Has JP ever interviewed John Lennox? Now there's something I'd like to see.

@@Yesica1993 He has, actually. I'm sure the video is still available on this channel.

😂😂😂

@@regpharvey Thanks. I can't remember who's done what!

'Cause there are no spiritual, there's only materialism, and that's why we don't see people flying with the power of their minds.

It’s no different from believing God exists without explanation

Why are you ignoring what they are talking about? We are not concerned with faith here, but physical questions. It does not matter if we have faith or not, we can see what is out there in telescopes, make observations, do mathematical physics and make predictions and compare them with observations. It has nothing to do with faith whatsoever.

Science has to do with empirical and repeatable data. As of today no one has replicate a "big bang" without a human mind or other created physical matter intervention, therefore their arguments are more metaphysical than scientific. Using abstract mathematics such as "infinite numbers" begs the question in many levels.

What do any of these comments have to do with what is discussed in the video? This has nothing to do with the video. You people will make anything into a God issue or an atheist issue when dealing with someone like Lawrence, just because he is a famous atheist. All you people want to do is argue about atheism! I would say to any Christians who are arguing in these comments, this is not very Christian, is it?

The fact that you cannot explain something doesn't necessarily mean that there is a god though....

DO you understand anything he just said? Probably not

​@@acunit5627Do you understand what I wrote? Probably not.

@breand4 Nah I do, you don't because deflecting shows you can't introspect.

​@acunit5627 I don't believe that everything came from nothing, and I don't believe that life came from non-living matter all by itself. What do you believe?

@breand4 1. No one said they believe and claim something came from nothing to be true. It's just a plausible conjecture brought up in the video and the book with modern science today. 2. No one ever talked about the emergence of life. 3. I believe that science is the best way for us to probe and question our existence and the universe, something a close minded more absurd belief like religion forever is doomed to stagnation, unless you are reformed. Then believe whatever you want to believe despite evidence.

Then why, how is there something? And why is it so magnificent?

Your viewpoint makes you incapable of understanding the beginning of the everything you are.

@@TheMoopMonster Only mind, outside the system, who wanted to create all, makes sense. That's God.

@Yaas_ok123 And so where did this mind come from? By what process, since there are no relate or relationships in the void, does it "think"? What is the substrate or form by which it achieved being? How did it create anything "actual" from absolute nothing? If it has always existed, and has thought of every possible process, why is it thinking about us right now?

@@TheMoopMonster We are unable understand concept of God. He is uncreated, timeless, outside of universe, but able to enter inside. Love is his character and maybe mainreason to start to create the universe with people. John Lennox and Stephen Meyer articulate more.

There is no such thing as “nothing”. The underlying fundamental, is consciousness. Consciousness is energy. Energy is transmutable, into matter. The rest is history.

Nigga you got it!!🎉

The whole concept of astrophysics is reversed entropy. In that field laws of thermodynamics are being raped on daily basis. They treat stars as homogeneous ideal gas. They say nebula (cloud of gas) is collapsing on itself without work done on the system. It is perpetual motion machine :) Cosmology is a religion. It is not science. Lawrence Krauss will not tell you that. He is a believer, not scientist. We will never the origin or size of the universe.

Saw it happen, in person, at Univ of Toronto. Krauss obliterated Meyers. It was hard to watch, actually, because Meyers was completely out of his depth.

Materialism, wll always win.

If you think that, then you are a fool. Stephen Meyer is objectively wrong and ignorant. Intelligent design is the worst argument for a designer. There is no argument for it. And Meyer himself is a fraud not equipped to understand anything.

@@scribbler60it’s because krauss is a prick and better at debating then actually thinking deeply and openly

@@brandonmacey964 Well, I guess your insightful observation and deeply-researched quantitative analyses certainly trumps everything else. Please, do share more of your in-depth knowledge. The world is waiting in eager anticipation of the sharing of your immense intellect.

