Lecture from the 2nd mini-series (Is "God" Explanatory) from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
This guy. He has the answer for everything, but in his final hours he will find god. If he’s blessed. If not he could spend a entire afterlife in HELL. His choice.👌🏻🌞😃✝️❤️🌹
We think God has a humanlike shape, characteristics and behaviors of humans because we are humans. God is more than we think, the limit of our knowledge today. Yet, because of some people's fanatism, we fight in religious dogmas on things we are not sure of, instead of searching for our real needs: happiness, welfare and good relations.
Note, however, that dogs and horses, not being made in the image of God, can't create anything. Seems by your creating a straw man you missed the point.
@@emmadaughtry Lets just face it. Anything that can bring the universe into existence from a singularity so powerful that it is beyond human beings imagination and that caused energy and matter to come into existence out of nothing, with all of the laws of physics and chemistry, is beyond human comprehension. === Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
The fine-tuning argument is ultimately self-defeating: “This universe is so complex and “fine-tuned”, that can only be explained by a creature which is infinitely more complex and “fine-tuned”, which doesn’t need an explanation of course!” If our great but still far from perfect universe needs a designer, so does the creator of this universe, who is necessarily “greater”, more “fine-tuned” than our universe.
The universe is not eternal though, God is said to be eternal. It is consistent as far as I can see. The argument depends upon the universe having a cause.
@@crabb9966 Depends what you mean by universe. Our (observable) universe? That started with the Big Bang. The whole cosmos? We have no clue. When I talk about the universe, I mean the latter. Consistent, yeah, if the premises where true, but justifying the premises necessarily involves special pleading, that’s my point.
@@LomuHabana observable Universe doesn't seem like it had to start with a big bang event. Seems a big bang event could happen within the " Universe" and not fundamentaly change any observations.
Who knows. Human think they knows everything but we all know 0.000...to infinity....0 % of the universe. So better accept the fact we don't know anything and live the life happily
If we have each other, 8 billion or so, then we are by definition not alone. We also don't know where we were before this reality or where we go after. An open mind and humility are the best tools in this life.
You're as shallow as Sean. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2block Your premises don't follow logically. Yes, the universe is 'winding down' in the sense it is expanding and it appears matter will eventually become a diffuse fog of elementary particles. But you've never explained why this necessitates anything supernatural. The first step is to define supernatural and provide evidence. Until then it's just ambiguous speculation.
@@2fast2block Shallow is someone who believes others are shallow and that THEY know the unprovable. spare us you ignorance and talk to yourself in the mirror.
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. Douglas Adams
actually the puddle doesn't disappear, it is evaporated into the air, becomes a cloud and returns to the Earth....and this is random??, don't think so.
@@magic10801 it's called an analogy. You're hardly destoying the argument by taking it all literaly. Plus your comment is not only begging the question, assuming the conclusion ratger than supporting your own claim, It's also committing a black and white fallacy
@@casparcubitt1117 wow, just because the analogy doesn't really make sense in terms of creation or humans existence, does not mean I don't understand it. I know what the puddle represents, but I'm actually thinking and not just regurgitating what I hear or read. The puddle is part of a system in which it is recycled repeatedly, do you ever think why? A Universe that supplies humans every need, while providing a brain to create their own needs and wants. And you want people to believe its random, or we just happened to show up. You have to realize how senseless that sounds.
@@magic10801 " Creation" doesn't make sense it's just something people say that has no actual meaning. What is "creation"? Describe an act of creation where god makes nothing into anything from nothing. You have a God and nothing else and this God does what exactly to create a hydrogen atom from nothing. Go!
@@dimbulb23 Creation is a term only thinkers can understand. We live in a world where objects are created all the time. you will never say oh that building. car or plane just appeared but then when it comes to a star or planet all of a sudden we become dumb. those things just appeared out of nothing. If it takes knowledge to understand this world. then something/someone with knowledge had to create it. period.
Hello! Welcome to the youtube comments section! Here's a few steps you can take to enjoy your time here! 1. scroll back up 2. finish the video 3. close browser If you've completed these steps then you are well on your way to living a happy life where you avoid pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else!
Nubro Zaref but how do you know if there is people whose ultimate happiness consists precisely on getting involved in "pointless time-wasting arguments that does nothing but get people angry at each other for believing something else"? Just read atheist603 and Typical-Religious-Internet-Atheist-Troll comments above and you'll see what I mean... :)
I appreciate Dr. Carroll taking the time and effort to explain what the parameters of his philosophy was. I write fiction novels with settings based in mythologies. We may disagree on a personal level, but your presentation, specifically its scaffold, gave me a number of new relatable perspectives for my characters. Thank you
The spiritual world it appears to be, a subset of existence, probably totally unlike the materistic world that humans live in, such as the micro level of quantum mechanics which differs from classical physics, but we cannot explain the processes, only observe the outcomes. It's a peculiar mystery that intrigues me.
@@keyissues1027 I think it's understandable, so no big mystery, that there are fundamental limits to how we can figure out deterministic laws about the objects that make up ourselves. In other words: Observations (measurement results) cannot in principle be separated from what is observed.
@@keyissues1027 humans don’t live in the physical realm alone, we are also rational constructs that exist metaphysically in a timeless and essential (eternal and spiritual) fashion.
He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool. Shun him. He who knows not and knows he knows not is simple. Teach him. He who knows and knows not he knows is simple. Teach him. He who knows and knows he knows is wise. Follow him! ~ Arabian/Persian Proverb (Somewhat ironic considering what Islam later did to previously groundbreaking Intellectualism in the Middle East, but still...)
EXACTLY!! ❤️🙏🏻🌈🥰 My favorite quote in this regard is Isaac Newton about calculus being “a seashell on a beach to a child” while the whole vast ocean of truth lay before him undiscovered. Or the Taoist ”the Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao” Both of which I live by. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t find new things, that there are not truthful symbols. When we read a book, where is the meaning? It does not exist in the black squiggles on the page. And we can later come back to the same book and see so much more. But it’s the same book! Or is it? The act of reading is symbolic of life. The reading is the progress of evolution. Which is why animals can be ranked so to speak, but also learned from as symbols. So they are at the same time much more valuable and intimately related to humans than generally realized. Same thing with plants.
I am a new student of Sean Carroll, just found him and can't wait to see what I learn. Love how he is a very fluid speaker, does not himm or haww.... knows what he is talking about and very vigorous.
I am glad that you benefited from his knowledge, can you think of a practical implications of following his teachings? Such as Anxiety increased or decreased? Motivation for life increased or decreases? Love for others and compassion? Agility meaning quickly come back after being down?
