Can A Physicist Make Me Believe in God in 5 Minutes?

My Twitter: @MartymerM81

[DjVortex-w]

"Something created the universe. That something was the God of the Bible. Because I say so."
How typical.

[WildwoodClaire]

"Before that" doesn't make any sense if space-time STARTED 13.8 billion years ago. As a bunch of jumped-up savanna apes whose frame of reference is linear time, it is difficult if not impossible to truly understand that.

[oida]

0:08 >>Nuclear physicist and old earth creationist<<
You would think that this is an oxymoron.

[MahraiZiller]

He makes a (bad) case for deism (not actual theism as the option you spoke about (but I think you just misspoke given your later argument) - which is actually worse for him because he was trying to make a case for theism, and a very particular theism at that).
In order to be converted, I’d have to ignore the fact that an actual physicist conflated physical forces with physical laws as a starter.
Then I’d have to ignore the logical steps missing to form a theistic argument, and then ignore the logical steps missing to form a particular form of theistic argument.

He failed at the latter two, and that’s what I’m used to.
But he even failed at the Aristotlean hurdle of convincing me of a “prime mover”.

Even in order to convert to deism, I’d have to ignore the massive logical failures of his argument.

Sincerely, that level of fail takes superhuman strength - especially when the apologist is apparently an actual physicist 🤦‍♂️🤣

[hyksos]

Sometimes I think one of the biggest problems that science has when trying to convey information to the 'laity' as it were is the use of the words 'theory' and 'law' when what's really meant is something like 'model'.

[holz_name]

If a scientist claims that science discovered God, my immediate reaction is: when was the Nobel Prize awarded for discovering God and to whom? I somehow missed that.
Oh and the diagram of the Big Bang expansion? It doesn't say God anywhere. In the beginning there were quantum fluctuations.

[weldabar]

The moment he said that it describes the biblical god I laughed. It perplexes me how/why people can be so self-deceptive.

[Siphuncularity]

That's one of the things that always bugged me about the whole *"Time had a beginning"* concept. Without Time, there is no change. Without change there is only eternal stasis. So how the frick could that change into anything at all - let alone what's become space-time?

Admittedly my knowledge of the subject isn't particularly in-depth (especially with my irritatingly inadequate mathematical ability/knowledge), but the problem still stands...

I far prefer the simple admission that we have no clue what happened before a certain point in time, well after the singularity started to expand.


btw - Thanks again, Martymer. The ever so careful doublespeak of Creationist pseudo-scientists (+) slips past me sometimes. It's good to know that capable individuals - like yourself - are out here dissecting their nonsensical crap. Hopefully providing sufficient counterpoint that it makes it that much more difficult to corrupt & indoctrinate the minds of children into unthinking obedience to anachronism & dogma.

(+) - I don't care what your background is, or how many letters you can legitimately put after your name, if you try to twist & squeeze the wondrous vastness of science to fit into the Planck-tessimal sized space of a Biblical literalist worldview, then you are a pseudo-scientist.

[Noone-of-your-Business]

What a physicist _can_ make me believe in 5 minutes is, for instance, that he does not really understand what his field of expertise is _about_ if he lumps it in with baseless make-believe like this one does. If that is what he set out to do, then: mission accomplished.

[condorboss]

This is Presuppositionalism using by another name.

[gustavgnoettgen]

Clear answer: maybe. Probably not but maybe. Depends on how much you already think.

[briannewton]

It really sounds like this 'scientist' doesn't understand science. He sounds like a theist who will run with science... but only until it contradicts his doctrine.

[gregcampwriter]

Saying that the current state of the universe began a while ago does not imply that a god was involved. That's an assumption that too many believers make without analyzing it.

[OleHolm-sqyj]

Another person trying to force/convince others to believe in religion. That will NEVER work on me. I don`t believe in gods or flat earth.

[pilgrimpater]

Why do people assume the fundamental laws existed before the BB? They could easily be the result of the BB. I am not claiming to know one way or the other but we cannot assume anything about what was before the BB. It's beyond the scope of human inquiry.

[joegillian]

There's almost no difference between young Earth and old Earth creationists.

[maxmuustermann]

But actually in a very metaphorical sense you could call the laws of nature god.

[gaellafond]

His strategy to make us believe in God was to redefine it? I can do better. God is energy. You believe in Energy, therefore you believe in God. That didn't even take me 5 minutes!

[richardclark]

curious, can anyone find a peer reviewed paper the he has written? Not article in a magazine, but a real paper! Any one, and he is a what!

[SolDeSaBelle]

2:16
I was _soooo_ sure that you were gonna end that sentence with:
"[...]and fourteen billion years ago expansion started–wait!"
... then break into song, having a go at Sprechstimme-ing _The Big Bang Theory_ 's theme tune.

Not disappointed. That show is very overrated.
But I was already laughing at you not-quite-singing. . . that–and using that show to destroy his
non(-sensical) argument(s).

Bah. Maybe next time.

. . .

Also, nothing to do with anything, @Martymer81, but I'm a French/English translator/interpreter and one day, someone (preferably you) will have to explain to me the origin story of your not-show-offy, still-very-impressive superpower: the perfect US English that you speak.
_My_ (spoken) English still has its flaws; I learnt it in school as a second language, but then I did it for real, properly, by moving to the UK–still took me years to get confused with a local on the regular basis. And speaking (and writing) proper English *is my job!*
If I had to guess, I'd say either:
– Childhood in the US, for some reason;
– One parent is from the USA, and spoke English at least half the time, or always when with you.
– None of that: you went to your awfully good Scandinavian secondary-school, were a awesome English student, and were curious enough to improve and try and make your language skills what they are now.

Or all of the above to some degree.
Or your were bitten by a *_newkewlar_* radiation-leaking woo-peddler.
And that turned you into Polyglot Man!

*_Polyglot Man!_*
_The man with the power to _*_also_*_ find a joooob that has to do with
. . .
Okay, I'm going to bed, now.