That's a youtube theme, unfortunately. Although sometimes it's not smartest/dumbest, but dumbest/dumbest.

😂😂😂😂 this is so funny but true... you know the way to truth is dynamic and unfolding, anyone who can't change his stands can't arrive at truth.

Ni b uv m

Well you probably do, after all you probably didnt run away or escape the religion thrust upon you, so good luck.

@@MehmetlerMehmedi I’ve never been in a religion. I just see the value theology could have. I don’t care who Is right or wrong, I just want to get closer to truth.

@@ameremortal Sounds like you're goona love the upcoming video on channel Playitalready then. I dunno when it will get uploaded, but click his sub/bell icons. you can watch his current main vid and its description for now (the future upload will be better though). i might see your comment if you comment there.

Cute.

Thanks - That is usually what I find.... They simply engage in all sorts of games and assumptions and their opinions because they are so desperate to fulfil their presuppositions.

But your ad hominem does not disprove their hypothesis tho

Touche'

rubiks6 - God is just another anthropomorphic prime mover. There are literally thousands of them. A God who made a universe needs _at least_ as much of an explanation as the universe by itself.

The Bible says God is an Eternal Fire.

@@BugRib God, who is that? As "G" God, that is a concept of the Creator God of the Omni attributes. Hardly some "just one of thousands", no matter what you think about God existing. Even if you are an Atheist, you should know that the monotheistic God, the most high, is the biblical concept and far and away the one billions have believed on, til this very day!

@@rubiks6 "For our God is a consuming fire." Hebrews 12:25 "The Lord /is/ the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth." Isaiah 40:28

Whoa! He’s right!!! 🤯

But it is highly relevant to point out that a beginning was spoken of pre theory.

Temporary beginning wouldn't define the beginning of the universe since time and space were subject of creation too! As you rightly said it's ontological and unfolding creation. We cannot fix time for God's creation

Suboor and his erroneous contentions have been eviscerated on numerous occasions by far superior interlocutors.

@@bradwhelan4466 in your opinion.

Infinite time and infinite space is more logical given the fact that having a finite universe will put as in situation wherein the question of having an edge to our universe would be hard to imagine if indeed there is ,what would it be ? Would the edge of the universe be finite too.?

But it's also infinitely far from infinity to any real number

Please restate that in english

zempath - You got that too?

Your idea is demiurge not God

We are God

@@InnerLuminosity I agree.

@@nathanforrest3483 5 meo dmt showed me this ultimate truth!

@@InnerLuminosity thinking deeply showed me.

The road you are on is wide and easy

He’s talking about accomplished physicists, not the masses.

@@circusOFprecision So what??? What is a "supreme being"??? Rubbish!

@@GeoCoppens wrong.

@@sheenaalexis8710 So tell me how you know! . You strike me as an ignoramus! Who in his right mind talks about mindless laws. Utter crap!

@@GeoCoppens when you learn to use intellect like an adult, instead of hurling insults at ones who simply have different points of view, then we will chat. Use words to explain and defend your point of view. Not name calling. It only makes YOU Look like an " ignoramus "

If someone tells me that he or she believes in God I can't help thinking he or she is a little bit simple or slow.

@@joshmcclean2113 , perhaps, but at least, they are deluded.

Wouldn't that make all these creators conscious?

By definition, the nature of God cannot be apprehended by any creature, nor is God constrained by physical reality.

@@lastchance8142 One can "define" something to exist and then assert its existence using the "by definition" as an argument. It is not a rational argument.

@@lastchance8142 true, transcendental knowledge is required for us to know God, only he can reveal to us the answers to the questions of " what am i " ? and " what is God " ?

@@SandipChitale then how would you define existence?

Thought I misheard that too.

A beginning was stated as fact in the scripture. Should we shrug off the theory as just projections of a pre existing religious notion? Is that jungle gym science then?

@@Jamie-Russell-CME I see it more as people trying to find evidence for what they want is all,if we took a mythology as absolute truth and always tried to spin it,all mythology would follow explain stuff

Problem with God is he does whatever he damn well pleases, whether we like it or not. That being said, all physics is dependant on prexistimg conditioms, even quantum processes. Infinite regression of physical states is non-sensical. The only thing that makes sense is a prime mover "outside"of physical reality... aka God.

@starman: God has done a lot more than speaking to his prophets: He has sent his son Jesus Christ right here to us. You can read his words in the New Testament. And history proves his existenge, his cruxification and his resurrection. What more do I need? I gladly follow him and enjoy what cosmology (that I like very much) will teach us. The findings of cosmology will change. Christ‘s word never does.

And that message is in the most widely distributed and translated book on earth available to most of earths population. The Bible has withstood numerous attempts throughout history to destroy it and those that put faith in it ,these facts alone testify ,apart from many other proofs, that it is a book from our Loving Creator and we can wholeheartedly believe what it says. www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/history/ www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/science/

@@lastchance8142 if God made physics then quantify God with physics is even more nonsense,the God concept is flawed all over

I agree, let's get rid of everything we can't see: gravity, virtual particles, air, etc. Oh, and let's not forget: viruses!