Sean carrol is as bad at science as stephen hawking , stephen hawking never made any contributions tro sceince , his whole spiel about dark stars is rubbish.Try reading his papers he is fucking nutter as is sean carrol, Who claims universes pop in and out of existence with no evidence to support the claim, it is no different than god claims.
Sean Carroll! You have a gift for explaining & conveying answers with facts in complete detail & properties summed up in the most efficient dialogue that's impossible to not grasp.
Let neuroscience study how human need for safety, hope and meaning created a God out of nowhere. Or not. My personal belief is that we, people in the 21st century, are obliged to talk about God, only because our ancestors set it on the table at the very beginning. Thousands of years ago, people had no better tools than religion in order to understand the world around them. But, hey! Today we are not obliged to ruminate all this stuff about God and life after death etc. Also our ancestors had to make rituals around the tribe's fire. But hey! This isn't mandatory for us today. Let's move on. Lets forget about this once and for all. We have no reason thinking about Gods and life after death. Today our life is different. Let's free ourselves. Lets save time and energy for real problems that actually exist today. Existential problems. Ochham's razor, afterall, dictates us towards more empirical, materialistic, physical studies of the world. If no ancestor of ours had ever thought about the existence of God, then I have no doubt that nobody would still argue about this stuff. Lets leave the "Neanderthal's beliefs" behind. Its ok. This is not our problem any more. We are mature now. We can handle our own existence better. We dont need mommy's/daddy's hug (God). We don't need existential comfort in order to move on with our lives. We are free and powerful to explore and taste the world! No God has ever existed. In any form. We don't need to think about it. We dont have to argue about it. We don't have to apologise for that. This is TOTALLY OK!
He's got no gift except if you call lying a gift. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
He's not. Well known in science that he is a how can we put it.... snake oil salesman. Well known that his backing of Kaku is a cartel within science talking absolute nonsense with string theory. He can conceive 26 dimensions but the god hypothesis for him is nonsensical. I neither believe nor disbelieve but Dr Carroll is a well known vagabond and lover of Dr Kaku. He's no smarter than a graduate student. Even Penrose can't stand either of them.
well typically a debate has more than one person.. and the idea of god doesn't actually need to be "argued" in any way, that's kinda the beauty. This video is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else
@@baterickpatman Probably why he put debate in quotation marks. I agree, religion is utterly pointless, wish people would spend their time on anything else.
@@cagedgandalf3472 "religion is utterly pointless" What makes you say that? Or a more pertinent question might be, how can you say that anything has a 'point' or 'purpose' at all?
@@nanashi2146 Things have a 'point' because people give them a point. It's a simple fact of reality, that we'd agree with, that people like and dislike, and draw their own meaning from events. Religion is pointless because it's hypocritical to the points we choose. We all want personal freedom, better understanding of the world, love, peace, happiness, etc. The issue is that religion, while it does provide some of these things in parts, it does so while stripping many others away in far greater amounts or does so inconsistently. Just look at how many people want to remove certain people's rights to marriage or free-expression while it isn't the thing that grants those in the first place. Religion causes more harm than good; it's an awful way to get meaning.
@@Lintpop : Clearly many people believe that but it doesn't make it factual. I don't know that pretending is helpful. Bad information leads to bad choices. We give meaning to our own lives. That we are self-aware in the vastness of space is pretty special and we should appreciate how remarkable it is.
@@lrvogt1257i guess my reply was more in the lines of a simplistic answer. For myself no one can debonk the fact that there is a no God. Unfortunately I can not say the same for person next to me in the store or anyone for that matter. I grew up with the understanding that there is a God, when I was older and ready I challenged the God vs science, did alot of reading and studied apologetics. The end of the day there is more proof that God is the cause of why we are here.
@@Lintpop : I think you were trying to say that you can't disprove god. That's right. You can't disprove a claim that is unfalsifiable. You can only point out the lack of evidence to accept it as fact. You can't prove there are no goblins. You can only speak to the lack of evidence for them. If someone were to catch one, we'd have to accept that as evidence. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can actually demonstrate the supernatural.
No, the objection that most philosophers would have is this: He's attempting to refute the claim that our universe requires a cause. His analogy regarding his refutation of that claim is to the fact that, all one would need to do in order to refute the claim "all swans are white" is to show them a black swan. He then goes on to have us imagine a universe that definitely doesn't require a first cause. The problem here is that, if I were refuting the claim "all swans are white", I can't ask you to *imagine* a black swan or a purple swan or any other color of swan and then declare victory, I have to *show* you a black swan. He didn't show us that this universe is uncaused, he asked us to imagine a *different* universe that was uncaused. This was just a bad argument.
@@standinstann At 8:55, Sean Carroll says: "So if you did believe that God was a necessary being, that you literally could not imagine a universe in which God did not play an important role, in order logically for me to refute that belief, all I need to do is to invent a universe in which God does not exist." The key here is that he is addressing someone who claims that they _literally cannot imagine_ something. So his counterexample only has to be something that they can imagine. If someone said, "I literally cannot imagine a black swan," then you can perfectly well set them straight by getting them to imagine a black swan. You would not need to demonstrate that a black swan actually exists.
@@omp199 That's true, I did catch that on a second viewing, I stand corrected, he did in fact say that what he would have to refute is the inability to *imagine* a universe without a God. I suppose my criticism would have to be reserved for the person who would make such a claim because we can literally imagine anything. I take your point.
This isn't as logical as you think it is, if this is the case you're talking about absolute contingency which is just doesn't cut the mustard, logically speaking.
It is so satisfying how Sean Carroll emphatically, sincerely and thoroughly explains the fine tuning argument, just to utterly demolish it entirely.... 😊
God is neither an engineer, nor a scientist. Being any of those, would imply that God makes calculations, drawings, etc which can be proven would make a design of the universe impossible. But, as we do not make calculations to move an arm, or to transform electromagnetic radiation into light inside of our skulls, God likewise makes the Universe happen NOW, instantly in the eternal present , without design or calculation, just as we pick our noses without thinking and only wishing to do so. Therefore the Universe is created only by one thing very closely resembling magic emanating from the center of our own bodies.
Dural Lexan How do you know so much about an invisible entity that allegedly exists outside of time and who possesses a disembodied mind... whatever that is? Just stop making things up
problem solving and testing . this includes building faster computers and AI if the calculations become too complex , run simulations .... be open to change ,
If this is an attempt to promote the God theory, sorry. But your statement is self-refuting. If the universe is more complicated than any human mind can comprehend, then ydk it to be the case that God exists.
The ''fine tuning'' conundrum may be resolved if the universe is assumed to exit forever. For then there is time enough for the universe to pass through all its phases/eons with all possible combinations of natural constants. So clearly we are in a phase/eon of the universe with the present values of the natural constants that are obviously consistent with our presence in it. (Note that, it is not necessary to assume infinitely many universes to be present at one time, rather, only one universe passing through its infinitely many possible phases/eons.)
