Thanks for the great question! This is one of the classic philosophical questions that has been debated for centuries. The argument that "nothing can exist without a creator" is often used to point to the idea that everything in the universe needs a cause or a reason for existing. However, when it comes to God, many people believe that God is different from everything else in that He is the uncaused cause-meaning He has no beginning and doesn’t need a creator because He exists outside of time and space. In this view, God is considered to be necessary, meaning His existence is not dependent on anything else. Everything in the universe needs a cause, but God, as the creator of the universe, is the first cause that set everything else into motion. This idea helps avoid an infinite regress of creators and causes, which would leave us without an ultimate explanation. Either way, we don't necessarily need to know a cause's cause in order to understand that there was a cause. For example, imagine you see a domino fall. You don’t need to know what caused the original domino to be there to understand that it caused the rest of the dominos to fall. Similarly, we can recognize the universe had a beginning and needs a cause, even if we don’t know all the details about the "first cause." Of course, this is a big question with a lot of layers, and not everyone agrees on this explanation. My aim was just to share that God is a possible explanation-even a logical one when combined with other lines of evidence, like the fine-tuning of the universe, objective morality, and the historicity of Jesus's resurrection. Cheers!
@@simpleapologetics "However, when it comes to God, many people believe that God is different from everything else in that He is the uncaused cause" Like the other guy in the thread said, this is the fallacy of special pleading. If you want to assert that the universe must be contingent, but that god isn't, you need to be able to explain why that is. Just as you assert that god doesn't require a cause, nonbelievers can make the same claim about the universe with equal rhetorical force.
I'm happy to clarify! : ) The reason many people say God is the uncaused cause is that He is thought to exist outside of time and space, unlike everything in the universe, which began at a certain point and depends on something else for its existence. God, in this view, doesn't need a cause because He exists eternally and necessarily-He just is. If the universe were eternal, it would be a similar idea-it wouldn't need a cause because it would have always existed. But since the universe had a beginning, it’s considered contingent and requires an explanation for that start. So, it's not special pleading-it's about the difference between something that needs a cause (like the universe) and something that doesn't (like an eternal God or an eternal universe). Does that help clarify it?
Thanks for your comment, Kevin! The idea that "nothing produces nothing" is a philosophical principle often used to point out that something cannot come from absolute nonexistence without a cause. When Christians say, "God created everything," they’re not claiming God came from nothing. Instead, God is described as the eternal, uncaused first cause-outside time, space, and matter. It might seem like special pleading, but it's not if God’s nature is fundamentally different from the universe's. The argument is essentially this: everything within the universe requires a cause, but the cause of the universe itself must be outside the system, transcendent, and necessary by nature. That's how God is defined in classical theology.
@@simpleapologetics the problem I the very idea of a god who is fundamentally different and outside its own creation. That is based on the belief of the words in a book. Nothing else. There are all kinds of creation storiesin different cultures. And you think they are all false, except yours. Science in the other hand has proven All wrong. How many gods of the sun, rain, harvest, thunder, health, disease, war, luck, etc, are in all those mythologies?? You think that only yours is real. Only yours controls everything. Yet all we have found as we investigate and explore, all have natural understandable causes. Non are supernatural. The whole god of the gaps idea is getting smaller by the minute. The safety blanket god is a remnant of a time when superstition and ignorance were socially imposed when there was no evidence, knowledge or critical thinking.
Hi, Kevin! You bring up some great points about the variety of creation stories and gods in different cultures. It’s true that many belief systems have offered explanations for the world around us. But what I try to show in my videos is that we have to consider the evidence for each worldview-including Christianity and atheism. It’s not just about taking one story over another-it’s about exploring what makes the most sense when we look at all of the available evidence, like the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, and the existence of objective morality. I’d encourage you to check out my video on how to choose a worldview. In it, I explore how we can evaluate different beliefs based on reason, evidence, and the big questions about life and the universe. It’s all about seeking truth, no matter where it leads. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
I have no issue with positing a creator. The problem arises when asked to demonstrate that that conclusion is true and we find that it is actually unfalsifiable. As long as it is unfalsifiable, then any reason matching the creator option, can be given. Also, it is the cosmos, that which contains everything including our universe, that is generally referred to as eternal, not the universe. Pick the answer that can be demonstrated and if there is no answer that can be shown right, 'I don't know' is the best answer. To pick an answer that is unfalsifiable, is just appealing your feelings and you are no closer to the actual truth. Ask yourself, could I be wrong? If the answer is yes, then why pick an answer? If the answer is no, then demonstrate your position, though we both know this is impossible. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Keep thinking, keep digging, stay curious.
You’re right in pointing out that we can’t prove with certainty whether there is or isn’t a god. My goal here isn’t to claim definitive proof but to show that belief in a creator is a logical possibility. It’s one of the many options that could explain the origins of the universe. In my other videos, I explore other lines of evidence, like the fine-tuning of the universe, objective morality, and the historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection. When you consider these factors together, they build a case that makes the idea of a god not just possible, but reasonable or even likely. So, while we can't prove it beyond doubt, my aim is to show that the belief in a creator isn't as unfounded as it might seem at first glance. Keep digging, and thanks for the thoughtful response!
The moment you said " atheist scientist" , you show your true colors .Science is about finding facts and explanations. About describing everything in the universe and how does it work and interact. Religion is about simple magical explanations that must be accepted or face the wrath of some entity.
Hey, Kevin! I used the term "atheist scientist" simply to reference scientists who don’t believe in God, just as one might talk about "Christian scientists" or scientists of other worldviews. It wasn’t meant to diminish science or anyone’s beliefs-it’s just acknowledging that people approach science with different perspectives. I agree that science is about exploring and understanding how the universe works through evidence and reasoning. At the same time, religion and science often ask different kinds of questions. Science focuses on how things work, while religion often explores why-questions of meaning, purpose, and morality. Not all religious beliefs rely on “simple magical explanations.” For many, faith and reason complement each other. Historically, some of the greatest scientists, like Isaac Newton or Georges Lemaître, who developed the Big Bang theory, were deeply religious and saw science as a way to explore the order and rationality of the universe that they believed was created by God. Hope you have a nice week!
@@simpleapologetics You are such a fncking liar. You used that expression for exactly the reason we know you did. You are a fncking liar, and you know it.
“Everything that we see had a cause” is technically wrong. Everything we see is not the result of a direct cause/ something bringing the particles it consists of into existence. Every organism and object, is just a reconfiguration of matter, not a creation in the sense you are talking about. So to say everything that begins to exist has to have a cause is circular and only refers to the beginning of the universe (so we don’t establish anything new through this argument)
Thanks for your comment, Luke! I see what you're saying, and I think it's important to make a distinction between origination and reconfiguration when we talk about causes. You're absolutely right that many things we see around us are not brought into existence from nothing-they're reconfigurations of pre-existing matter. For example, a rock doesn't come into existence from nothing; it’s formed from materials already present in nature. However, when I say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause," I’m referring to the origin of things, not just their reconfiguration. For instance, the universe itself, as we understand it, had a beginning, and this is distinct from the ongoing processes within it, like the formation of stars or the birth of organisms. The idea is that the universe, as a whole, began to exist, and therefore, there must be a cause for its origin. The "cause" we're talking about isn’t just about reconfiguring particles; it’s about explaining the origin of all matter and energy, which, based on current scientific understanding, points to the Big Bang-a moment when the universe came into being from a singular point. The argument is that there had to be something outside of time and space that caused this event, because something can’t come from nothing. You're right that this argument mostly applies to the origin of the universe itself. It doesn’t aim to explain every individual process or object within it. But I think it's a useful starting point in the larger discussion of how the universe came into being. I hope this helps clarify the idea!
Thanks for your comment! I understand your concern-it can feel like a leap to go from “we don’t know” to “therefore, God.” However, that wasn’t my intention. My goal wasn’t to provide a definitive answer but to highlight that a Creator is a plausible and perhaps even logical explanation for the universe's existence and fine-tuning. The idea of a Creator isn’t meant to replace scientific inquiry but to address questions that science alone doesn’t answer, such as why there’s something rather than nothing or why the universe appears so finely tuned for life. While this isn’t definitive proof, it’s a hypothesis that many find reasonable when considering the evidence. I’d love to hear your perspective-do you think a Creator is a plausible explanation, or do you lean toward another view?
Wrong, totally wrong. ALL the evidence suggests there are physical explanations for the origin of the universe. You may have a different 'belief', but that does not mean it is correct. It only means you "believe" it. Period. Science - not religion - provides answers, truths, and comfort. Not sure why religious believers have to deceive themselves. There is beauty in the universe without a God.
To be fair, science doesn’t really say anything about the *origin* of the universe. It only talks about the infinitesimal time after the beginning, so at t > 0, where t is not equal to 0. Religious people love to falsely claim the Big Bang claims the universe blew up out of nothing, but it doesn’t discuss the universe origin, only the events in the universe’s earliest history. There is not a man woman or child to ever have existed that can honestly tell you what happened before the universe, nor what caused its existence, if anything.
Hey, Walker! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I agree that science has provided incredible insights into the physical explanations for many aspects of the universe, including its origins. The Big Bang theory, quantum mechanics, and other discoveries give us a deeper understanding of the cosmos and its beauty. However, some questions go beyond the scope of what science can answer. For example, why is there something rather than nothing? Why are the laws of physics so finely tuned to allow for life? These are metaphysical questions that science doesn’t directly address, which is where belief systems-whether theistic, atheistic, or otherwise-often step in. I also agree that there’s immense beauty in the universe, and many believers don’t see faith as a rejection of science. For example, Christians often view the beauty and order in the universe as evidence of a Creator. Far from being deceptive, it’s about interpreting the evidence in a way that aligns with their understanding of reality.
@@simpleapologetics Thank you for your thoughtful response to my response. And I agree with your analysis and we both agree there are questions science can't answer. Yes, indeed. But, just because science can't explain it now does not mean it can't - or won't - explain it later. Ankyway, thank you again and good luck in your searching.
@@simpleapologetics If you don't have evidence, say "I don't know." If you use "God done it" as the explanation, that is called "God of the gaps" fallacy.
Hi, Brent! You're right that it's important to acknowledge when we don't know something, but I think it's also important to recognize that there are actually lines of evidence for the existence of God and Christianity. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, and the historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection provide a strong case for the possibility of God. It’s not just saying "God did it" without reason, but rather considering these pieces of evidence that point toward a Creator. While science explains the how, there are still questions about why the universe exists, and these kinds of evidences can offer insight into that larger question. So, it’s not a "God of the gaps" argument, but a reasoned consideration of the evidence we have. Thanks for your thoughts-this kind of discussion is helpful for us all to think through!
Atheism asserts that there is not enough evidence to assert any of the thousands of suggested creators exist. That's it. Religious fundamentalists have the burden of proof.
Thanks for your comment! While your definition of atheism reflects a common perspective, it’s worth noting that people use the term in slightly different ways. Some atheists actively assert, "There is no God," while others (often called agnostic atheists) simply lack belief in God due to what they see as insufficient evidence. Both positions are valid ways to identify as an atheist. As for the burden of proof, it typically falls on whoever is making a claim. If someone asserts, “God exists,” they have the burden of proof to support that claim. Similarly, if someone asserts, “God does not exist,” they would also have a burden of proof to justify their position. Many conversations about God or the universe don’t neatly fit into court-like rules about proof. Instead, they’re opportunities to discuss evidence, reason, and personal experiences. For example, some people point to the fine-tuning of the universe or the existence of moral values as evidence for a Creator, while others see those as insufficient or explainable without God. What do you think is the strongest evidence for or against the idea of a Creator? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
@@simpleapologetics You are SO wrong, again. Negative affirmative claims cannot logically be proven, so to suggest that such a claimant bears the burden of proof is simply unjustified, and reveals that you are indeed the arrogant cretin we all suspect that you are. Your way to disprove a negative claim, is to prove your affirmative claim---because YOU still have the burden of proof.
You’re absolutely right-we can’t prove that God created the universe, just like we can’t prove He didn’t. What I was trying to get across is that, based on what we know about things that have a beginning, it seems more likely that the universe was created by something or someone, rather than just appearing out of nothing. When we add that to other clues, like the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, and the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, the Christian God stands out as the most reasonable explanation for why there's something instead of nothing. :)
@@simpleapologetics the big bang theory doesn't say the universe began to exist Lemaître's equations simply show that the universe was infinitely dense and then it expanded rapidly
I appreciate you bringing this up-it’s definitely an important clarification. You’re absolutely right that the Big Bang theory describes the universe expanding from an initial state of extreme density and heat. Georges Lemaître’s work and the subsequent evidence from Hubble’s discovery of the universe’s expansion are foundational to our understanding of this. However, the question of whether the universe began to exist goes beyond what the Big Bang theory itself explains. The theory doesn’t describe what came before that hot, dense state-or even if there was a “before.” But many scientists and philosophers argue that if space, time, and matter began expanding at the Big Bang, then it strongly suggests a beginning to the universe itself. After all, if time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, it’s hard to say the universe has always existed. That said, I know some hypotheses, like quantum cosmology or cyclic models, try to get around this. They’re fascinating, though many remain speculative and raise new questions about causality. What’s your take? Do you think there’s a cause behind the universe’s expansion, or do you lean toward one of the alternative ideas?
I’d have to disagree in the sense that I don’t think that it’s necessarily more reasonable to believe in a creator. If the question of the universe’s origins boils down to “why is there something rather than nothing?”, then the only honest answer I think a person could give is “I don’t know”. The assertion that for something to exist, it must necessarily have to come from “something” rather than “nothing” is built on assumptions concerning what the Big Bang entails. Another aspect of the Big Bang is that it’s the absolute furthest back our understanding of time operates (back to the Planck epoch, essentially the earliest point in time). As far as we know, there was no cause to the Big Bang because causality implies an aspect of a before and after. And much like how “smaller than a Planck length” doesn’t make sense as a concept, neither does “before the Planck epoch”. Another fault I find in the “uncaused cause” argument is that it requires for you to resort to the implication that the “something or someone” doesn’t exist under the same parameters as the rest of the universe (which makes up literally everything we can observe). The suggestion of an entity outside of the confines of the universe as we know it and by extension, beyond our abilities of observation, is unfalsifiable. For simplicity, I’ll just refer to this entity as God for the rest of this. If someone makes the claim “God doesn’t exist”, their statement is falsifiable as in the scenario in which God exists, they could be proven wrong if God simply appeared to them to prove his existence. If someone makes the claim “God does exist”, that statement is unfalsifiable because in the scenario in which there is no God, there would be no way to disprove that given the parameters given for God’s existence of not being observable if he doesn’t want to be. Please let me know if I’m misrepresenting any of your arguments. This was a bit long and it got a bit off topic there as I started talking about general apologetics, so sorry about that.
Hey there! Thanks so much for your detailed comment! You bring up a lot of excellent points, and I really appreciate your careful thoughtfulness here. Let me try to respond to some of the key ideas you raised. First, I completely agree that the question of “why is there something rather than nothing?” ultimately leads us to areas where we don’t-and may never-have definitive answers. My aim wasn’t to prove that God exists, but rather to suggest that belief in a creator is a plausible explanation, given what we observe about the universe. You’re absolutely right that causality, as we understand it, breaks down at the Planck epoch. But this doesn’t necessarily eliminate the need for a cause-it just means we’re operating in a domain where our usual intuitions and scientific frameworks are stretched to their limits. The notion of an uncaused cause (or a necessary being) is one way philosophers and theologians try to make sense of this puzzle. It’s not a definitive proof, but it’s an attempt to offer a coherent explanation for why there’s something rather than nothing. You also mentioned the idea of God being “outside the universe” and how that makes the concept unfalsifiable. That’s a valid critique! While it’s true that God is often described as beyond the confines of space, time, and matter, this doesn’t mean the idea of God is entirely untestable. Many argue that the existence of a finely tuned universe, the intelligibility of natural laws, or moral truths might indirectly point to the plausibility of a creator. Again, these aren’t proofs-they’re clues that suggest the idea of a creator is worth considering. Finally, I appreciate how you’ve highlighted the challenges of making definitive claims about existence, especially when dealing with something as mysterious and complex as the origins of the universe. I think we share common ground in recognizing the limits of our knowledge and the need for humility in these discussions. My main point is that believing in a creator isn’t necessarily less reasonable than other explanations-it’s just another way of grappling with the ultimate questions and may be just as, if not more, reasonable than other explanations. Thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully!
