I like how it doesn't try to sugar coat it and saying that the Big Bang was definetely the beginning of the universe. Instead he is saying it's not certain and explains how it's not simple as we think although we can lean towards the beginning. Thank you.
@@CircusofPython There are tons of apologists who claims that the big bang theory somehow is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe. But anyone having an actual understanding of the theory and the theory on which it is based knows this to be utter nonsense. Since this priest holds a Ph.D. there is absolutely no reason he would make this erroneous claim. That's why I phrased my question like I did.
@@michaelanderson4849 *"But anyone having an actual understanding of the theory and the theory on which it is based knows this to be utter nonsense."* I know right? I've told Theists this hundreds of times over almost 20 years, as so many of them constantly claim the big bang theory shows the Universe had a beginning. But Theists are often so dogmatic, they won't listen and repeat that anyway because they often don't care about facts.
I shouldn't, I know, but seeing a Priest with a PhD in Physics increases my confidence in my God given faith (may He continue to bestow it). The Catholic Church embraces the search for truth because it has Truth himself. God Bless your work brothers and thank you.
@@dusermiginte4647 There is in fact evidence of God, the Bible has never failed to have any of it's thousands of prophecies come true... no man can accurately predict the future like that. It was an eye opener for me and it can be for you too if you want to find truth.
@@dusermiginte4647 I just said it... "the Bible has never failed to have any of it's thousands of prophecies come true". The reason why most of the world will not accept it is found in the same book... "but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame" (1 Corinthians 1:27). In other words most will expect the truth to be in some hidden planet or some undiscovered tomb or something extraordinary, however it has been here for quite some time now in an easily accessible book, yet not everyone will find it. I can show you, but even if you refuse now God will keep sending someone to teach you because he is merciful, although a day will come when it is no longer available and many will seek it.
@@colinpierre3441 delusional.. So you know how many times the bible has been corrected thru the course of history? The bible isnt right, its not a science book.. its a fairytale.. grow up..
Although my academic background is in social science, I am deeply in awe of the profound content of the Institute’s presentations that has enriched my faith. Fr. Davenport's mesmerizing commentary has given depth to this unfolding scientific saga. Moreover, the illuminating works of St. Thomas Aquinas naturally sparked my curiosity when I was in eighth grade in parochial school. Thank you and wish you continued success.
Perhaps you should also consider the work of the many great theistic philosophers that work in the area of Apologetics (which is what these videos are, effectively), such as Alvin Plantings, William Lane Craig, Josh Rasmussen, Alexander Prus and RUclipsrs such as Capturing Christianity, The Analytic Christian, Parker's Pensees, Adherent Apologetics, Sean McDowell, Deflate, etc. Albeit great, this channel and these videos are mere regurgitations of what's already come before, so they're are standing in the shoulders of giants.
The Big Bang as an explanation of why the Universe looks as it does as opposed to an explanation of how or why it originated is an important shift in how to think of it.
If it was infinite then every part of it would be hotter than the sun and there would be no cold places. Since this isn’t the case we know energy is finite thus so to is the universe
Well, these scientific theories are always a bit confusing in some parts. Fortunately, we can rest our doubts on God's statements by understanding the Holy Bible. Great video, brothers!
Great video, and a very reasonable perspective. Thanks for all your work, Thomistic Institute team - and I look forward to more by Fr. Davenport, and Prof. Oberg!
Slick presentation and powerful message. Thanks to scientific discoveries We are tending more to a created universe then we ever have done. Fides et ratio
I agree. With each new breakthrough - the possibility of an intelligent designer becomes more and more likely. This is especially true with quantum mechanics (imo).
I suppose the "big bang" explains the mechanics of how the universe and everything in it came to be naturally and especially how the many things in the universe came to settle to wherever they are at this point in time. Even without knowing the "big bang", you can still believe that everything was created by God, with the assumption that God put into place the celestial items to where they are today since the very beginning in a kind of super-natural way with natural trajectories afterward. In my view it's not that the "big bang" finally proves that creation according to Genesis or Christian understanding is proven right or is in line with the evidence, but it shows that God in His infinite divine wisdom and providence can create everything in the natural ways that will always in the end, adhere to His will, by establishing unchangeable principles at the start as a single point, so that things will ultimately fall into place according to His will. The whole thing shows the supremacy of God's eternal plan and divine wisdom, that indeed He is the Alpha and the Omega; that is God truly knows what He is doing from the very beginning, or let's say eternally from before the beginning.
As far as I'm aware we only have observational data from the recombination era and forward. Anything earlier than that is based on experimetal data from high-energy physics or hypotheses.
I think one reason St.Thomas did not include Kalam argument in his proofs is because Kalam argument doesn't really prove God, instead the conclusion is that something outside universe has to bring it into existence. Only the first cause argument can nail it down to an uncaused Creator.
God is still the easiest solution to the question of "how did all of this come to be?". I'm not a particularly religious person but I see this for what it is.
No mention is made here or anywhere at the Institute of the all inclusive Borde Guth Vilenkin proof of a beginning and personally I can't even imagine what infinite past time can mean. It's like trying to climb a staircase with a perpetually receding first step. You can't begin, and if you can't begin how can you get from there(when there is no there) to here ?( the present)
@@gaspersignorelli3724 Do you believe in the big bang theory and that our world came about by chance or do you believe that there is a highly intelligent creator?
@@colinpierre3441 The big bang theory has nothing to do with chance. We don't know what initiated the big bang. It could easily have been a creator that kicked it off.
@@markb3786 Well it is wise to recognize the possibility of a Creator since all of the life origin theories have no solid proof or validity. However, I must ask you... are you aware that the Bible is our best evidence of a creator? The Bible contains some 1000+ prophecies and not one of them have failed to come true... a feat no man can achieve without the help of a higher being.
Following Rene Descartes meditation Category 1: Minds I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist. Category 2: Matter I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categories as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists. Category 3: Space My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist. Category 4: Time My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist. From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another. Now to the question of the origin of these categories Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another? Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time. From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localized change to space and time. So then could space and time be the origin of everything else? Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories. Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events? Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event. There can be no space , time or matter without events. In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next. From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories Category 1 : Minds Category 2 : Events Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical. Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind? If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind. Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind. This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger) So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds. These other minds may have also been created by The Mind. philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS philpapers.org/rec/DESETD
Will agree with you give a philosophical argument to my Scientific argument SW THEORY 🧐 behind the BIGBANG there lies the mind and the most fascinating thing is that we see it🤓 thus through SW THEORY we have proven GOD!
The dependence of material reality on an external immaterial mind is also a conclusion physics seems to point me toward. Particularly if the universe is traceable to a single point in space-time, namely a single quantum fluctuation preceding the expansion or inflation of space-time itself, in the absence of no other physical reality to "observe" the collapse of the wavefunction from its probable states to its determined state the only immaterial entity we know of with causal power is a mind. Certainly a supernatural appeal to the spark of creation and an appropriate one since at this point all natural material causal possibilities would be ruled out.
Aight! I'm glad that I watch this, because our Catholic School didn't teach us about the relationship between God and Big bang, rather they disprove the big bang ughhhh
If the big bang was purely materialistic and down to physics alone, how do we explain the random nature of the location of matter from the proposed BB Centre to the edge of the known universe. If it was a big explosion, matter would be spread evenly in a sphere, equidistant from said Centre and because space is a vacuum, all matter will travel at the same velocity. Is this the case? The said big bang is more like a continual spewing rather than an explosion. Also, if the universe is continually expanding, what is it expanding into if there was nothing before the Big Bang. I think maybe, God is not in the universe, but the universe is in God.
Because this way of making sense makes you comfortable while the common scientific way of making sense (which I'm also critical of in some ways) doesn't? How is that understanding?
@@kjekelle96 I'm a theoretical physicist myself and he just knew the limitations of extrapolations of the theory whereas many public speaking scientists often infer incorrect details
Even if we grant causal finitism and that spacetime cannot be past-infinite, and even if we can philosophically demonstrate that the cause of the past-finite spacetime were personal, we still will not have reached the classical conception of God. But it would surely still be an amazing conclusion!
Why aren't there more scientists like him? It seems like everything these days is leaning in the direction of doubt, and that there is more proselytizing in the direction of disbelief, than in the direction of faith.
People who deny God are plainly looking for a life without accountability. God is beyond the smartest scientists in the world all put together. What they don't know is unfathomable. God is real.
Fr George Lemaitre didn't really want to go there and dissuaded Pope Piux XII from making a public link with his theory as a proof for the existence of God. I think there is an argument for allowing science to progress without rushing to make conclusions that a particular theory proves the existence of God. At some time later, I believe the great convergence will emerge.