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - George also said if you don’t believe in him he’ll send you to hell where you will be tortured forever and ever…..But he loves you!😂
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - I have debated them ad nauseam and I have come to the conclusion that most of them are innately rotten people. Now that might sound harsh at first, but once you consider that most of them don’t believe any human can be a good person without the fear of believing a sky daddy is going to punish them, it makes perfect sense. They ask me stupid questions like “what’s to stop you from randomly killing people or raping women?” My response is, “oh, so that’s what you were doing prior to being converted?” Or “is that what every non-believer you know is out here doing?” Then I respond with, “statistically speaking most rapists, murderers, and their victims believe in God.”
@@ForeverStill_Fan1 - Trust me, I know. Growing up in a catholic school and studying world religion gave me all of the ammunition I needed to fight back against indoctrination. The cult hated me because even as a child I asked a lot of logical questions and refused to take their word for everything. What you stated is an absolute fact. According to their belief system the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy. How convenient? That type of system is highly effective for recruiting people, especially considering the estimated 300,000,000 to billions of deaths, rapes, and torturous activities perpetrated toward free thinkers and people of other belief systems over the centuries. My ancestors were read Ephesians 6-5 to keep them in line.
That was George Carlin’s pithy quote about God always needing money. Every religious person should watch the RU-vid video of George Carlin’s excellent and hilarious account of his conversion from a young Catholic believer to a enlightened skeptic. It is transformative.
TehJumpingJawa except that no mathematical equation would make any useful prediction unless there was a necessary event that proceeded along the same entropic event space whose interactions were anything but “causal”. It’s ridiculous for a determinist to deny causality, necessity etc
@@flyingmonkey3822 No determinist denies the existence of causality or necessity. But the word 'cause' is extremely slippery. There are a whole host of words that people use all the time, but which make very little sense as understood by a layperson, and 'cause' is one of them. 'Time' is another. So is 'free will'. All these words represent incredibly subtle, complex concepts. So when a religious person starts talking about causality they tend to have an extremely simple, blunt understandings of the concept. And if you're trying to deny the existence of uncaused events, like radioactive decay or quantum field fluctuations, then you're just arguing with reality.
@@thesprawl2361 I think that Dr Carroll should be self consistent in his physics. You are of course correct that our definition of a concept should evolve to either encompass new aspects of the thing it is attempting to describe or new words should emerge if the concept is no longer tenable. I very much appreciate the lucidity with which Dr. Carroll speaks, but i find that he also equivocates on definitions. I would like to take his same concept that he uses to describe why the arrow of time moves only in one direction and show why this description is completely consistent with causality and radioactive decay, quantum field evolution, and the beginning of the universe. I very much liked what he said during his debate with Dr William Lane Craig when he said that "our metaphysics should follow our physics", and also thank him for his story about "the principle of sufficient reason" as I also had no idea why it was called that until hearing him speak! I enjoy his lectures, and his contributions to science and especially to his popularizing engagement with quantum theory. I just think that if he's going to take the many worlds interpretation that he's got a LOT of explaining to do, the least of which is that it violates the Born rule (or does not return it) and therefore does not return predictable results. If ever we should abandon a theory, it would be because it predicts nothing. Yet he holds to it as a sledgehammer to the concepts which normal people observe in their everyday lives. He has to justify his reason for thinking that the wave function becomes real at every split, when we definitionally have no evidence for universes that are no longer connected to our own. It also assumes that there is a more fundamental bubble universe that effervesces universes like ours into being. BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not. Purely statistically, it will have such a dilute space to exist as a particle that it will decay eventually. The "cause" is then that the dividing action of universes separating will average out to one in which we see our physics play out. It is not possible for each planck moment to pass without a change in it's universal state, only in it's local state. Interacting with the universe along this splitting paradigm "causes" the events we see. When a portion of the quantum vacuum changes to a state where it has traded regularity in frequency for location we will see it "pop" up a "particle". Is it possible for it to change universal states and not fluctuate? is it necessary that it's variations "unfreeze" and choose another state? When concentrated to a definiteness in one measurable aspect, can it do anything but continue interacting with the ever changing and diluting universal state? I'm not aware of evidence of this. I have more questions regarding how it is that we "jump" planck moments, and why it is that non-local interaction cannot be avoided... but it seems that between choosing A to interact further and Not A to choose to stop interacting... that we have no choice but to interact. If that is not determinism and causality... please help me see where i'm wrong. I'm open to hearing this, it IS all new to me and I don't have a formal education in it. P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist. P2) the universe began to exist. C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing. It's the same thing as the original cosmological argument but with updated assumptions regarding what it means to exist (be able to interact with it) or to begin and cease to begin (depending on it's current state) that are consistent with QM. So, an electron-positron pair that eventually occupy substantially the same space would exist while traveling towards each other and then stop existing in their current form but change form while conserving their properties of momentum etc. This observation can reliably lead us to deduce that there is something more fundamental to the universe.
of course you aren't obligated to interact specifically with anything here i've presented if you just want to argue that words are slippery, then we can both go home saying that sean and WLC are entitled to their own opinions... even to their own facts.
@@flyingmonkey3822 "BUT the more reasonable interpretation is that many universes are possible, and in each quantum evolution of the waveform that it must choose a path. It is possible to stay unchanged, but that is only one possibility state. On this idea, the reason that radioactive particles decay is that there are more universes in which it can be decayed than ones in which it is not" ...But that IS the Many Worlds definition of probability. Probability is just the proportion of actual worlds in which an event happened. Count the proportion, and you attain the probability. (...There's a section in his new book where Carroll describes precisely how many worlds comports with the the Born Rule, but it's on my phone. If you have the book it's on pages 146-148.) "P1) Every thing that can begin to exist or cease to exist is instead dependent on a more fundamentally existing thing that does not begin or cease to exist. P2) the universe began to exist. C) the universe depends on a more fundamentally existing thing." Okay. For the sake of argument let's say I agree with your first premise. (Although what exactly 'more fundamentally existing thing' means I'm not sure. I think you just mean that it precedes it in a chronological sense, but that doesn't make it more fundamental. My mother isn't more fundamental than me just because she 'caused' me. But forget that.) Even if I were to accept the first premise, I most definitely do not accept the second. Firstly, what makes you certain that the universe began to exist? Sure, we had a Big Bang, but you know that many, perhaps most, physicists do not consider that to be the beginning of the universe/multiverse/reality. And again we hit upon the problems of definitions: what does it mean for something to 'begin to exist'? Have you ever seen anything begin to exist? No. You've seen matter and energy change form, you've seen that fundamental relationship fluctuate...but you've never seen something 'begin to exist' in the sense that you're talking about. It's unclear to me how it even makes conceptual sense. ...........
