavens and the earth and all that is in it, not your experts he he he!!! Ecclesiastes 8:17 - then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. (how much more the universe or cosmos) Despite all their efforts to seach it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it. (So do not be so arrogant before God. You have nothing to brag about in the presence of God.) Job 25:5-6 - how much less a mortal, who is but a maggot - a human being, who is only a worm!" (it means that man is weak in intellect and physical body compared to God, man is a crawling worm.)

@@AlexandriaOccasional-Cortexyou are projecting out your insecurities into the screen of space. 😅 science is also one aspect of religion

I agree!! Thanks Robert!😁

i also agree.

What is Truth?

@@Jamie-Russell-CME there may not be any!

@@thomasmarten9634 Is that the truth?

Robert, plain and simple. Thank you. Sincerely.

yes

And an end... You know. Boycott this atrocious system.

These Closer to Truth videos have more ads than any other channel I have seen. Makes it unwatchable.

@@JohnSmith-gp9ut fucking stop complaining... You're watching it for free already! You want a goddamn sandwich too ?? 🙄 Pay for ad-free KZfaq or STFU 🖕🥴🖕

@@jojolafrite90 fuck off

😂

Creation have a beggining

Perhaps you can help me with this: When you use the term "the universe", what exactly do you seek to convey when you use that term or what do you mean by it?

@@vhawk1951kl In this context I see the term “the universe” as the sum of all the knowledge that we humans can collect about what we call our reality. And I think there is more to reality and our universe than we can perceive or perhaps ever measure. For example certain natural forces like gravity seems to me to have its source outside of our reality and universe, but the effects of gravity can be felt and measured here.

@@mismass7859...where exactly would "outside the Universe" be? The observable Universe is vast...the actual Universe is even vaster...

J.Krishnamurti David Bohm

That’s the thing there HAS to be a source of energy!

Before you embark upon what you call a "quest" you had better define your terms first. It is meaningless and futile to speak about the universe without defining the universe, but we observe that the beings of your planet do not seem to understand that before they can use words they must set out what they seek to convey when they use them, or what they mean by them.

Funny comment

I like what you did there haha

Though having claimed that he'd found evidence in the CMB in support of CCC, some other peer reviewed papers went and double checked showing that the ring impressions in the CMB are exactly what we'd expect in a normal universe. There's no experimental support for CCC, there is tons for inflation. With all due respect to someone as renowned as Roger, if the data doesn't point us towards the theory, the data doesn't support the theory. The universe as a whole doesn't seem to be totally time-symetric, and putting theoretically infinite cycles behind that asymmetry doesn't really do anything useful. Just my thoughts.

@@jakobbogale2350 Thank for your thoughts, I admire you detailed understanding of the subject matter. I think what I find attractive about Penrose theory is that it goes not only to the moment of the Big Bang but more importantly, what actually proceeded this event, which Penrose describes as the previous aeon. I believe CCC theory explains the conditions leading up to the Big Bang, only time will tell if Penrose is right, no theory is complete without explanation of why the Big Bang happened. It would disprove the idea of the Universe suddenly appearing without causal effect. I hope Penrose is provan right and then without doubt he can be seen as one of the greatest minds in human history.

Doesn't really explain anything. Even if the general idea was accurate (which is already a stretch) he has no notion at all of how exactly the transformation from the previous to the new one takes place. Penrose in his old age has advocated a few very questionable ideas. His conciousness model with Hameroff belongs to this category as well (zero evidence, pure speculation with very little more to motivate a particular idea over any other randomly generated model).

@@akumar7366 Pre-big bang models would presuppose time before time as we know it, which we can't be sure of. Either way, I'd have to say my favorite pre-anything model is Genesis 1:1.

@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 I would recommend you watch episode 28 of Mindscape, when Sean Carroll interviews Roger Penrose. on CCC theory, I find Carrol a great thinker and questions Penrose in detail about theory, I personally would not bet agaisnt Penrose, he has proved to right on many occasion.

Yup, they just don’t know

@@vanessadesire7 yep, but smart people are so stupid and selfish.....the billions spent on that collider should have been used to clean this place up a bit. start with the oceans being polluted to crap and work your way to the land

@@arfshesaid4325 You’re right... in proverbs 18:12 in the Bible says, “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” They’re just like “intelligent” fools.