Bingo. In my stochastic modeling course, the primary rule is you need 3 test areas. One to collect the data and define the parameters for your model. The second is to validate the model by testing it in a different area, and the third to actually use it to solve the problem. If you don't, then all you are doing is selecting measurements and values to reach a preconceived conclusion. The issue here is that there is only one universe.

The bib bang was not an explosion.

I call it dark matter

I agree with you… if the universe were random and we are the product of the randomness, how could we trust our “random brains” to have any logic or the ability to reason. If an MRI were RANDOMLY put together… could you trust the pictures it shows? And if this randomness is ongoing (superposition of states)… how can the scientific method be trusted? How is any experiment repeatable in a RANDOM universe? We practice science because we believe that we can discover the laws of nature… and to believe that there ARE laws of nature, you must believe there exists a “Law Giver” … even if you don’t understand that kind of faith is required. The laws of nature and the Law Giver are eternal… everything that is possible now was always possible- we just needed to learn enough about material science etc to make what was always possible a reality.

Was there intelligence (god) involved in the process? Begging the question, where did god come from?

@@catwoman7462 so you think you were just RANDOMLY created by the universe? So where did “YOUR creator” come from? (that’s basically the same question you just asked, if you couldn’t tell.)

This👏

And the fact that that kind of faith can change someone's entire life for the better implies some sort of tangibility

@@noxplay4906100% ♥️🙏

To compare faith and science is really stupid. Jeez

bruv hes talking about god. god is the universe coming out of nothing and when it ends it restarts. the opening and closing of eons is god. its not a creator or thing its the infininte universe that always has and always will be . no one or thing put it here it simply is. its has nothing to do with some stupid religion we created here on earth. all that our religions are are people grasping at echos and metaphors what the true god is. we are children of the universe and hence children/the same as god.

​@@gyrate98 what she said is literally accurate. Our senses are evolved to see less not more. We see what is necessary not what is real

@@gyrate98 Please stop spamming my comment, and everyone’s else’s, for that matter. I will report you.

​@@Ruby_VillainI'll report you for reporting her. Let people express themselves as you just did. You don't own the discussion or the platform. That's a very censorship mindset, trying to silence people and own the space

Plus she was agreeing with you 🤡 Are you only seeking for attention and it bothers you that she has almost as many likes as you? I don't see any reasonable/logical reason, So it might be emotional. Jealousy so to speak

Nobody claims to be able to observe anything before the beginning

@ThatBoomerDude56 Then those same people admit they have zero proof of the Big Bang "existing from nothing." Because if you can't prove that, you also can't prove the Big Bang has always existed.

@ThatBoomerDude56 Actually, Atheists do this.

Example please

@@chuckchan4127 when do they do that ?. You might be making stuff up like your fellow religious tards. maybe provide the context,premise and the argument before making delusional claims.

you can't make an inductive argument when something only happens once.

​@@notloki3377prove it only happened once - and that nothing outside of the system within which we are operating had any causal influence whatsoever on the posited occurrence of the big bang. I'll wait...

​@@Jthom88 i'm not even sure what you're trying to imply here, with your broken 90 IQ logic... but my point, which i will restate, is that inductive arguments (in short, science) require at least two things. 1.) they require a pattern of the same actions. for instance, if i throw a rock into water and it makes a splash 100 times, i can assume on the 101st time that it will also make a splash. 2.) they require an observer or measurer. the origin of the universe has neither, so obviously i can't prove anything about it and neither can you. anyway, i think it's pretty clear you're a fool who found a dictionary, so i'm not going to indulge you in any sort of argument. if you don't make a coherent point that isn't a rhetorical question i'm not responding.

@@notloki3377 Wait, so the observed laws of causality don't apply when it's related to an event you don't want questioned? That sounds an awful lot like dogma.

@@JakobusMaximus that's literally not what I said, and I'm not sure how you could have read it that way

Thank you! People in these comments are actually stupid.

@bm1617 "Where do you think the laws that humans have ‘discovered’ come from?" God of course. But it takes someone like Krauss to discover them. So if you like using your computer and going to the Doctor and having an MRI, maybe you should be thankful of their effort?