Sean can't even make it past basic science. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
As to the fine tuning. I think that is sort of the point as particles, material particles, out of which everything is constructed revert back to a featureless domain of motion time ceases to become a constrain. And if, empirically, time ceases to be a constrain for said particles to combust then they have "all the time in the world" to combust in precisely a type of universe that may be traced back to such type of undeterminate particles.
Notice how Carroll's speaking never falters. No "Uh"s or "ahhh"s. The mark of someone who really..really..knows his subject, and the mark of a very clear thinker.
If God exists, why did he make me an atheist? If God is all knowing, all seeing, omnipotent and has a plan for all of us and we are not to know God's plan, then why do people pray to God for his favor, or to change something for them?
runamokkk They don't just claim to know their gods, they claim to know about all gods. Think about it. If they claim it was their own gods who created the universe then they're making two claims, one ridiculous and the other completely fucking outrageous. The ridiculous claim is that magic/the supernatural is real and their gods used it to conjure the universe. The completely fucking outrageous claim they're simultaneously making is that all other gods invented by all the other humans on the planet are all false. At least 3,000 named gods that we know of, people who claim their gods created the universe are insisting that all those other gods aren't real. If you're ever stuck in a cafe waiting for Godot, try asking one of them what specific criteria they applied to each of those other gods to determine they were false. Godot and all his family, friends, relatives, his neighbors, and his neighbors relatives will all arrive long before you'll get a straight answer from a fundie.
The comment above me is the perfect example of what I said earlier. Surely he must be the leading theist/physicist to have such insight into what a 'GOD' is. He's probably smarter than Einstein and all others that came before him. He doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants for he is the Giant.
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole...
He hates what science shows. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
What I do know about God is that when a tornado strikes the Bible Belt, he has nothing to do with that. But if an earthquake strikes San Francisco, God is sending a direct message to those people.
Right because they have queer folks! Totally ludicrous! My Arkansas cousin explained Katrina slamming New Orleans as God punishing the queer & sexually deviant! But Moore, Ok gets pummeled year after year! 🤣😂
GOD = immorality justified. FUCK YOU enabler of racism, rape, child genital mutilation, Need I go on for the immorality of religion and its practices. All of these practices are exclusively middle eastern religions.
@@ossiedunstan4419 ah, ha caught you....you definitely do believe in God...you don't get that upset or make this many comments over the Easter Bunny.....Lol
@@Bacpakin my biological "father" is, and always was, a lazy, uneducated waste of flesh, I'd love to know what it would have been like to have a family who actually gave a damn, I do have a family now but obviously not biological, more of an adopted family although they live more than 5,000 miles away 😔 People say you can't choose your family or parents, and while I agree with the latter you most certainly can choose the former, they make me a better person every single day and I hope you have as much luck as I did 😊👍 ♥ 🤗
@@DoctaOsiris And yet you are the best he could have and has biologically made. You are the best product of this [as you call it] ,waste of flesh...Think Really hard my friend.
@@juanitosuriel6931 think really hard? Are you actually kidding me? You know nothing about my life, if I'm the best my biological father could have ever "made" then I wish he'd never bothered, I'd be perfectly fine with never existing, not that I'd have ever known about it anyway, what's there to think really hard about exactly? 🤷
Hello prof Sean Carroll, for a long time I have this question and I can't find the answer, In your research about "emergence" I always wonder if the in 2009 intrudeced theory on emergent or entropic gravity by prof Erik Verlinde of the university in Amsterdam? (Netherlands) if you find the time thank you so much.
Gotta love the Sean! He’s super smart, super logical, and sometimes funny. I love the beginning where he shows the 3 ways of looking at god. It’s just how a scientific mind would begin - by grouping like things. It’s a taxonomic view.
@@con.troller4183 Wish there was an easy way to get them to understand that. "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful." --Lucius Annaeus Seneca Even Obama and Biden know that.
@@graveseeker Instead of being disqualified from office for believing in talking snakes and zombie saviors, you can't get elected unless you profess that you do.
Mostly theologians who focus on science and the existence of God do not argue that there is conclusive proof and furthermore that this is purposeful because it would not allow for the existence of faith and development of faith. I don’t have time to explain these things here, but there have been whole books and articles written on the topic from multiple different perspectives and logic, so if you are curious, look into it more deeply.
Everything man does is man's need to understand and control things, but what we fail to realise is that we are not separate from the shit show. We are the shit show.
The entropy argument is very fascinating, and the whole lecture is well put-together and a great challenge for any apologeticist to try and overcome. However, I think when you say things like, "I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other," I just get the feeling it would take most theologians about 7 seconds to come up with a counter argument - and that's if they were distracted.
@@alankoslowski9473 I think maybe quoting 1 Corinthians 13 which describes the uselessness of all action without love would alone fry the "God didn't tell us to love each other," argument, let alone a vast number of similar sections of the Bible that encourage loving. "Love your neighbour as yourself," is in there, as is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and other instructions on love and compassion. Saying that stuff isn't in there ("I'd expect God to leave instructions and tell us to love each other") belies a lack of knowledge about theological teaching - and that's just on that one religious text. There are plenty of others. It's not a good argument.
@@ghr8184 But it's not consistent, and there's much lacking in scripture, such as equal rights for everyone. It's also complete devoid of modern practical science. As he says, if it were written by an omniscient god, why isn't there anything about the germ theory of disease? I think his point is that it's evident the bible was written by humans during a particular historical period rather than being the inerrant word of god since so much of the bible is is lacking and erroneous.
@@alankoslowski9473 Perhaps I was unclear in what I was specifically saying. I was not addressing Carroll's whole lecture or even that whole section. I was specifically speaking to his saying that God (he is mostly using the example of the Christian God) didn't tell us to love each other. It explicitly says this exact thing multiple times throughout the Bible. It's literally right in there. Either Carroll doesn't know this or he is discounting these statements based on something he doesn't specifically indicate here, but that specific statement makes him sound like he really hasn't done his research on that specific statement's full implications regarding the Christian Bible. Making that statement in front of an apologeticist or theologian would be like jumping into a school of piranhas. And, yes, I know that piranhas don't really strip flesh from bone in seconds like in a cartoon. However, the overall point I'm making, I think is clear, even if I opened myself up to critique with a poorly-chosen analogy - especially if there were any marine biologists around. Which makes it the perfect analogy to describe my point about saying, "The Bible doesn't tell us to love each other," in the presence of a hypothetical theologian. Again: I like the lecture overall, and I think Carroll's main points are clear, intact, and challenging. He just has one poorly selected phrase.