@@arfshesaid4325 That’s very true, it’s funny how smart people can be so stupid. I think part of it is because they are set in there beliefs and are usually very closed minded and don’t like to be wrong. They defend there beliefs through there ego.

There's book called who built the moon? claimed as unnatural satellite to spin around the earth.

And the sun, and hundred other factors....

The moon isn't perfect for us. We/life began to exist because the conditions for life were met. There are so many planets in which these conditions were not met and hence we struggle to find life on other planets.

@@Ahmed-ef6ss Bingo. We evolved on earth because out of billions(quintillions) of other planets out there it was conducive to the evolution of life. The only reason that the moon being 'perfect for us' would be surprising would be if this were the only solar system in the universe. But since there are something like 1X10^20(that's a one followed by twenty zeroes) stars in the universe, the fact that a planet around one of those stars happened to have the right conditions is not surprising. Even if it's still very cool.

@@thesprawl2361 Exactly. Earth won the lottery in this vast universe.

@Bwa Bwa Yoshi Yes ! Is it a science book or one of the many religious texts. Science wants too know everything they can about everything. Religion believes they already have all the answers they need. Even if they have too deny reality.

J.Krishnamurti David Bohm Rupert Spira

@@TruthIsaPathlessLand_JK Humans sure do have an over sized ego. Hmmm ! What makes us think even deserve an answer ? It seems that the more we learn, the more unnecessary we become.

Those that abuse capital letters outside nothing but the hysteria of the abuser

Personally, non-existence makes no sense to me, it appears to go against one of our most basic understandings of the modern world, which is that nothing is created or destroyed, it only changes states. If course, this is one of the questions we may never know the answer to.

Yep, it starts with letter "e"

@@trybunt where did you get this idea that nothing is created or destroyed? You just state it without proof. In fact, there are counterexamples. For instance, universe expansion creates space out of nothing. The energy of photons travelling through expanding space is gradually lost or destroyed.

@@ferdinandkraft857 the law of conservation of mass/energy. E=mc². This isn't exactly a controversial topic, it is our general understanding of the universe that nothing is created or destroyed. As for space expanding- that releases stored up gravitational potential energy, which converts into the intrinsic energy that fills the newly created volume, and it's this extra space which redshifts the light, otherwise it would need to travel faster to keep up, but light speed is constant.

@@trybunt it is in fact very controversial in general relativity. Dark energy expansion is not "stored in gravitational potential". It is a different term in the equation and a property of the vacuum. Also, you didn't mention where does the energy of redshifted photons go. It simply disappears.

Actually it is a stupid question and it is stupid because it contains no definitions

J.krishnamurti David Bohm

You Elsie do not understand that there is no more such a thing as collective knowledge there is such a thing as a collective headache or collective pain. The more we examine the creatures of your planet the more obvious it is to us that you have no idea what you seek to convey or mean when you use words which is why you are so often very confused and had have things like wars

There's to be hard core otherwise nothing comes from nothing my problem is how to reconcile this hard core with abstract entities unless they're immortals and they're monkeying around potentials possibilities....

@@suatustel746 This is beyond human comprehension - Infinity is also.

@@ethimself5064 infinite can only be exists in Maths! Otherwise creation big - bag rendered meaningless and insignificant. Now imagine for a second , organisms living in bottom of the ocean never surfaced whom they're bound to think or perceive water comprises their perpetual world, though we know water is a medium demarcated another medium space may demarcated another medium that we don't know yet possibly brane, there might be 2 or more brane exists they contract and attract each other due to so called dark matter and then eternal cycling circles occurred - that's the assumed theory..

Maybe because we are asking the wrong questions. The universe doesn't have an end. Nothing can be truly created nor truly be destroyed. So why are we asking for a begging for something that doesn't end.

@@suatustel746 Infinite only in math?? So is the following: 1+1=2 and E=Mc2. I can comparand both

@S Gloobal it's way more complicated than that. Are virtual particles part of "physical reality"? What about the interior of black holes? And the "beginning" of time should be taken from which reference frame, considering that time is dilated by gravity and velocity of the observer? [edited for typo]

@Stefano Portoghesi stop yelling. you make yourself read like a fool

@S Gloval that was cool, no pun intended, thanks

Robert uses his own money to make this series. We should be very appreciative that we're getting to watch it for free. It's worth the wait. Plus, it builds anticipation, which is something that hardly anyone appreciates this day and age.. it's always instant gratification. Relax, and it'll be viewable in 5 days.

