John Polkinghorne - Did God Create from Nothing? 

pukulu go listen to alistair McGrath or John Lennox- both brilliant with cool accents -

pukulu, it’s people like him I point to when I ask atheists how it is that so many scientists came to faith later in life. Brilliant man who went from teaching physics to theology and ordination as a Priest.

@@michaelbrickley2443 Perhaps the basic distinction between an atheist and a theist is that the atheist sees no apparent meaning to life and concludes that there probably is no meaning, whereas the theist also sees no obvious and apparent meaning but asserts that there must be one.

@@pukulu " Perhaps the basic distinction between an atheist and a theist is that the atheist sees no apparent meaning to life ..." Next time you want to put words in people's mouths... don't. It's untruthful.

@@pukulu "maybe the most brilliant theist I've ever heard" That doesn't say much for other theists then because he got a lot wrong.

man I loved it that's exactly what it is

God doesn't exist.

But Spinoza's God is wholly impersonal with infinite attributes of which we only know Thought and Extension. How can an impersonal god said to be rational?

Sockfoot: "We are not physical beings trying to live in a spiritual world but spiritual beings experiencing life within a physical form." Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: “We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.”

Sockfoot: Wordsworth wrote beautiful lines but he, and other great minds of his day, were not privy to the scientific knowledge that we have today. It is only natural that this knowledge causes us to challenge many of the belief systems that have been handed down to us from previous times.

I believe that God is the word we use when we don’t know - to make ourselves at ease. I believe that if there was a being that created the universe it would have left us a clear information about. He would have told us how the world which he created works. But all we have from the supposed gods are ancient texts filled with mythology, bigotry, racism and bullshit. Therefore, we have nothing to base our belief in any god.

Sockfoot I once said something similar to what you mentioned here. I said - we see different levels of intelligence in the world, from a worm, to a monkey, to a dog and to a human. The universe is so vast that thinking we are at the top of the “intelligence pyramid” is to be very arrogant. God is at the very top, i believe before God are spiritual beings such as angels and demons and then possibly us.

Miłosz Michałowski-Żuk we have plenty of evidence for God. Big Bang cosmology/DNA/objective morals/ and much more. These things are best explained by God.

What ? You don't have to disprove something that doesn't appear to exist. Science can't disprove fairies didn't fart the universe into existence...that mean they also exist ? You can't claim something then not prove it. That's not how science works. Especially when religion keeps moving the goalposts whenever new science is discovered

@@skindred1888 new science like abrupt fossil record disproving gradualism , that's why Jay Gould came up with PE , or what Prof Muller said in 2016 , how Neo Darwinism lacks explanatory power ??

@@aqilshamil9633 sorry what?

@@skindred1888 it's funny for someone who talk science , you don't know what the biologist had to say about it's time to move to Post Darwinism Biology phase

@@skindred1888 have you heard about how the New World apes separate from Old World apes ?? Some biologist say they travel across ocean on freaking drifted plant masses ,lol.

It's essential to understand that a deterministic universe must have had an uncaused first cause in order to begin. The scientific method relies on cause and effect, so there must be a first cause to initiate the universe. Science is yet to explain an uncaused cause or a beginning that lacked a prior cause. The inflationary big bang theory suggests a beginning without a preceding cause, which raises significant questions. While it's possible to develop various theories outside the realm of scientific method, it's crucial to differentiate between science and science fiction.

What do mean by that, are you a deist or a theist? Does it point to a personal god? Especially a god who commanded to love him above all things?