@@ghr8184 Understood. Though he probably rehearsed the lecture, I don't t think he was reading directly from a script, so at least some of it was improvised. Considering this, I guess some inaccuracies are expected.
I don't have an issue with religions until they "Christians" try to prohibit subjects being taught in public schools. I don't have a problem with religions until they directly interfer with government. I don't have a problem with "Christians" until they try to interfer with my life. As you can see, I have many reasons to have problems with religion.
Well very ironic you say that when the law you live under says what “one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." if you live in the u.s.a then you literally living in a country built on Christian belief and morals “thou shall not kill” ect ect without the law of that first came from god their would be no “law” in modern society if it was left to us “humans” all morality would be Relative, the law could be whatever it wants but no the us law is actually built in godly principles and then you say “interfere” with the government or do this or do that you that’s not “Christians” that’s just a few bad apples in the butch you look at they hate and the bad side? You say you don’t have a issues until the “Christians” what about the Terrorist yelling allah and giving the muslim religion a bad name? Or the buddist who put THIER kids through the extreme to be enlightened? Those people don’t speak for the rest of the “religion” you’re talking about It’s incredibly small minded to take a small group of people and group them up and give a negative intent,I’m black and everytime a cop kills one of my people do I group up all the cops in a butch no cause that’s unfair and wrong ,do you know that the most Christians are in Asia not in the us or the uk or canda but Asia and I’m just saying that to open your eyes and stop looking through this thick lenses you got on, you decided to take a Critical thinking video and make this negative comment, grow up dude….
@@manmadetunao2597 The pledge of allegiance isn't a law. It is also actually a relatively recent innovation. dating only back to the old anti-communist scares.
@@lexireina3641 well if you actually read my comment I never said it was the law I said THW country was built on Christian belief which it is and second recent? You’re saying thw 1700s we’re recent? That was 3 Centuries ago,that’s not recent buddy you know what is recent the civil rights moment which was only 56 years ago and Yk how Martin Luther king convinced the government and who talked to about why blacks are equal to whites ja because every man created by god is equal and that’s what he pushes and preached and why as a black man I can sit where I want and drink where I want it was only 50 years ago where I couldn’t now that’s recent not 300 years ago where as a black man I would Be in chains
@@manmadetunao2597 Funny you should say that, considering that those "Christian" beliefs you say the country was founded on didn't stop said founders from keeping you in chains. But then, if you read your Bible, you'll find that your God is pretty cool with slavery. Encourages submission to one's masters, no less.
...and atheists interfere with ours...like propagandizing them in your secular schools headed by your academic mentors who does early sexualization of them and push evolution onto them. Your worldview makes for a unsuccessful civilization, not a successful one. Your worldview shows a lot of garbage out from the garbage in you take in...such as twice the suicide rate for kids you bring up in your fatalism. The original intent of the Founding Fathers was to not have the federal government to tell the states what religion or type of Christian sect to have. Even President Jefferson took money out of the US treasury to pay for Bibles for schools. A 1892 Supreme Court ruling said we are a Christian nation. Another thing. There are two types of Christianity. One is true Gospel and the other are Christian cults. The difference? The true Gospel is salvation without works and is a GIFT for mere faith and grace without merit...the cults believe it is grace with WORKS and it s possible to lose salvation off and on. Here is a video giving the true Gospel of how to get the gift of eternal life. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Wh1VU-_OF98.html
I think that scientists should be very picky about the usage of the word _theory_. Non scientifically educated people confuse _theory_ with _conjecture_ or _supposition_. So, they understand _Supposition of Evolution_ instead of _Explanation of Evolution_.
Richard Gomes Yeah, it's a pity that word was used in a scientific context as it opens the door to deliberate obfuscation by unethical religious types.
I think Dr. Carroll is giving the theologians a very large head start... and then demonstrating that even when given the easiest possible case to make, gods fail spectacularly. He does the best thing possible when dealing wtih pseudoscience: He takes it seriously and then says "What if that's true?" Apply it to biological evolution denial, big bang cosmology denial, climate science denial, abiogenesis denial and it *always* comes back as egg on the face of the denier.
Richard ,you talking nonsense;theory is a specific scientific construct,it is the ignorant that should learn by reading,asking questions, any means accessible what the word theory means depending on context it`s being used .If you bring the information to the lowest denominator nobody will learn anything and knowledge won`t be served and all will stay in darkness.
I hardly think changing "God is not a Good Theory" to "God is not a Good Scientific Theory" is dumbing anything down, and it would address the OP's point that ignorant people, especially the willfully ignorant, will immediately insert their superstition based mythology/conjecture as "also a theory" It's not going to stop them, superstitious people will always just double down when confronted with evidence that they're peddling superstitions, but nothing can be done about that other than teaching kids how to think instead of what to think.
Richard Gomes wouldn’t it be nicer if we could continue the correct usage of the word and simply teach others the proper use? The word theory is used in place of hypothesis frequently and inaccurately.
What a brilliant talk about a much needed explanation for or against god in our lives from a person who knows man made rules and laws and scientific rules and laws. This has helped me better understand pure logical theories and draw my own conclusions to our existence!
One of the biggest problems with third dimensional existence is being on a body where as far as you can see is what is real and you we consider it measurable and accurate. When we take this mindset and look into space you're doing ourself is a big disservice because we are trying to map from a singular point in space and time... Even if we accurately mapped our entire galaxy is still nothing but a tiny little Dot... Accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by exponential growth of dark matter which is absorbing light energy and all sorts of other energies that flow through it. It is not composed of our gravitational wave frequency so finding a particle of dark matter will never happen. Entering into the third dimension from the second dimension equals adding depth adding depth adds volume adding volume adds Mass light is mass in motion a two-dimensional plane has no interference with a black hole no matter which way you position the two-dimensional plane into the black hole because the two-dimensional plane has absolutely no depth and because there's absolutely no depth there's nothing to pull on. Heaven forbid we use the word propagation. Free will is the evil side of destiny destiny is the ultimate creator. Have to go through free will to achieve destiny... Free Will limits and slows the progress towards the ultimate goal of destiny... Free Will is there for evil and is the opposite side of the same whole.
@@OMAELITE i guess a lot of people know god and yet have toxic attitudes because that's what he teaches, right? that's the moral standard that god has set for his believers, amirite?
@@OMAELITE yea sure. you can just repent for being toxic, then get "forgiveness" and repeat that all over again, right? such a great excuse btw i was being sarcastic lmao. even now oh wait, you just said "what a dumb word". how friendly for someone from a religion that teaches to behave in the exact opposite way. god sure lives within them and through him comes these behaviours. what a solid proof that god exists.
I can’t discard this video. A lot of very interesting stuff. Everyone in the comments and including this presenter have equal opinion. I would have enjoyed a video on the mythology of god. It would be more appropriate to this conversation. I’ll be checking that out now. Good luck.