How could you have written this 6 days ago?

@@joshkeeling82 You mean Epstein's money?

@@joshkeeling82 first of all you completely missed my point, and start writting some non related stuff. these episodes were already released a decade ago,and my question was legit to why some episodes are posted instantly and some are posted with a predate(is it lacking a sub?is this episodes amoung the more succesful ones?) yet you begin to say of how he uses his own money, having no idea is that is truely the case. he moniteze the show by running yt ads or by having subs, or by simple running this show on TV's. not that it's by any mean, a bad thing,i would do the same. but there is no reason simping it up saying he uses his own money implying there is no profit

@@blue241 I'm sure he does get some revenue from Facebook ads, but I think it's not as much as if he required people to a monetized subscription. This is a high quality series ... I've watched from when it started at the beginnings so many years ago ... I'd pay to rewatch them. Do you see him asking for patreon donations like most other high-output KZfaqrs? No. He clearly is more interested in the pursuit of truth and understanding and helping others in that pursuit.

Amen to that. Next...

​@stuart johnson ''In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth'' Jews and Christians have always believed that the universe had a beginning and was caused by a personal God into existence. Before the evidence for the standard cosmological model was discovered, most scientists ridiculed our belief, while they believed in a false belief that the universe always was, without beginning and changeless. Now, what the evidence shows, is that space, time, and matter is not past-eternal, but had a beginning a finite time ago. The evidence supports what we have always believed, the universe is finite. The evidence doesn't show inflation, multiverse or string theory, or any other theory. Those are ideas that are postulated to try to escape the fact that the one universe that we know exist, is not past-eternal, but began to exist a finite time ago. - It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the *proof* now in place, cosmologists can *no longer hide* behind the *possibility* of a *past-eternal* universe. There is *no escape* - they have to face the *problem of a cosmic beginning* - Alexander Vilenkin Everything that *begins* to exist, has a cause. Since the universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause. The cause of the universe, can't be the universe itself, the cause can't have the same properties as the universe, because those properties that the universe has, is what came into existence, those are the effect. Since the universe is space and matter, the cause must therefore be spaceless and immaterial. Another property the immaterial and spaceless cause must have is that it is eternal. Some reality must be eternal because something can't come into existence without a cause, and something can't create itself if it didn't exist prior to its existence. Therefore since the universe came into existence, it is not the fundamental reality that is eternal. And an infinite regress is impossible and illogical, therefore the immaterial and spaceless cause of the universe is the eternal reality that exists. The eternal, spaceless, and immaterial cause of everything, must be unimaginably powerful, in order to create everything we see. Is this eternal, spaceless, and immaterial cause a personal being or an impersonal force, that is the fundamental question. To answer this, we must go by what is the most *reasonable* explanation, *in light of* the evidence. If it was an impersonal force, just like gravity is impersonal, then it would do the same thing over and over and over again eternally. Nothing new would happen, just the same stuff over and over again. But we know the universe came into existence a finite time ago, therefore the cause did something extraordinary, a one-time event. Not, only that, the universe was fine-tuned with extreme precision and order. We know personal agents can make decisions, and create something new and design them intentionally with precision. But impersonal forces like gravity or the wind, cant create something new or fine-tune it with order and precision. The beginning and fine-tuning of the universe is most reasonable, in light of the evidence, explained by a personal being, rather than an impersonal force. Biological life (DNA, proteins, information, and irreducible complexity) also most reasonably point to the same intelligent personal creator who created the whole show and designed it.

@stuart johnson Everyone have faith when it comes to the question of origins, but our is based on the most logical and reasonable explanation, in light of the evidence. It comes down to: Either someone created and designed the universe, or nothing created and designed the universe.

To tell me that everything we see, know have a beginning, expect the Universe, is just aisane.

then who booted god up? i mean who set god up for him to then set this up?