@@zenbum2654 you have either misunderstood the comment above, or I have simply derived a different interpretation. I believe this to be a semantical problem. What I think he means to say is that individuals spend all too much time worrying about or occupying themselves with metaphysical affairs, and these affairs often lead to more questions than answers, which is why the commentator above questions whether or not this is simply a mental exercise- this illustrates the futility of pondering such questions. The comment holds the stance that one should only concern himself with that which allows progression in his tangible state of life; his concerns should be limited, and concerning only that which would affect his life directly. He should understand that the mind is, by nature, inquisitive. It has a certain tendency to ask a variety of metaphysical questions that cannot be understood. Different minds hold drastically different views and make it increasingly difficult for individuals to come to concrete conclusions on metaphysical topics. This leads to contradictions, different opinions, views and perspectives which make it ever the more difficult to come to the truth if so there is any. He should understand his mental restrictions; man is restricted to the confines of his mind; he can then, by no means, fathom the totality of the human condition and the world in which he lives. He may only strive to make his "temporal" life bearable, in the face of seemingly unbearable chaos. Take no heed in questioning such intangible, unanswerable affairs. Bask in awe of human existence, propel science in hopes that it may perpetuate the future well-being of human endeavors, ponder philosophical matters in hopes to come to a better way of living life, but they should be restricted to materialistic development, not in a greedy sense, but around the morals and ethics that the individual holds, which should be judged by philosophy. Most existence-based questions are simply an expression of an underlying fear: the fear of death, or rather what comes after it. The possibility, no doubt, exists that life after death in some form continues, but the rational mind should be able to find solace in there being life after death, as well as no death at all. So that he may continue his ever-so-fleeting experience, life itself. Life's only purpose is life, to sustain itself. Do you ask for the purpose of love? No, it's purpose is simply itself. And so to end with such questions...

@@RamSharma-zp5fx Hi, my mother language is not English but I will try to simply consider your answer, simply. The way your understanding is true in most sense, I recall Deleuze's sentence "the persistence of art". Mind, the body, the artist practices the life, simply. BUt without academicaly, do you understand? or without any belief life after death or something. As you understand, we are just simply trying to "sense" the life, someones more luckly proceeds art and someones luckly interpret the arts. I do not know the intuitioun, basicly is about death. I do not mean that death is not important. But ı am not sure it is the basis.sometimes art, can be more than the meaning and knowledge and experience of death you know? You are right, it can be a semantical problem. This is now, what I can follow. Maybe, we should follow perception. The art as life, as perceived, how it is. Without comparision with science and theology and so on..it is human product, but as life, as space and time, as consciousness, as perception, as bodily awareness, as seeing as sensing.. but we need artists to burnish it. I am not glorify the artist here. Only we need is to sense, in some sense. the art appears first in the body, right? then the artist make it visible.

@@RamSharma-zp5fx Please take a deep breath and calm down. I was being facetious.

I think what you mean is you'd rather be at a Broadway show😎

Gary, Adi Shankaracharya an Indian monk wrote the following in the 7th century AD (Six stanzas to explain who we individuals are) Lyrics in Sanskrit with English translation Nirvana Shatakam *Tat Tvam Asi* in Sanskrit *That Thou Art* *You are that infinite reality* kzfaq.info/get/bejne/i9iKiLSZm7nUk4U.html

No one is saying that except for the religious, so educate yourself.

Why don't you learn manners? Articulate your thoughts properly. Change the way you ask! How about that.

@@sheenaalexis8710 i dont understand what your saying, i am merely pointing out that i dont personally like the music that has been chosen for these wonderful series, the music at the beginning i am talking about,

He does have PhDs and a science background. He is intelligent and adds to the discussion. I don't know what you're watching but he is a very good interviewer and doesn't interrupt like you are saying.

Over the centuries, greater minds than have appeared here concluded that there must be a prime mover...aka God. There is no effect without cause.

@@lastchance8142 Don't buy it. It'll take more evidence than that.

Sounds like you're goona be interested in the upcoming video on channel Playitalready then. I dunno when it will get uploaded, but click his sub/bell icons. you can watch his current main vid and its description for now (the future upload will be better though). i might see your comment if you comment there. i believe that scripture should offer evidence of its validity/reliability, otherwise it's blind faith that people like yourself will doubt (I can understand why you'd have doubt). as long as youre open minded to evidence/logic, that's cool. you're then free to come to your own beliefs.

Scripture!? At 79, seen plenty of scripture. High time to get over that foolishness. 5000 years of myth and failed contrivance. "Scripture" will die finally with your generation, whatever that might be. Humanity may be on the verge of understanding and appreciating our true, virtually meaningless, place in the cosmos. We'll be better off acknowledging how we fit in the evolved animal kingdom. Thanks, though. I realize you mean well.

Exactly

who made math? humans? lol.

Invaluable.

@@Jamie-Russell-CME why?

Can or wont answer. Is this the way it goes

You've obviously missed the point of the WHOLE program.

He's not sure what he believes. Hes asking many many experts listening equally to all ideas and beliefs. It's called respect. Then he will weigh what he's learned or heard since he's unsure. He's honest. And leaves it up to the viewer aswell. If you seen more episodes, he actually challenges many viewpoints. He's giving them respect. Try it.