Infinity In the universe as we know it the following is true. 1. Infinite time is time without end and as such can never be reached. 2. Infinite distance can never be reached. Speed has a maximum which is the speed of light as such an infinite distance cannot be reached for the following reason. Consider sending out a beam of light. The light will never reach infinity as it would need infinite time. An infinite time can never pass as its time without end. 3. Nothing can be infinitely old. Consider making some object. Any time in the future it will always have a finite age as infinite time can never pass. Applying this to the past means that everything that exist is not infinity old or did not always exist. 4. The truth of 3 has been demonstrated by the big bang which was the event that gave birth to the universe. 5. The cause of the event that gave rise to the universe, if it had a property of infinity the same as the infinity in this universe then it in turn would be of a finite age and would need a creating event. 6. Thus anything with a property of infinity the same as the infinity of this universe could not be the ultimate cause of this universe or any universe like it. 7. Thus the ultimate cause of everything that exist has an infinity that is different or nothing like the infinity of this universe. From the above it follows Everything that can be seen to exists has not been in existence eternally and will not be in existence internally. Therefore, something must exist eternally that can bring into existence everything that can be seen to exist. That something is God.
Oh, it definitely *does* prove that God exists when you get down to the math, as the math proves that prior to the Big Bang, you had literal mathematical eternity: now time is the required ingredient for change, and prior to the big bang, you had eternity: so no time. And no time means no change in status, and therefore no change, in anything. Also, science would beseech you to answer where did this particle universe come from at that. So that does require an Uncaused Cause to start the whole thing off.
@@theinvertedprotagonist At least one of those men wasn't even embracing science to begin with. In fact, the Big Bang itself does prove God's existence.
@@theinvertedprotagonist First of all, they had all the evidence, and they rejected the science- so what they engaged in was not and never could be science. Hence by that stance they became delusional; as does anyone who rejects the requirement for an Uncaused Cause... especially since the Big Bang was basically preceeded by eternity, and then basically a very tiny black hole exploded.... but prior to the Big Bang, time couldn't exist, nor could change.
Big bang theory. GOD said it , and BANG it happen. Then he sat back and said, this should be fun watching them try figure this out. ( I am a Christian , don't get my Humor wrong) The supernatural brought the natural into and holds the natural in existence , by the frist cause..
We don't need cosmology to understand that the time had a beginning. I invite you to think about an universe with infinite past and how impossible the present moment is in such a universe. If you struggle to imagine, think about a running competition that never has a starting point. is it possible to reach the winning mark in such a competition? Yet here we are watching videos in our present moment!
• Interpretation of Genesis in Light of the Big Bang: The video posits that the Big Bang theory might evoke the imagery of Genesis’ “In the beginning” for Christians. This interpretation, while interesting, risks oversimplifying the complex relationship between scientific theories and religious texts. It overlooks the fundamental differences between a scientific explanation based on empirical evidence and a theological narrative that operates within the realm of faith. • Existence of a Creator Based on the Big Bang Theory: The video suggests that the Big Bang theory may imply the necessity of an external cause, potentially a creator. However, this leap from a scientific phenomenon to a theological conclusion is not supported by the Big Bang theory itself. The theory, while describing the universe’s early development, does not address metaphysical questions about the existence or necessity of a creator. • Aquinas’s Views on the World’s Beginnings: The video mentions St. Thomas Aquinas’s view that the world’s beginning can be known by faith, but not necessarily by reason. This distinction is important but does not engage with the philosophical critique that reasoning about the world’s beginning, whether infinite or finite, is inherently speculative and cannot yield definitive conclusions. • Kalam Cosmological Argument: The video’s reference to the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its implication that the universe’s existence proves the existence of God is a significant philosophical leap. This argument, while compelling to some, is not universally accepted in philosophical circles and is subject to criticism, particularly regarding its premises and logical structure. • Shift in Scientific Understanding of the Universe’s Origin: The historical overview of the shift from a static to a dynamic understanding of the universe in the video is accurate but does not fully explore the philosophical implications of this shift. It is important to note that scientific models are constantly evolving and are based on current evidence, which means they are subject to change with new discoveries. • Limitations of the Big Bang Theory in Explaining Universe’s Origin: The video correctly points out that the Big Bang theory does not describe the transition from nothing to something. This highlights a crucial philosophical point: scientific theories have limits in explaining the universe’s fundamental origins, and these limits should not be overlooked in favor of theological interpretations. • Theoretical Speculations Beyond the Big Bang: The discussion about theories beyond the Big Bang, like quantum gravity or the multiverse, is an important acknowledgment of the ongoing scientific quest to understand the universe’s origins. However, the philosophical critique here would be that these theories, while scientifically intriguing, remain speculative and are not yet fully supported by empirical evidence. • Conclusion Equating Scientific Theory with Theological Belief: The video concludes by equating the Big Bang theory with the theological belief that “God created the heavens and the earth.” This conclusion is philosophically problematic as it conflates a scientific theory, which is based on empirical evidence and subject to change, with a religious belief, which is based on faith. while the video attempts to draw parallels between scientific theories and theological beliefs regarding the universe’s origins, it does so in a manner that may oversimplify both the scientific understanding and the theological interpretations, leading to potential philosophical misinterpretations.
There’s a theory in the scientific ground asserting that universe has infinite past, and Big Bang was just a moment in the infinite evolution of the universe
Science goes by peer-review and 60% of scientists are atheists who won't listen why the other 40% are theists. I follow 40% of the theists who believe in modern physics and biology.
Interesting question. Given the immortality of angels and the immortality of the human soul (to which the body will be rejoined at the end of time), it is not the case that everything with a beginning must have a TEMPORAL end. Given another sense of "end," i.e., "end" as meaning a goal, a destination, a telos, then certainly, everything with a beginning has an end: God! "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen" (Rom 11:36).
The initial singularity is not a state of the universe. On the contrary: it is a mathematical idealization that is ontologically corresponding to nothing, as "infinite density" makes no physical sense. That's why there's no description of that instant, and that's why it's not possible to predict the states after it...because it corresponds to nothing. The universe began to exist in a series with no first member, diverging from zero. And it is not true that the presence of singularities in a theory indicates its falsity; what happens is that it is sometimes possible to have an underlying physics that postulates a discrete rather than continuous reality. In this case, it would be necessary for the new paradigm to have a quantized space and time, which is absurd according to Thomas Aquinas (and he is right). Furthermore, hypotheses that seek to falsify the big bang theory in favor of eternal-universe models have failed one by one in the face of challenges. Cyclic models, for example, face insurmountable thermodynamic difficulties, and the multiverse does not escape the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. The scientifically established fact is that the universe had an absolute beginning, yet many cosmologists insist on denying this in hopes of a future upheaval (as they know that if the post nihil origin of the universe is true, then there is no hope for naturalism).
What if this 4 dimensional universe of ours is just a circular wave on a 5 dimensional sphere. This wave still did not reach the sphere’s horizon as seen from our observational point. When the horizon is reached, the universe will start to disappear. And then, all the mass and energy will start to get more and more dense on the “other side” of the sphere. Eventually it will all collapse and start a new big bang causing the new/ the same wave in the opposite direction.
I believe that could be some explanation but again, too faith based with no evidence to support it. Wouldnt really explain where the 5th dimensional sphere came from unless you mean an infinite dimensional sphere encompassing everything, which I think would frankly be impossible but who knows
If there can be an infinitely existing being that created the universe, it is also possible and simpler for the universe itself to have existed infinitely rather than have an infinitely existing creator who made the universe. By Occam’s Razor, we can cut out the middleman, no creator required. The Big Bang Theory simply postulates that the universe was at some point compressed into a single point, it says nothing about what went before. Perhaps quantum fluctuation, perhaps an infinitely cycling universe, perhaps something else we haven’t thought of yet. We don’t know and may never know. Science tolerates not knowing, it is the religious mind that feels the need for certainty, even a false certainty based on emotion rather than evidence.
I say the concept of God has nothing to do with religion at all. God, i believe, is beyond mans rituals, dogmas, rules ect. The all in all is present in everything we perceive. The Great Light is within all living beings at all times. Before, during and at the end. All we see is the absolute perfection of the universe in every direction we chance to look. This Great Light...words fail me.
"Thoughts" and The concept of God Usage of the word "Thought" in this post is taken to mean anything that is part of a humans conscious experience. Under this definition a sound heard is a thought as much the thoughts going to solve a mathematical puzzle. Based on the above definition it can be said that all of humanities knowledge consist of "thoughts". For anything to be known by a human it must become a "thought". In the context of such a definition of "thoughts" The set of all "thoughts" would fit the concept of God. If you accept Mathematical Platonism then God would exist The concept of God entails a single entity that has the following properties Wisdom: The set of all thoughts will contain the perfect answer to every possible question Infinitude: The set of all thoughts will have an infinite amount of thoughts Sovereignty: There can be no thought that is not an element of the set of thoughts Omniscience:The set of all thought is all knowing as it contains all thoughts.