+jeric jaime That is a very good question to what I actually am. For example, utilizing modern science: 1. Modern science says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Hence, energy must be eternally existent, or modern science is wrong. 2. Modern science says that we have cells that come into existence on a daily basis inside of our very body. So, since I apparently have a body with apparently energy and cells in it: A part of me is eternally existent and a part of me is being born anew on a daily basis. My current body appears to extend from eternity past until now. I apparently exist in the "eternal now". Rising to a higher level, I can see the "now" that I exist in (which extends from eternity past until now), is "eternal". I am currently an eternally consciously existent entity with choices, (basically at God's basic level), and so apparently are you. In addition: Modern science says that from a singular mass that banged, everything in this universe came into existence, and includes the forces of nature that it operates by, me, you, and our consciousness'. I am apparently older than the universe itself. And this apparently applies to you too. Continuing on: "Space" is pure energy itself. Wherever space is, energy is. Wherever energy is, space is. "Time" is the flow of that energy. I am apparently a very part of space and time itself. And this apparently applies to you too. But then again: Modern science says that from a singular mass that banged, everything in existence came into existence as stated above. But, do I and everything even exist per se, or does only this singular mass exist in the form of all things, including "me", "you", and "our consciousness'"? Some might call this singular mass "God". I guess one could say that "I" was "God" in the flesh, and this would apparently apply to you too. I don't know how much more personal "God" can get than that then to make up everything in existence 100%. Conscious entities, (even A.I.'s) have basic choices: Help, Neutral, Hurt and to whom to Help, Neutral, Hurt. We all have choices, plus whatever nature can do to/for us. With all the consequences and ramifications, seen and unseen, of all of our collective choices. We are apparently individuals in a society of individuals. One could even say we are "God's" in a society of "God's". But, what is good for an individual may or may not be good for the larger society, and conversely, what is good for a society may or may not be good for the individual. But, we are what we are and we have to exist somehow, someway. We have choices with all the consequences of those choices. But then, it appears that nature says that we will still all die one day from something. Even though we are currently an eternally consciously existent entity with choices, it does not currently appear it will always be that way throughout future eternity. But then again, if "I" don't even exist, but this singular mass exists as me, then how could "I" ever cease to exist if "I" never ever existed at all in the first place? If this singular mass with consciousness, (of whom "I" call "God"), chooses to exist as "me" throughout future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, then who am I to argue with "God", especially if "I" don't even exist to begin with? So, who and what am "I" is a very good question. (If "I" even actually exist at all).

+Charles Brightman but its not existence at all since you are made up of stuffs that are already present, particles that form into atoms, atoms that congregated and formed cells, cells that congregated and formed into an organism. Basically a collection of already present stuffs, matter. Before it was energy turned into matter and thus energy=matter, e=mc2. I am confused with existence with transformations and changes.