Great video! I often think about those logic question they give on some GED tests that have you read some story or paragraphs or something and ask what you can logically infer from the information. One of the answers is "not enough information." Obviously, it's not always right. That's not what I'm saying. But if we don't value empiricism, you are essentially denying what it means to be human. If we didn't have sensory input of some kind, do you think we would need reasoning. Reasoning is dependent on empiricism. Or at least that was the point initially. It's a survival thing. Yes, reasoning can go off track, but that's why we have empiricism. They are co-dependent in some ways. When Christians just say, I don't want to bother with all that empirical nonsense," it's baffling to me how someone can lack curiosity to that level to where they don't even want to look in the telescope, they just want to believe.
Thank you so much for the kind words and for sharing your thoughts, Caleb! I really appreciate your perspective. You're right that reasoning and empiricism are deeply connected, and it’s important to value both in our search for understanding.
The kalam is a fallacy of composition Its premise "everything that begin to exist has a cause" is based on observations of the parts that make up the whole. It applies the principle derived from observation of those parts to the whole which commits the fallacy Kalam debunked
Hey there! Thanks for joining the conversation! You’ve brought up an important critique, and I really appreciate the chance to discuss it. It’s true that the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is based on what we observe in the universe. The Kalam applies that principle to the universe as a whole, not as a leap, but because the alternative-that something can come into existence without a cause-doesn’t match either our experience or logic. Even skeptics like David Hume, who was critical of causality, admitted it’s hard to imagine something just popping into existence from nothing. You mentioned the "composition fallacy," and I see where you’re coming from! But this isn’t about comparing properties of parts (like saying all bricks are red, so the house must be red). It’s about the nature of existence itself. If everything we know that begins to exist requires a cause, it seems reasonable to extend that principle to the universe-unless there’s strong evidence not to. William Lane Craig, a key defender of the Kalam, often points out that denying the causal premise requires a leap of faith as well. And it’s worth noting that science itself operates on the assumption of causality-every effect has a cause-even when exploring the origins of the universe. Ultimately, the Kalam doesn’t claim to prove God definitively but invites us to consider that the most rational explanation for why anything exists is that something caused it to exist. For me personally, this is just one of several lines of evidence that point to a Creator. Thanks again for the thought-provoking comment!
The biggest problem I have with Hugh Ross is he doesn't believe a God who raised Jesus from the dead is able to create the universe in 6 literal days. Why believe one but discredit the other?
Hi, Gina! I enjoy your videos even though I disagree with them! I apologize for my extremely long comment, I wanted to be thorough and address everything. The first option isn't completely ruled out by science. Science only tells us that the current state of the universe has a beginning, not that there's an "ultimate" beginning. There are various scientific hypotheses that expand the explanation of the origin of the universe to having a "before". The most well-known is the multiverse hypothesis. There isn't any evidence of this, but it is still a possibility. There are other scientific hypotheses which entail something existing "before" the Big Bang, such as Leonard Susskind's Cosmic Darwinism and Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology. This leads to the question of what does it really mean for something to "begin to exist"? I would say that we have never actually seen something begin to exist. Things that we say "begin to exist", such as cars, chairs, trees, people, stars, etc., are actually rearrangements of already-existing "stuff". All of these things are composed of atoms and subatomic particles which already existed. This distinction between true creation and rearrangement of pre-existing material brings us to an exception found in quantum mechanics. We actually do have evidence of things within the universe that seem to pop into existence out of nothing with no explanation. These things are called virtual particles. These are particles which are a result of a concept in quantum mechanics called "quantum foam". Virtual particles aren't merely theoretical, we have actual experimental evidence that they're real via what's called the Casmir effect. To be more precise, they appear to come into existence randomly but we don't know if it's actually random or if there's something more fundamental that explains them. However, quantum mechanics does seem to suggest that there is an element of true randomness at the heart of reality. Even if we say that absolutely nothing in the universe just pops into existence out of nothing, that doesn't entail that its impossible for something outside of the universe to do so, or for the universe itself to do so. Our experience of reality and ideas of what are physically possible and impossible are entirely contained within our universe, we can't extrapolate what happens within the universe to the universe itself or things outside of it. But let's say all of these objections don't work, and that the third option is correct like you said, i.e., the universe was created by someone or something. I like your phrasing, "someone or something", because the cause could be a "something" instead of a "someone". In fact, this makes much more sense as a possibility to me. It makes more sense to me that there would be some sort of supernatural "stuff" outside of the universe which the universe came from instead of a supernatural personal agent with a mind, i.e., God. By "supernatural" I simply mean beyond nature, or outside of the universe. An all-powereful, all-knowing being outside of space and time just seems much more far-fetched and more complicated than there being some kind of non-personal, pre-existing supernatural "stuff". At the end you asked what our personal thoughts were on what is more probable. First, I have to caveat and say that I really don't know. I can completely see any of the options being correct. That being said, out of the two options you gave I agree with your conclusion that the universe beginning to exist and having some sort of cause seems more probable than it simply popping into existence out of nothing. However, I do find the first option you gave to be more plausible than those two, even though you rule it out. I find it more plausible mainly because of the idea of a multiverse. A lot of Christian apologists treat this idea as ad-hoc or ridiculous, but I think it should be taken seriously. Throughout history humans have continually had their concept of reality expanded. We discovered there were more continents, then we discovered there were more planets, then we discovered there were more stars, then we discovered there were more galaxies. And not only did we discover there were more of them each time, but we discovered there were a stupendously gigantic amount of them. So it doesn't seem far-fetched as a possibility to me that we may one day discover that there are also more universes. (Perhaps the multiverse hypothesis actually falls under option three with the universe being caused by something else rather than always existing. I was more thinking of the multiverse as a conceptual extension of the universe, so even though the universe may have begun to exist, the multiverse could have always existed. But I guess that's just semantics.) Those are all my thoughts on the topic! This topic seems related to the fine-tuning argument. I imagine you'll make a video on that one day. I don't know if you appreciate me commenting all of these objections or not. I imagine your purpose of your channel is evangelization via apologetics, so I may be undermining that. So please let me know if you don't want me to comment anymore and I'll stop. I have actually read "Why the Universe Is the Way It Is" by Hugh Ross! It is a really good book and I can also recommend it to other people. Anyway, thank you for your video!
Hey! Thank you so much for your kind words and for taking the time to share such a thorough and well-thought-out response! I’m genuinely glad you’re here and that you’re engaging with these topics so deeply. It’s clear you’ve spent a lot of time considering these ideas, and I appreciate the respect in your tone. You bring up good points! Perhaps I should have said that based on what we currently know about science, an eternal universe seems highly unlikely (to me). The discovery of the universe's expansion-first observed by Edwin Hubble-and the evidence that time, space, and matter had a beginning (often called the "singularity") strongly point in that direction. For example, the second law of thermodynamics tells us that usable energy in a closed system decreases over time. If the universe were eternal, we would expect it to have already reached a state of maximum entropy (essentially, heat death), but it hasn’t. This strongly suggests the universe had a finite beginning. Prominent atheist cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has said, "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." Vilenkin’s work on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem supports the idea that any universe expanding on average cannot be past-eternal and must have a starting point. Of course, I acknowledge that new hypotheses, like cyclic cosmology or quantum theories, are still being explored. But as it stands, at least for now, the prevailing scientific evidence points to a universe that began to exist. Regarding your point about rearrangements of already-existing atoms and particles versus something truly coming into existence, I want to clarify that when I talk about the universe having a beginning, I’m not referring to the rearrangement of pre-existing material. I’m talking about the origin of even subatomic particles and atoms-the very “stuff” that makes up everything we see. I also appreciate your thoughts on the multiverse. You’re right-this concept is often misunderstood or dismissed too quickly, but I plan to touch on it a little bit in a future video about fine-tuning, so stay tuned if that's a topic that interests you. As for your point about a supernatural "something" versus a supernatural "someone," I get where you’re coming from. For me, it wasn’t just the origin of the universe that led me to Christianity. It was the combination of several lines of evidence: the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, and-most of all-the historicity of the resurrection. Together, these built a compelling case for me that pointed not just to a cause, but to a personal Creator. I'm open to being wrong; it just seems most likely given all of the available evidence right now. : ) I’m really glad you shared your perspective here, and I hope you feel welcome to continue commenting. I love hearing different viewpoints, especially when they’re as thoughtful as yours. And I totally agree-Hugh Ross’s "Why the Universe Is the Way It Is" is a great read. Thanks again for taking the time to write this, and I hope to hear from you again!
Thereis God, God created everything, then there is super God created God, then there is super super God created super God, then there is God super super super God created super super God...... You get it right because nothing can come from nothing, including God. Never ending. There is another thing, which God, Islamic God, Jewish God, or Hindu God, Hindu have 3.6 millions God so which one.
Thanks for your comment, Joda! I understand where you’re coming from-it can feel like the concept of God raises the question, “But who created God?” The traditional Christian understanding of God, however, is that God is eternal and uncaused. Unlike everything in the universe, which begins to exist and needs a cause, God is seen as fundamentally different: the necessary, self-existent being who exists outside of time and space. This avoids the "infinite regress" problem of needing a cause for every cause. When it comes to evidence for God, many Christians point to a variety of lines of reasoning. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe, where physical constants appear calibrated for life, suggests a designer. The existence of objective moral values-such as the belief that things like murder or injustice are truly wrong-points to a moral lawgiver. Additionally, the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, including the empty tomb and eyewitness accounts, provides a basis for believing in the Christian God. What do you think is the most compelling explanation for the universe and our existence? I’d love to hear your perspective!
God of the gaps fallacy is worth understanding to find flaws in your initial statement. A cause doesn't have to have the word god applied at all to its premise or origin of causality. You seem to have already been convinced before attempting to understand what is actual reality.
I appreciate your point! I understand the concern about the "God of the gaps" fallacy, but I want to clarify that my argument isn't about filling gaps with God where we lack understanding. It's about looking at the broader picture of evidence. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus all point to something beyond mere natural causes. I also want to add that I didn’t start as a Christian. I came to this belief after examining the evidence, and I find it compelling. It wasn’t about convincing myself before understanding reality, but rather, I came to see that the evidence for the existence of God and the claims of Christianity made more sense of the world than any other worldview I considered. I think it’s important to keep an open mind and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
The burden of proof is the person, the theist or deist, making the claim of ‘first cause’, I. e. As is well known from Kant onwards there is no valid argument for the existence of a deity. Consider for example the Hindu claim of an uncaused universe, they come into being, then destruction, then followed by recreation of new ones. Why? No explaintion needed.
@@fbrand3007 The person making the religious claim is logically obliged to provide ‘proof’ etc. The religious belief is totally vacuous and the traditional five arguments are invalid. Ok, believe as you psychology need too, but obviously no valid argument or empirical proof. Science, scientific cosmology offers the only valid and reliable explanation.
Of course it does, it’s based on science (and logically consistence arguments, not wishful thinking). Empty assertions, claims do not take you very far, except it illustrates your false premises. Believe assertions like yours, indicate serious mental illness issues. Please seek professional assistance.
Religion provides a way to live forever. Total fraud but folk want to believe it which explains why it is so popular around the world.. not just Christians , but the many many different religions . Amen
John! Thanks for all of your engagement with my video; you're definitely boosting my search rankings! 😊 I appreciate your thoughts and the opportunity to discuss these important topics. I understand why you might feel that way, as the idea of life after death is something many people are drawn to. However, for many believers, faith isn't just about wanting to live forever. It’s rooted in evidence, personal experiences, and a long history of philosophical and theological exploration. For example, the resurrection of Jesus is one of the key pieces of evidence for Christians. There’s a wealth of historical evidence, including the testimony of early witnesses and the spread of Christianity, that suggests something extraordinary happened. Many scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have found the evidence for the resurrection compelling. Beyond that, there’s also the fine-tuning of the universe, moral truths that seem to transcend cultures, and even the personal experiences people have with God that strengthen their faith. These aren't just blind beliefs, but are based on observations, reason, and encounters that go beyond wishful thinking. I also think it's important to note that different religions offer varying paths, but many of them raise similar questions about purpose, morality, and what happens after we die. That doesn't mean all religions are true, but it does show that humans have a deep, universal longing for meaning and something beyond this life. What do you think about these kinds of evidences? Are there any that resonate with you or that you find worth considering?
This subject matter is extremely difficult to discuss in precise terms. For example you cite 3 "possibilities"... 1. The universe has always existed. 2. The universe came into existence spontaneously without any prior cause 3 The universe has a cause - that something or someone created it. Okay well I'll address each of these statements & mention any oversimplifications or misinterpretations that may have slipped in without being noticed: *1. The universe has always existed.* You say _Now science has now disproved the first option._ This simply isn't accurate. It's not even remotely accurate but before I get into the details of why that's the case I need to explain an extremely important nuance that often goes over the heads of both theists as well as atheists too. Speaking of 'The universe' could mean _All scientists can see exists since the Big Bang approximately 14 billion years ago._ However this suggests that just because the universe seems to have started then it must have started then & for all we know it didn't & therefore maybe there are _other_ universes besides ours or perhaps there's only one but it's many dimensional as many String Theorists think. Now here's the important bit... calling it _The Universe_ may be very misleading when considering this question so I'll use the term Carl Sagan popularized in his series Cosmos which started with the statement *The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was & all there will ever be* i.e. The term 'cosmos' covers Everything with a capital E: Seen or unseen, known or unknown. Now with that very important nuance defined we can see that it's clearly impossible for scientists to disprove suggestions that the cosmos has always existed in some unseen form e.g. as an endless series of Big Bangs / expansions / collapses repeating forever just as they always have... _perhaps._ Or maybe the String Theorists are right about there being just one cosmos in singular form instead but it _seems_ to have come into existence without prior cause. *2. The universe came into existence spontaneously without any prior cause* The fact that _some_ atheist scientists _(I've only heard of one)_ said the idea that everything came into existence without any prior cause was problematic because it was a little too similar to the description in Genesis, but it's really not because according to Genesis the universe absolutely did have a prior cause: The word which was (or is?) "God" (okay it's _a_ god among a great many gods claimed to have made everything.) But there's the rub... when I say "everything" there's immediately an obvious contradiction because no god regardless of how powerful it may be can create _itself_ if it too is "something". To pretend otherwise is a gross example of Special Pleading. *3 The universe has a cause - that something or someone created it.* Okay well if it's _something_ not _someone_ that's simply something _godlike_ in it's capabilities but not a being which most understandings of a god / gods are in any religious tradition claiming _their_ deity was responsible. You then go on to say that there's merit in the view that everything that we see in the universe has a cause. But this ignores the fact that we're not discussing "things" at all, we're discussing _all_ things i.e. The cosmos which is all there is, all there ever was & all there will ever be, so you're not comparing like with like. Your assertion that nothing appears to pop into existence without a cause is also wrong because at the smallest _quantum_ scales this phenomenon appears everywhere, even in the vacuum of space where virtual particles & anti particles are understood to be popping in as well as out of existence all the time. There's yet more Special Pleading on offer when you explain that we can understand that we came from our parents just as they had to come from their parents etc. but for no supplied reason you let the buck stop at the ultimate parent: God which begs a question: If everything _must_ have a cause then why doesn't your god & if your god doesn't need any cause then why must the cosmos? You can't have it _both_ ways! I have no idea where you got the idea that Peter Singer said that the _universe_ came into existence from self replicating molecules. Singer is a moral philosopher not a cosmologist & by the sounds of the quote you appear to be referencing he appears to be discussing the origin of _life_ rather than the origin of the cosmos (assuming that Everything with a capital *E* has any origin at all anyway). You're _definitely_ wrong about Dawkins saying that maybe an alien or aliens created our universe too. You're probably citing a misquote that's been doing the rounds stating that he said he thought that it was _possible_ but not _probable_ that an alien or aliens could have seeded the Earth with life form 'seeds' in Earth's distant past but that _isn't_ what he thinks happened. He simply thinks it's more plausible than assuming a god or gods were responsible for life on Earth which is understandable because at least an alien is some sort of explanation even if it's pretty notional but invoking a god of any kind has zero explanatory power of any kind. That's because a god or gods have no meaningful definitions beyond what they are said to do (create) but not what they _are_ unlike aliens which would be life forms even if their forms are unfamiliar. Where you are absolutely _right_ about is that no atheist scientists have any demonstrable answers to where everything came from but neither do religious scientists or theologians or even some holy book _including_ the Bible. They have _claims_ they can't support with one iota of demonstrable evidence & not all gods which religions claim to know caused everything (else) to come into existence can be right but they _can_ all be _wrong_ but that doesn't seem to be an option many theists are willing to give any serious thought to but that's precisely what we should come to expect if they were emotionally attached to the claims that their god is the 'Real Deal' & they've come to cherish that claim since childhood. You cite Abdul M... (Murry?) as someone who said _The truth wasn't hard to find it was just hard to embrace_ but that's clearly absolutely wrong. _How so?_ Well there is no way to know if the Christian claims in Genesis _to_ be known. None at all. They can certainly be believed that's clear but on what basis? Evidence? No, there isn't any evidence at all for claims that any god of any religion caused the universe to be but people _do_ have faith that there is for a Christian God... & an Islamic God... & Hindu gods... & a Zoroastrian deity etc. etc. etc. but faith can be strongly held in any unsupportable claim. You chose to cherry pick a former Muslim who's now of the opinion that he _knows_ the Christian "God" is the real deal & ignore any former Christian opinion that they now know that _Allah_ is the real deal - or a whole host of alternative religionist saying much the same thing about Vishnu or Zeus or any one of _hundreds_ of alternative deities _none_ of which is any more demonstrable than any other one & that is not an insignificant shortcoming by any stretch of the imagination. You finish with the question of what our opinion is about the origin of the universe is. Well this is where it's absolutely essential to stipulate what might be meant by 'The universe' because what I'm interested in is the cosmos i.e. _All there is, ever was or will ever be_ as Carl Sagan put it. My _guess_ & I freely admit it's a guess is it's a mistake to assume the cosmos had any cause at all, but again, if you insist that the cosmos (not simply the universe) must _also_ have a cause then why doesn't a god (any god claimed to be the 'real deal') & if a god doesn't need one then why must the cosmos? You can't have it _both_ ways! In conclusion I have to say that I have no idea how or even _if_ the cosmos could have any cause so I'd say that the most honest answer is to admit that I don't know rather than pretend with any significant degree of certainty that any _one_ or for that matter any _thing_ did when we really can't be at all certain about it? What I would say is that of all of the claims that have been made about acts of some god or gods which we previously didn't understand such as lightning or thunder or the northern lights or earthquakes etc. every single explanation we've come up with so far _hasn't_ been a god even once so why imagine that the cosmos is likely to be explained by one or the origin of life or anything else that's currently not known? Especially since faith can be employed to believe any claim that lacks evidence so it doesn't just apply to Christianity since it applies to every other faith on Earth. That's why we call them "faiths" rather than "evidence" as is the case in the _one_ science there is: _demonstrable_ science. Something that can be independently verified by non-partisan 3rd parties of any culture across the planet. Not a single _god_ can pass a _double blind_ test like that can it?