😂😂😂 this guy’s tunnel vision is pretty embarrassing for a “scientist”. Regardless of what your stance is on religion, this guy is basically like “well, I can’t prove based on my formula so it must not be. It couldn’t be that my understanding is limited.”
@@rizeorfall it's not embarrassing in the least. I wouldn't call it "tunnel vision" to dismiss something completely made up. There are THOUSANDS of religions. You may as well say he's got tunnel vision for not believing in fairies or Santa Clause.
@@rizeorfall Except he never said anything as absolute as that and you're 100% strawmanning him. The very first tuing he talks about is the importance of the word "good" in the title of his talk. At no point did he say that god is impossible, or that he certainly doesn't exist. He merely says, as a proper scientist/skeptic should, that the types of god hypotheses he outlined at the start are either useless or much more improbable than naturalistic explanations. There are, actually, god concepts that are impossible or disproven, but he didn't talk about those here.
@@betamusic5487 , Thousands of religions about gods indicates there is an original one. Only the Bible spells it out. That is how an intellectual person can figure it out. Zax is right. He starts with a bad premise then claims it can't be true because it didn't fit his bad premise.
The term Theory in science has a more robust meaning. A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.
I hate that this is the case honestly. It creates so much unnecessary confusion. Its very difficult to convince someone that a word doesn't mean what they think it does.
You can Sean should start a club for non-thinkers. The 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, energy can only change forms, energy creation/destruction can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
So, random processes create digitally encoded base 4 unidirectional kilobyte length sequences which specify how to build > 30 different nanomachines AND these same machines co-existing, plus thousands of copies of each tRNA pre-loadrd with its specific homochiral amino acids... AND no back-coding from a spontaneously occurring functional peptide sequence is possible... Some Godlike Superintelligence has created 2 unique branches of life. That is Occam's razor applied to 60+years of research into molecular biology. K
@@alankoslowski9473 I showed energy can't be eternal and you don't care and ignore it. Law of Causality - There is no beginning or change of existence without a cause. We have NO evidence for anything in nature not having a cause. When people accept something in nature that has no cause, they are into science fiction, NOT science. They’re also admitting that it had to be supernatural. Not to mention, it still violates the 2LofT.
@@esausjudeannephew6317 Ee, fuck yeah? Like for now he is t h e best. But I consider not only the substance but also the form. He freaking nails every crucial point with his accent, modulation of voice etc. when it's necesarry. Tyson for instance is god awful (considering all the hype). But to be fair I havent watched him a lot (but again maybe because he is so bad, lol).
But he speaks nonsense. You can see that , no? His science is based on nothing. He can not even master his ONLY instrument, Thought. Total abandonment of REASON.
Brilliant stuff from Carroll. Such an honest search for truth compared to the apologetics. Carroll " The logic is NOT ' I see that energy is conserved' therefore energy is conserved. The logic is 'I see that energy is conserved' therefore I make a hypothesis...and then I go out and test that hypothesis". I would challenge any creationist( old or new earth) or Intelligent design proponents to use that kind of thinking to support your claims. For me this type of thinking is what has taught us what we know about medicine, modern agriculture and technology, whereas theistic theories have demonstrated very little of actual use.
ShowMe Agree completely on your philosophy of science. However, religions have been enormously useful in encoding "how to" type information distilled over thousands of years, for example take the greek mythical constellations: in part, they are mnemonic devices for remembering the star patterns so useful in agriculture and navigation. Granted, one could use Ptolemaic calculations to navigate without reference to any mythology (and they did), but the point remains that religion served to teach about the star patterns and their movement. Like song, story and myth in general, religion is partly a form of preservation of lessons learned over the deep time of human existence.
I wouldn't try to deny that. Go back far enough and religion and science would have been nearly the same discipline...an effort to explain the world we live. And I wouldn't deny the use of any philosophy to ask further questions. Unfortunately many religious philosophies have stopped asking questions, and claim to have all the anwsers.
Sean doesn't follow the laws anyway. 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
No. He's not contradicting himself. Although I think scientists shouldn't use the phrase that way so that ppl like you can't straw man and then claim victory. "Laws of nature" when used by scientists simply means descriptive statements about regularities in the universe or the regularities themselves. It's not a profession that the universe is being forced to behave in a certain way.
Very good questions you have raised in your presentation. I suggest you study Sikh Faith and contrary to all faiths, there are a set of instructions in this faith. 1) Talking about big bang 2) Evil is not an entity opposing God but Evil as a set of our own bad habits that can be controlled by us 3) it also talks about multiverse and collapse of universe and rebirth of this universe and all others again and again. 4) it talks about Physical laws provided to the universes and creation in itself according to which all creation move 5) Finally God cannot be found in some random place in clouds but is within the creation. So instructions are clearly there and are entirely scientific if we are willing to open our minds and understand them.
Also a question of equality was raised. One of the most important ones in today’s time. I loved this question. Sikh Faith says “Ek Noor Teh Sab Jug Upjya Kon bhale Koh Mande” which translates to “the whole creation can from the same source, so who is good and who is bad?” No one is good or bad but we become good and bad with our actions and thoughts. So all are equal and we become closer and farther from the creator within by our actions and thoughts. There isn’t even a question of lack of equality in this faith
If there are many worlds, I'm pretty sure that I will be convinced of their existence in some of them. The only thing I can tell is this world is not one of those. I wonder which copies of Sean Carroll will convince me, and which ones won't.
from my understanding they would fall into the same system cause you have language and code on the face of the 8th script but theres still a structure above all of that which states tunnel line point and feeds back into information so the top of the structure as far as i can tell seems to be the statement of complexity
i saw this in my recommended and immediately watched it, I recognized Sean from watching Veritasium and i had no idea he had talks on this topic, something ive been interested in ever since i left christianity
Yes a single particle universe is plausible. Who made the particle? Again, Sean can not get around the pesky making something from nothing problem... I know several high level particle physicists professors at Cal Tech who were so intimidated by him while he was there that they hid their deep belief in Christianity. We can only love and pray for Sean.
@@jamesrichards3086 the question "who made the particle?" cannot be answered without first making the assumption that everything that exists must have a creator. you cannot answer such a question until you can demonstrate that the question even has an answer (through proving or justifying said assumption)
@@Azide_zx I never understand why people conclude that the only possible answer for these kinds of questions is a creator. "If answer is unattainable, answer must be a creator". Like, no? The answer could be anything and maybe there even is no answer. No one can possibly know, yet so many people have a need to make the conclusion of a creator. Clearly the faith itself is not enough to them so they have to seek additional cope by "justifying" it to others and coming to conclusions about "how it works".