+jeric jaime 1. If something does not exist in any form, then it is literally nothing, so "existence" is needed. 2. What good is existence without a consciousness to experience it with? So, "consciousness" is needed. 3. If consciousness is not truly eternally consciously existent throughout future eternity, then it would cease to exist one day, of which then did it matter that it even ever existed at all in the first place? Who eternally to? So, being "eternal" is needed. 4. What good even is an actual eternal conscious existence without choices? Not even a choice in what to think about? So, "choices" are needed. These four items set up six basic states of existence as follows: 1. Exist, Conscious, Eternal, Choices: (basically "God's" level); 2. Exist, Conscious, Eternal, No Choices: (possibly "God's" delegates); 3. Exist, Conscious, Not Eternal, Choices: (Where humans [and other species too] appear to be at unless my above comments are true); 4. Exist, Conscious, Not Eternal, No Choices: (Seems like this would really suck, consciously exist with no choices, but hey, it's not for eternity); 5. Exist, Not Conscious, Eternal, No Choices (by default): (possibly things like pure energy); 6. Exist, Not Conscious, Not Eternal, No Choices: (possibly things like vegetation). There may be more, this is just some I can readily see. If "God" is truly "everything" at the top so to speak, then by "God" having parts of "God" interact with other parts of "God", different states of existence of "God" could occur. Even if the "stuff of 'God'" is all uniform in nature, a singularity so to speak, by "God" establishing larger united parts of "God" versus smaller united parts of "God", different states of "God" could possibly come about. It's kind of like everything in this universe is made up of pure energy so modern science tells us. Pure energy that can supposedly not be created nor destroyed, and hence would be eternal. By energy reforming in different ways, new structures of energy come about. Yes, E=mc^2 for matter, but also E=hf for photons. Everything in this universe could be understood better if it were deduced down into it's pure energy formats. Even "consciousness" and how "thoughts" are done are all just energy interacting with energy in various ways. When I had condensed space and time down into a single diagram and analyzed it, it highly suggested that a "conscious somethingness" was behind everything that exists and is most probably everywhere and in everything for anything at all to even exist. Think of it as pure energy that is everywhere and in everything for anything at all to even exist. Now, just because something is possible, and maybe even highly probable, does not automatically mean that it is really true, just that it is highly probably true. The scientific principal of Occam's razor (whereby the most probable scenario is most probably the correct scenario), would at least suggest that this "conscious somethingness" (of whom I call "God" utilizing quotation marks, as "God" is literally beyond my puny human comprehension), actually exists. The analysis also indicated though that while "God" might be eternally consciously existent into future eternity, (and that is not 100% definitive), it currently appears that we are not. We apparently will all consciously die one day from something, forget everything we ever knew and experienced, and then one day in future eternity will be forgotten, (or so it currently appears). It currently appears that life itself is just an illusion from our human perspective as far as future eternity is concerned. Our true destiny currently appears to be that we will cease to exist, forget everything, and then be forgotten. But, as I truly do not know what I do not know, I will be the first to acknowledge that I could be wrong. Maybe we will have an actual eternal conscious existence throughout future eternity somehow, someway, somewhere, in some state of existence, (possibly even as I stated above), but currently it appears, "probably not". But, we could. So, no matter what the answers really are, it appears it doesn't all eternally matter anyway. We are apparently going to forget it all one day. "The Suckiness of Life" Life sucks and then we die and/or life does not suck and then we still die. Then we either have a life after this life, which would probably suck and/or not suck, or we won't, and all suckiness for us will end for eternity. But, while we exist, (however long we might exist for), if life sucks, try to make it better and then it might not suck so bad. But then no matter what, it appears we still die one day from something. Then what in actual reality for the rest of future eternity? What exactly matters into future eternity and to whom does it exactly and eternally matter to? "God" alone? and/or "Me" too? and/or "Some other entity or entities"? OR "To no eternally consciously existent entity at all"? Answer these questions to see what if anything at all matters into future eternity and to whom it would matter to. Even if we had all the Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom, and Applications of "God" but one (that we were not truly eternally consciously existent with choices throughout future eternity), then what would it all matter anyway? Enjoy life while we have it, preferably in socially acceptable ways (to try to stay out of trouble with society; society is not always right but they usually outlast the individual), but then no matter what, we still all apparently die in the end. Then what in actual reality for the rest of eternity? (Regardless of how the universe may have come about and exists, or even how it may all end). But, just as energy interacting with energy causes things to occur, so does the stuff of "God" interacting with the stuff of "God" cause things to occur. In fact, the stuff of "God" is probably pure energy in this universe that is everywhere and in everything that allows all things to exist. But, does it all matter into future eternity? If so, to whom?

+Charles Brightman there is wrong in that concept, unless you are very clear with your definition of existence or begin to exist, what do you mean by that? Do you mean by existence as coming into being (something) from nothing or you defined it as coming into being from something? What is existence to you? How can you differentiate it from creating, making, converting, changing, transforming? Since all of that terms refers to already present stuffs

A creator would need a creator itself. God aint real

Debunked long time ago. ​@@sexydudeuk2172

Says Colin Dowson ..... thanks Colin 😘

Yeah lol sike

The multiverse and a Universe from "nothing" is lacking evidence. Atheists have Naturalism of the gaps.

Both explanations leads to infinite regresses, contradictions and impossibilities. We simply cannot now as per now and maybe we never will know. This, however, makes me wonder why anyone would claim to know not only the cause of the cosmos, but the *personality traits* of that cause. What justification can you possibly have for claiming to have this knowledge revealed to you? The fact that not only different religions are in conflict of the traits of this cause, but also that there are conflicts *within* the religions as to how to relate to this being seems to me strong evidence that they are really just asserting that which has yet to be demonstrated.