Hi, Paul! Wow! Thank you for your detailed and thought-provoking comment. I appreciate the time and effort you put into addressing my points. I'll try to clarify my perspective and respond to some of your critiques while acknowledging the complexity of the topic. : ) 1. On the Universe Always Existing You're correct that "the universe" can be defined differently, and I appreciate your use of "cosmos" to include everything seen and unseen. I didn't mean to suggest that science has definitively disproved the idea of the cosmos always existing. Rather, the prevailing evidence from cosmology (e.g., the Big Bang theory) indicates a finite beginning to what we observe as our universe. While speculative ideas like a multiverse or an endless cycle of expansions and contractions exist, they remain unproven hypotheses. The philosophical question remains: If the cosmos (in its most inclusive sense) has always existed, why does it exist at all? It’s not just about scientific observation but addressing the broader metaphysical question of existence, which science alone cannot resolve. 2. Everything With a Beginning Has a Cause One principle central to this discussion is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This aligns with both philosophical reasoning and everyday experience. A thing cannot cause itself to come into existence because it would need to exist before it exists, which is illogical. In the context of God, the argument isn’t that "everything needs a cause"-that would be a misunderstanding. The argument is that everything that begins needs a cause. If God is eternal, He doesn’t have a beginning and therefore doesn’t require a cause. This is not special pleading but a reflection of the distinction between things that are contingent and things that are necessary. Moreover, it’s not necessary to identify the cause of a cause in order to acknowledge that there is a cause. For example, understanding that a car engine causes the car to move doesn’t depend on knowing the history of the engine's assembly line. Similarly, positing that the universe has a cause doesn’t require knowing every detail about the cause itself. 3. The Universe Coming into Existence Without a Cause Quantum mechanics and phenomena like virtual particles are often invoked to suggest that "something can come from nothing." However, virtual particles don’t arise from absolute nothingness but from a quantum vacuum, which itself has properties, energy, and structure. The notion of "nothing" in physics is often quite different from the philosophical or metaphysical concept of "absolute nothing." In light of this, the idea that the universe could arise uncaused from absolute nothingness remains speculative. The cause of the universe doesn’t need to be supernatural in a narrow sense, but the idea that it has a cause aligns with principles of causality. 4. Faith vs. Evidence You emphasize the lack of demonstrable evidence for any specific religious claim about the cosmos. This is a fair critique if one’s goal is to provide scientific or empirical proof. However, my argument doesn’t aim to prove a creator in the way science demonstrates natural phenomena. Instead, it’s about showing that belief in a creator is philosophically and rationally plausible. Faith must indeed be critically examined. But faith isn’t inherently blind or without evidence. In many religious traditions, faith is seen as trust built on cumulative evidence (personal experience, historical claims, philosophical reasoning) rather than absolute proof. For instance, the existence of moral truths, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the contingency of all we observe can be interpreted as pointers toward a creator. 5. The Challenge of Religious Pluralism You highlight the diversity of religious beliefs and the emotional attachment people have to their particular traditions. This is a significant point, and I agree that it’s crucial to approach such claims critically. While different religions make competing claims about God or ultimate reality, this diversity doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility of one being closer to the truth. So, I agree that the most honest response to ultimate questions about the cosmos is to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge. My aim wasn’t to assert with certainty that a creator exists but to suggest that the idea is both plausible and worth considering alongside other explanations. I appreciate your emphasis on intellectual humility-it’s an essential part of any meaningful dialogue, especially on big topics like these. By the way, here’s a link to the interview where Richard Dawkins suggests that aliens may have seeded life on Earth: th-cam.com/video/BoncJBrrdQ8/w-d-xo.html. Best to you!
@@simpleapologetics *Hi, Paul!* Hi! Thanks for responding so rapidly! *Wow! Thank you for your detailed and thought-provoking comment.* Well thank _you!_ *I appreciate the time and effort you put into addressing my points. I'll try to clarify my perspective and respond to some of your critiques while acknowledging the complexity of the topic. : ) * Great. Yes it _is_ far more complex than it may seem on first appearances. *1. On the Universe Always Existing You're correct that "the universe" can be defined differently, and I appreciate your use of "cosmos" to include everything seen and unseen.* Excellent. In that case I'll use the word "cosmos" in the Sagan sense when it's important to distinguish it from the universe i.e. All we can see since nearly 14 billion years ago. *I didn't mean to suggest that science has definitively disproved the idea of the cosmos always existing.* Well you have said that it has but for obvious reasons it can't & I cannot see how it ever could either. *Rather, the prevailing evidence from cosmology (e.g., the Big Bang theory) indicates a finite beginning to what we observe as our universe." Yes indeed that's certainly the _prevailing_ opinion but one thing no scientist or philosopher or theologian can _meaningfully_ speak of is nothing because nothing isn't _anything_ by definition. If you think that empty space is nothing you'd be wrong because Einstein proved that it is clearly _something_ - one dimension of 4 dimensional 'spacetime' which is why there can be black holes in what we think of as empty space. *While speculative ideas like a multiverse or an endless cycle of expansions and contractions exist, they remain unproven hypotheses.* Absolutely! That's why I didn't say they were facts because perhaps neither are facts but none the less I would still consider them as possibilities if they can be given any potential attributes that one day we may be able to see are there. There are billions upon billions of these potentials so narrowing them down to one that can be confirmed is currently not achievable but at least in principle that could change tomorrow if the likes of Sir Roger Penrose works out something crucial or a String Theorist does instead. Now I'm not claiming that they will or even that they can, perhaps both ideas will fail to be proven but at least scientists can come up with hypothesis which can somehow be tested but how can any god of any faith ever be tested for authenticity? I see no way at all. Can _you?_ *The philosophical question remains: If the cosmos (in its most inclusive sense) has always existed, why does it exist at all?* Oh that's very easy to answer: Because it has to since there's no alternative to "Something" since as Einstein demonstrated (as does philosophy) what we like to call 'nothing' isn't _anything_ therefore there's simply no alternative to "something" even if intuitively it seems as if nothing could exist but that's a fallacy since nothing _by definition_ isn't anything. *It’s not just about scientific observation but addressing the broader metaphysical question of existence, which science alone cannot resolve.* I agree that science isn't in the business of examining nothing because there's nothing to examine however philosophy can examine that question & see that it can't represent anything that's supposed to be real in any meaningful sense either because nothing isn't anything. If you think that it must be you're probably thinking of empty space but as Einstein proved that _is_ something & cosmologists have even proved that it has a little bit of weight to it called Dark Matter even though we don't know what causes it to be weighty currently. *2. Everything With a Beginning Has a Cause One principle central to this discussion is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.* Well that may seem to be the logical conclusion however there's evidence that quantum phenomena such as virtual particles which as far as we can tell pop in & out if existence for no reason what so ever. If that's true whether we like it or not & it certainly _seems_ to be the term for these phenomena is that they have _no hidden variables_ i.e. nothing what so ever 'behind the scenes' pulling the strings as it were. No I'm as baffled by that conclusion as you probably are but I can't entirely rule it out just because I can't understand it. Having said that I'm also not sating that it's probably true. What I _am_ saying is we cannot know if it's true or not therefore I have no strong opinion on the _idea_ of no hidden variable, *This aligns with both philosophical reasoning and everyday experience.* Yes it _seems_ to but for all we know the philosophical 'stop gap' inserted into our line of reasoning may be utterly wrong since there _is_ hard scientific evidence for quantum phenomena however if there's any reason for them being that way cannot be know therefore we can't simply rule that evidence out on principle if the brute fact is the evidence suggests otherwise. *A thing cannot cause itself to come into existence because it would need to exist before it exists, which is illogical* Well if the _cosmos_ is eternal it wouldn't need any cause at all just as a god that's eternal doesn't if that were a fact _yes?_ *In the context of God,* Which one though? There are so many claimed to be the 'real deal' to choose from they can't all be real but they can all be imaginary can't they? If not why not since there's no hard evidence for any one of them on offer. *the argument isn’t that "everything needs a cause"-that would be a misunderstanding.* Okay so you're agreeing that such an argument requires the addition of what philosophers call 'Special Pleading' in order to exclude a god but the question that won't go away after making that stipulation is if the cosmos must have a creator then why doesn't a god & if a god doesn't need one then why must the cosmos? Trying to Special Plead to avoid that very significant question won't make it go away until it is addressed fairly & squarely because it _has) to be addressed for any god to be taken seriously as some sort of "explanation" rather than a baseless _claim_ instead. "The argument is that everything that begins needs a cause." Sure but since we have evidence that quantum phenomena _seem_ to be _uncaused_ that brute fact cannot simply be dismissed because we don't understand how it could be possible. So what _if_ that evidence is there for all to see if people care to take the time to consider whether their intuitions could be _dead wrong?_ *If God is eternal, He doesn’t have a beginning and therefore doesn’t require a cause.* Yes but we first need to establish is a god of any denomination explains anything about the cosmos including whether it did _come_ into existence at all but all god claims are appeals to mystery & you can't solve one mystery by appealing to _another_ can you? *This is not special pleading but a reflection of the distinction between things that are contingent and things that are necessary.* It is Special Pleading because it ignores the question: _If a god doesn't need a cause then why must the cosmos & if the cosmos must require one then why doesn't a god?_ To dismiss this problem as not needing any answer is a text book example of Special Pleading. Especially if you keep in mind the understanding that "cosmos" means all there is, ever was or will ever be, seen or unseen, known or unknown because no god could be said to be excluded from that category could it? *Moreover, it’s not necessary to identify the cause of a cause in order to acknowledge that there is a cause.* Why not? CONTINUED IN PART 2...
@@simpleapologetics PART 2 CONTINUATION... *For example, understanding that a car engine causes the car to move doesn’t depend on knowing the history of the engine's assembly line.* Sure but we have very good reasons to think that a car we are traveling in probably has some sort of engine if it's not being blown by the wind or rolling down an incline etc. but on closer inspection there's no good reason to believe claims that any god of any kind causes anything at all because all gods rely on faith & anything lacking testable evidence can be believed on the basis of faith which is why so many faiths are convinced that their god or gods are the 'real deal'. *Similarly, positing that the universe has a cause doesn’t require knowing every detail about the cause itself.* Ah but there's the rub... you've now _moved the goal posts_ by switching the subject to 'the universe' from 'the cosmos' i.e. All there is, ever was or will ever be, seen or unseen, known or unknown. We don't _know_ any detail at all about any god claimed to be the cause but we _do_ know that if the cosmos were eternal the whole question of how it came to be becomes unnecessary since it's been around for all time be that an eternity or nearly 14 billion years - a question nobody who's honest can say they know a definitive answer to because at least currently there is no way to know for sure. *3. The Universe Coming into Existence Without a Cause Quantum mechanics and phenomena like virtual particles are often invoked to suggest that "something can come from nothing."* No not quite. Quantum particles can _seem_ to come into existence if it's true that they have no hidden variable however despite them not _seeming_ to we cannot say categorically that they don't because it's impossible to know what you _don't_ know isn't it? *However, virtual particles don’t arise from absolute nothingness but from a quantum vacuum, which itself has properties, energy, and structure.* No that isn't the case either. They appear to come into existence from a 'zero state' within a vacuum. The analogy which Stephen Hawking gave for such a zero state is a man digging a hole & simultaneously building a pile in a flat surface. The flat surface measures zero on a height scale so as a small valley comes to be dug out a corresponding small hill is created too. So where did these positive & negative values originate? From zero & that's how he explains that we came to discover that the net sum of energy in the universe adds up to zero therefore no "raw material' is required for a universe to come to be. Yes this sounds nuts but the measurement of all the detectable positive energy within the observable universe is _exactly_ the same as all of the _negative_ energy measured too therefore no source material would be required for what we see today strange as that might seem. *The notion of "nothing" in physics is often quite different from the philosophical or metaphysical concept of "absolute nothing."* No. There is no notion of "nothing" in physics because physics only addresses what can be seen & since what you call 'absolute nothing' isn't anything at all it not only can't be seen but it also can't be philosophically justified either, so the likes of Stephen Hawking are often misunderstood to be meaning that the universe 'comes' from nothing when really what he means is you don't need anything to kick start a universe which isn't quite the same statement is it? To a physicist like Hawking nothing isn't anything however empty space absolutely is because it _is_ something: a dimension as Einstein proved. *In light of this, the idea that the universe could arise uncaused from absolute nothingness remains speculative." But physicists aren't saying there _is_ absolute nothingness because in physics that isn't anything at all & it isn't in philosophy either. Hawking & others are saying that you don't need anything to kick start a universe & that's somewhat different from trying to spin 'absolute nothingness' as if it were something when the whole point is that it's _not._ CONTINUED IN PART 3...