Information cannot be created nor destroyed, meaning the universe must consist of precisely zero information. However, if zero information can be defined as zero information, it contains one piece of information defining it as zero information. Therefore, it is impossible for zero information at the time of the big bang to defined as simply zero information. This is a paradox that must be resolved. Mathematical information cannot exist unless the numbers refer to something other than numbers, and a conscious awareness of nothing cannot exist, unless there is something to be consciously aware of. Combine the opposite forms of nothing should require nothing, considering all there is is nothing, but the result is an awareness of the mathematical information. Information hasn't actually being created, it's just a very real illusion. It's like the entire universe is in a quantum superposition of not being everything that it is. It is certainly true that everything we can observe within spacetime is entirely mathematically, but surely, that means the universe must contain non-mathematical information too to maintain the balance. Simply the probabilities within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is mathematical information but the randomness within the probabilities, is the non-mathematical information. Our laws of physics and mathematics describe everything we can observe perfectly, however, even that needs to have its opposite too. Therefore, the inverse of our laws of physics should define what is non-physical, which is conscious awareness. Selflessly reducing non-physical entropy within all conscious awareness, is the opposite to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it literally defines the concept "purpose". This means the total entropy both physical and non-physical combined, can remain constant. Surely, the Second Law is caused by random changes to mathematical information which causes the complexities to increase. The inverse of that, is the an awareness of the mathematical information causing its own fundamentals to change, which reduces its complexities. Our brain appears to have the necessary mechanism in place. TIny energy fluctuations can cause certain neurons aligned for consciousness to fire, which then causes our brain to generate new information. However, to prove the theory, the mechanism would need to be replicated within AI. Quantum entanglement shows that non-mathematical information can travel faster than the speed of light, which supports the theory. It's of course extremely difficult to prove anything that cannot be directly observed, and usually the idea of consciousness being non-physical is dismissed as pseudoscience, however, it should certainly still be provable. Surely even a single bit of information being created is entirely impossible, so converting opposite forms of nothing into an entire universe is way more plausible. If my theory is wrong, and the leading theory of quantum fluctuations created the universe, the what causes the quantum fluctuations to occur? Isn't expecting there to be anything besides fundamentally nothing without fundamentals extremely paradoxical?
You don’t get to cherry pick science. If you want to except the fact that the Big Bang happened then you have to accept everything else that science Is responsible for.
@@logicalatheist1065 God is basically an unknown entity that controls the laws of nature by using that God will not violate them. God never moves or speaks anything, God doesn't even have a voice, arms, legs and a whole body, because God is just a formless entity, not an old man with a long white beard and long white hair.
@@logicalatheist1065 If the men who wrote the Bible were not guided by a supernatural being, how is it that all of the Bible prophecies up to our modern day has never failed to come through? How can mortal men predict with specific details hundreds and thousands of years in advance and be accurate every time?
Very good as alwsys but should have mentioned the impossibility of an infinite past, according to Aristotle and Aquinas. Creatio ex nihilo was the rational view throughout. Itbis irrational to believe in an infinite past or succession of efficient causes.
Thanks for taking the time to comment: much appreciated! St. Thomas would certainly agree that we can hold with certitude the fact that the universe has a beginning in time, but, fascinatingly, he also holds that we can only hold this by faith! In the Summa Theologiae I, Question 46, Article 2, St. Thomas says, "By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist." Read the whole article here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-ia-q-46#FPQ46A2THEP1 Even if the world were eternal, St. Thomas will go on to say, it would still be created ex nihilo by God (see the answer to the second objection in the above article). Perhaps you were getting at something else with your point (and we're sorry if we missed it), but it's just a fascinating topic, and we can't help getting excited about it.Thanks for watching, thinking, and commenting!
@@ThomisticInstitute It is interesting that, even when Saint Thomas maintains that it cannot be shown that the world is not eternal, the second way remains conclusive, because it is not a question of going back "backwards" (accidentally subordinate causes could be infinite), but of going back "upwards" (in perfection). It is not a beginning in time, but in being. Pius XII was also enthusiastic with the Big Bang, and they told him to be careful.
Is ir necessary that the beginning of the Genesis refers to the creation of the Universe or could it be possible that it may refer to the change that came off the Big Bang?
The universe may be relatively infinite in that we do not know its bounds, limits, and ends nor do we know the infinite array of all that it contains, yet it is finite in that it was created and so is bound by time, space, and its own limited finite ability to be actualized (Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae,I.7.2-4). However, as Creator, God is not a member of the finite created order, and so is wholly other than all else. Therefore, God does not belong to any finite genus, that is, he cannot be named within or numbered among any genus of the created order and therefore does not partake of the limitations of that order (Summa theologiae,I.3.5). As God he belongs to an entirely different ontological order and as such is absolutely infinite. Moreover, Aquinas argues that because God's very nature is to be (ipsum esse ) and so pure act (actus purus ) he is absolutely "infinite and perfect" in that all the attributes that are predicated of him are fully and perfectly in act and thus infinitely in act (Summa theologiae, I.7.1). For example, because God is infinite as pure act "it is necessary that the active power of God should be infinite … Whence, since the divine essence, through which God acts, is infinite it follows that his power likewise is infinite" (Summa theologiae, I.25.2). All of God's perfections then are infinite in that they possess no limitations as in creatures but are fully and perfectly actualized within his divine being. I just read this and my mind exploded
EVERYTHING proves God exists, inasmuch as a Source is needed for EVERYTHING - the only alternative explanation would be a self-caused Universe (as some Buddhists claim) or a perpetual (beginningless and endless) Universe lacking any meaning - even THEN such a Universe if taken to be REAL (either objectively or subjectively) would require a Source and that Source would require its OWN Source etc. ad infinitum or a reductio ad absurdum regression (depending on one’s point of view) - so you have to either have an an endless series of Sources/Makers, or just ONE. The simple Truth is as soon as the sense of “I” as an independent agent arises, the limitations, weaknesses, and “lack of fullness” of that “I” would impute and by necessity warrant and posit a “Full and Self-Sufficient” God. - It’s either THAT or you assume the “I" itself is God (that is deluded into thinking itself limited and fractal) - this Monist position does away with an “Other” God and is variously regarded as a better or inferior option than a Theistic “God” disctinct from the “I”, depending on perspective.
In asking for proof of the existence of God, in the very questions lies the answer. Ask your self what is it about a proof that makes it so great? A proof is great because it does not depend on the time, place or person that gives it. A proof exist even if it has never been spoken. Therefore where do they exist and were they created? If you believe proofs were not created then you believe the proofs are eternal. So then the proofs are your God. If you believe the proofs have a creator then that creator is God. PS:It takes a mind/intelligence to understand a proof so can a proofs exist with no Mind or is a Mind essential for the existence of proof?
Why's it so important to pretend that the bible somehow should be true? The vast majority of people use critical thinking and apply logic and reason when they go about their everyday life. But set aside logic and reason when it comes to religion. I don't get it
This video illustrates the opposite of your caricature. We should be so lucky if the vast majority of people used reason and logic in their everyday lives. What a world that would be. A quick look around unfortunately shows that that's not true. What is true, however, is that this video (and the rest from the Thomistic Institute) apply more rigorous reason and logic to religion than the vast majority of people apply to anything else.
@@logicalatheist1065in the beginning they were nothing but God. Said so in the bible. God said "let there be light" and thus, that's equivalent to the big bang theory that everyone keeps getting confused about. That verse has been there since the beginning and everyone started making dumb theories about it from when the bible first went public.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." Romans...chapter 1
The singularity was 0 and the Big Bang was 0+1 from the quantum vacuum of 0-1. Then 0+1 became more 0+1's, and we're arranged into different simple formulas. Those formulas became more complicated; Cosmic expansion.