5tonyvvvv the multiverse and the Universe from nothing may lack evidence but (a) they are consequences of what we do know about quantum theory and cosmology and (b) some of the best scientists in the world are working to try to find the evidence. Until they can find it, those concepts can only be hypotheses. But that’s ok in science. With religion, we only have (a) dogma and (v) wildly differing interpretations of the same source text, sometimes leading to severe violence.

dont u think its like faith about quantum vacuum or evolution?theist believe in god atheist believe in evolution from nothing no different

iUseVegas I recommend actually reading his book and listening more intently on what he is saying. As he is not giving the “god of the gaps” argument. But the "God of the gaps" approach is only one of many Christian approaches to the question of how the God hypothesis makes sense of things. In my view it was misguided; it was a failed apologetic strategy from an earlier period in history that has now been rendered obsolete. This point has been taken on board by Christian theologians and philosophers of religion throughout the twentieth century who have now reverted to older, more appropriate ways of dealing with this question. For instance, the Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne is one of many writers to argue that the capacity of science to explain itself requires explanation- and that the most economical and reliable account of this explanatory capacity lies in the notion of a Creator God. Swinburne's argument asserts that the intelligibility of the universe itself needs explanation. It is therefore not the gaps in our understanding of the world which point to God but rather the very comprehensibility of scientific and other forms of understanding that requires an explanation. In brief, the argument is that explicability itself requires explanation. The more scientific advance is achieved, the greater will be our understanding of the universe- and hence the greater need to explain this very success. It is an approach which commends and encourages scientific investigation, not seeks to inhibit it." - Alister McGrath Recommend reading this short transcript of Swinburne’s lecture: users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/pdf_files/General%20untechnical%20papers/The%20Existence%20of%20God.pdf

i know my phone how works so it doesnt need creator what a stupid cumment

iUseVegas well naturally there is no cause for the Big Bang. So by all the evidence we currently have the cause has to be supernatural(unless your going to posit Lawerence Krauss’s failed “ universe from nothing” hypothesis. Any cause has to be spaceless, timeless, immaterial and uber powerful(not to mention personal to make the conscious decision to create) sounds a lot like God but we aren’t 100% sure(unless you had a 3000 year old book that prophesied all this happens and what’s to come also- 😂😂😂

And john Polkinghorne understands this field better than anyone else - he’s a theoretical physicist like Hawking -0do your research please- en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

+innerlocus ... what did he say that was objectionable? He was professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge before studying of the priesthood ... so, he's at once the college professor and the child in the nursery school. lol!

Hmm check out! Fr. Robert Spitzer S.J. PhD

@Tania ... Right!... funny... I wrote that 3 years ago and it read like something someone else wrote. I have no memory of writing it. ;))

The heaven you don't believe in, right?

So every particle of matter is part of God? How did u come to yo believe that God could not create from nothing? He says He did....

How do you know "God" is a "He"?

How did god create himself before he was there

Modern science says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Hence, energy must be eternally existent or modern science is wrong. How is energy eternally existent? Find out that answer and it might answer how "God" might be eternally existent also. Also, consider this: Modern science says that from a singular mass that expanded, everything in this universe came into existence, including the forces of nature that it operates by, and including you and me with our consciousness'. So, at a minimum, even "consciousness" emerged from that singular mass that expanded. When I had condensed space and time down into a single diagram and had analyzed it, the most probable scenario was that everything in existence most probably came from an eternal somethingness. It continued to show that this somethingness most probably had a consciousness and also that it was most probably everywhere and in everything for anything at all to even exist. Now, just because something is "most probable" does not automatically mean it's really true, just that it would be most probably true. Further analysis and research would have to be done to prove or disprove it. But now, taking into account that we have a consciousness that at a minimum "emerged" from a singular mass that expanded, and taking into account the analysis that I did which showed it is most probable that the universe is here due to some sort of conscious somethingness, (basically Intelligent Design), to me at least, it's not too much of a stretch to believe that a conscious somethingness did in fact pre-exist this universe that we are experiencing and at least guided it's creation. Without going into my entire analysis, consider these two points: 1. Take a snapshot of this Earth and all the males and females species upon it, then also take into account all the males and females that had to exist for those later males and females to exist. All the males and females in that evolutionary chain had to evolve at the exact same time and at the exact same rate for them to be here today. Not only that, but if pure evolution were true, then when we observe the species upon this Earth, it would seem to me that we should perceive new species that have only males or only females, that would most likely die off in one generation if they couldn't mate with other species. All of what I have observed of this Earth does not support that at this time. It seems that it is just not observed that there are massive amounts of new species that have only males or only females in them. Now, maybe there are, I just personally have not observed them. 2. Modern science says that the forces of nature all came into existence in the blink of an eye during the initial expansion and cooling of the universe. Now, how come the forces of nature haven't "evolved" by now since: a. The original conditions acting upon them are no longer acting upon them like it originally were; b. Billions of years have supposedly elapsed; c. In a supposedly expanding universe, whereby energy that could not be created nor destroyed would be getting less and less dense. d. What will happen to the universe and all in it probably when, not if, the forces of nature "evolve" as the universe continues to expand and cool? They will never ever "evolve"? Now, while I will acknowledge anything might be possible as I truly do not know what I do not know, what are the odds that there is no conscious somethingness behind our very existence? Now of course, if even true, then where is the interface between what we perceive is our individual conscious existence and "God"? It would seem to me that some sort of interface should exist. But, where is it? It cannot apparently be observed yet either. So, right now I am stuck in my analysis as more knowledge and/or understanding is needed by me to be able to make further conclusions. And just as I asked "Sky Wolf" above, how do you know "God" is a "He"?