@@simpleapologetics PART 3 CONTINUATION... *The cause of the universe doesn’t need to be supernatural in a narrow sense, but the idea that it has a cause aligns with principles of causality.* Appeals to the supernatural are meaningless on closer inspection because they appeal to something known to be outside the cosmos but by definition the cosmos cannot have any outside & to know something you can't appeal to the unknown so what's the point in entertaining any form of magical thinking with that in mind? *4. Faith vs. Evidence You emphasize the lack of demonstrable evidence for any specific religious claim about the cosmos.* No, not _any_ sort of religious claim. I can believe claims that Jesus & Mohamed where _real_ people but any appeal to something claimed to be supernatural about them is clearly meaningless for the reasons I've just given above. *This is a fair critique if one’s goal is to provide scientific or empirical proof.* But strictly speaking nothing in science is _ever ever ever_ out & out 'proven' anyway. If you doubt that ask yourself if science expresses it's ideas as Truths or Theories? It only expresses it's ideas as Theories at best because science is certain of nothing & requires evidence for everything whereas religionS are certain of everything & require evidence for nothing so in light of that which is more humble & which more arrogant? *However, my argument doesn’t aim to prove a creator in the way science demonstrates natural phenomena.* That's because there's no good reason to believe there is one in science however there also isn't a good reason philosophically either. *Instead, it’s about showing that belief in a creator is philosophically and rationally plausible.* No it's _psychologically_ plausible for _some_ perhaps but there's no good philosophical argument for any god of any kind which doesn't require faith however faith can & is employed to believe all gods claimed to be the real deal because there isn't any evidence for any of them, just unsupportable _claims._ *Faith must indeed be critically examined.* Yes because it's pretending to know something nobody can demonstrate that they know in whatever form it appears be it Hindu, Christian or Zoroastrian etc. *But faith isn’t inherently blind or without evidence.* Yes it is. It _has_ to be otherwise it could simply be called 'trust' but trust is only place in something we may have _some_ reason to think _might_ be real whereas _faith_ isn't. *In many religious traditions, faith is seen as trust built on cumulative evidence (personal experience, historical claims, philosophical reasoning) rather than absolute proof.* But it shouldn't be because things you cite are _not_ evidence at all. They are _reasons_ for belief but none of what you've mentioned is a _good_ reason by any stretch of the imagination. "For instance, the existence of moral truths," Where is there any evidence that what we call morality requires _any_ god? Evolution easily explains why moral values help a species to thrive as a whole above & beyond the desires of any individual within it because natural selection tends to selects traits like that while filtering out anti-social behavior in the species. This is why piranha fish don't need to read any holy books to avoid snacking on one another because they wouldn't last too long as a species if natural selection didn't cause taboos such as _'Don't eat your people'_ would it? *the fine-tuning of the universe, and the contingency of all we observe can be interpreted as pointers toward a creator.* They can be _interpreted_ as such but not for any good _reason_ simply because if a universe didn't enable the rise of intelligent lifeforms such as ourselves we couldn't be here to notice our absence from such a state of affairs could we? However the admittedly very _precise_ balance of physical parameters does _seem_ very 'special' for sure but since there's no alternative possible it really shouldn't surprise us at all. (And incidentally if you aren't impressed by that conclusion why rule out all Multiverse models of universes where no matter how unlikely a particular state of affairs may be, it can & therefore _must_ come to be somewhere in time if Sir Roger Penrose is right or somewhere in additional spacial dimensions if the String Theorists are right?) *5. The Challenge of Religious Pluralism You highlight the diversity of religious beliefs and the emotional attachment people have to their particular traditions.* Absolutely because I's say all people of faith have strong if not unbreakable attachments to their particular gods. *This is a significant point, and I agree that it’s crucial to approach such claims critically.* Good which begs the question are you willing to seek whatever's most likely to be _true_ over whatever is most _satisfying_ to ones emotional adherence to a particular deity be it Christian or Hindu or whatever? If not then you're clearly putting the cart before the horse in truth seeking. *While different religions make competing claims about God or ultimate reality, this diversity doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility of one being closer to the truth.* No it doesn't negate it I agree however it certainly doesn't support it in any significant way _either_ because like I said absolutely anything lacking demonstrable evidence can be believed on faith but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. There are no exceptions to that rule which is why I don't claim to know the cause of the cosmos assuming that it was caused at all so it's far more honest to say you don't know things you can't know than to pretend that you _can_ isn't it? *So, I agree that the most honest response to ultimate questions about the cosmos is to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge.* _... and admit we don't know things that we cannot demonstrate we know_ yeah? If not why pretend we _do?_ *My aim wasn’t to assert with certainty that a creator exists but to suggest that the idea is both plausible and worth considering alongside other explanations.* Well good but one question still remains then: Let's say on a scale from 0 - 100% of certainty that some god - not even a Christian "God" was likely to have caused the cosmos to come into being (if we are to assume that it must have) exactly how high a percentage would you say a god is most likely to be that cause? I presume you're not saying it's 100% because you have conceded that it's not total certainty but what level _would_ you put your confidence numerically? *I appreciate your emphasis on intellectual humility-it’s an essential part of any meaningful dialogue, especially on big topics like these.* Absolutely! What's the point in pretending to know things which we clearly cannot know? *By the way, here’s a link to the interview where Richard Dawkins suggests that aliens may have seeded life on Earth: th-cam.com/video/BoncJBrrdQ8/w-d-xo.html.* Yes I've seen it already & that's how I knew he didn't say that aliens probably _did_ seed life on Earth because he never said any such thing did he? *Best to you!* And to you. _What's your name though?_ *For example, understanding that a car engine causes the car to move doesn’t depend on knowing the history of the engine's assembly line.* Sure but we have very good reasons to think that a car we are traveling in probably has some sort of engine if it's not being blown by the wind or rolling down an incline etc. but on closer inspection there's no good reason to believe claims that any god of any kind causes anything at all because all gods rely on faith & anything lacking testable evidence can be believed on the basis of faith which is why so many faiths are convinced that their god or gods are the 'real deal'. *Similarly, positing that the universe has a cause doesn’t require knowing every detail about the cause itself.* Ah but there's the rub... you've now _moved the goal posts_ by switching the subject to 'the universe' from 'the cosmos' i.e. All there is, ever was or will ever be, seen or unseen, known or unknown. We don't _know_ any detail at all about any god claimed to be the cause but we _do_ know that if the cosmos were eternal the whole question of how it came to be becomes unnecessary since it's been around for all time be that an eternity or nearly 14 billion years - a question nobody who's honest can say they know a definitive answer to because at least currently there is no way to know for sure. CONTINUED IN PART 4...
@@simpleapologeticsCONCLUSION... *3. The Universe Coming into Existence Without a Cause Quantum mechanics and phenomena like virtual particles are often invoked to suggest that "something can come from nothing."* No not quite. Quantum particles can _seem_ to come into existence if it's true that they have no hidden variable however despite them not _seeming_ to we cannot say categorically that they don't because it's impossible to know what you _don't_ know isn't it? *However, virtual particles don’t arise from absolute nothingness but from a quantum vacuum, which itself has properties, energy, and structure.* No that isn't the case either. They appear to come into existence from a 'zero state' within a vacuum. The analogy which Stephen Hawking gave for such a zero state is a man digging a hole & simultaneously building a pile in a flat surface. The flat surface measures zero on a height scale so as a small valley comes to be dug out a corresponding small hill is created too. So where did these positive & negative values originate? From zero & that's how he explains that we came to discover that the net sum of energy in the universe adds up to zero therefore no "raw material' is required for a universe to come to be. Yes this sounds nuts but the measurement of all the detectable positive energy within the observable universe is _exactly_ the same as all of the _negative_ energy measured too therefore no source material would be required for what we see today strange as that might seem. *The notion of "nothing" in physics is often quite different from the philosophical or metaphysical concept of "absolute nothing."* No. There is no notion of "nothing" in physics because physics only addresses what can be seen & since what you call 'absolute nothing' isn't anything at all it not only can't be seen but it also can't be philosophically justified either, so the likes of Stephen Hawking are often misunderstood to be meaning that the universe 'comes' from nothing when really what he means is you don't need anything to kick start a universe which isn't quite the same statement is it? To a physicist like Hawking nothing isn't anything however empty space absolutely is because it _is_ something: a dimension as Einstein proved. *In light of this, the idea that the universe could arise uncaused from absolute nothingness remains speculative." But physicists aren't saying there _is_ absolute nothingness because in physics that isn't anything at all & it isn't in philosophy either. Hawking & others are saying that you don't need anything to kick start a universe & that's somewhat different from trying to spin 'absolute nothingness' as if it were something when the whole point is that it's _not._ *The cause of the universe doesn’t need to be supernatural in a narrow sense, but the idea that it has a cause aligns with principles of causality.* Appeals to the supernatural are meaningless on closer inspection because they appeal to something known to be outside the cosmos but by definition the cosmos cannot have any outside & to know something you can't appeal to the unknown so what's the point in entertaining any form of magical thinking with that in mind? *4. Faith vs. Evidence You emphasize the lack of demonstrable evidence for any specific religious claim about the cosmos.* No, not _any_ sort of religious claim. I can believe claims that Jesus & Mohamed where _real_ people but any appeal to something claimed to be supernatural about them is clearly meaningless for the reasons I've just given above. *This is a fair critique if one’s goal is to provide scientific or empirical proof.* But strictly speaking nothing in science is _ever ever ever_ out & out 'proven' anyway. If you doubt that ask yourself if science expresses it's ideas as Truths or Theories? It only expresses it's ideas as Theories at best because science is certain of nothing & requires evidence for everything whereas religionS are certain of everything & require evidence for nothing so in light of that which is more humble & which more arrogant? *However, my argument doesn’t aim to prove a creator in the way science demonstrates natural phenomena.* That's because there's no good reason to believe there is one in science however there also isn't a good reason philosophically either. *Instead, it’s about showing that belief in a creator is philosophically and rationally plausible.* No it's _psychologically_ plausible for _some_ perhaps but there's no good philosophical argument for any god of any kind which doesn't require faith however faith can & is employed to believe all gods claimed to be the real deal because there isn't any evidence for any of them, just unsupportable _claims._ *Faith must indeed be critically examined.* Yes because it's pretending to know something nobody can demonstrate that they know in whatever form it appears be it Hindu, Christian or Zoroastrian etc. *But faith isn’t inherently blind or without evidence.* Yes it is. It _has_ to be otherwise it could simply be called 'trust' but trust is only place in something we may have _some_ reason to think _might_ be real whereas _faith_ isn't. *In many religious traditions, faith is seen as trust built on cumulative evidence (personal experience, historical claims, philosophical reasoning) rather than absolute proof.* But it shouldn't be because things you cite are _not_ evidence at all. They are _reasons_ for belief but none of what you've mentioned is a _good_ reason by any stretch of the imagination. "For instance, the existence of moral truths," Where is there any evidence that what we call morality requires _any_ god? Evolution easily explains why moral values help a species to thrive as a whole above & beyond the desires of any individual within it because natural selection tends to selects traits like that while filtering out anti-social behavior in the species. This is why piranha fish don't need to read any holy books to avoid snacking on one another because they wouldn't last too long as a species if natural selection didn't cause taboos such as _'Don't eat your people'_ would it? *the fine-tuning of the universe, and the contingency of all we observe can be interpreted as pointers toward a creator.* They can be _interpreted_ as such but not for any good _reason_ simply because if a universe didn't enable the rise of intelligent lifeforms such as ourselves we couldn't be here to notice our absence from such a state of affairs could we? However the admittedly very _precise_ balance of physical parameters does _seem_ very 'special' for sure but since there's no alternative possible it really shouldn't surprise us at all. (And incidentally if you aren't impressed by that conclusion why rule out all Multiverse models of universes where no matter how unlikely a particular state of affairs may be, it can & therefore _must_ come to be somewhere in time if Sir Roger Penrose is right or somewhere in additional spacial dimensions if the String Theorists are right?) *5. The Challenge of Religious Pluralism You highlight the diversity of religious beliefs and the emotional attachment people have to their particular traditions.* Absolutely because I's say all people of faith have strong if not unbreakable attachments to their particular gods. *This is a significant point, and I agree that it’s crucial to approach such claims critically.* Good which begs the question are you willing to seek whatever's most likely to be _true_ over whatever is most _satisfying_ to ones emotional adherence to a particular deity be it Christian or Hindu or whatever? If not then you're clearly putting the cart before the horse in truth seeking. *While different religions make competing claims about God or ultimate reality, this diversity doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility of one being closer to the truth.* No it doesn't negate it I agree however it certainly doesn't support it in any significant way _either_ because like I said absolutely anything lacking demonstrable evidence can be believed on faith but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. There are no exceptions to that rule which is why I don't claim to know the cause of the cosmos assuming that it was caused at all so it's far more honest to say you don't know things you can't know than to pretend that you _can_ isn't it? *So, I agree that the most honest response to ultimate questions about the cosmos is to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge.* _... and admit we don't know things that we cannot demonstrate we know_ yeah? If not why pretend we _do?_ *My aim wasn’t to assert with certainty that a creator exists but to suggest that the idea is both plausible and worth considering alongside other explanations.* Well good but one question still remains then: Let's say on a scale from 0 - 100% of certainty that some god - not even a Christian "God" was likely to have caused the cosmos to come into being (if we are to assume that it must have) exactly how high a percentage would you say a god is most likely to be that cause? I presume you're not saying it's 100% because you have conceded that it's not total certainty but what level _would_ you put your confidence numerically? *I appreciate your emphasis on intellectual humility-it’s an essential part of any meaningful dialogue, especially on big topics like these.* Absolutely! What's the point in pretending to know things which we clearly cannot know? *By the way, here’s a link to the interview where Richard Dawkins suggests that aliens may have seeded life on Earth: th-cam.com/video/BoncJBrrdQ8/w-d-xo.html.* Yes I've seen it already & that's how I knew he didn't say that aliens probably _did_ seed life on Earth because he never said any such thing did he? *Best to you!* And to you. _What's your name though?_
Hey, Shaun! Disagreements are welcome! I used to think it was all bollocks too. :) I'd love to hear what objective evidence is most convincing to you on either side.
And that god or any creator god made evil that from his being and nature it was formed. Far from perfect or clearly not infallible. Gods are imaginariums, created by wants and desires to not accept reality as harsh and beautiful as it may be. I know that I do not know everything.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I understand where you’re coming from-many people wrestle with the problem of evil and how it fits into the idea of a perfect or infallible God. It’s a tough question that has been discussed by philosophers and theologians for centuries. In Christian theology, evil is often seen as a result of free will and the misuse of it by beings created with the ability to choose. God gave humanity the freedom to choose love and goodness, but with that comes the possibility of choosing evil. This doesn't necessarily reflect imperfection in God, but rather the nature of a world where love and goodness can only be genuine if we have the choice. I also appreciate your honesty about the limits of what we know-none of us have all the answers, and that’s part of why these big questions are so intriguing. As for God being imaginary, I think many believers would say that their experiences with God, personal meaning, and purpose point to something more than just a creation of human desire. But I understand that’s not how everyone sees it. What do you think-how do you personally make sense of the existence of evil and suffering in the world? It’s definitely a complex issue, and I’d love to hear your perspective!
@@simpleapologetics "how do you personally make sense of the existence of evil and suffering in the world" Why should it be any different? Is your objection just emotional reasoning, i.e. it doesn't make you feel good so therefore it doesn't make sense? “The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent, but if we can come to terms with this indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.” ― Stanley Kubrick Maybe when you stop being afraid you will be a better thinker.
You seem like a really nice person but you’re trying so hard to prove a theory that posits the eventual genocide of the majority of humanity for completely arbitrary reasons (whether they believed in a supposed historical fact that occurred over 2000 years ago). Why would a creator make a whole universe with that as the main end product?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment! I appreciate the kind words, and I understand where you're coming from. I agree that the idea of judgment and consequences for belief can be unsettling, but I think it’s important to approach the question of truth with an open mind, even if the answers might challenge our preferences. If our goal is to find truth, we might not always like what we discover, but that doesn’t negate its validity. For example, I may wish that I could fly, but no matter how much I might desire that, gravity is still true. The reality is, if I were to walk off a high building, I would fall because gravity is a law that operates whether or not I believe in it. Similarly, the truth about God, judgment, and the way the universe works might not align with what we hope or expect, but that doesn’t change the truth itself. As for why a creator would allow such a reality, many believers would argue that God's justice is paired with His love, and that the free will He gives us allows us to choose or reject Him. While it’s a hard truth to face, many see this as a reflection of the profound respect God has for human freedom and the potential for a genuine relationship with Him. I hope to cover both free will and the problem of suffering in future videos. :)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
If nothing can exist without a creator, then how do you explain that a creator exists? Was there another creator that created that one?
Thanks for the great question! This is one of the classic philosophical questions that has been debated for centuries. The argument that "nothing can exist without a creator" is often used to point to the idea that everything in the universe needs a cause or a reason for existing. However, when it comes to God, many people believe that God is different from everything else in that He is the uncaused cause-meaning He has no beginning and doesn’t need a creator because He exists outside of time and space.
In this view, God is considered to be necessary, meaning His existence is not dependent on anything else. Everything in the universe needs a cause, but God, as the creator of the universe, is the first cause that set everything else into motion. This idea helps avoid an infinite regress of creators and causes, which would leave us without an ultimate explanation.
Either way, we don't necessarily need to know a cause's cause in order to understand that there was a cause. For example, imagine you see a domino fall. You don’t need to know what caused the original domino to be there to understand that it caused the rest of the dominos to fall. Similarly, we can recognize the universe had a beginning and needs a cause, even if we don’t know all the details about the "first cause."
