Cosmology and Creation | ENCORE Episode 1805 | Closer To Truth

To most physicists, mindless laws generated the universe. A few believe that a supreme being is the creator. But don’t the discoveries of cosmology eliminate the need for supernatural causes? Featuring interviews with Stephen Barr, David Bentley Hart, Nancey Murphy, Tom McLeish, and Andrew Pinsent.

An encore screening of Season 18, Episode 5 - #CloserToTruth

Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.

Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

#Cosmology #Creation

[MonkeyBerg]

Man, there are few YT channels with 1800+ episodes - Robert, you are really a seeker - may God help you find the Truth!

[jamesbentonticer]

Topics like this one is why this channel is one of the best.

[danielgonzaleznader]

I love how Robert finds a perfect way to ALWAYS match " Closer to truth"

[davidtate]

I wish you could have interview with the late great Alan Watts on things about the universe.

[jazzunit]

If the energy to stop time creates black holes, Therefore moving time is stable limbless energy. At the point when time becomes unstable you see the expansion equivalent to the beginning of the universe as we see it, until it stabilises again and the process repeats.

[richardvannoy]

FYI Originally aired about two years ago.

[CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

3:15 Oh, that's so silly. If a beginning (or lack thereof) is not relevant, then why talk about cosmological theories/cosmology in the first place? We don't need to understand cosmology in order to know that the universe exists, after all. Aristotle didn't know anything about cosmology, and yet he knew the universe existed.

Also, he just claims that the "argument for God is not that the universe had a beginning", but that's absurd. The most popular form of cosmological arguments requires the controversial (and groundless -- see my playlist on the Big Bang) assertion that the universe had an absolute beginning. It is called the Kalam cosmological argument.

Of course, there are less popular arguments that don't presuppose a beginning (the contingency argument, for example), but it is just ludicrous to suppose that "THE argument for God doesn't depend on a beginning."

[sony]

I have watch a lot of ' closer to truth' videos and what i have come to realised, is that, their are more questions than Answers. The point being that life , realty , the Universe , everything, is still a big Question mark, we simply don't know enough and what we do know, is just the tip of the iceberg.

[godthecreatoryhvh]

Hey Mr Lawrence listen You will truly like the out comme. We all like it.

[garffieldiscool]

This is another interesting and thought provoking vidio. Did creation need a creator or could it create itself out of logic and necessity.
The idea of a big bang happening everywhere and expanding into nothing seems like a perposturiuos idea yet we see the universe expanding everywhere and in all directions.
It's hard for us humans to imagine three dimentional infinity that continues beyond our obsevable universe or a closed universe that has a horizon and nothing beyond. We seem to be going around in circles.I can't even Imagine
what ennergy is other than the ability to do work. Energy is not tangible but we are made out of it. If we mix anti matter with matter in equal amounts, it just turns into pure energy.

[michaelshortland]

If the Universe is infinite in anyway, then you and me are not really important, because we will have or will be replicated many times, so we would not be unique. But if the Universe is finite, then we are unique and are point of view and our very existence would be important because of it's uniqueness.

[zenbum]

"What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? ... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?" -- Stephen Hawking

[shazanali]

awesome content, wish they could have also got an Interview with Steven Hawkins before he died

[CarlosElio]

The analogy between cosmology and music composition is invalid. By examining the first few notes of a symphony, you do not get information about how the musical system evolves. Barr is correct when he says that the entire symphony existed in the mind of the composer. He did not follow any law of acoustics to compose the sequence. Nature works differently, nature obeys laws. By studying the first few "notes" of the harmony of the cosmos, we can follow the sequence of events, and in none of them appears a god. To pretend that there is a composer of the universe in order for it to exist, is circular reasoning.

[jamesruscheinski]

Is creation an ontological existence that brings about physical universe?

[alwaysgreatusa]

If God created the universe, then he ultimately did so by supernatural means -- for it would not make sense to say he originally brought into existence physical laws (and things) by means of physical laws. But science only studies physical laws, so, how then can science say whether or not God created the universe ? You can argue that the so-called 'Big Bang' appears to make God's power of creation unnecessary, except for the fact that the Big Bang was itself a physical event caused by physical laws. So, it fails to answer the question about the origin of physical laws in the first place. The real question is whether or not physical laws are eternal. If so, then God's power of creation is unnecessary; however, if they are not, then only a supernatural means could explain their origin -- and supernatural means are by definition beyond the scope of scientific proof. What is also beyond the scope of scientific proof is the question of whether or not physical laws are eternal -- this is only a presumption of science, and not a proof. For how could empirical science, which is based upon observation and upon inductive reasoning, ever prove eternity ? This is why this whole attempt to use scientific cosmology to decide the question of God's existence or non-existence is utterly absurd !

[jamesruscheinski]

Could there be something different that brings about laws of universe / physical nature?

[Beevreeter]

The problem with all these theistic arguments is that they use the word 'god' as though it was a well-defined understood term like 'cat' - it isn't. All concepts of 'god' are man-made and made to fit the gaps in understanding where our knowledge stops. And concepts of 'god' vary wildly from one religion to another and from one culture to another. You can't just say 'god' and assume it has any meaning at all.

[jamesruscheinski]

Is order from chaos about teleology? Does complexity from simplicity have to do with teleology?

[jamesruscheinski]

Might energy be contingent on time which is not contingent?