@@denisdelinger3265 the thing that baffles me is the assumption that the originator of everything is a conscious creator. consciousness is an extremely complex property so out of anything i could possibly assume about what our universe came from, a conscious being would probably be one of the least likely some argue that a conscious being is the only thing capable of creating something new, but they have no basis for that assumption, or even the assumption that our universe even had an origin point some say that only a being with free will can create something truly new and creative like a universe or an artwork, but this inherently relies on the assumption that free will exists, implying that some influence exists in the mind other than the predictable interactions between neurons and cells and chemicals. this assumption is also unfounded. in fact, to assume that there is a supernatural influence in your chain of logic to prove a divine creator (a type of supernatural influence) is a circular argument and a fallacy
@@denisdelinger3265 doesn't Science use one theory and only one theory to assume the possible explanation to something?Why when its used with God you have a problem?You say it can be anything ,anything how?Lmao logic will then have to defy anything Creation theory is no way far fetched at all Your assumption that it can be anything it is because you not even specific at all which means that explaination can br outside the frames of logic and if so then no answer will be thought of instead of intelligent Design
Correct that to modern religion. Back then it was probably more wise to go with the crowd for fear of death unless you were outspoken with proof of no God. Plus there are the scientistst such as Da Vinci, and Newton.
Baji Scipio Dārayav Aurelius Julian Venizelos Nalwa I don't think we can ever know. just look at what happened to the ones who were open about opposing religion.
This subject is as hard as trying to define what is human being and get majority’s agreement. Many subjects is fluid and dynamic since the meaning is defined by social norm which is hard to discuss without being very specific clear requirements, and tight definitions.
@@Calligraphybooster how was anything created naturally? 1LofT states that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can't happen naturally. One aspect of the 2LofT shows that the universe is winding down, usable energy is becoming less usable. Creation had to be done supernaturally at some point.
@@2fast2blockYou've missed the entire point of his argument. His argument was never against a God and the creation of the Universe. He never said it's not possible. In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree. His argument is that at this point in time God is not a good theory. He then explained this with a very well researched, thought out and fair set of follow ups including the weaknesses in a lot of Scientific theories and the positives in God's. He however proved multiple times that although it is a theory at this point in time it is far from the best. He even took the best argument for God (by a long way).
@@matwatson7947 he's a typical 'maybe this, maybe that' actor atheist who will NOT give the glory to God. He loves his act of "In fact he said in multiple moments that it makes sense to some degree." but his empty pride can't get him to admit that God has ALL the evidence and he has NONE.
The problem is you can’t have a genuine rebuttal to religion. There’s an infinite number of hoops and goal posts the can be shifted when you’re arguing the mechanics of the magic and mystical.
The explanation to the question of 'why?' related to something always just creates a new question of 'why?', in my mind at least. It is an infinitely recursive question that loses meaning when you start asking it about the more and more fundamental low-level things in our reality.
There is a principle in philosophy elucidated by The Munchhausen Trilemma. All factual statements rest on chains of reasoning that are either circular, infinite in regress, or brute assertion. Therefore, our question should always be not "what is really true?" but instead rather "what is reasonable given the constraints we agree to for purposes of this conversation or investigation?" The latter question can be commonly answered by people who employ good logic; the former is more of a personal choice.
@@kennethbransford820 If you want to think God guided evolution that's one thing. But the idea that life forms on Earth have a common ancestor is well-established.
@@superdog797 HOW, is it well established? How did amino acids come together by accident? How, did the individual amino acids get their properly shaped isomers or enantiomers ? Why, are ALL, of OUR, amino acids right handed? If, life was by accident? The mixture of right and left handed amino acids would be the same. The chirality wouldn't be there. It would be non chiral. No one knows what the first step was for life. You comment ====> "common ancestor is well-established."< ==== This is showing you to be a liar. You don't know. All the worlds scientists don't know. ===== Evolution = Self Assembling Atoms = Impossible =====
@@kennethbransford820 Life's amino acids are left-handed. It's completely false to say that both enantiomers should be present, and in equal mixtures, in living systems "just because". There are different theories as to why left-handed amino acids exist in life's proteins but it's safe to say nobody knows why the LUCA had left-handed amino acids. I don't know why you think that's a particularly important point. A universal common ancestor is indeed well-established, and since you seem to be interested in chemistry and likely science in general you should perhaps be asking why people think there is a LUCA instead of just disagreeing on little to no basis. Like I said, believing that God or an intelligence guided the emergence of lifeforms is one thing, but to suggest organisms on Earth don't share a LUCA is just ridiculous and betrays a failure to grasp why it is that people are so sure there was a LUCA. Think about a few questions from both an intelligent design perspective as well as an evolutionary perspective, and give me your answers and thoughts. Why do all lifeforms on Earth have DNA, RNA, ribosomes, a small group of about 20 amino acids, and a lipid cell membrane? Why are all multicellular organisms eukaryotes? Why are all lifeforms carbon-based? Do you think all humans have a common ancestor? If so, why? Do you think all cats have a common ancestor? If so, why? Do you think all dogs and wolves have a common ancestor? Why? Do you think all insects have a common ancestor? I could go on with questions like this but I'd like to hear your response. Have you heard of the term "nested hierarchy"? Do you know what it means, and how it relates to evolutionary theory?
The first example of a particle floating in one direction universe does not disprove the necessary being type of God. For example, where did the laws of Newton come from? The particle and space being infinite does not absolve that something was necessary, even if it was the particle and law themselves that are the necessary parts.
With an infinite number of universes behind us and an infinite number of universes to go, a universe capable of spawning life was an inevitability. We aren't lucky, we just are because the universe is.
@@thelivingcross3785 Infinity is a very, very long time. Time for infinite universes before ours and an infinite number after. Who knows how many had or will have intelligent beings to create imaginary gods?
The most important three words in science are "I don't know". ( Feynman) To be inclusive I think that's equally true of theology. At 70, I'm pretty comfortable with that reality in both realms of thought. And yet and yet.
@@dimbulb23 As I state pretty clearly, I don't know. But I do ponder, it seems we are built for that. I do believe the Universe is block as Einstein explained, and I see nothing not deterministic which tells me quantum effects are actually not random. As Sabine Hossenfelder notes, there is no truly random anything, everything is predetermined and free-will is an illusion. Now it is true that some theologians overstep and proclaim truth they cannot know, but in the end it's a range. As my old electrical engineering professor noted so many years ago, just because we don't "know" what radio waves are doesn't mean we can't use them. We model were we don't have complete information and that's really what theologians and physicists do, we can only live in the relevant range. But the big picture is pretty clear. What a God might be I do not know, but my construction tells me there may be more to this than we know - or can know. But that's philosophy not physics and to some degree Sean would be better to "shut up and calculate". He's pushing a little out of his depth here.