Of course, this is a big question with a lot of layers, and not everyone agrees on this explanation. My aim was just to share that God is a possible explanation-even a logical one when combined with other lines of evidence, like the fine-tuning of the universe, objective morality, and the historicity of Jesus's resurrection.
Cheers!
@@simpleapologetics "However, when it comes to God, many people believe that God is different from everything else in that He is the uncaused cause"
Like the other guy in the thread said, this is the fallacy of special pleading. If you want to assert that the universe must be contingent, but that god isn't, you need to be able to explain why that is. Just as you assert that god doesn't require a cause, nonbelievers can make the same claim about the universe with equal rhetorical force.
I'm happy to clarify! : ) The reason many people say God is the uncaused cause is that He is thought to exist outside of time and space, unlike everything in the universe, which began at a certain point and depends on something else for its existence. God, in this view, doesn't need a cause because He exists eternally and necessarily-He just is.
If the universe were eternal, it would be a similar idea-it wouldn't need a cause because it would have always existed. But since the universe had a beginning, it’s considered contingent and requires an explanation for that start.
So, it's not special pleading-it's about the difference between something that needs a cause (like the universe) and something that doesn't (like an eternal God or an eternal universe). Does that help clarify it?
' nothing produces nothing....except my god" hmm. Some special pleading there.
Thanks for your comment, Kevin! The idea that "nothing produces nothing" is a philosophical principle often used to point out that something cannot come from absolute nonexistence without a cause. When Christians say, "God created everything," they’re not claiming God came from nothing. Instead, God is described as the eternal, uncaused first cause-outside time, space, and matter.
It might seem like special pleading, but it's not if God’s nature is fundamentally different from the universe's. The argument is essentially this: everything within the universe requires a cause, but the cause of the universe itself must be outside the system, transcendent, and necessary by nature. That's how God is defined in classical theology.
@@simpleapologetics the problem I the very idea of a god who is fundamentally different and outside its own creation. That is based on the belief of the words in a book. Nothing else. There are all kinds of creation storiesin different cultures. And you think they are all false, except yours. Science in the other hand has proven All wrong. How many gods of the sun, rain, harvest, thunder, health, disease, war, luck, etc, are in all those mythologies??
You think that only yours is real. Only yours controls everything. Yet all we have found as we investigate and explore, all have natural understandable causes. Non are supernatural. The whole god of the gaps idea is getting smaller by the minute. The safety blanket god is a remnant of a time when superstition and ignorance were socially imposed when there was no evidence, knowledge or critical thinking.
Hi, Kevin! You bring up some great points about the variety of creation stories and gods in different cultures. It’s true that many belief systems have offered explanations for the world around us. But what I try to show in my videos is that we have to consider the evidence for each worldview-including Christianity and atheism. It’s not just about taking one story over another-it’s about exploring what makes the most sense when we look at all of the available evidence, like the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, and the existence of objective morality.
I’d encourage you to check out my video on how to choose a worldview. In it, I explore how we can evaluate different beliefs based on reason, evidence, and the big questions about life and the universe. It’s all about seeking truth, no matter where it leads.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
I have no issue with positing a creator. The problem arises when asked to demonstrate that that conclusion is true and we find that it is actually unfalsifiable. As long as it is unfalsifiable, then any reason matching the creator option, can be given. Also, it is the cosmos, that which contains everything including our universe, that is generally referred to as eternal, not the universe.
Pick the answer that can be demonstrated and if there is no answer that can be shown right, 'I don't know' is the best answer. To pick an answer that is unfalsifiable, is just appealing your feelings and you are no closer to the actual truth. Ask yourself, could I be wrong? If the answer is yes, then why pick an answer? If the answer is no, then demonstrate your position, though we both know this is impossible. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Keep thinking, keep digging, stay curious.
You’re right in pointing out that we can’t prove with certainty whether there is or isn’t a god. My goal here isn’t to claim definitive proof but to show that belief in a creator is a logical possibility. It’s one of the many options that could explain the origins of the universe.
In my other videos, I explore other lines of evidence, like the fine-tuning of the universe, objective morality, and the historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection. When you consider these factors together, they build a case that makes the idea of a god not just possible, but reasonable or even likely.
So, while we can't prove it beyond doubt, my aim is to show that the belief in a creator isn't as unfounded as it might seem at first glance. Keep digging, and thanks for the thoughtful response!
The moment you said " atheist scientist" , you show your true colors .Science is about finding facts and explanations. About describing everything in the universe and how does it work and interact. Religion is about simple magical explanations that must be accepted or face the wrath of some entity.
Hey, Kevin! I used the term "atheist scientist" simply to reference scientists who don’t believe in God, just as one might talk about "Christian scientists" or scientists of other worldviews. It wasn’t meant to diminish science or anyone’s beliefs-it’s just acknowledging that people approach science with different perspectives.
I agree that science is about exploring and understanding how the universe works through evidence and reasoning. At the same time, religion and science often ask different kinds of questions. Science focuses on how things work, while religion often explores why-questions of meaning, purpose, and morality.
Not all religious beliefs rely on “simple magical explanations.” For many, faith and reason complement each other. Historically, some of the greatest scientists, like Isaac Newton or Georges Lemaître, who developed the Big Bang theory, were deeply religious and saw science as a way to explore the order and rationality of the universe that they believed was created by God.
Hope you have a nice week!
@@simpleapologetics You are such a fncking liar. You used that expression for exactly the reason we know you did. You are a fncking liar, and you know it.
“Everything that we see had a cause” is technically wrong. Everything we see is not the result of a direct cause/ something bringing the particles it consists of into existence. Every organism and object, is just a reconfiguration of matter, not a creation in the sense you are talking about. So to say everything that begins to exist has to have a cause is circular and only refers to the beginning of the universe (so we don’t establish anything new through this argument)
Thanks for your comment, Luke! I see what you're saying, and I think it's important to make a distinction between origination and reconfiguration when we talk about causes. You're absolutely right that many things we see around us are not brought into existence from nothing-they're reconfigurations of pre-existing matter. For example, a rock doesn't come into existence from nothing; it’s formed from materials already present in nature.
However, when I say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause," I’m referring to the origin of things, not just their reconfiguration. For instance, the universe itself, as we understand it, had a beginning, and this is distinct from the ongoing processes within it, like the formation of stars or the birth of organisms. The idea is that the universe, as a whole, began to exist, and therefore, there must be a cause for its origin.
The "cause" we're talking about isn’t just about reconfiguring particles; it’s about explaining the origin of all matter and energy, which, based on current scientific understanding, points to the Big Bang-a moment when the universe came into being from a singular point. The argument is that there had to be something outside of time and space that caused this event, because something can’t come from nothing.
You're right that this argument mostly applies to the origin of the universe itself. It doesn’t aim to explain every individual process or object within it. But I think it's a useful starting point in the larger discussion of how the universe came into being.
I hope this helps clarify the idea!
Complete leap to go from "no established ideas" to "therefore God." Went from something with little support to something with none.
Thanks for your comment! I understand your concern-it can feel like a leap to go from “we don’t know” to “therefore, God.” However, that wasn’t my intention. My goal wasn’t to provide a definitive answer but to highlight that a Creator is a plausible and perhaps even logical explanation for the universe's existence and fine-tuning.
The idea of a Creator isn’t meant to replace scientific inquiry but to address questions that science alone doesn’t answer, such as why there’s something rather than nothing or why the universe appears so finely tuned for life. While this isn’t definitive proof, it’s a hypothesis that many find reasonable when considering the evidence.
I’d love to hear your perspective-do you think a Creator is a plausible explanation, or do you lean toward another view?
Wrong, totally wrong. ALL the evidence suggests there are physical explanations for the origin of the universe. You may have a different 'belief', but that does not mean it is correct. It only means you "believe" it. Period. Science - not religion - provides answers, truths, and comfort. Not sure why religious believers have to deceive themselves. There is beauty in the universe without a God.
To be fair, science doesn’t really say anything about the *origin* of the universe. It only talks about the infinitesimal time after the beginning, so at t > 0, where t is not equal to 0.
Religious people love to falsely claim the Big Bang claims the universe blew up out of nothing, but it doesn’t discuss the universe origin, only the events in the universe’s earliest history.
There is not a man woman or child to ever have existed that can honestly tell you what happened before the universe, nor what caused its existence, if anything.
Hey, Walker! Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I agree that science has provided incredible insights into the physical explanations for many aspects of the universe, including its origins. The Big Bang theory, quantum mechanics, and other discoveries give us a deeper understanding of the cosmos and its beauty.
However, some questions go beyond the scope of what science can answer. For example, why is there something rather than nothing? Why are the laws of physics so finely tuned to allow for life? These are metaphysical questions that science doesn’t directly address, which is where belief systems-whether theistic, atheistic, or otherwise-often step in.
I also agree that there’s immense beauty in the universe, and many believers don’t see faith as a rejection of science. For example, Christians often view the beauty and order in the universe as evidence of a Creator. Far from being deceptive, it’s about interpreting the evidence in a way that aligns with their understanding of reality.
@@simpleapologetics Thank you for your thoughtful response to my response. And I agree with your analysis and we both agree there are questions science can't answer. Yes, indeed. But, just because science can't explain it now does not mean it can't - or won't - explain it later. Ankyway, thank you again and good luck in your searching.
@@simpleapologetics If you don't have evidence, say "I don't know." If you use "God done it" as the explanation, that is called "God of the gaps" fallacy.
Hi, Brent! You're right that it's important to acknowledge when we don't know something, but I think it's also important to recognize that there are actually lines of evidence for the existence of God and Christianity. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, and the historical evidence for Jesus's resurrection provide a strong case for the possibility of God.
It’s not just saying "God did it" without reason, but rather considering these pieces of evidence that point toward a Creator. While science explains the how, there are still questions about why the universe exists, and these kinds of evidences can offer insight into that larger question.
So, it’s not a "God of the gaps" argument, but a reasoned consideration of the evidence we have. Thanks for your thoughts-this kind of discussion is helpful for us all to think through!
Atheism asserts that there is not enough evidence to assert any of the thousands of suggested creators exist. That's it. Religious fundamentalists have the burden of proof.
Thanks for your comment! While your definition of atheism reflects a common perspective, it’s worth noting that people use the term in slightly different ways. Some atheists actively assert, "There is no God," while others (often called agnostic atheists) simply lack belief in God due to what they see as insufficient evidence. Both positions are valid ways to identify as an atheist.
As for the burden of proof, it typically falls on whoever is making a claim. If someone asserts, “God exists,” they have the burden of proof to support that claim. Similarly, if someone asserts, “God does not exist,” they would also have a burden of proof to justify their position.
Many conversations about God or the universe don’t neatly fit into court-like rules about proof. Instead, they’re opportunities to discuss evidence, reason, and personal experiences. For example, some people point to the fine-tuning of the universe or the existence of moral values as evidence for a Creator, while others see those as insufficient or explainable without God.
What do you think is the strongest evidence for or against the idea of a Creator? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
@@simpleapologetics You are SO wrong, again. Negative affirmative claims cannot logically be proven, so to suggest that such a claimant bears the burden of proof is simply unjustified, and reveals that you are indeed the arrogant cretin we all suspect that you are. Your way to disprove a negative claim, is to prove your affirmative claim---because YOU still have the burden of proof.
We don't know but there's no evidence that a god(s) did it.
You’re absolutely right-we can’t prove that God created the universe, just like we can’t prove He didn’t. What I was trying to get across is that, based on what we know about things that have a beginning, it seems more likely that the universe was created by something or someone, rather than just appearing out of nothing.
When we add that to other clues, like the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, and the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, the Christian God stands out as the most reasonable explanation for why there's something instead of nothing. :)
@@simpleapologetics the big bang theory doesn't say the universe began to exist
Lemaître's equations simply show that the universe was infinitely dense and then it expanded rapidly
I appreciate you bringing this up-it’s definitely an important clarification.
You’re absolutely right that the Big Bang theory describes the universe expanding from an initial state of extreme density and heat. Georges Lemaître’s work and the subsequent evidence from Hubble’s discovery of the universe’s expansion are foundational to our understanding of this. However, the question of whether the universe began to exist goes beyond what the Big Bang theory itself explains.
The theory doesn’t describe what came before that hot, dense state-or even if there was a “before.” But many scientists and philosophers argue that if space, time, and matter began expanding at the Big Bang, then it strongly suggests a beginning to the universe itself. After all, if time didn’t exist before the Big Bang, it’s hard to say the universe has always existed.
That said, I know some hypotheses, like quantum cosmology or cyclic models, try to get around this. They’re fascinating, though many remain speculative and raise new questions about causality.
What’s your take? Do you think there’s a cause behind the universe’s expansion, or do you lean toward one of the alternative ideas?
I’d have to disagree in the sense that I don’t think that it’s necessarily more reasonable to believe in a creator. If the question of the universe’s origins boils down to “why is there something rather than nothing?”, then the only honest answer I think a person could give is “I don’t know”. The assertion that for something to exist, it must necessarily have to come from “something” rather than “nothing” is built on assumptions concerning what the Big Bang entails. Another aspect of the Big Bang is that it’s the absolute furthest back our understanding of time operates (back to the Planck epoch, essentially the earliest point in time). As far as we know, there was no cause to the Big Bang because causality implies an aspect of a before and after. And much like how “smaller than a Planck length” doesn’t make sense as a concept, neither does “before the Planck epoch”. Another fault I find in the “uncaused cause” argument is that it requires for you to resort to the implication that the “something or someone” doesn’t exist under the same parameters as the rest of the universe (which makes up literally everything we can observe). The suggestion of an entity outside of the confines of the universe as we know it and by extension, beyond our abilities of observation, is unfalsifiable. For simplicity, I’ll just refer to this entity as God for the rest of this. If someone makes the claim “God doesn’t exist”, their statement is falsifiable as in the scenario in which God exists, they could be proven wrong if God simply appeared to them to prove his existence. If someone makes the claim “God does exist”, that statement is unfalsifiable because in the scenario in which there is no God, there would be no way to disprove that given the parameters given for God’s existence of not being observable if he doesn’t want to be. Please let me know if I’m misrepresenting any of your arguments. This was a bit long and it got a bit off topic there as I started talking about general apologetics, so sorry about that.
Hey there! Thanks so much for your detailed comment! You bring up a lot of excellent points, and I really appreciate your careful thoughtfulness here. Let me try to respond to some of the key ideas you raised.
First, I completely agree that the question of “why is there something rather than nothing?” ultimately leads us to areas where we don’t-and may never-have definitive answers. My aim wasn’t to prove that God exists, but rather to suggest that belief in a creator is a plausible explanation, given what we observe about the universe.
You’re absolutely right that causality, as we understand it, breaks down at the Planck epoch. But this doesn’t necessarily eliminate the need for a cause-it just means we’re operating in a domain where our usual intuitions and scientific frameworks are stretched to their limits. The notion of an uncaused cause (or a necessary being) is one way philosophers and theologians try to make sense of this puzzle. It’s not a definitive proof, but it’s an attempt to offer a coherent explanation for why there’s something rather than nothing.
You also mentioned the idea of God being “outside the universe” and how that makes the concept unfalsifiable. That’s a valid critique! While it’s true that God is often described as beyond the confines of space, time, and matter, this doesn’t mean the idea of God is entirely untestable. Many argue that the existence of a finely tuned universe, the intelligibility of natural laws, or moral truths might indirectly point to the plausibility of a creator. Again, these aren’t proofs-they’re clues that suggest the idea of a creator is worth considering.
Finally, I appreciate how you’ve highlighted the challenges of making definitive claims about existence, especially when dealing with something as mysterious and complex as the origins of the universe. I think we share common ground in recognizing the limits of our knowledge and the need for humility in these discussions. My main point is that believing in a creator isn’t necessarily less reasonable than other explanations-it’s just another way of grappling with the ultimate questions and may be just as, if not more, reasonable than other explanations.
Thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully!
Great video! I often think about those logic question they give on some GED tests that have you read some story or paragraphs or something and ask what you can logically infer from the information. One of the answers is "not enough information." Obviously, it's not always right. That's not what I'm saying. But if we don't value empiricism, you are essentially denying what it means to be human. If we didn't have sensory input of some kind, do you think we would need reasoning. Reasoning is dependent on empiricism. Or at least that was the point initially. It's a survival thing. Yes, reasoning can go off track, but that's why we have empiricism. They are co-dependent in some ways. When Christians just say, I don't want to bother with all that empirical nonsense," it's baffling to me how someone can lack curiosity to that level to where they don't even want to look in the telescope, they just want to believe.