We rather conclude the infinity from what we observe. It is contradictory to observe the infinity directly. If that was possible, it wouldn't be infinity anymore.

That sounds like a long time

Barry Hossin you can’t view an entire fractal at once sort of

@@celalalagoz9026 Yes, we are in infinity, the present, eternity. We are directly observing it's permanence but not its entirety.

gr33ndest1ny Hmm?......? Perhaps think bigger....or larger.....and move from ‘infinity’ to....”Unlimited?”

Or rather, "where do the universes come from?" since each moment a new universe comes into being. From this respect, there must be infinitely many universes each of which is brought afresh.

there had to be a something for there to be a from. according to hawking there was no from. the universe is still there but frozen... then time started. from this point inwards we calculate time to be around 13 million years old. the universe is the inventor of time. the universe had no beginning... only time did.

@@fraser_mr2009 Sorry but, to me, it sounds like jumbling of the words. I can't follow these arguments. First, this story-like thing doesn't seem to have connection with the direct observation, here and now. Is it a pure speculation? Second, there seems to be problems with definitions such as "universe", "time", "invention".. What you mean by each of them will change the meaning. I don't know how to scrutinize these claims but I will try. I hope it doesn't turn to be a waste of time. 1) What do you mean by "universe"? If you mean the universe we observe right now, I don't see a single universe but ever-changing, countless universes, renewed each moment. If you are imagining a static universe having no space-time, then you are talking about something not bound to space-time or you are forcing yourself imagine something being static. Can you imagine anything without space-time? If you are trying to do the second way, you are starting your argument with an imaginary agent. Your imaginary agent started the all. This is not even an argument. I can imagine anything and try to fit it into any story. 2) What do you mean by "time"? Time is not something observed. It is inferred from the change. So you are saying something unobserved is invented with something imaginary? 3) What do you mean by "invention"? Show me an example of invention.

@@celalalagoz9026what i meant was that you have no time for a before. you just have something that is always there... it appears frozen and stays there. in other words since the universe invented time then the universe has an endless beginning.

so far no one is guarantee to say how the universe was formed with all this stuff in it. The name universe was given by us human so does it mean theres a boundary and what else could be outside of it ? Time is a classification measurement of biological life/substance and I think theres no time in space since its empty. Do you guys agree ?

Rather have evolving scientific "speculations" than to have mythology, sorcery; than to have: Psychics Superstitions Tarot cards Palm reading Voodoo Astrology Witchcraft Religion Black magic et al. But only 500 years into the Scientific Revolution, we still haven't eradicated that lunacy from our psyches. Sometimes our critical thinking cognition is as if we are still living in caves.

@S Gloobal No

@S Gloobal No. Yes.

Stephano gets triggered and starts typing in caps, like that adds more meaning to his irrational rants...... how insecure..... not many folks here have enough balls or intellect to just say, "well i hope GOD shows us something soon...." yall have no spine to support your hatred, but plenty of wind(and capital letters)......

😂🤔😭 Yes, they deny they have faith.

Agreed. Even saying that "Nothing" "Existed" is problematic How could Nothing even Exist when it is Nothing? To imagine nothing goes beyond my brain's capacities.

@Stefano Portoghesi yes, and also that hypotetical cause must be in the universe, cannot be out of the universe, otherwise you would have more than one universe and so on. The universe must be one if you consider it as the totality, otherwise it is just a part of the totality inside a never ending chain of causes and effects.

@@Ploskkky Nothing is more easy than infinite universe, material reality should have some borders.

How is that true. That is Just a false statement. It is perfectly okay to talk about An early universe when your position is that we Just don't know. Because that is truth. There are multiple candidate explenations but we need a better understanding of quantum Gravity first. Einstein breaks down at a quantum level so relativity needs adjustments Just like Newton did.

I agree with all you said about the big bang, I'd like to talk about your last question. God is not a mathematical figure, God is spiritual. God is being and non-being and beyond both. God is not a dude with powers judging people, God is not a superhero. God is not Captain America! Don't be fooled by those ideas and fantasies of individuality. God is one. God is absolute truth.