The Big Big fact, and the Function & Machine Categories ... completely prove the Universe and all Life was SUPERNATURALLY created by something very powerful with intellect. The Universe & everything in it, has a function or purpose. The energy, matter, time & space required for the Universe and everything in it, has a function or purpose. Since the Universe has come into existence, it has had fixed universal of physics or nature ... because the Universe & everything in it has a function or purpose. The Universe is the physical ( natural) existence or realm, where the laws of physics/nature applies to all energy, matter, space & time within it. In this Physical or Natural world, we can not created something from nothing. Everything that could become something in this Natural world was provided at the Big Bang ... by something UNNATURAL or Supernatural, which is not part our Universe, not subject to the laws of physics/nature ... extremely powerful ... has intellect to provide purpose or function .. and clearly can create something from nothing. The Big Bang & the Function category .. confirms a God-like being created the Universe.. The Machine Category ... which is a subcategory of the Function & Physical function categories ... confirms all life(biological machines) are supernaturally created and likely by the same entity that created the Universe. Note: a machine is simply a physical function, that requires specific energy, matter & information in order to exist and to function. All machines are UNNATURALLY made. Nature & natural processes over any period of time, can NEVER make a simple machine like a wheel, ever, nail, hammer, screw, driver, nut, bolt, etc. The very first machine in the Universe ... had to be supernaturally made with a powerful being with intellect. The Creation of the Universe & Mankind is completely consistent with Genesis. God began creation with the Earth first ... alone in empty dark space. Then God said, let there be light. The stars, Sun & Moon will be be made or appear on the 4th day of creation. So what was the Light that fell upon the Earth all alone in space? Yes. It was the Big Bang, 10s or 100's of light years away. This was pre-Fall Day 1, so there actually is no Time as we know it on Earth post Fall of man. The 6 days of Creation ... was in the eternal UNNATURAL space, where time as we know it does not exist. God is simply using the Day measure, because he knows Man will fall ... and then we get natural time. Over the 4 days by our standards ... the Universe expanded and would envelop Earth ... providing the stars in the Heavens. God then created the Sun, Moon & planets and he set them into their orbits. The Big Bang supports the existence of a Mighty God, and is in Genesis 1.
I'm not sure the big bang theory is valid. It primarily attempts to explain some of the red shift observations. However; its a red flag when theories result in singularities and magic like "inflation" to make work.
As much as I love this series of videos and the overall project here, I'm somewhat disappointed that neither your content nor your video descriptions mention ANY material from the many brilliant theological philosophers and even RUclipsrs, that are generating some great works and content. For example, in this video you mention the Kalam Cosmological Argument but you fail to mention it by name it's most ardent populariser and supporter today, Dr William Lane Craig, and the brilliant work that hes done in the space of theological philosophy and Apologetics. This is a missed opportunity to point your viewers (and supporters) in the direction of the vast work that he has done, to push the boundaries of Apologetics, as well as many other Christians. Considering you are literally standing in the shoulders of giants in the fields of philosophy and Apologetics (which is effectively, what these videos are about), you should be advertising what has come before you much more and pointing people more towards those great works that your content is based on.
Basically, regarding that particular singularity: a black hole exploded! That'd do it alright for both stopping time itself and also for just about everything in that problem besides *what* in science caused that particular explosion.
Is it impossible to prove anything at all or can somethings be proved? If somethings can be proved, then proofs exist, then this implies that God Exist for the following reason. God is eternal Truth A proof is eternal Truth. Truth does not contradict. Therefore there is one Truth. If a proof exist that means eternal Truth exist which is one and the same as God exist
@@logicalatheist1065 are you saying 1. you have evidence that God does not exist? or are you saying 2. you have not been successful in finding evidence that God exist .Please clarify is it 1 or 2. thanks
@@frrankdesilva6504 evidence that a god does not exist? That's fallacious... The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim... In this case the theist (you) claiming a god to exist. I do not believe your claims because they are baseless, no justification needed for my position, unless I make a claim about something
@@logicalatheist1065 The fact that you have not fond evidence for God existence does not mean that every body has not found evidence for God existence. I for one has.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" You forgot to include all the other scientific errors later on. I think in most mythologies some really powerful being created everything...
@@Roman-Labrador Ok so if you ever get sick, will u not go to a doctor(science) will you not take any medicine (science) ? I don’t think God wants you not to go to one. I hope u do if you need to.✝️👍🏼
Good explanation. I’m starting to think that general relativity and quantum mechanics are the result of massive assumptions. It’s like we’re stacking nonsense on top of nonsense.
Your GPS won't be accurate if you ignore relativity, and your simple calculator wouldn't work without quantum mechanics because transistors rely on QM to work.
Congratulations! The Thomistic Institute has single-handedly justified the existence of the internet.
High praise! But we can't take all of that credit. Godsplaining & Pints w/ Aquinas come to mind, among others.
I'd be amazed; there is an awful lot of true garbage on the internet- this video, however, and ones like it do give me hope at that.
@@ThomisticInstitute Do you guys study neoscholastics like Gaetano Sanseverino, Cardinal Mercier, Joseph Gredt, Edouard Hugon?
I like how it doesn't try to sugar coat it and saying that the Big Bang was definetely the beginning of the universe.
Instead he is saying it's not certain and explains how it's not simple as we think although we can lean towards the beginning.
Thank you.
Much appreciated! Thanks for watching.
Why would he say that? The theory says nothing about any beginning of the universe.
@Michael Anderson Did you watch the video? Your question is literally what it’s about.
@@CircusofPython There are tons of apologists who claims that the big bang theory somehow is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe. But anyone having an actual understanding of the theory and the theory on which it is based knows this to be utter nonsense. Since this priest holds a Ph.D. there is absolutely no reason he would make this erroneous claim. That's why I phrased my question like I did.
@@michaelanderson4849
*"But anyone having an actual understanding of the theory and the theory on which it is based knows this to be utter nonsense."*
I know right? I've told Theists this hundreds of times over almost 20 years, as so many of them constantly claim the big bang theory shows the Universe had a beginning. But Theists are often so dogmatic, they won't listen and repeat that anyway because they often don't care about facts.
I shouldn't, I know, but seeing a Priest with a PhD in Physics increases my confidence in my God given faith (may He continue to bestow it). The Catholic Church embraces the search for truth because it has Truth himself. God Bless your work brothers and thank you.
But bo, there are 0 (zero) evidence of a god or gods so bo, you dont like the truth at all..
@@dusermiginte4647 There is in fact evidence of God, the Bible has never failed to have any of it's thousands of prophecies come true... no man can accurately predict the future like that. It was an eye opener for me and it can be for you too if you want to find truth.
@@colinpierre3441 say the evidence then.. reveal it to the world and you surely will get a nobel price and be famous for the greatest discovery ever..
@@dusermiginte4647 I just said it... "the Bible has never failed to have any of it's thousands of prophecies come true". The reason why most of the world will not accept it is found in the same book... "but God chose the foolish things of the world to put the wise men to shame; and God chose the weak things of the world to put the strong things to shame" (1 Corinthians 1:27). In other words most will expect the truth to be in some hidden planet or some undiscovered tomb or something extraordinary, however it has been here for quite some time now in an easily accessible book, yet not everyone will find it. I can show you, but even if you refuse now God will keep sending someone to teach you because he is merciful, although a day will come when it is no longer available and many will seek it.
@@colinpierre3441 delusional..
So you know how many times the bible has been corrected thru the course of history?
The bible isnt right, its not a science book.. its a fairytale.. grow up..
Although my academic background is in social science, I am deeply in awe of the profound content of the Institute’s presentations that has enriched my faith. Fr. Davenport's mesmerizing commentary has given depth to this unfolding scientific saga. Moreover, the illuminating works of St. Thomas Aquinas naturally sparked my curiosity when I was in eighth grade in parochial school. Thank you and wish you continued success.
Thanks so much for the kind note! We're so glad you're finding the videos helpful. God bless you!
Perhaps you should also consider the work of the many great theistic philosophers that work in the area of Apologetics (which is what these videos are, effectively), such as Alvin Plantings, William Lane Craig, Josh Rasmussen, Alexander Prus and RUclipsrs such as Capturing Christianity, The Analytic Christian, Parker's Pensees, Adherent Apologetics, Sean McDowell, Deflate, etc.
Albeit great, this channel and these videos are mere regurgitations of what's already come before, so they're are standing in the shoulders of giants.
The Big Bang as an explanation of why the Universe looks as it does as opposed to an explanation of how or why it originated is an important shift in how to think of it.
If it’s not infinite there was a cause.
If it was infinite then every part of it would be hotter than the sun and there would be no cold places. Since this isn’t the case we know energy is finite thus so to is the universe
@@awb07d and why would every part be that hot if it was infinite?
That is a really important and awesome shift.
@@gfujigo The theory has never dealt with any creation of the universe. So what shift are you referring to?
Well, these scientific theories are always a bit confusing in some parts. Fortunately, we can rest our doubts on God's statements by understanding the Holy Bible. Great video, brothers!
What?
How about understanding the spiderman comics?
Its the same thing as the bible.
@@dusermiginte4647 youtube.com/@ExpeditionBible?si=nB2EqD_oJVTMqppx
As a catholic and a fellow engineering PhD student, this video is incredible to me. I gotta share this one with my bros
Cheers, thanks for watching and sharing! May God bless you in your studies!