Thank you so much for the kind words and for sharing your thoughts, Caleb! I really appreciate your perspective. You're right that reasoning and empiricism are deeply connected, and it’s important to value both in our search for understanding.
The kalam is a fallacy of composition
Its premise "everything that begin to exist has a cause" is based on observations of the parts that make up the whole. It applies the principle derived from observation of those parts to the whole which commits the fallacy
Kalam debunked
Hey there! Thanks for joining the conversation! You’ve brought up an important critique, and I really appreciate the chance to discuss it.
It’s true that the premise "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is based on what we observe in the universe. The Kalam applies that principle to the universe as a whole, not as a leap, but because the alternative-that something can come into existence without a cause-doesn’t match either our experience or logic. Even skeptics like David Hume, who was critical of causality, admitted it’s hard to imagine something just popping into existence from nothing.
You mentioned the "composition fallacy," and I see where you’re coming from! But this isn’t about comparing properties of parts (like saying all bricks are red, so the house must be red). It’s about the nature of existence itself. If everything we know that begins to exist requires a cause, it seems reasonable to extend that principle to the universe-unless there’s strong evidence not to.
William Lane Craig, a key defender of the Kalam, often points out that denying the causal premise requires a leap of faith as well. And it’s worth noting that science itself operates on the assumption of causality-every effect has a cause-even when exploring the origins of the universe.
Ultimately, the Kalam doesn’t claim to prove God definitively but invites us to consider that the most rational explanation for why anything exists is that something caused it to exist. For me personally, this is just one of several lines of evidence that point to a Creator.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking comment!
The biggest problem I have with Hugh Ross is he doesn't believe a God who raised Jesus from the dead is able to create the universe in 6 literal days. Why believe one but discredit the other?
Hey, Kevin! You might like my video "How old is the Earth?" th-cam.com/video/Ls0Rxi6d2yE/w-d-xo.html
Hi, Gina! I enjoy your videos even though I disagree with them!
I apologize for my extremely long comment, I wanted to be thorough and address everything.
The first option isn't completely ruled out by science. Science only tells us that the current state of the universe has a beginning, not that there's an "ultimate" beginning.
There are various scientific hypotheses that expand the explanation of the origin of the universe to having a "before". The most well-known is the multiverse hypothesis. There isn't any evidence of this, but it is still a possibility.
There are other scientific hypotheses which entail something existing "before" the Big Bang, such as Leonard Susskind's Cosmic Darwinism and Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology.
This leads to the question of what does it really mean for something to "begin to exist"? I would say that we have never actually seen something begin to exist. Things that we say "begin to exist", such as cars, chairs, trees, people, stars, etc., are actually rearrangements of already-existing "stuff". All of these things are composed of atoms and subatomic particles which already existed.
This distinction between true creation and rearrangement of pre-existing material brings us to an exception found in quantum mechanics. We actually do have evidence of things within the universe that seem to pop into existence out of nothing with no explanation. These things are called virtual particles. These are particles which are a result of a concept in quantum mechanics called "quantum foam". Virtual particles aren't merely theoretical, we have actual experimental evidence that they're real via what's called the Casmir effect. To be more precise, they appear to come into existence randomly but we don't know if it's actually random or if there's something more fundamental that explains them. However, quantum mechanics does seem to suggest that there is an element of true randomness at the heart of reality.
Even if we say that absolutely nothing in the universe just pops into existence out of nothing, that doesn't entail that its impossible for something outside of the universe to do so, or for the universe itself to do so. Our experience of reality and ideas of what are physically possible and impossible are entirely contained within our universe, we can't extrapolate what happens within the universe to the universe itself or things outside of it.
But let's say all of these objections don't work, and that the third option is correct like you said, i.e., the universe was created by someone or something. I like your phrasing, "someone or something", because the cause could be a "something" instead of a "someone". In fact, this makes much more sense as a possibility to me. It makes more sense to me that there would be some sort of supernatural "stuff" outside of the universe which the universe came from instead of a supernatural personal agent with a mind, i.e., God. By "supernatural" I simply mean beyond nature, or outside of the universe. An all-powereful, all-knowing being outside of space and time just seems much more far-fetched and more complicated than there being some kind of non-personal, pre-existing supernatural "stuff".
At the end you asked what our personal thoughts were on what is more probable. First, I have to caveat and say that I really don't know. I can completely see any of the options being correct. That being said, out of the two options you gave I agree with your conclusion that the universe beginning to exist and having some sort of cause seems more probable than it simply popping into existence out of nothing.
However, I do find the first option you gave to be more plausible than those two, even though you rule it out. I find it more plausible mainly because of the idea of a multiverse. A lot of Christian apologists treat this idea as ad-hoc or ridiculous, but I think it should be taken seriously. Throughout history humans have continually had their concept of reality expanded. We discovered there were more continents, then we discovered there were more planets, then we discovered there were more stars, then we discovered there were more galaxies. And not only did we discover there were more of them each time, but we discovered there were a stupendously gigantic amount of them. So it doesn't seem far-fetched as a possibility to me that we may one day discover that there are also more universes.
(Perhaps the multiverse hypothesis actually falls under option three with the universe being caused by something else rather than always existing. I was more thinking of the multiverse as a conceptual extension of the universe, so even though the universe may have begun to exist, the multiverse could have always existed. But I guess that's just semantics.)
Those are all my thoughts on the topic! This topic seems related to the fine-tuning argument. I imagine you'll make a video on that one day.
I don't know if you appreciate me commenting all of these objections or not. I imagine your purpose of your channel is evangelization via apologetics, so I may be undermining that. So please let me know if you don't want me to comment anymore and I'll stop.
I have actually read "Why the Universe Is the Way It Is" by Hugh Ross! It is a really good book and I can also recommend it to other people.
Anyway, thank you for your video!
Hey!
Thank you so much for your kind words and for taking the time to share such a thorough and well-thought-out response! I’m genuinely glad you’re here and that you’re engaging with these topics so deeply. It’s clear you’ve spent a lot of time considering these ideas, and I appreciate the respect in your tone.
You bring up good points! Perhaps I should have said that based on what we currently know about science, an eternal universe seems highly unlikely (to me). The discovery of the universe's expansion-first observed by Edwin Hubble-and the evidence that time, space, and matter had a beginning (often called the "singularity") strongly point in that direction.
For example, the second law of thermodynamics tells us that usable energy in a closed system decreases over time. If the universe were eternal, we would expect it to have already reached a state of maximum entropy (essentially, heat death), but it hasn’t. This strongly suggests the universe had a finite beginning.
Prominent atheist cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin has said, "All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning." Vilenkin’s work on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem supports the idea that any universe expanding on average cannot be past-eternal and must have a starting point.
Of course, I acknowledge that new hypotheses, like cyclic cosmology or quantum theories, are still being explored. But as it stands, at least for now, the prevailing scientific evidence points to a universe that began to exist.
Regarding your point about rearrangements of already-existing atoms and particles versus something truly coming into existence, I want to clarify that when I talk about the universe having a beginning, I’m not referring to the rearrangement of pre-existing material. I’m talking about the origin of even subatomic particles and atoms-the very “stuff” that makes up everything we see.
I also appreciate your thoughts on the multiverse. You’re right-this concept is often misunderstood or dismissed too quickly, but I plan to touch on it a little bit in a future video about fine-tuning, so stay tuned if that's a topic that interests you.
As for your point about a supernatural "something" versus a supernatural "someone," I get where you’re coming from. For me, it wasn’t just the origin of the universe that led me to Christianity. It was the combination of several lines of evidence: the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, and-most of all-the historicity of the resurrection. Together, these built a compelling case for me that pointed not just to a cause, but to a personal Creator. I'm open to being wrong; it just seems most likely given all of the available evidence right now. : )
I’m really glad you shared your perspective here, and I hope you feel welcome to continue commenting. I love hearing different viewpoints, especially when they’re as thoughtful as yours. And I totally agree-Hugh Ross’s "Why the Universe Is the Way It Is" is a great read.
Thanks again for taking the time to write this, and I hope to hear from you again!
Check out the video titled "Sean Carroll - Did the Universe Begin?".
Thereis God, God created everything, then there is super God created God, then there is super super God created super God, then there is God super super super God created super super God...... You get it right because nothing can come from nothing, including God. Never ending. There is another thing, which God, Islamic God, Jewish God, or Hindu God, Hindu have 3.6 millions God so which one.
Thanks for your comment, Joda! I understand where you’re coming from-it can feel like the concept of God raises the question, “But who created God?” The traditional Christian understanding of God, however, is that God is eternal and uncaused. Unlike everything in the universe, which begins to exist and needs a cause, God is seen as fundamentally different: the necessary, self-existent being who exists outside of time and space. This avoids the "infinite regress" problem of needing a cause for every cause.
When it comes to evidence for God, many Christians point to a variety of lines of reasoning. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe, where physical constants appear calibrated for life, suggests a designer. The existence of objective moral values-such as the belief that things like murder or injustice are truly wrong-points to a moral lawgiver. Additionally, the historical evidence for Jesus’s resurrection, including the empty tomb and eyewitness accounts, provides a basis for believing in the Christian God.
What do you think is the most compelling explanation for the universe and our existence? I’d love to hear your perspective!
Which god is the right god?
Hey, Luke! You might like my video "How do you choose a worldview?" th-cam.com/video/VtnLZCoK7TQ/w-d-xo.html :)
God of the gaps fallacy is worth understanding to find flaws in your initial statement. A cause doesn't have to have the word god applied at all to its premise or origin of causality. You seem to have already been convinced before attempting to understand what is actual reality.
I appreciate your point! I understand the concern about the "God of the gaps" fallacy, but I want to clarify that my argument isn't about filling gaps with God where we lack understanding. It's about looking at the broader picture of evidence. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus all point to something beyond mere natural causes.
I also want to add that I didn’t start as a Christian. I came to this belief after examining the evidence, and I find it compelling. It wasn’t about convincing myself before understanding reality, but rather, I came to see that the evidence for the existence of God and the claims of Christianity made more sense of the world than any other worldview I considered.
I think it’s important to keep an open mind and follow the evidence wherever it leads. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I'm sorry but atheism doesn't answer any questions about anything.
Atheism doesn't need to: Science provides many answers and poses the right questions along the way.
The burden of proof is the person, the theist or deist, making the claim of ‘first cause’, I. e. As is well known from Kant onwards there is no valid argument for the existence of a deity. Consider for example the Hindu claim of an uncaused universe, they come into being, then destruction, then followed by recreation of new ones. Why? No explaintion needed.
@@fbrand3007 The person making the religious claim is logically obliged to provide ‘proof’ etc. The religious belief is totally vacuous and the traditional five arguments are invalid. Ok, believe as you psychology need too, but obviously no valid argument or empirical proof. Science, scientific cosmology offers the only valid and reliable explanation.
That's good, since it isn't meant to.
Of course it does, it’s based on science (and logically consistence arguments, not wishful thinking). Empty assertions, claims do not take you very far, except it illustrates your false premises. Believe assertions like yours, indicate serious mental illness issues. Please seek professional assistance.
Religion provides a way to live forever. Total fraud but folk want to believe it which explains why it is so popular around the world.. not just Christians , but the many many different religions . Amen
John! Thanks for all of your engagement with my video; you're definitely boosting my search rankings! 😊 I appreciate your thoughts and the opportunity to discuss these important topics.
I understand why you might feel that way, as the idea of life after death is something many people are drawn to. However, for many believers, faith isn't just about wanting to live forever. It’s rooted in evidence, personal experiences, and a long history of philosophical and theological exploration.
For example, the resurrection of Jesus is one of the key pieces of evidence for Christians. There’s a wealth of historical evidence, including the testimony of early witnesses and the spread of Christianity, that suggests something extraordinary happened. Many scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, have found the evidence for the resurrection compelling.
Beyond that, there’s also the fine-tuning of the universe, moral truths that seem to transcend cultures, and even the personal experiences people have with God that strengthen their faith. These aren't just blind beliefs, but are based on observations, reason, and encounters that go beyond wishful thinking.
I also think it's important to note that different religions offer varying paths, but many of them raise similar questions about purpose, morality, and what happens after we die. That doesn't mean all religions are true, but it does show that humans have a deep, universal longing for meaning and something beyond this life.
What do you think about these kinds of evidences? Are there any that resonate with you or that you find worth considering?
This subject matter is extremely difficult to discuss in precise terms. For example you cite 3 "possibilities"...
1. The universe has always existed.
2. The universe came into existence spontaneously without any prior cause
3 The universe has a cause - that something or someone created it.
Okay well I'll address each of these statements & mention any oversimplifications or misinterpretations that may have slipped in without being noticed:
*1. The universe has always existed.*
You say _Now science has now disproved the first option._ This simply isn't accurate. It's not even remotely accurate but before I get into the details of why that's the case I need to explain an extremely important nuance that often goes over the heads of both theists as well as atheists too. Speaking of 'The universe' could mean _All scientists can see exists since the Big Bang approximately 14 billion years ago._ However this suggests that just because the universe seems to have started then it must have started then & for all we know it didn't & therefore maybe there are _other_ universes besides ours or perhaps there's only one but it's many dimensional as many String Theorists think. Now here's the important bit... calling it _The Universe_ may be very misleading when considering this question so I'll use the term Carl Sagan popularized in his series Cosmos which started with the statement *The cosmos is all there is, all there ever was & all there will ever be* i.e. The term 'cosmos' covers Everything with a capital E: Seen or unseen, known or unknown. Now with that very important nuance defined we can see that it's clearly impossible for scientists to disprove suggestions that the cosmos has always existed in some unseen form e.g. as an endless series of Big Bangs / expansions / collapses repeating forever just as they always have... _perhaps._ Or maybe the String Theorists are right about there being just one cosmos in singular form instead but it _seems_ to have come into existence without prior cause.
*2. The universe came into existence spontaneously without any prior cause*
The fact that _some_ atheist scientists _(I've only heard of one)_ said the idea that everything came into existence without any prior cause was problematic because it was a little too similar to the description in Genesis, but it's really not because according to Genesis the universe absolutely did have a prior cause: The word which was (or is?) "God" (okay it's _a_ god among a great many gods claimed to have made everything.) But there's the rub... when I say "everything" there's immediately an obvious contradiction because no god regardless of how powerful it may be can create _itself_ if it too is "something". To pretend otherwise is a gross example of Special Pleading.
*3 The universe has a cause - that something or someone created it.*
Okay well if it's _something_ not _someone_ that's simply something _godlike_ in it's capabilities but not a being which most understandings of a god / gods are in any religious tradition claiming _their_ deity was responsible. You then go on to say that there's merit in the view that everything that we see in the universe has a cause. But this ignores the fact that we're not discussing "things" at all, we're discussing _all_ things i.e. The cosmos which is all there is, all there ever was & all there will ever be, so you're not comparing like with like. Your assertion that nothing appears to pop into existence without a cause is also wrong because at the smallest _quantum_ scales this phenomenon appears everywhere, even in the vacuum of space where virtual particles & anti particles are understood to be popping in as well as out of existence all the time.
There's yet more Special Pleading on offer when you explain that we can understand that we came from our parents just as they had to come from their parents etc. but for no supplied reason you let the buck stop at the ultimate parent: God which begs a question: If everything _must_ have a cause then why doesn't your god & if your god doesn't need any cause then why must the cosmos? You can't have it _both_ ways!
I have no idea where you got the idea that Peter Singer said that the _universe_ came into existence from self replicating molecules. Singer is a moral philosopher not a cosmologist & by the sounds of the quote you appear to be referencing he appears to be discussing the origin of _life_ rather than the origin of the cosmos (assuming that Everything with a capital *E* has any origin at all anyway).
You're _definitely_ wrong about Dawkins saying that maybe an alien or aliens created our universe too. You're probably citing a misquote that's been doing the rounds stating that he said he thought that it was _possible_ but not _probable_ that an alien or aliens could have seeded the Earth with life form 'seeds' in Earth's distant past but that _isn't_ what he thinks happened. He simply thinks it's more plausible than assuming a god or gods were responsible for life on Earth which is understandable because at least an alien is some sort of explanation even if it's pretty notional but invoking a god of any kind has zero explanatory power of any kind. That's because a god or gods have no meaningful definitions beyond what they are said to do (create) but not what they _are_ unlike aliens which would be life forms even if their forms are unfamiliar.