I do not know real physics, just the practical physics we generally learn from school and life, but I can’t quite comprehend us being somewhat in the center! The big bang theory could theoretically only be in one specific direction from our planet, so which way do we point the telescope to go directly back to the source? Or do they have some idea already based on the colors they have seen in numerous different directions? (Probably should have put this in comments!)

It could be that the universe is such, that if you went in one direction, indefinitely, away from earth and into open space......let's call it "south" for the sake of a mental experiment, though there's no such in it.... that you'd emerge from "north" over time.... So, basically moving out and away from earth you still come back to it...from a diametrically opposite end.... ....... Don't know why am writing it here...

​@@lantosewhere did u gather we are in the center? We are not

@@DarkoFitCoach Probably should have worded that differently because I knew our galaxy wasn’t in the middle, however, I knew as explained and confirmed by this physicist and JP that whichever direction you move our circle of view, you are limited in all directions to the edge of what mankind can see, but perhaps I missed the explanation as to the direction of the exact source of a big bang theory if they ever did mention that, and how they found it. It’s hard for me at times to keep up with a genius or two! I’m getting up there in age and have always played sports, but loved science!

It’s good to think of it as limit of causality based on the speed of light. To get information beyond that causal light cone, you need an observer with a different causal light cone to share the information. This is similarly true with the first cause of universe (big bang), to get any data about its cause or spontaneous creation we’d need an external observer. You could make speculations based on something like field theory, but nothing more substantial.

Because that's where the evidence leads. May make no sense to us, but if all the evidence points that way, then, like it or not, that's the way it is. If Krauss was just a single wiseacre on the fringes, he could easily be written off as a crank. But he's not. Hawking, Tyson, Mack, Penrose, Green, plenty of others who have been studying this for decades all tend towards the same conclusion. Disagree? Fantastic. Science is built upon disagreements. So get your PhD, come up with your hypothesis, do an in-depth literature review, conduct your experiments, get them published and peer reviewed, and if you're correct, collect your Nobel Prize.

Much more reasonable to assume that some being, magically just like us cast a spell. And let's not even ask where he came from.

You obviously can not see the forrest because of all of those damn trees in your way. I do not differentiate between Christianity and any other 'origin story' from any other mythology. Christianity has no special place above Hinduism or Buddhism or whatever some witch doctor came up with in some jungle somewhere when it comes to meta physics. If calling the verbal incantation of "let there be light" equivalent to a spell is some kind of straw man then what exactly is it that Christians believe? Do you not believe that your God created the world? How is that not akin to a spell?

You don’t understand physics or anything he said.

No he is not. You don’t understand physics.

The agenda is the evidence. Religious beliefs aren't of any significance outside the lives of humans of a tiny slice of time

This is literally not the case. YOU people have an agenda. Scientists look for what if true. Theists look for what they want to be true.

Arguments need to be made

It is big bangs all the way down. One cannot traverse an infinite, therefore this claim is nonsense. There must have been an uncaused cause.

It goes on forever, yes, in both ways, big and small. We cannot comprehend even slightly what that means. But it is true.

@@Ruby_Villain makes no sense if it started smaller than an atom.

​@@SirSpence99uncaused cause? You mean God?

@@lookupEdwardBernays No it doesn’t have anything to do with faith. It’s that we as humans, evolved to comprehend and understand things at our scale, cannot comprehend infinity. In human world everything we understand causal relationships which happen at a moment of time. So we ask of course what caused the universe and what happened before. But an infinite universe has no cause and there’s no such thing as “before”.

It's plausible. Why wouldn't it be. All of our physical laws and perceptions of them come from one event. Not a broader event that this fits into. The origin state may well not exist. It doesn't need to. There may be nothing out there. A void impossible to understand because it may not even have space, for example. No dimensions.

@@cwx8 How do physical laws create themselves? Steven Hawking declared that these laws existed before the big bang. Let's just make stuff up to support our imagination. Like multitverses... not a scrap of evidence other than a bunch of "theories" written on a blackboard.