Great video, and a very reasonable perspective. Thanks for all your work, Thomistic Institute team - and I look forward to more by Fr. Davenport, and Prof. Oberg!
Thanks for watching!
I am at a loss of words to describe how much I enjoyed and profited front his video. Thank you Fr Davenport.
Slick presentation and powerful message. Thanks to scientific discoveries We are tending more to a created universe then we ever have done. Fides et ratio
I agree. With each new breakthrough - the possibility of an intelligent designer becomes more and more likely. This is especially true with quantum mechanics (imo).
This is pure gold. Instantly subscribed.
I suppose the "big bang" explains the mechanics of how the universe and everything in it came to be naturally and especially how the many things in the universe came to settle to wherever they are at this point in time. Even without knowing the "big bang", you can still believe that everything was created by God, with the assumption that God put into place the celestial items to where they are today since the very beginning in a kind of super-natural way with natural trajectories afterward.
In my view it's not that the "big bang" finally proves that creation according to Genesis or Christian understanding is proven right or is in line with the evidence, but it shows that God in His infinite divine wisdom and providence can create everything in the natural ways that will always in the end, adhere to His will, by establishing unchangeable principles at the start as a single point, so that things will ultimately fall into place according to His will. The whole thing shows the supremacy of God's eternal plan and divine wisdom, that indeed He is the Alpha and the Omega; that is God truly knows what He is doing from the very beginning, or let's say eternally from before the beginning.
Simulation #42! I see what you did there!
Definitely my favorite channel now.
As far as I'm aware we only have observational data from the recombination era and forward. Anything earlier than that is based on experimetal data from high-energy physics or hypotheses.
I think one reason St.Thomas did not include Kalam argument in his proofs is because Kalam argument doesn't really prove God, instead the conclusion is that something outside universe has to bring it into existence. Only the first cause argument can nail it down to an uncaused Creator.
Lol, love how he startles at 5:02. Nice detail.
Great video! but my physical chemistry exam is tomorrow morning... kindly pray for me, Father
Certainly! Hope it goes (or went) well.
@@ThomisticInstitute I got 29/30 Deo gratias
Great explanation Father! Science has its limits and what we believe through faith can help fill the gaps.
God is still the easiest solution to the question of "how did all of this come to be?". I'm not a particularly religious person but I see this for what it is.
SW THEORY the theory I developed reveals GOD BEHIND THE BIGBANG 🧐🤫
Even under alternative models, time cannot be extended infinitely into the past. A beginning is inevitable.
No mention is made here or anywhere at the Institute of the all inclusive Borde Guth Vilenkin proof of a beginning and personally I can't even imagine what infinite past time can mean. It's like trying to climb a staircase with a perpetually receding first step. You can't begin, and if you can't begin how can you get from there(when there is no there) to here ?( the present)
@@gaspersignorelli3724 Do you believe in the big bang theory and that our world came about by chance or do you believe that there is a highly intelligent creator?
Neither..? Maybe the universe exists this way because it’s the only way it could exist.
@@colinpierre3441 The big bang theory has nothing to do with chance. We don't know what initiated the big bang. It could easily have been a creator that kicked it off.
@@markb3786 Well it is wise to recognize the possibility of a Creator since all of the life origin theories have no solid proof or validity. However, I must ask you... are you aware that the Bible is our best evidence of a creator? The Bible contains some 1000+ prophecies and not one of them have failed to come true... a feat no man can achieve without the help of a higher being.
Physics breaks down in the singularity because that is literally the beginning of physics.
Great video by a great scientist!
Cheers! Thanks for watching.
@@ThomisticInstitute God Bless
Hi Thomas! I met you in Rome today. It was a surprise to see this video recommended to me on RUclips tonight. God bless.
I love that you make the remarkably complex, understandable. It is all very beautiful.
Thank you!
Following Rene Descartes meditation
Category 1: Minds
I exist and I am a mind. Therefore Minds exist.
Category 2: Matter
I have feelings. These feelings originate from sensors in what I call my body. The sensors are receptive to stimulation from events created from within my body and from events created from outside my body. The stuff that bring about these events I shall categories as matter. Thus my body is also made of matter. Therefore Matter exists.
Category 3: Space
My body needs space and matter in general needs space. Matter can exist only in space. Therefore space must exist.
Category 4: Time
My body needs time to change and matter in general needs time for change. Matter can change only in time. Therefore time must exist.
From the above observation I conclude that these 4 categories permeate each other and exist equally with none more abstract or less abstract than another.
Now to the question of the origin of these categories
Could it be that any one or more of these categories can be made from any one or more of the remaining categories? Could these categories transform from one to another?
Matter needs space and time for its existence, therefore without space and time matter will not exist as such matter could not have been the origin of space and time.
From physics it has been observed that space and time can give rise to matter spontaneously. As such matter maybe a result of a localized change to space and time.
So then could space and time be the origin of everything else?
Again from the theory of the Big Bang all space, time and matter originated from this singular event. Therefore space and time could not alone have brought about the other categories.
Since the big bang was an event, could it be that all things are made from events?
Where there is space, time and matter there is always an event.
There can be no space , time or matter without events.
In an instant all of space and the matter is nothing more or nothing less than a set of events. So then space, time and matter is one and the same as a set of simultaneous events from one instant to the next.
From this observation the 4 categories can be reduced to 2 categories
Category 1 : Minds
Category 2 : Events
Now then can minds exist without events. We know that simultaneous events give rise to feeling in minds. We know from special relativity simultaneous events cannot give rise to anything physical or material. Therefore feelings cannot be physical or material. Now as feelings are a part of minds we must conclude minds are not physical.
Now can the mind exist without feelings OR does feelings create the mind, that is one and the same as the mind?
If feeling create the mind then as feelings are created by events then space, time and matter which we have concluded is the same as events, must also have feeling and thus be one and the same as a mind.
Thus we would need to conclude a rock has a mind or is part of a mind to the same extent that my brain is a mind or is part of a mind.
This conclusion is not palatable as such let’s consider the OTHER alternative
Now if a mind can exist without feeling then we also know that the mind can create events. (e.g throw a rock, move a finger)
So then given that the mind can create events then the big bang (The Event) could have originated from The Mind in order to evoke feelings in other minds.
These other minds may have also been created by The Mind.
philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS
philpapers.org/rec/DESETD
Will agree with you give a philosophical argument to my Scientific argument SW THEORY 🧐 behind the BIGBANG there lies the mind and the most fascinating thing is that we see it🤓 thus through SW THEORY we have proven GOD!
The dependence of material reality on an external immaterial mind is also a conclusion physics seems to point me toward. Particularly if the universe is traceable to a single point in space-time, namely a single quantum fluctuation preceding the expansion or inflation of space-time itself, in the absence of no other physical reality to "observe" the collapse of the wavefunction from its probable states to its determined state the only immaterial entity we know of with causal power is a mind. Certainly a supernatural appeal to the spark of creation and an appropriate one since at this point all natural material causal possibilities would be ruled out.
Aight!
I'm glad that I watch this, because our Catholic School didn't teach us about the relationship between God and Big bang, rather they disprove the big bang ughhhh
If the big bang was purely materialistic and down to physics alone, how do we explain the random nature of the location of matter from the proposed BB Centre to the edge of the known universe. If it was a big explosion, matter would be spread evenly in a sphere, equidistant from said Centre and because space is a vacuum, all matter will travel at the same velocity.
Is this the case?
The said big bang is more like a continual spewing rather than an explosion.
Also, if the universe is continually expanding, what is it expanding into if there was nothing before the Big Bang.
I think maybe, God is not in the universe, but the universe is in God.
"I think the Universe is in God" absolutely!
That’s a big mf
This was awesome. -- Thanks, Fr.!
Thanks for watching!
This was a better understanding of the big bang than I've heard from most ever scientists
Because this way of making sense makes you comfortable while the common scientific way of making sense (which I'm also critical of in some ways) doesn't? How is that understanding?
@@kjekelle96 I'm a theoretical physicist myself and he just knew the limitations of extrapolations of the theory whereas many public speaking scientists often infer incorrect details
@@eamonreidy9534 I see, thanks :)
Even if we grant causal finitism and that spacetime cannot be past-infinite, and even if we can philosophically demonstrate that the cause of the past-finite spacetime were personal, we still will not have reached the classical conception of God.
But it would surely still be an amazing conclusion!
We can, oh we can! I would ask check SW THEORY 🧐! but I have even discovered that even believers don't believe that they can see God beyond the BB😔
I love how this talks about the nuances of the Big Bang theory! Liked.