Where you are absolutely _right_ about is that no atheist scientists have any demonstrable answers to where everything came from but neither do religious scientists or theologians or even some holy book _including_ the Bible. They have _claims_ they can't support with one iota of demonstrable evidence & not all gods which religions claim to know caused everything (else) to come into existence can be right but they _can_ all be _wrong_ but that doesn't seem to be an option many theists are willing to give any serious thought to but that's precisely what we should come to expect if they were emotionally attached to the claims that their god is the 'Real Deal' & they've come to cherish that claim since childhood.
You cite Abdul M... (Murry?) as someone who said _The truth wasn't hard to find it was just hard to embrace_ but that's clearly absolutely wrong. _How so?_ Well there is no way to know if the Christian claims in Genesis _to_ be known. None at all. They can certainly be believed that's clear but on what basis? Evidence? No, there isn't any evidence at all for claims that any god of any religion caused the universe to be but people _do_ have faith that there is for a Christian God... & an Islamic God... & Hindu gods... & a Zoroastrian deity etc. etc. etc. but faith can be strongly held in any unsupportable claim. You chose to cherry pick a former Muslim who's now of the opinion that he _knows_ the Christian "God" is the real deal & ignore any former Christian opinion that they now know that _Allah_ is the real deal - or a whole host of alternative religionist saying much the same thing about Vishnu or Zeus or any one of _hundreds_ of alternative deities _none_ of which is any more demonstrable than any other one & that is not an insignificant shortcoming by any stretch of the imagination.
You finish with the question of what our opinion is about the origin of the universe is. Well this is where it's absolutely essential to stipulate what might be meant by 'The universe' because what I'm interested in is the cosmos i.e. _All there is, ever was or will ever be_ as Carl Sagan put it. My _guess_ & I freely admit it's a guess is it's a mistake to assume the cosmos had any cause at all, but again, if you insist that the cosmos (not simply the universe) must _also_ have a cause then why doesn't a god (any god claimed to be the 'real deal') & if a god doesn't need one then why must the cosmos? You can't have it _both_ ways!
In conclusion I have to say that I have no idea how or even _if_ the cosmos could have any cause so I'd say that the most honest answer is to admit that I don't know rather than pretend with any significant degree of certainty that any _one_ or for that matter any _thing_ did when we really can't be at all certain about it? What I would say is that of all of the claims that have been made about acts of some god or gods which we previously didn't understand such as lightning or thunder or the northern lights or earthquakes etc. every single explanation we've come up with so far _hasn't_ been a god even once so why imagine that the cosmos is likely to be explained by one or the origin of life or anything else that's currently not known? Especially since faith can be employed to believe any claim that lacks evidence so it doesn't just apply to Christianity since it applies to every other faith on Earth. That's why we call them "faiths" rather than "evidence" as is the case in the _one_ science there is: _demonstrable_ science. Something that can be independently verified by non-partisan 3rd parties of any culture across the planet. Not a single _god_ can pass a _double blind_ test like that can it?
Hi, Paul! Wow! Thank you for your detailed and thought-provoking comment. I appreciate the time and effort you put into addressing my points. I'll try to clarify my perspective and respond to some of your critiques while acknowledging the complexity of the topic. : )
1. On the Universe Always Existing
You're correct that "the universe" can be defined differently, and I appreciate your use of "cosmos" to include everything seen and unseen. I didn't mean to suggest that science has definitively disproved the idea of the cosmos always existing. Rather, the prevailing evidence from cosmology (e.g., the Big Bang theory) indicates a finite beginning to what we observe as our universe. While speculative ideas like a multiverse or an endless cycle of expansions and contractions exist, they remain unproven hypotheses.
The philosophical question remains: If the cosmos (in its most inclusive sense) has always existed, why does it exist at all? It’s not just about scientific observation but addressing the broader metaphysical question of existence, which science alone cannot resolve.
2. Everything With a Beginning Has a Cause
One principle central to this discussion is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This aligns with both philosophical reasoning and everyday experience. A thing cannot cause itself to come into existence because it would need to exist before it exists, which is illogical.
In the context of God, the argument isn’t that "everything needs a cause"-that would be a misunderstanding. The argument is that everything that begins needs a cause. If God is eternal, He doesn’t have a beginning and therefore doesn’t require a cause. This is not special pleading but a reflection of the distinction between things that are contingent and things that are necessary.
Moreover, it’s not necessary to identify the cause of a cause in order to acknowledge that there is a cause. For example, understanding that a car engine causes the car to move doesn’t depend on knowing the history of the engine's assembly line. Similarly, positing that the universe has a cause doesn’t require knowing every detail about the cause itself.
3. The Universe Coming into Existence Without a Cause
Quantum mechanics and phenomena like virtual particles are often invoked to suggest that "something can come from nothing." However, virtual particles don’t arise from absolute nothingness but from a quantum vacuum, which itself has properties, energy, and structure. The notion of "nothing" in physics is often quite different from the philosophical or metaphysical concept of "absolute nothing."
In light of this, the idea that the universe could arise uncaused from absolute nothingness remains speculative. The cause of the universe doesn’t need to be supernatural in a narrow sense, but the idea that it has a cause aligns with principles of causality.
4. Faith vs. Evidence
You emphasize the lack of demonstrable evidence for any specific religious claim about the cosmos. This is a fair critique if one’s goal is to provide scientific or empirical proof. However, my argument doesn’t aim to prove a creator in the way science demonstrates natural phenomena. Instead, it’s about showing that belief in a creator is philosophically and rationally plausible.
Faith must indeed be critically examined. But faith isn’t inherently blind or without evidence. In many religious traditions, faith is seen as trust built on cumulative evidence (personal experience, historical claims, philosophical reasoning) rather than absolute proof. For instance, the existence of moral truths, the fine-tuning of the universe, and the contingency of all we observe can be interpreted as pointers toward a creator.
5. The Challenge of Religious Pluralism
You highlight the diversity of religious beliefs and the emotional attachment people have to their particular traditions. This is a significant point, and I agree that it’s crucial to approach such claims critically. While different religions make competing claims about God or ultimate reality, this diversity doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility of one being closer to the truth.
So, I agree that the most honest response to ultimate questions about the cosmos is to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge. My aim wasn’t to assert with certainty that a creator exists but to suggest that the idea is both plausible and worth considering alongside other explanations. I appreciate your emphasis on intellectual humility-it’s an essential part of any meaningful dialogue, especially on big topics like these.
By the way, here’s a link to the interview where Richard Dawkins suggests that aliens may have seeded life on Earth: th-cam.com/video/BoncJBrrdQ8/w-d-xo.html.
Best to you!
@@simpleapologetics
*Hi, Paul!*
Hi! Thanks for responding so rapidly!
*Wow! Thank you for your detailed and thought-provoking comment.*
Well thank _you!_
*I appreciate the time and effort you put into addressing my points. I'll try to clarify my perspective and respond to some of your critiques while acknowledging the complexity of the topic. : ) *
Great. Yes it _is_ far more complex than it may seem on first appearances.
*1. On the Universe Always Existing
You're correct that "the universe" can be defined differently, and I appreciate your use of "cosmos" to include everything seen and unseen.*
Excellent. In that case I'll use the word "cosmos" in the Sagan sense when it's important to distinguish it from the universe i.e. All we can see since nearly 14 billion years ago.
*I didn't mean to suggest that science has definitively disproved the idea of the cosmos always existing.*
Well you have said that it has but for obvious reasons it can't & I cannot see how it ever could either.
*Rather, the prevailing evidence from cosmology (e.g., the Big Bang theory) indicates a finite beginning to what we observe as our universe."
Yes indeed that's certainly the _prevailing_ opinion but one thing no scientist or philosopher or theologian can _meaningfully_ speak of is nothing because nothing isn't _anything_ by definition. If you think that empty space is nothing you'd be wrong because Einstein proved that it is clearly _something_ - one dimension of 4 dimensional 'spacetime' which is why there can be black holes in what we think of as empty space.
*While speculative ideas like a multiverse or an endless cycle of expansions and contractions exist, they remain unproven hypotheses.*
Absolutely! That's why I didn't say they were facts because perhaps neither are facts but none the less I would still consider them as possibilities if they can be given any potential attributes that one day we may be able to see are there. There are billions upon billions of these potentials so narrowing them down to one that can be confirmed is currently not achievable but at least in principle that could change tomorrow if the likes of Sir Roger Penrose works out something crucial or a String Theorist does instead. Now I'm not claiming that they will or even that they can, perhaps both ideas will fail to be proven but at least scientists can come up with hypothesis which can somehow be tested but how can any god of any faith ever be tested for authenticity? I see no way at all. Can _you?_
*The philosophical question remains: If the cosmos (in its most inclusive sense) has always existed, why does it exist at all?*
Oh that's very easy to answer: Because it has to since there's no alternative to "Something" since as Einstein demonstrated (as does philosophy) what we like to call 'nothing' isn't _anything_ therefore there's simply no alternative to "something" even if intuitively it seems as if nothing could exist but that's a fallacy since nothing _by definition_ isn't anything.
*It’s not just about scientific observation but addressing the broader metaphysical question of existence, which science alone cannot resolve.*
I agree that science isn't in the business of examining nothing because there's nothing to examine however philosophy can examine that question & see that it can't represent anything that's supposed to be real in any meaningful sense either because nothing isn't anything. If you think that it must be you're probably thinking of empty space but as Einstein proved that _is_ something & cosmologists have even proved that it has a little bit of weight to it called Dark Matter even though we don't know what causes it to be weighty currently.
*2. Everything With a Beginning Has a Cause
One principle central to this discussion is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.*
Well that may seem to be the logical conclusion however there's evidence that quantum phenomena such as virtual particles which as far as we can tell pop in & out if existence for no reason what so ever. If that's true whether we like it or not & it certainly _seems_ to be the term for these phenomena is that they have _no hidden variables_ i.e. nothing what so ever 'behind the scenes' pulling the strings as it were. No I'm as baffled by that conclusion as you probably are but I can't entirely rule it out just because I can't understand it. Having said that I'm also not sating that it's probably true. What I _am_ saying is we cannot know if it's true or not therefore I have no strong opinion on the _idea_ of no hidden variable,
*This aligns with both philosophical reasoning and everyday experience.*
Yes it _seems_ to but for all we know the philosophical 'stop gap' inserted into our line of reasoning may be utterly wrong since there _is_ hard scientific evidence for quantum phenomena however if there's any reason for them being that way cannot be know therefore we can't simply rule that evidence out on principle if the brute fact is the evidence suggests otherwise.
*A thing cannot cause itself to come into existence because it would need to exist before it exists, which is illogical*
Well if the _cosmos_ is eternal it wouldn't need any cause at all just as a god that's eternal doesn't if that were a fact _yes?_
*In the context of God,*
Which one though? There are so many claimed to be the 'real deal' to choose from they can't all be real but they can all be imaginary can't they? If not why not since there's no hard evidence for any one of them on offer.
*the argument isn’t that "everything needs a cause"-that would be a misunderstanding.*
Okay so you're agreeing that such an argument requires the addition of what philosophers call 'Special Pleading' in order to exclude a god but the question that won't go away after making that stipulation is if the cosmos must have a creator then why doesn't a god & if a god doesn't need one then why must the cosmos? Trying to Special Plead to avoid that very significant question won't make it go away until it is addressed fairly & squarely because it _has) to be addressed for any god to be taken seriously as some sort of "explanation" rather than a baseless _claim_ instead.
"The argument is that everything that begins needs a cause."
Sure but since we have evidence that quantum phenomena _seem_ to be _uncaused_ that brute fact cannot simply be dismissed because we don't understand how it could be possible. So what _if_ that evidence is there for all to see if people care to take the time to consider whether their intuitions could be _dead wrong?_
*If God is eternal, He doesn’t have a beginning and therefore doesn’t require a cause.*
Yes but we first need to establish is a god of any denomination explains anything about the cosmos including whether it did _come_ into existence at all but all god claims are appeals to mystery & you can't solve one mystery by appealing to _another_ can you?
*This is not special pleading but a reflection of the distinction between things that are contingent and things that are necessary.*
It is Special Pleading because it ignores the question: _If a god doesn't need a cause then why must the cosmos & if the cosmos must require one then why doesn't a god?_ To dismiss this problem as not needing any answer is a text book example of Special Pleading. Especially if you keep in mind the understanding that "cosmos" means all there is, ever was or will ever be, seen or unseen, known or unknown because no god could be said to be excluded from that category could it?
*Moreover, it’s not necessary to identify the cause of a cause in order to acknowledge that there is a cause.*
Why not?
CONTINUED IN PART 2...
@@simpleapologetics PART 2 CONTINUATION...
*For example, understanding that a car engine causes the car to move doesn’t depend on knowing the history of the engine's assembly line.*
Sure but we have very good reasons to think that a car we are traveling in probably has some sort of engine if it's not being blown by the wind or rolling down an incline etc. but on closer inspection there's no good reason to believe claims that any god of any kind causes anything at all because all gods rely on faith & anything lacking testable evidence can be believed on the basis of faith which is why so many faiths are convinced that their god or gods are the 'real deal'.
*Similarly, positing that the universe has a cause doesn’t require knowing every detail about the cause itself.*
Ah but there's the rub... you've now _moved the goal posts_ by switching the subject to 'the universe' from 'the cosmos' i.e. All there is, ever was or will ever be, seen or unseen, known or unknown. We don't _know_ any detail at all about any god claimed to be the cause but we _do_ know that if the cosmos were eternal the whole question of how it came to be becomes unnecessary since it's been around for all time be that an eternity or nearly 14 billion years - a question nobody who's honest can say they know a definitive answer to because at least currently there is no way to know for sure.
*3. The Universe Coming into Existence Without a Cause
Quantum mechanics and phenomena like virtual particles are often invoked to suggest that "something can come from nothing."*
No not quite. Quantum particles can _seem_ to come into existence if it's true that they have no hidden variable however despite them not _seeming_ to we cannot say categorically that they don't because it's impossible to know what you _don't_ know isn't it?
*However, virtual particles don’t arise from absolute nothingness but from a quantum vacuum, which itself has properties, energy, and structure.*
No that isn't the case either. They appear to come into existence from a 'zero state' within a vacuum. The analogy which Stephen Hawking gave for such a zero state is a man digging a hole & simultaneously building a pile in a flat surface. The flat surface measures zero on a height scale so as a small valley comes to be dug out a corresponding small hill is created too. So where did these positive & negative values originate? From zero & that's how he explains that we came to discover that the net sum of energy in the universe adds up to zero therefore no "raw material' is required for a universe to come to be. Yes this sounds nuts but the measurement of all the detectable positive energy within the observable universe is _exactly_ the same as all of the _negative_ energy measured too therefore no source material would be required for what we see today strange as that might seem.
*The notion of "nothing" in physics is often quite different from the philosophical or metaphysical concept of "absolute nothing."*
No. There is no notion of "nothing" in physics because physics only addresses what can be seen & since what you call 'absolute nothing' isn't anything at all it not only can't be seen but it also can't be philosophically justified either, so the likes of Stephen Hawking are often misunderstood to be meaning that the universe 'comes' from nothing when really what he means is you don't need anything to kick start a universe which isn't quite the same statement is it? To a physicist like Hawking nothing isn't anything however empty space absolutely is because it _is_ something: a dimension as Einstein proved.
*In light of this, the idea that the universe could arise uncaused from absolute nothingness remains speculative."
But physicists aren't saying there _is_ absolute nothingness because in physics that isn't anything at all & it isn't in philosophy either. Hawking & others are saying that you don't need anything to kick start a universe & that's somewhat different from trying to spin 'absolute nothingness' as if it were something when the whole point is that it's _not._
CONTINUED IN PART 3...
@@simpleapologetics PART 3 CONTINUATION...
*The cause of the universe doesn’t need to be supernatural in a narrow sense, but the idea that it has a cause aligns with principles of causality.*
Appeals to the supernatural are meaningless on closer inspection because they appeal to something known to be outside the cosmos but by definition the cosmos cannot have any outside & to know something you can't appeal to the unknown so what's the point in entertaining any form of magical thinking with that in mind?
*4. Faith vs. Evidence
You emphasize the lack of demonstrable evidence for any specific religious claim about the cosmos.*
No, not _any_ sort of religious claim. I can believe claims that Jesus & Mohamed where _real_ people but any appeal to something claimed to be supernatural about them is clearly meaningless for the reasons I've just given above.