@@jawneethecurious the question is irrelevant. The laws begin at the start.

@@cwx8 Why would there be "laws" if everything is just a random chance explosion?

@@cwx8 Huh? Obviously, you just want to believe without thinking. So, like magic, the laws of science appear from nothing. Maybe Santa created them...

If nothing cannot make everything, then the maker of everything cannot be born out of nothing.

@@DolphinWithIgloo-fg3ow _"then the maker of everything cannot be born out of nothing."_ The maker of everything wasn't born out of nothing. He was never born. He always was.

@@DolphinWithIgloo-fg3ow Imagine thinking it makes more sense that nothing has attributes than that something has attributes.

@@billbadson7598 I.E., created from nothing. So now we are back to square one.

@@DolphinWithIgloo-fg3ow _"I.E., created from nothing. So now we are back to square one."_ "Created from nothing" and "not created" are not even remotely the same thing. Not even a little bit, by any reasonable definition of any of those words.

Exactly, every philosopher worth his salt should cringe when Lawrence uses the term "nothing" to refer to things like a field of quantum energy fluctuations, aka definitely not nothing.

@@gyrate98I’m reporting you. Stop it.

So god can be a causeless cause but the universe can’t? why?

@@Dkqty I tend to think matter and energy are not alive. Life would have to come from non life

Nice distinction

Exactly. Why aren't additional universes constantly forming if nothing is all it takes?

@@What-he5pr Oh, that's a good point! Although, isn't there a "multiverse" theory as well? I love that stuff for science fiction, but it makes no sense in the real world.

Actually, there is an argument that *something* must have been an uncaused cause. However, any claim that it is big bangs all the way down is utter nonsense.

You are making an argument from personal incredulity. You cannot use common sense in physics. Everything could have arose from nothing.

@@What-he5prthey could be

@@gyrate98 why do you keep writing this on everyone’s comment, as if it means anything at all? Please stop the ignorant, trollish behavior

Time doesn't slow down or gets faster. It is constant and infinite. We only use a specific scale of measurement of time to calculate and understand it based on our own reality. It's nonsense to believe time and space being created into existence. It would be impossible for time and space not to exist at any point of time in history, even if there was no scale of measurement that can be used to measure it at the point of reality.

@@gyrate98 Says the guy with a demonic looking avatar that mocks his own humanity.

So the beginning is infinitely far away in the past? Like it’s been there for ever. Just like outside the edge of the visible bit does not exist and never will from where we stand. The limits of an infinite universe? Pretty straight forward.

@@mikestewart4206 that’s my theory, yes. It’s a temporal asymptote. (Relative) Time slows infinitely

More than that - there are multiple 'big bangs' that must be explained. The inception of matter (big bang), inception of life, and the inception of consciousness. Materialism has huge gaps in its theory of creation. There are theories of each, but nothing is certain.

There is no nothing in the universe for that to happen. True vacuums don't exist as far as we know

No it doesn’t

? We don't know where we are in universe and how big it is. Whenever they say that universe is x amount of lightyears big they mean Visible universe. It means that we don't see anything further thatapproximately 13.5b of light years away from us.

@@dawidjlb2589 all measurements begin on earth

what's the center of an infinite circle? wherever you are...

Everywhere would have this effect.

@gyrate98 God has always existed. The Big Bang always having existed is sometimes accepted as a possible theory as well. Go on, try again.

@@gyrate98 Exactly. Now explain why Big Bang theory is a more viable theory than God. Go ahead, I'm sure the mountains of evidence can quickly be Googled up.

Why couldn’t something come from nothing, or apparent nothing? Does the Bible advocate that? Seems like the Book proposes a Creator. Doesn’t mean what we observe here preexisted, even if a God did. That’s the nice thing about it. What is physical is not all that may be. It’s wild that they’ve convinced you the scripture is a materialistic construct.