@@No-oneInParticular how do you know. Just because that is what you think doesn't make it true in any way. Your God is Just one of the over 30 million gods that have been proposes. The fact that you believe innhik doesn't make him any better than the best God

@@Carlos-fl6ch wow that's an early naughties textbook comeback to an argument I'm not even making. It's not *my* god, there is no personal nature to what I wrote. Did you read what I wrote?

@@Carlos-fl6ch also, dude, if you look at your argument, you're telling me humanity has known of something beyond the mental construct of ego for millennia, and has infinitely many names for it, yet all felt the ego was not the be all and end all. You're telling me you think God doesn't exist because you can't find a body or a god-ego. God is not ego.

you just need to look out at the stars to see the bible is a story on earth only

I think you don't really understand science. Also I think you haven't tried very hard.

Could u sum up his explanation pls?

The answer is no. Theology is BS. The universe is random probability. Roger Penrose's Conformal Cycling shows the mechanism.

Mikey mike I agree,Theology is BS, but that doesn’t mean the universe did or did not have a beginning. It definitely implies one way,but the truth is we just dont know.Reality might be something we cant understand given our current stutus of evolution.

Yoine Shagal My point exactly.

At least we try!

J w You sound pretty sure of yourself there,JW. A great student always keeps an open mind.Just because you cant fathom it,doesn’t mean its not true.And yes.....we do need science.

You mean everything from absolutely nothing? No waves, no perturbations, no fields, no vacuum (s)? Who and how do they explain the initializing event if there is nothing wherein such an event might occur? How do they explain the infinitude of nothing occuring before then if it is itself an unstable state. Seems incredible, as in not credible.

David Austin No that would in deed be incredible. I mean no matter, energy, fields, vacuums, laws ets. Nothing physical or contingent whatsoever that can defined as the universe or part thereof. But if they had been represented here they could have explained that themselves. Some simply conclude it’s a mystery for which there can be no definitive answer, others speculate about some platonic realm, etc.

Yes, thanks for saving me time watching. One astrophysicist says he now knows that he doesn't know all.

I agree 😐 after all if what do you remember before your birthday ?🤔the day you were born 😐? You don’t remember anything but darkness just like when you die you will know nothing but darkness also how did the earth form in the first place 😐?if death really was forever then how are we still standing ?😐and why when we were born it’s very specific?🤔 after all if you trace back to the beginning of the earths history you realized that their were more life forms before your own im not trying to philosophize in a way 😓but it does not make since 😐if death was forever we would not have Ben alive in the first place 😑and even so we were born in very specific points of history 😐like why was I not born in WW2? or not born in the midevil era ?🤔 it does not make since 😑

I don't really understand how dog solves anything in the first place. I mean if the dude indeed exists, then who created it? When Kuhn asks his religious questions, if ever he got some irrefutable evidence for dog, then the next question has to be the same he asks the scientists. Did dog begin? How and when? Why? It doesn't lead you anywhere!

@@yvesnyfelerph.d.8297 Well, the escapist theist story-tellers always have some answers they made up about "self-existing" and "eternal" to address those sensible objections. You're right that in fact it doesn't lead anywhere, but all their ideas came from half-starved, sun-crazed people wandering and hallucinating in the desert over 3,000 years ago, so I'm not sure reality-checking is their biggest concern. ;- )

@S Gloobal I don't care if it exists or doesn't exist. But it sure doesn't exist the way the theists claim, that's clear. Nothing but contradiction and incoherence from that camp. But if some "god" exists that created the universe/s - great! Bring it on. I'd love to be able to know that. There's just no evidence for it, and nothing rational from the theists to support the idea. Sorry.

@S Gloobal No contradiction, because I don't care either way. It doesn't change anything, because "god" isn't what the theists claim it is anyway. That's already been demonstrated amply throughout history. It's been demonstrated on a daily basis, in fact. It's 57F here right now. If "god" exists, it's 57F, and if god doesn't exist it's 57F. Makes no difference whatsoever.

@S Gloobal "No wonder you accept a self caused universe from nothing" So if that's your argument for a "God", why then do you "accept a self caused" entity called god "from nothing" ? Is it you "admitting" your bias that you "simply want" such a deity idea to exist?? Some fantasy entity did called "god" did not create man, man created "god", just like man created the Bible the Quran & about 4200 religions (& counting) along with the iPhone. Remember, we sent a man to the moon 50 years ago, with only 500 years into the Scientific Revolution. Is it that hard for your evolved (approximately 40 thousand years) neo-cortex to imagine that man could have engendered a monotheistic "god" concept with thousands of years of practice models (such as from polytheistic concepts) ??