*This is a fair critique if one’s goal is to provide scientific or empirical proof.*
But strictly speaking nothing in science is _ever ever ever_ out & out 'proven' anyway. If you doubt that ask yourself if science expresses it's ideas as Truths or Theories? It only expresses it's ideas as Theories at best because science is certain of nothing & requires evidence for everything whereas religionS are certain of everything & require evidence for nothing so in light of that which is more humble & which more arrogant?
*However, my argument doesn’t aim to prove a creator in the way science demonstrates natural phenomena.*
That's because there's no good reason to believe there is one in science however there also isn't a good reason philosophically either.
*Instead, it’s about showing that belief in a creator is philosophically and rationally plausible.*
No it's _psychologically_ plausible for _some_ perhaps but there's no good philosophical argument for any god of any kind which doesn't require faith however faith can & is employed to believe all gods claimed to be the real deal because there isn't any evidence for any of them, just unsupportable _claims._
*Faith must indeed be critically examined.*
Yes because it's pretending to know something nobody can demonstrate that they know in whatever form it appears be it Hindu, Christian or Zoroastrian etc.
*But faith isn’t inherently blind or without evidence.*
Yes it is. It _has_ to be otherwise it could simply be called 'trust' but trust is only place in something we may have _some_ reason to think _might_ be real whereas _faith_ isn't.
*In many religious traditions, faith is seen as trust built on cumulative evidence (personal experience, historical claims, philosophical reasoning) rather than absolute proof.*
But it shouldn't be because things you cite are _not_ evidence at all. They are _reasons_ for belief but none of what you've mentioned is a _good_ reason by any stretch of the imagination.
"For instance, the existence of moral truths,"
Where is there any evidence that what we call morality requires _any_ god? Evolution easily explains why moral values help a species to thrive as a whole above & beyond the desires of any individual within it because natural selection tends to selects traits like that while filtering out anti-social behavior in the species. This is why piranha fish don't need to read any holy books to avoid snacking on one another because they wouldn't last too long as a species if natural selection didn't cause taboos such as _'Don't eat your people'_ would it?
*the fine-tuning of the universe, and the contingency of all we observe can be interpreted as pointers toward a creator.*
They can be _interpreted_ as such but not for any good _reason_ simply because if a universe didn't enable the rise of intelligent lifeforms such as ourselves we couldn't be here to notice our absence from such a state of affairs could we? However the admittedly very _precise_ balance of physical parameters does _seem_ very 'special' for sure but since there's no alternative possible it really shouldn't surprise us at all. (And incidentally if you aren't impressed by that conclusion why rule out all Multiverse models of universes where no matter how unlikely a particular state of affairs may be, it can & therefore _must_ come to be somewhere in time if Sir Roger Penrose is right or somewhere in additional spacial dimensions if the String Theorists are right?)
*5. The Challenge of Religious Pluralism
You highlight the diversity of religious beliefs and the emotional attachment people have to their particular traditions.*
Absolutely because I's say all people of faith have strong if not unbreakable attachments to their particular gods.
*This is a significant point, and I agree that it’s crucial to approach such claims critically.*
Good which begs the question are you willing to seek whatever's most likely to be _true_ over whatever is most _satisfying_ to ones emotional adherence to a particular deity be it Christian or Hindu or whatever? If not then you're clearly putting the cart before the horse in truth seeking.
*While different religions make competing claims about God or ultimate reality, this diversity doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility of one being closer to the truth.*
No it doesn't negate it I agree however it certainly doesn't support it in any significant way _either_ because like I said absolutely anything lacking demonstrable evidence can be believed on faith but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. There are no exceptions to that rule which is why I don't claim to know the cause of the cosmos assuming that it was caused at all so it's far more honest to say you don't know things you can't know than to pretend that you _can_ isn't it?
*So, I agree that the most honest response to ultimate questions about the cosmos is to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge.*
_... and admit we don't know things that we cannot demonstrate we know_ yeah? If not why pretend we _do?_
*My aim wasn’t to assert with certainty that a creator exists but to suggest that the idea is both plausible and worth considering alongside other explanations.*
Well good but one question still remains then: Let's say on a scale from 0 - 100% of certainty that some god - not even a Christian "God" was likely to have caused the cosmos to come into being (if we are to assume that it must have) exactly how high a percentage would you say a god is most likely to be that cause? I presume you're not saying it's 100% because you have conceded that it's not total certainty but what level _would_ you put your confidence numerically?
*I appreciate your emphasis on intellectual humility-it’s an essential part of any meaningful dialogue, especially on big topics like these.*
Absolutely! What's the point in pretending to know things which we clearly cannot know?
*By the way, here’s a link to the interview where Richard Dawkins suggests that aliens may have seeded life on Earth: th-cam.com/video/BoncJBrrdQ8/w-d-xo.html.*
Yes I've seen it already & that's how I knew he didn't say that aliens probably _did_ seed life on Earth because he never said any such thing did he?
*Best to you!*
And to you. _What's your name though?_
*For example, understanding that a car engine causes the car to move doesn’t depend on knowing the history of the engine's assembly line.*
Sure but we have very good reasons to think that a car we are traveling in probably has some sort of engine if it's not being blown by the wind or rolling down an incline etc. but on closer inspection there's no good reason to believe claims that any god of any kind causes anything at all because all gods rely on faith & anything lacking testable evidence can be believed on the basis of faith which is why so many faiths are convinced that their god or gods are the 'real deal'.
*Similarly, positing that the universe has a cause doesn’t require knowing every detail about the cause itself.*
Ah but there's the rub... you've now _moved the goal posts_ by switching the subject to 'the universe' from 'the cosmos' i.e. All there is, ever was or will ever be, seen or unseen, known or unknown. We don't _know_ any detail at all about any god claimed to be the cause but we _do_ know that if the cosmos were eternal the whole question of how it came to be becomes unnecessary since it's been around for all time be that an eternity or nearly 14 billion years - a question nobody who's honest can say they know a definitive answer to because at least currently there is no way to know for sure.
CONTINUED IN PART 4...
@@simpleapologeticsCONCLUSION...
*3. The Universe Coming into Existence Without a Cause
Quantum mechanics and phenomena like virtual particles are often invoked to suggest that "something can come from nothing."*
No not quite. Quantum particles can _seem_ to come into existence if it's true that they have no hidden variable however despite them not _seeming_ to we cannot say categorically that they don't because it's impossible to know what you _don't_ know isn't it?
*However, virtual particles don’t arise from absolute nothingness but from a quantum vacuum, which itself has properties, energy, and structure.*
No that isn't the case either. They appear to come into existence from a 'zero state' within a vacuum. The analogy which Stephen Hawking gave for such a zero state is a man digging a hole & simultaneously building a pile in a flat surface. The flat surface measures zero on a height scale so as a small valley comes to be dug out a corresponding small hill is created too. So where did these positive & negative values originate? From zero & that's how he explains that we came to discover that the net sum of energy in the universe adds up to zero therefore no "raw material' is required for a universe to come to be. Yes this sounds nuts but the measurement of all the detectable positive energy within the observable universe is _exactly_ the same as all of the _negative_ energy measured too therefore no source material would be required for what we see today strange as that might seem.
*The notion of "nothing" in physics is often quite different from the philosophical or metaphysical concept of "absolute nothing."*
No. There is no notion of "nothing" in physics because physics only addresses what can be seen & since what you call 'absolute nothing' isn't anything at all it not only can't be seen but it also can't be philosophically justified either, so the likes of Stephen Hawking are often misunderstood to be meaning that the universe 'comes' from nothing when really what he means is you don't need anything to kick start a universe which isn't quite the same statement is it? To a physicist like Hawking nothing isn't anything however empty space absolutely is because it _is_ something: a dimension as Einstein proved.
*In light of this, the idea that the universe could arise uncaused from absolute nothingness remains speculative."
But physicists aren't saying there _is_ absolute nothingness because in physics that isn't anything at all & it isn't in philosophy either. Hawking & others are saying that you don't need anything to kick start a universe & that's somewhat different from trying to spin 'absolute nothingness' as if it were something when the whole point is that it's _not._
*The cause of the universe doesn’t need to be supernatural in a narrow sense, but the idea that it has a cause aligns with principles of causality.*
Appeals to the supernatural are meaningless on closer inspection because they appeal to something known to be outside the cosmos but by definition the cosmos cannot have any outside & to know something you can't appeal to the unknown so what's the point in entertaining any form of magical thinking with that in mind?
*4. Faith vs. Evidence
You emphasize the lack of demonstrable evidence for any specific religious claim about the cosmos.*
No, not _any_ sort of religious claim. I can believe claims that Jesus & Mohamed where _real_ people but any appeal to something claimed to be supernatural about them is clearly meaningless for the reasons I've just given above.
*This is a fair critique if one’s goal is to provide scientific or empirical proof.*
But strictly speaking nothing in science is _ever ever ever_ out & out 'proven' anyway. If you doubt that ask yourself if science expresses it's ideas as Truths or Theories? It only expresses it's ideas as Theories at best because science is certain of nothing & requires evidence for everything whereas religionS are certain of everything & require evidence for nothing so in light of that which is more humble & which more arrogant?
*However, my argument doesn’t aim to prove a creator in the way science demonstrates natural phenomena.*
That's because there's no good reason to believe there is one in science however there also isn't a good reason philosophically either.
*Instead, it’s about showing that belief in a creator is philosophically and rationally plausible.*
No it's _psychologically_ plausible for _some_ perhaps but there's no good philosophical argument for any god of any kind which doesn't require faith however faith can & is employed to believe all gods claimed to be the real deal because there isn't any evidence for any of them, just unsupportable _claims._
*Faith must indeed be critically examined.*
Yes because it's pretending to know something nobody can demonstrate that they know in whatever form it appears be it Hindu, Christian or Zoroastrian etc.
*But faith isn’t inherently blind or without evidence.*
Yes it is. It _has_ to be otherwise it could simply be called 'trust' but trust is only place in something we may have _some_ reason to think _might_ be real whereas _faith_ isn't.
*In many religious traditions, faith is seen as trust built on cumulative evidence (personal experience, historical claims, philosophical reasoning) rather than absolute proof.*
But it shouldn't be because things you cite are _not_ evidence at all. They are _reasons_ for belief but none of what you've mentioned is a _good_ reason by any stretch of the imagination.
"For instance, the existence of moral truths,"
Where is there any evidence that what we call morality requires _any_ god? Evolution easily explains why moral values help a species to thrive as a whole above & beyond the desires of any individual within it because natural selection tends to selects traits like that while filtering out anti-social behavior in the species. This is why piranha fish don't need to read any holy books to avoid snacking on one another because they wouldn't last too long as a species if natural selection didn't cause taboos such as _'Don't eat your people'_ would it?
*the fine-tuning of the universe, and the contingency of all we observe can be interpreted as pointers toward a creator.*
They can be _interpreted_ as such but not for any good _reason_ simply because if a universe didn't enable the rise of intelligent lifeforms such as ourselves we couldn't be here to notice our absence from such a state of affairs could we? However the admittedly very _precise_ balance of physical parameters does _seem_ very 'special' for sure but since there's no alternative possible it really shouldn't surprise us at all. (And incidentally if you aren't impressed by that conclusion why rule out all Multiverse models of universes where no matter how unlikely a particular state of affairs may be, it can & therefore _must_ come to be somewhere in time if Sir Roger Penrose is right or somewhere in additional spacial dimensions if the String Theorists are right?)
*5. The Challenge of Religious Pluralism
You highlight the diversity of religious beliefs and the emotional attachment people have to their particular traditions.*
Absolutely because I's say all people of faith have strong if not unbreakable attachments to their particular gods.
*This is a significant point, and I agree that it’s crucial to approach such claims critically.*
Good which begs the question are you willing to seek whatever's most likely to be _true_ over whatever is most _satisfying_ to ones emotional adherence to a particular deity be it Christian or Hindu or whatever? If not then you're clearly putting the cart before the horse in truth seeking.
*While different religions make competing claims about God or ultimate reality, this diversity doesn’t necessarily negate the possibility of one being closer to the truth.*
No it doesn't negate it I agree however it certainly doesn't support it in any significant way _either_ because like I said absolutely anything lacking demonstrable evidence can be believed on faith but extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. There are no exceptions to that rule which is why I don't claim to know the cause of the cosmos assuming that it was caused at all so it's far more honest to say you don't know things you can't know than to pretend that you _can_ isn't it?
*So, I agree that the most honest response to ultimate questions about the cosmos is to acknowledge the limits of our knowledge.*
_... and admit we don't know things that we cannot demonstrate we know_ yeah? If not why pretend we _do?_
*My aim wasn’t to assert with certainty that a creator exists but to suggest that the idea is both plausible and worth considering alongside other explanations.*
Well good but one question still remains then: Let's say on a scale from 0 - 100% of certainty that some god - not even a Christian "God" was likely to have caused the cosmos to come into being (if we are to assume that it must have) exactly how high a percentage would you say a god is most likely to be that cause? I presume you're not saying it's 100% because you have conceded that it's not total certainty but what level _would_ you put your confidence numerically?
*I appreciate your emphasis on intellectual humility-it’s an essential part of any meaningful dialogue, especially on big topics like these.*
Absolutely! What's the point in pretending to know things which we clearly cannot know?
*By the way, here’s a link to the interview where Richard Dawkins suggests that aliens may have seeded life on Earth: th-cam.com/video/BoncJBrrdQ8/w-d-xo.html.*
Yes I've seen it already & that's how I knew he didn't say that aliens probably _did_ seed life on Earth because he never said any such thing did he?
*Best to you!*
And to you. _What's your name though?_
bollocks
Hey, Shaun! Disagreements are welcome! I used to think it was all bollocks too. :) I'd love to hear what objective evidence is most convincing to you on either side.
And that god or any creator god made evil that from his being and nature it was formed. Far from perfect or clearly not infallible. Gods are imaginariums, created by wants and desires to not accept reality as harsh and beautiful as it may be.
I know that I do not know everything.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts! I understand where you’re coming from-many people wrestle with the problem of evil and how it fits into the idea of a perfect or infallible God. It’s a tough question that has been discussed by philosophers and theologians for centuries. In Christian theology, evil is often seen as a result of free will and the misuse of it by beings created with the ability to choose. God gave humanity the freedom to choose love and goodness, but with that comes the possibility of choosing evil. This doesn't necessarily reflect imperfection in God, but rather the nature of a world where love and goodness can only be genuine if we have the choice.
I also appreciate your honesty about the limits of what we know-none of us have all the answers, and that’s part of why these big questions are so intriguing. As for God being imaginary, I think many believers would say that their experiences with God, personal meaning, and purpose point to something more than just a creation of human desire. But I understand that’s not how everyone sees it.
What do you think-how do you personally make sense of the existence of evil and suffering in the world? It’s definitely a complex issue, and I’d love to hear your perspective!
@@simpleapologetics "how do you personally make sense of the existence of evil and suffering in the world" Why should it be any different? Is your objection just emotional reasoning, i.e. it doesn't make you feel good so therefore it doesn't make sense?
“The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent, but if we can come to terms with this indifference, then our existence as a species can have genuine meaning. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.”
― Stanley Kubrick
Maybe when you stop being afraid you will be a better thinker.
You seem like a really nice person but you’re trying so hard to prove a theory that posits the eventual genocide of the majority of humanity for completely arbitrary reasons (whether they believed in a supposed historical fact that occurred over 2000 years ago). Why would a creator make a whole universe with that as the main end product?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment! I appreciate the kind words, and I understand where you're coming from. I agree that the idea of judgment and consequences for belief can be unsettling, but I think it’s important to approach the question of truth with an open mind, even if the answers might challenge our preferences.
If our goal is to find truth, we might not always like what we discover, but that doesn’t negate its validity. For example, I may wish that I could fly, but no matter how much I might desire that, gravity is still true. The reality is, if I were to walk off a high building, I would fall because gravity is a law that operates whether or not I believe in it. Similarly, the truth about God, judgment, and the way the universe works might not align with what we hope or expect, but that doesn’t change the truth itself.
As for why a creator would allow such a reality, many believers would argue that God's justice is paired with His love, and that the free will He gives us allows us to choose or reject Him. While it’s a hard truth to face, many see this as a reflection of the profound respect God has for human freedom and the potential for a genuine relationship with Him.
I hope to cover both free will and the problem of suffering in future videos. :)
Hi Gina. Just saying hi. Keep it up.
Hey, Christian! I hope you're having a great week. Thanks for always being so encouraging! :)