🤗🙏🍺cheers

God spoke it. It exist because he willed it. Big Bang is an excuse. Evolution is a farce. And those at the top who have promoted it , DO NOT BELIEVE IT themselves. It belongs to an agenda that this man promotes. Utter garbage for goym.Simple as.

nice idea but?

This is not true. Cosmology is very well understood.

@@maxwell8758 How do you know? There’s some weird mysteries substance, for instance, that is something like 97% of the universe, which is called dark matter/energy that scientists know nothing about. But to my point how would you know it’s correct? A lot of the data he speaks of has margins of error for one. But even if it didn’t how would you ever know. There’s nothing practical that it produces like a bridge that can be tested.

@@Greg-xs5py Cosmology has produced testable predictions and even technology. For example, nuclear energy, GPS systems, and MRI are examples of technology based off of cosmology. There are so many tests: mathematical, observational, and experimental. We know what we have is correct. We still have many questions about what else is true, but cosmology is one of them best understood fields. With all due respect you seem very ignorant on the topic, so why have an opinion about it? And as for dark matter and dark energy, we just don’t know what that stuff is yet. That is irrelevant to the idea that everything we know could be wrong. It couldn’t. We keep improving our knowledge. We know the Big Bang happened. We know black holes are real. We know neutron stars are real. Etc, etc, etc. Just because there are still many mysteries is irrelevant to the question of “how do we know what we have now is right? Understand?

@@maxwell8758 ok, obviously you are ignorant of this topic. What cosmological discovery lead to the mri? GPS relies on GR, yes. I’m not anti-physics. Cosmology is based on GR, yes, but should not be confused with GR. There’s this proclivity to expand from what we know to what we don’t know. It’s called hubris. Nuclear energy has nothing to do with cosmology. Basic theories were developed before the detection of cosmic microwave radiation, for example. Explain to me what cosmological discovery was required for nuclear energy.

@@Greg-xs5py I am not ignorant on this topic. I am actually in a doctoral program for theoretical physics. First of all, the discovery of magnetic resonance came from physics and astrophysics because physicists discovered that atoms of different masses radiate slightly different when exposed to the same EM field when studying gas clouds and stars in space. This discovery was of nuclear magnetic resonance. This was later used to invent the MRI. Studying space and gas clouds and advanced physics literally lead to that invention. Secondly, GR is the foundational field of cosmology, so it's use in GPS systems is very relevant. Thirdly, nuclear energy. The sun is literally a nuclear furnace. E=mc^2 is a major result of GR (which again is the foundational field of all cosmology), and it is used in all nuclear energy. Literally all nuclear energy is trying to mimic what the sun does. Only we use fission rather than fusion because we have not yet been able to develop a fusion reactor that produces a usable net energy. Lastly, I do not know why you are disagreeing with this. We know a lot about cosmology. You saying everything could be wrong is not true. What we know now, we know very well. There's many things we do not know, but that does not speak to what we have discovered thus far. We can test cosmology in our particle accelerators, make observations with deep telescopes, analyze the CMBR, develop simulations, develop mathematical models to design more experiments, etc. The only reason you would be against this is if you had an innate bias against it. Your base claim is just wrong. If you were honest with yourself yo would admit that. There is no reason for this to spark irrational anger. I'm just trying to give you facts so you may realize your mistake. I hope this helps.

Why is a human think they can determine how something non human works. This guy just slick . Explaining the un explainable . To people that don't understand on how were suppose to stand UNDER☝️🥴🤜🐝🤛

goofy

Genesis isn't even an original creation myth. It is a Semitic redesign of far older creation myth elements that are more ancient, and not even monotheistic. It may be a beautiful and powerful story, but it is not an objectively accurate description of an actual beginning.

@@halcyo true facts.

Genisis 1 is wrong.

You are so wrong. Craig is a fool and knows zero physics. You also clearly know zero physics.

No it doesn’t. You are so foolish.

@geralldus you state something as fact, that is barely a theory, an unprovable one at that. You also misspelled FROM.