Prove it!! Sean Carrol isn't even Real and I'm surprised that so many people believe he actually exists!!! People are so gullible.... It's obvious that Sean Carrol is made up!!!
David Belcher, I take it from your use of "!!!!" 's that you are a bit bent out of shape. "Sean Carrol isn't even Real".....wow. What are you so angry about? Is it because people don't believe exactly as you do?
I have had some chats with the person calling himself Sean Carrol. He seems as real to me as you or anyone else. I happen to be a brown teddy bear so feel free to doubt my existence but someone presumably is typing this message on my behalf.
Three wise men once learned about a Deity by answering a foolish series of questions: was she really a virgin? Should we really believe this story? Isnt there a more plausible explanation for this birth? Hell no, it's a miracle! Come! Let us adore him! Worship this infant!
I enjoy Carrol but he is not omniscient, as I am sure he would agree. Anyone who thinks there is proof for the non-existence of God is not a scientist.
Think about this How did the singularity form It has to consist of something Now we have watched 4 Smbh vanish One hypothesis is they evaporated But how if light can not escape how did it evaporate What if it went critical became pure energy Slipped through the space time fabric Became a singularity Started to expand
I'd say it's fairer to put it like this: 1. We don't know if a naturalistic universe would be expected to produce any life (although we can continue to investigate and maybe we'll find out that it would or wouldn't.) 2. On many religions (e.g. the Abrahamic religions), it is fully expected that the universe would produce life. (It's logically impossible for those religions to be true, and for no life to exist.) Therefore, according to our current knowledge at least, the existence of life gives some evidence for those religions over naturalism. But "Religion" shouldn't then claim that God is therefore the logically necessary answer. For that to be the case, it would have to be shown that an atheistic universe certainly would not produce life. But even if all kinds of multiverse were disproven, blind chance is still given as a logical possibility. So this would be beyond the scope of the Fine Tuning Argument.
The problem with scientists trying to figure out the idea of God is that scientists are intelligent people. A large number of people in this world see things in very simple terms and refuse to try to learn anything else.
So then it wouldn't be the problem of the "scientist". It would be the fault of the PEOPLE they're talking to, and those who educated them or failed to educate them properly. Get your point straight.
u claim ignorance is bliss? the fact that scientists are intelligent is not a problem, it's a fact of life and perhaps an advantage that has enabled SO MUCH positive change in the world. would 500 praying believers build a bridge? or would construction workers (who themselves, might or might not be believers) actually do the job while theists bang their foreheads or close their eyes and mumble in delusion? weeeeee
@@redwingdog22 I can't disprove anymore than you can prove. Logic and reasoning should have you lean on Science for the probable "answer" as opposed to an ancient book written by sheep tenders who didn't know where the sun went at night. Do your own research and thinking rather than your childhood indoctrination and what the preacher man says, you have a computer in your hands, use the damn thing. You'll find that the Big Bang makes as much sense as any explanation because if you subscribe to a creation myth, you have to explain who created the creator.
Consciousness is a term that can have many meanings. But I think anyone who believes neuroscience has the potential to answer all our questions about consciousness, is simply choosing a different meaning of consciousness, one that excludes any non-observable elements of it. There are lots of things I can (in principle) observe about someone - I can observe the matter that makes up their brain, and electrical or chemical activity in it, and I can observe the outworkings of someone's thoughts and feelings (what they say and do, and physiological responses). But I can't observe whether another person or thing is "conscious" or not - unless, trivially, we restrict our definition of "consciousness" to one that's only in terms of observable things.
@@JimLovell-np4pv An aspect of consciousness that can’t be observed, is whether it actually exists in another person, or whether their brains are just producing all the thoughts and responses that we associate with consciousness. Or to phrase it differently, subjective experience is an unobserved aspect of consciousness. I’ve only observed my own subjective experience, I cannot observe anyone else’s.
@@JimLovell-np4pv I guess you could say that for most things we "observe", we're actually only observing its effects. e.g. I don't "observe" a tree; I only observe the light that comes from it, or I only observe the signals sent from my eyes. But my subjective experience is really the fact that I observe anything at all. That there is an "I" - a self - that is genuinely observing what my brain can only be said to be merely processing and responding to.
7:20 Yet most of the prominent scientists of the classical era were some form of Christians. Faraday, Newton (there are endless examples). They believed natural philosophy would help with understanding God better.
Hardtry to scatch an universe with minimum belongings to start the thoughts, but where the chemistry and physics came from? Where this first particle came from?
@@keithhamilton2240 The universe comes from a burnt out star from another universe. There are an infinity of mathematical infinities but just one infinity
@@whirledpeas3477 I hope you'r not insinuating scientism or some form of positivism (the view that science is the ONLY way to truth) this is a position largely abandoned by philosophers of science, since it cannot bear the weight of its own princilple (that truth only come from sciense), it cannot itself be proven scientifically. Though, I agree "God is it's concious matter", sounds like some strange Chopra stuf.
The wordsmith? Is it bad to use words or philosophical language to define something? I do not know if that was what you intended to say. No matter; let me try to "wordsmith" a description of God: God is a peronal being with thoughts (aboutnes), similarly to us, though not analogus to us. And he is not constrained by time, space or matter (timeless, spaceless and immaterial) In other word the ucaused first cause, or the unmoved mover. This is a very narrow and minimal description, and a fuller description would probably take thousands of pages, with a lot of philosophical speculations (ehmm... Aquinas).
Not only is Sean Carroll one of my favourite science communicators, but also-as I have now found-he leads very rational discussion about theology. I love it! :)
@@jgalt308 "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." this is the defination of rational according to google so since theology is based on logic hence it is rational. So now will you answer my question.
@@slashmonkey8545 Why? You didn't answer mine. What is logical about theology? What is the evidence that supports the logic? BTW Science has the same problem and they both end up in the same place taking different paths.
This intellectual presentation to a class reflects what gaining knowledge in college should be all about. Improved IQ requires getting the facts straight and expressing yourself accordingly.
I'm perry sure you can't improve your IQ, I'd like to know how someone would benefit from watching this, before taking an IQ test, how would the results be any different? Have you ever taken an IQ test? They wouldn't benefit because thats not how IQ works, but it would be a very pointless experiment.
It was a good lecture! :D I believe that reality is cyclic simply because we see so many cycles around us. So I also don't think that the Big Bang was the beginning. It was just the beginning of a new cycle.
If there even was a big bang... If there was I do agree though, a single big bang is not how things typically work. Thing happen a lot/infinitely or not at all.
@@jeremy-likes-cats This of course leads to the issue of there being anything at all. Nothing at all forever makes more sense than a singular big bang and eternal expansion. There is something missing.