Why aren't there more scientists like him? It seems like everything these days is leaning in the direction of doubt, and that there is more proselytizing in the direction of disbelief, than in the direction of faith.
People who deny God are plainly looking for a life without accountability. God is beyond the smartest scientists in the world all put together. What they don't know is unfathomable. God is real.
Fr George Lemaitre didn't really want to go there and dissuaded Pope Piux XII from making a public link with his theory as a proof for the existence of God. I think there is an argument for allowing science to progress without rushing to make conclusions that a particular theory proves the existence of God. At some time later, I believe the great convergence will emerge.
Not a lick of science has ever supported the 3000+ gods claimed to exist
Infinity
In the universe as we know it the following is true.
1. Infinite time is time without end and as such can never be reached.
2. Infinite distance can never be reached. Speed has a maximum which is the speed of light as such an infinite distance cannot be reached for the following reason.
Consider sending out a beam of light. The light will never reach infinity as it would need infinite time. An infinite time can never pass as its time without end.
3. Nothing can be infinitely old. Consider making some object. Any time in the future it will always have a finite age as infinite time can never pass. Applying this to the past means that everything that exist is not infinity old or did not always exist.
4. The truth of 3 has been demonstrated by the big bang which was the event that gave birth to the universe.
5. The cause of the event that gave rise to the universe, if it had a property of infinity the same as the infinity in this universe then it in turn would be of a finite age and would need a creating event.
6. Thus anything with a property of infinity the same as the infinity of this universe could not be the ultimate cause of this universe or any universe like it.
7. Thus the ultimate cause of everything that exist has an infinity that is different or nothing like the infinity of this universe.
From the above it follows
Everything that can be seen to exists has not been in existence eternally and will not be in existence internally.
Therefore, something must exist eternally that can bring into existence everything that can be seen to exist.
That something is God.
Love this channel.
I am very impressed by the presentation.
Many thanks!
The Big Bang needs a Big Banger.
Beautiful content!
Good one
Oh, it definitely *does* prove that God exists when you get down to the math, as the math proves that prior to the Big Bang, you had literal mathematical eternity: now time is the required ingredient for change, and prior to the big bang, you had eternity: so no time. And no time means no change in status, and therefore no change, in anything. Also, science would beseech you to answer where did this particle universe come from at that. So that does require an Uncaused Cause to start the whole thing off.
So why didn't Neil deGrasse Tyson and Stephen Hawking believe in God? Are you saying that you know science more than them?
@@theinvertedprotagonist At least one of those men wasn't even embracing science to begin with. In fact, the Big Bang itself does prove God's existence.
@@chissstardestroyer So you are smarter than both of them.
Tell me which God should I stick to? The Christian one?
@@theinvertedprotagonist First of all, they had all the evidence, and they rejected the science- so what they engaged in was not and never could be science.
Hence by that stance they became delusional; as does anyone who rejects the requirement for an Uncaused Cause... especially since the Big Bang was basically preceeded by eternity, and then basically a very tiny black hole exploded.... but prior to the Big Bang, time couldn't exist, nor could change.
@@theinvertedprotagonist John Lennox believes in God, well known mathematician.
Worry about your Salvation,Seek GOD First and everything will be added to you.
Big bang theory.
GOD said it , and BANG it happen.
Then he sat back and said, this should be fun watching them try figure this out.
( I am a Christian , don't get my
Humor wrong)
The supernatural brought the natural into and holds the natural in existence , by the frist cause..
Amen! Also funny as well. 😁
What a great channel.
Super cool!
Interesting!!!
We don't need cosmology to understand that the time had a beginning. I invite you to think about an universe with infinite past and how impossible the present moment is in such a universe.
If you struggle to imagine, think about a running competition that never has a starting point. is it possible to reach the winning mark in such a competition?
Yet here we are watching videos in our present moment!
The only thing that I disagree with is he assertion at the end you can have knowledge by faith.
• Interpretation of Genesis in Light of the Big Bang: The video posits that the Big Bang theory might evoke the imagery of Genesis’ “In the beginning” for Christians. This interpretation, while interesting, risks oversimplifying the complex relationship between scientific theories and religious texts. It overlooks the fundamental differences between a scientific explanation based on empirical evidence and a theological narrative that operates within the realm of faith.
• Existence of a Creator Based on the Big Bang Theory: The video suggests that the Big Bang theory may imply the necessity of an external cause, potentially a creator. However, this leap from a scientific phenomenon to a theological conclusion is not supported by the Big Bang theory itself. The theory, while describing the universe’s early development, does not address metaphysical questions about the existence or necessity of a creator.
• Aquinas’s Views on the World’s Beginnings: The video mentions St. Thomas Aquinas’s view that the world’s beginning can be known by faith, but not necessarily by reason. This distinction is important but does not engage with the philosophical critique that reasoning about the world’s beginning, whether infinite or finite, is inherently speculative and cannot yield definitive conclusions.
• Kalam Cosmological Argument: The video’s reference to the Kalam Cosmological Argument and its implication that the universe’s existence proves the existence of God is a significant philosophical leap. This argument, while compelling to some, is not universally accepted in philosophical circles and is subject to criticism, particularly regarding its premises and logical structure.
• Shift in Scientific Understanding of the Universe’s Origin: The historical overview of the shift from a static to a dynamic understanding of the universe in the video is accurate but does not fully explore the philosophical implications of this shift. It is important to note that scientific models are constantly evolving and are based on current evidence, which means they are subject to change with new discoveries.
• Limitations of the Big Bang Theory in Explaining Universe’s Origin: The video correctly points out that the Big Bang theory does not describe the transition from nothing to something. This highlights a crucial philosophical point: scientific theories have limits in explaining the universe’s fundamental origins, and these limits should not be overlooked in favor of theological interpretations.
• Theoretical Speculations Beyond the Big Bang: The discussion about theories beyond the Big Bang, like quantum gravity or the multiverse, is an important acknowledgment of the ongoing scientific quest to understand the universe’s origins. However, the philosophical critique here would be that these theories, while scientifically intriguing, remain speculative and are not yet fully supported by empirical evidence.
• Conclusion Equating Scientific Theory with Theological Belief: The video concludes by equating the Big Bang theory with the theological belief that “God created the heavens and the earth.” This conclusion is philosophically problematic as it conflates a scientific theory, which is based on empirical evidence and subject to change, with a religious belief, which is based on faith.
while the video attempts to draw parallels between scientific theories and theological beliefs regarding the universe’s origins, it does so in a manner that may oversimplify both the scientific understanding and the theological interpretations, leading to potential philosophical misinterpretations.
Father George Lemáitre.
There’s a theory in the scientific ground asserting that universe has infinite past, and Big Bang was just a moment in the infinite evolution of the universe
Great Father
Science goes by peer-review and 60% of scientists are atheists who won't listen why the other 40% are theists. I follow 40% of the theists who believe in modern physics and biology.
I love the Dominicans more than ever after this video
Great video Sir ! Praise Christ
Does it then follow that everything that has a beginning must then have an end?
Interesting question. Given the immortality of angels and the immortality of the human soul (to which the body will be rejoined at the end of time), it is not the case that everything with a beginning must have a TEMPORAL end.
Given another sense of "end," i.e., "end" as meaning a goal, a destination, a telos, then certainly, everything with a beginning has an end: God! "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen" (Rom 11:36).
Who create god?andwho from where.?
The initial singularity is not a state of the universe. On the contrary: it is a mathematical idealization that is ontologically corresponding to nothing, as "infinite density" makes no physical sense. That's why there's no description of that instant, and that's why it's not possible to predict the states after it...because it corresponds to nothing. The universe began to exist in a series with no first member, diverging from zero. And it is not true that the presence of singularities in a theory indicates its falsity; what happens is that it is sometimes possible to have an underlying physics that postulates a discrete rather than continuous reality. In this case, it would be necessary for the new paradigm to have a quantized space and time, which is absurd according to Thomas Aquinas (and he is right).
Furthermore, hypotheses that seek to falsify the big bang theory in favor of eternal-universe models have failed one by one in the face of challenges. Cyclic models, for example, face insurmountable thermodynamic difficulties, and the multiverse does not escape the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. The scientifically established fact is that the universe had an absolute beginning, yet many cosmologists insist on denying this in hopes of a future upheaval (as they know that if the post nihil origin of the universe is true, then there is no hope for naturalism).
What if this 4 dimensional universe of ours is just a circular wave on a 5 dimensional sphere. This wave still did not reach the sphere’s horizon as seen from our observational point. When the horizon is reached, the universe will start to disappear. And then, all the mass and energy will start to get more and more dense on the “other side” of the sphere. Eventually it will all collapse and start a new big bang causing the new/ the same wave in the opposite direction.