Charles Brightman Look, how probable is our existence? If our life is under certain circumstances and even with millions of planets quite improbable with their complexity, then, how probable will there be the most complex being already existing in nothingness.

Not believing he exist is the devils greatest hope! Keep in mind the current mortality rate is currently 100%! but,the immortality rate is 100% also! There's hope.. where do you want to spend forever? Your choice.you can say God your will be done and God says back your will be done-decisions decisions decisions...

Sky Wolf You must want your god to exist it could be any god or no god and no one can prove their god without a bible. Science will explain more and more and the god claim will be really in trouble. You say without god you cannot know anything. What happened if aliens programmed the universe and us then its not a god. I could come up with other natural explanations. Atheists wait for the answer theists claim they already know the answer. Actually the atheist app disproved the gods of religions how can something come from nothing and why there is something rather than nothing.

David Heller Well technically aliens would be our God in a sense.

It is a contradiction in terms of philosophy as a whole, and methaphysics as an individual.

+Brad Holkesvig Lots of very bad problems have been caused by people listening to the voices in their head.

Furbs Especially when they don't know how those voices get into their minds. I know exactly how and where we get those voices, thoughts and visible worlds to experience in our minds.

+Brad Holkesvig Its called mental illness.

Furbs It's called the voice of God. It is technology that our Creator used to speak a simulation program into existence that we human beings are all a part of. He also uses the voice of God to take information from the program and feed our created minds to give us thoughts, senses and a visible world to experience. We are not real people living on a real earth whirling around in a real universe. It's all an illusion that is formed in our minds.

+Brad Holkesvig Your proving my point even better than i ever could. Thanks.

Its the red thing at the end of your nose.

+intensegenuev no one cares about your pathetic pink unicorn, lol!

But is all powerful, Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent... all the Omni words. You've got to believe me!!!... Ohh.. that reminds me of a song, I've got to listen to it now, bye!

+Dick Hamilton Your inference or poor interpretation of what he said is incorrect. Does being omnisicient require knowledge of the future? The future is uncertain at all scales. Omniscience requires all knowledge to the present moment. And that is even worse, because the present moment cannot be experienced by humans. One error in human thinking, is attempting to define things that they cannot or are ignorant of. To know everything, is all such things that exist. Future potentialities are not real, so they are not required to be 'known' because they cannot be known.

+Shean Crane Nope. "Does being omnisicient require knowledge of the future?" Yes, UNEQUIVOCALLY. Omniscience requires knowing everything for all time. God is supposed to be timeless, temporally unlimited, existing outside of time, not embedded in it.

Dick Hamilton Simply incorrect.

+Shean Crane well, if you're one of the 'Faithful', then like most Christians, you're a heretic. Omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent he is supposed to be - he knows everything there is to know, he is capable of all actions, he is every where and every when, according to their book. See? like most believers, you only keep the parts you like, and invent other parts, like going somewhere else immediately you die (there to meet your relatives, no less) or being 'raptured'. Such nonsense.

+Shean Crane so said the Church, just before they tortured and burned all those people...