Hail to the one true god, the flying spaghetti monster.

@S Gloobal Exodus 35:21-22

Ferdinand Kraft Hello Ferdinand, Christians are living under the New Testament covenant of Grace, not the Old Testament Covenant of law, thus works. No where does God command Christians to tithe in the New Testament. 2 Corinthians 8 Best Regards *:-)*

@@Soli_Deo_Gloria_. same story. Proverbs 3:9-10 (ESV)

Ferdinand Hello Ferdinand, I would kindly redirect you to my previous post. Have a good day sir Best Regards

I feel the same way. It's a joke. Theology should be removed from all colleges.

Why is that?

@@vanessadesire7 Why not an astrologer or a tarot card reader or a flat earther?

what about Zen or Buddhism?

That's the question. Are we permitted to use our ability to use reason? Apparently, only if you lean toward certain secular bias.

Nope. Actual infinities are impossible. Infinities are only possible with abstract things like numbers. The universe had a beginning.

We hate each other because;God made us in his image,God is hate full.study the old testament.

God has the answer to all of these questions.

@@hzoonka4203 That is not true... God gave so many people time in the Old Testament time to repent and change their evil ways.. you should really study what they were doing.. they were sacrificing their babies to false gods and everything and since God is a good God He had to so something about these things.. He tells us what we should be like but people chose not to listen. Yes, We are made in Gods image and likeness but God is love and He tells us how we should be but many people don’t listen to what He says in His word. We also have free will (out of His love) so therefore we choose what we want to do. He doesn’t control us, He gives us choices/decisions to make because He loves us so much and He wants genuine love back.

@@vanessadesire7 God is a character from a poorly written book of fiction, not answer.

How would this have been in their wheelhouse?

@@davidaustin6962 Because they deal with the whole subject of infinities, which is relevant to the universe having a beginning or not.

@@philochristos I guess I'm just interested in what they'd say, as well then.

You play do not seem to understand that "genome sciences like speaking about wet water - what you think Science means but now or knowledge? It is futile and meaningless to speak about knowledge without specifying whose knowledge and whose knowledge of what but clearly you don't seem to understand that

@@vhawk1951kl Yayaya

I agree like what created the basic matter in the universe in the first place?🤔does the universe go though stanges ? Of life and death ?🤔who knows 😑

How can you simulate the imaginary you simply have two copies of the imaginary. Do the beings of your planet never actually use your minds?

wouldnt it be a southerly direction?, and yes a ton of great space brains are rapidly proving that this is all gods work

Well we don’t know 😐in fact the universe could be going through eras or cycles of life and death 😐we say infinite is impossible 😑but that is only Beacuse our minds can’t accept the fact that infinitey in fact before we were born we don’t remember anything Beacuse you did not Exist and when we die we won’t remember anything Beacuse will not exit 😑however just Beacuse your dead that does not mean you may stay dead forever after all your only dead within point of history 😑your were created by evolution 😐if we were really dead we would not have lived in the first place of earth but some how we do 😐it also does not explain we we live in specific points of history 😐after all why was I not a t-Rex why was I not born in ww2 or the medieval era ?😐it does not make since😑I had many chances to be whatever I wanted to be before when I was born but I was not 😑you don’t remember before you were born Beacuse you did not exist and you won’t remember anything when you die Beacuse you will not exist 😑you like everyone else on this planet was created by evolution 😐and we just may be one planet of many nature and life can’t evolve something what can’t be created 😑so technically speaking everything on this planet has the possibility to live and evolve again in the far future 😐

I'd say the scientific explanations are speculative while the theological explanations as assertive. The first is honest, the second is noise.

There is definitely time..

You first have to prove there as a Big Bang.

@@cordelearts there was a Big Bang. It doesn’t explain what happened prior.

@@myles5158 there might have been a Big Bang.

@@cordelearts...that's what current evidence points to. What's your idea? Old guy with a beard in the sky handing down life lessons from time to time, genocidal when his ire gets drawn?