I believe that could be some explanation but again, too faith based with no evidence to support it. Wouldnt really explain where the 5th dimensional sphere came from unless you mean an infinite dimensional sphere encompassing everything, which I think would frankly be impossible but who knows
nothing is real unless it has a observer
If there can be an infinitely existing being that created the universe, it is also possible and simpler for the universe itself to have existed infinitely rather than have an infinitely existing creator who made the universe. By Occam’s Razor, we can cut out the middleman, no creator required. The Big Bang Theory simply postulates that the universe was at some point compressed into a single point, it says nothing about what went before. Perhaps quantum fluctuation, perhaps an infinitely cycling universe, perhaps something else we haven’t thought of yet. We don’t know and may never know. Science tolerates not knowing, it is the religious mind that feels the need for certainty, even a false certainty based on emotion rather than evidence.
Yet the big bang does prove God...
And used *prove* deliberately 🤫
I say the concept of God has nothing to do with religion at all. God, i believe, is beyond mans rituals, dogmas, rules ect. The all in all is present in everything we perceive. The Great Light is within all living beings at all times. Before, during and at the end. All we see is the absolute perfection of the universe in every direction we chance to look. This Great Light...words fail me.
"Thoughts" and The concept of God
Usage of the word "Thought" in this post is taken to mean anything that is part of a humans conscious experience. Under this definition a sound heard is a thought as much
the thoughts going to solve a mathematical puzzle.
Based on the above definition it can be said that all of humanities knowledge consist of "thoughts". For anything to be known by a human it must become a "thought".
In the context of such a definition of "thoughts"
The set of all "thoughts" would fit the concept of God. If you accept Mathematical Platonism then God would exist
The concept of God entails a single entity that has the following properties
Wisdom: The set of all thoughts will contain the perfect answer to every possible question
Infinitude: The set of all thoughts will have an infinite amount of thoughts
Sovereignty: There can be no thought that is not an element of the set of thoughts
Omniscience:The set of all thought is all knowing as it contains all thoughts.
Information cannot be created nor destroyed, meaning the universe must consist of precisely zero information. However, if zero information can be defined as zero information, it contains one piece of information defining it as zero information. Therefore, it is impossible for zero information at the time of the big bang to defined as simply zero information. This is a paradox that must be resolved.
Mathematical information cannot exist unless the numbers refer to something other than numbers, and a conscious awareness of nothing cannot exist, unless there is something to be consciously aware of. Combine the opposite forms of nothing should require nothing, considering all there is is nothing, but the result is an awareness of the mathematical information. Information hasn't actually being created, it's just a very real illusion. It's like the entire universe is in a quantum superposition of not being everything that it is. It is certainly true that everything we can observe within spacetime is entirely mathematically, but surely, that means the universe must contain non-mathematical information too to maintain the balance. Simply the probabilities within the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is mathematical information but the randomness within the probabilities, is the non-mathematical information.
Our laws of physics and mathematics describe everything we can observe perfectly, however, even that needs to have its opposite too. Therefore, the inverse of our laws of physics should define what is non-physical, which is conscious awareness. Selflessly reducing non-physical entropy within all conscious awareness, is the opposite to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and it literally defines the concept "purpose". This means the total entropy both physical and non-physical combined, can remain constant.
Surely, the Second Law is caused by random changes to mathematical information which causes the complexities to increase. The inverse of that, is the an awareness of the mathematical information causing its own fundamentals to change, which reduces its complexities.
Our brain appears to have the necessary mechanism in place. TIny energy fluctuations can cause certain neurons aligned for consciousness to fire, which then causes our brain to generate new information. However, to prove the theory, the mechanism would need to be replicated within AI. Quantum entanglement shows that non-mathematical information can travel faster than the speed of light, which supports the theory.
It's of course extremely difficult to prove anything that cannot be directly observed, and usually the idea of consciousness being non-physical is dismissed as pseudoscience, however, it should certainly still be provable.
Surely even a single bit of information being created is entirely impossible, so converting opposite forms of nothing into an entire universe is way more plausible.
If my theory is wrong, and the leading theory of quantum fluctuations created the universe, the what causes the quantum fluctuations to occur? Isn't expecting there to be anything besides fundamentally nothing without fundamentals extremely paradoxical?
You don’t get to cherry pick science. If you want to except the fact that the Big Bang happened then you have to accept everything else that science Is responsible for.
Title:
No, absolutely not... No evidence suggests any god did anything
God doesn't create anything. God just controlling everything to make them create something.
@@WarmestProduct evidence for this god you speak of?
@@logicalatheist1065 God is basically an unknown entity that controls the laws of nature by using that God will not violate them. God never moves or speaks anything, God doesn't even have a voice, arms, legs and a whole body, because God is just a formless entity, not an old man with a long white beard and long white hair.
Didn't knew big bang theory has been already proved to have occurred.
Hence theory vs fact 😉
@@rofree2470 someone needs to read up a little on what theory actually means in this context. 🙄
Big Bang Theory. It's painted on my wall.
Funny how the bible doesn't mention the big bang i believe God spoke everything into existence
That's because the men who wrote in the bible didn't know much of anything.
Big bang was discovered in the 1920s
The beginning of the Universe is the Big Bang.
How did Moses know that the Universe had a beginning? Aliens?
@@logicalatheist1065 If the men who wrote the Bible were not guided by a supernatural being, how is it that all of the Bible prophecies up to our modern day has never failed to come through? How can mortal men predict with specific details hundreds and thousands of years in advance and be accurate every time?
@@colinpierre3441 people rewrote it over the years, lots of people had access to it to actively make them happen, and most are incredibly vague
Very good as alwsys but should have mentioned the impossibility of an infinite past, according to Aristotle and Aquinas.
Creatio ex nihilo was the rational view throughout. Itbis irrational to believe in an infinite past or succession of efficient causes.
Thanks for taking the time to comment: much appreciated!
St. Thomas would certainly agree that we can hold with certitude the fact that the universe has a beginning in time, but, fascinatingly, he also holds that we can only hold this by faith! In the Summa Theologiae I, Question 46, Article 2, St. Thomas says, "By faith alone do we hold, and by no demonstration can it be proved, that the world did not always exist." Read the whole article here: aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-ia-q-46#FPQ46A2THEP1
Even if the world were eternal, St. Thomas will go on to say, it would still be created ex nihilo by God (see the answer to the second objection in the above article).
Perhaps you were getting at something else with your point (and we're sorry if we missed it), but it's just a fascinating topic, and we can't help getting excited about it.Thanks for watching, thinking, and commenting!
@@ThomisticInstitute It is interesting that, even when Saint Thomas maintains that it cannot be shown that the world is not eternal, the second way remains conclusive, because it is not a question of going back "backwards" (accidentally subordinate causes could be infinite), but of going back "upwards" (in perfection). It is not a beginning in time, but in being.
Pius XII was also enthusiastic with the Big Bang, and they told him to be careful.
Is ir necessary that the beginning of the Genesis refers to the creation of the Universe or could it be possible that it may refer to the change that came off the Big Bang?
The universe may be relatively infinite in that we do not know its bounds, limits, and ends nor do we know the infinite array of all that it contains, yet it is finite in that it was created and so is bound by time, space, and its own limited finite ability to be actualized (Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae,I.7.2-4). However, as Creator, God is not a member of the finite created order, and so is wholly other than all else. Therefore, God does not belong to any finite genus, that is, he cannot be named within or numbered among any genus of the created order and therefore does not partake of the limitations of that order (Summa theologiae,I.3.5).
As God he belongs to an entirely different ontological order and as such is absolutely infinite. Moreover, Aquinas argues that because God's very nature is to be (ipsum esse ) and so pure act (actus purus ) he is absolutely "infinite and perfect" in that all the attributes that are predicated of him are fully and perfectly in act and thus infinitely in act (Summa theologiae, I.7.1). For example, because God is infinite as pure act "it is necessary that the active power of God should be infinite … Whence, since the divine essence, through which God acts, is infinite it follows that his power likewise is infinite" (Summa theologiae, I.25.2). All of God's perfections then are infinite in that they possess no limitations as in creatures but are fully and perfectly actualized within his divine being.
I just read this and my mind exploded
EVERYTHING proves God exists, inasmuch as a Source is needed for EVERYTHING - the only alternative explanation would be a self-caused Universe (as some Buddhists claim) or a perpetual (beginningless and endless) Universe lacking any meaning - even THEN such a Universe if taken to be REAL (either objectively or subjectively) would require a Source and that Source would require its OWN Source etc. ad infinitum or a reductio ad absurdum regression (depending on one’s point of view) - so you have to either have an an endless series of Sources/Makers, or just ONE. The simple Truth is as soon as the sense of “I” as an independent agent arises, the limitations, weaknesses, and “lack of fullness” of that “I” would impute and by necessity warrant and posit a “Full and Self-Sufficient” God. - It’s either THAT or you assume the “I" itself is God (that is deluded into thinking itself limited and fractal) - this Monist position does away with an “Other” God and is variously regarded as a better or inferior option than a Theistic “God” disctinct from the “I”, depending on perspective.
_EVERYTHING proves God exists_
No it doesn’t. Nothing has proven any gods exist. People believe it but that doesn’t make it a fact of reality
One can write everything on the Computer. Nothing will change: the people in charge of the Computer cannot piece anything together. Ask them.
"Knowing by faith" is so obvious a contradiction that I can't see how any true thinker could believe that. Please respond to this issue.
In asking for proof of the existence of God, in the very questions lies the answer.
Ask your self what is it about a proof that makes it so great?
A proof is great because it does not depend on the time, place or person that gives it. A proof exist even if it has never been spoken.
Therefore where do they exist and were they created?
If you believe proofs were not created then you believe the proofs are eternal. So then the proofs are your God.
If you believe the proofs have a creator then that creator is God.
PS:It takes a mind/intelligence to understand a proof so can a proofs exist with no Mind or is a Mind essential for the existence of proof?
Why's it so important to pretend that the bible somehow should be true? The vast majority of people use critical thinking and apply logic and reason when they go about their everyday life. But set aside logic and reason when it comes to religion. I don't get it
This video illustrates the opposite of your caricature. We should be so lucky if the vast majority of people used reason and logic in their everyday lives. What a world that would be. A quick look around unfortunately shows that that's not true. What is true, however, is that this video (and the rest from the Thomistic Institute) apply more rigorous reason and logic to religion than the vast majority of people apply to anything else.
In the beginning God
In the beginning universe creating pixies
@@logicalatheist1065in the beginning they were nothing but God. Said so in the bible.
God said "let there be light" and thus, that's equivalent to the big bang theory that everyone keeps getting confused about. That verse has been there since the beginning and everyone started making dumb theories about it from when the bible first went public.
@@ChillsEditzz why should I care what the Bible says? It's demonstrably false
@@logicalatheist1065how so?
@@Maria-oh2px First let me ask you, Do you take it literally?
No, but it is consistent with God creating the universe.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Romans...chapter 1
The singularity was 0 and the Big Bang was 0+1 from the quantum vacuum of 0-1. Then 0+1 became more 0+1's, and we're arranged into different simple formulas. Those formulas became more complicated; Cosmic expansion.
The Big Big fact, and the Function & Machine Categories ... completely prove the Universe and all Life was SUPERNATURALLY created by something very powerful with intellect.
The Universe & everything in it, has a function or purpose. The energy, matter, time & space required for the Universe and everything in it, has a function or purpose.
Since the Universe has come into existence, it has had fixed universal of physics or nature ... because the Universe & everything in it has a function or purpose.
The Universe is the physical ( natural) existence or realm, where the laws of physics/nature applies to all energy, matter, space & time within it.
In this Physical or Natural world, we can not created something from nothing.
Everything that could become something in this Natural world was provided at the Big Bang ... by something UNNATURAL or Supernatural, which is not part our Universe, not subject to the laws of physics/nature ... extremely powerful ... has intellect to provide purpose or function .. and clearly can create something from nothing.
The Big Bang & the Function category .. confirms a God-like being created the Universe..
The Machine Category ... which is a subcategory of the Function & Physical function categories ... confirms all life(biological machines) are supernaturally created and likely by the same entity that created the Universe.
Note: a machine is simply a physical function, that requires specific energy, matter & information in order to exist and to function.
All machines are UNNATURALLY made.
Nature & natural processes over any period of time, can NEVER make a simple machine like a wheel, ever, nail, hammer, screw, driver, nut, bolt, etc.
The very first machine in the Universe ... had to be supernaturally made with a powerful being with intellect.
The Creation of the Universe & Mankind is completely consistent with Genesis.
God began creation with the Earth first ... alone in empty dark space.
Then God said, let there be light. The stars, Sun & Moon will be be made or appear on the 4th day of creation. So what was the Light that fell upon the Earth all alone in space?
Yes. It was the Big Bang, 10s or 100's of light years away. This was pre-Fall Day 1, so there actually is no Time as we know it on Earth post Fall of man. The 6 days of Creation ... was in the eternal UNNATURAL space, where time as we know it does not exist. God is simply using the Day measure, because he knows Man will fall ... and then we get natural time.
Over the 4 days by our standards ... the Universe expanded and would envelop Earth ... providing the stars in the Heavens. God then created the Sun, Moon & planets and he set them into their orbits.
The Big Bang supports the existence of a Mighty God, and is in Genesis 1.
I'm not sure the big bang theory is valid. It primarily attempts to explain some of the red shift observations. However; its a red flag when theories result in singularities and magic like "inflation" to make work.
As much as I love this series of videos and the overall project here, I'm somewhat disappointed that neither your content nor your video descriptions mention ANY material from the many brilliant theological philosophers and even RUclipsrs, that are generating some great works and content.
For example, in this video you mention the Kalam Cosmological Argument but you fail to mention it by name it's most ardent populariser and supporter today, Dr William Lane Craig, and the brilliant work that hes done in the space of theological philosophy and Apologetics. This is a missed opportunity to point your viewers (and supporters) in the direction of the vast work that he has done, to push the boundaries of Apologetics, as well as many other Christians.
Considering you are literally standing in the shoulders of giants in the fields of philosophy and Apologetics (which is effectively, what these videos are about), you should be advertising what has come before you much more and pointing people more towards those great works that your content is based on.
I think the talk was longer than it had to be. The first five minutes captured all that was necessary to be said.
The Big Bang proves infinity and a higher power, but it is not necessarily god
Perhaps the idea of god was influenced by the idea of infinity and not the other way around. But this is a sad thought and I’m tired of being sad
Basically, regarding that particular singularity: a black hole exploded! That'd do it alright for both stopping time itself and also for just about everything in that problem besides *what* in science caused that particular explosion.
Is it impossible to prove anything at all or can somethings be proved? If somethings can be proved, then proofs exist, then this implies that God Exist for the following reason.
God is eternal Truth
A proof is eternal Truth.
Truth does not contradict. Therefore there is one Truth.
If a proof exist that means eternal Truth exist which is one and the same as God exist
No evidence suggests any god exists
@@logicalatheist1065 are you saying 1. you have evidence that God does not exist? or are you saying 2. you have not been successful in finding evidence that God exist .Please clarify is it 1 or 2. thanks
@@frrankdesilva6504 no god has ever been demonstrated to exist, no god has any evidence of existing.
What you typed out was incorrect
@@frrankdesilva6504 evidence that a god does not exist? That's fallacious...
The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim... In this case the theist (you) claiming a god to exist.
I do not believe your claims because they are baseless, no justification needed for my position, unless I make a claim about something
@@logicalatheist1065 The fact that you have not fond evidence for God existence does not mean that every body has not found evidence for God existence. I for one has.
So we emerged from a black hole.
The Bible says God created Earth on the first day. Science says Earth wasn’t created until 9 billion years after the Big Bang. LOL
answer: no.
Yes
The arguments of Aquinas are not sound. Though these arguments are admittedly valid, not all the premises can be _demonstrated_ to be true.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" You forgot to include all the other scientific errors later on. I think in most mythologies some really powerful being created everything...
Only if you believe in the concept of god like a pantheist.
Yes it does
How’s that?
No God, it was definitely ' universe creating pixies ' ! 👍
Do u guys know that every time i or you blink we lose 8 billion years😮
I’m a little surprised at how many catholics reject science as a plausible explanation for the natural world when in fact the Church does not. 🕯🔬⛪️🕯
@@Roman-Labrador
Ok so if you ever get sick, will u not go to a doctor(science) will you not take any medicine (science) ? I don’t think God wants you not to go to one. I hope u do if you need to.✝️👍🏼
@@Roman-Labrador
Wow. Ok
What the hell are talking about? Catholics rejecting science? Are u sure? Aren’t u confusing some other evangelical denominations?
DAVID GOD HAS ALWAYS BEEN HEAR
SO BIG BANG IS BONK OUT WE DON'T
KNOW HOW CREATED EVERY THING!
FOR BONK OUT! WAKE UP SMELL THE
COFFEE!🙂
Good explanation. I’m starting to think that general relativity and quantum mechanics are the result of massive assumptions. It’s like we’re stacking nonsense on top of nonsense.
Your GPS won't be accurate if you ignore relativity, and your simple calculator wouldn't work without quantum mechanics because transistors rely on QM to work.