Stephen Meyer Discusses the Big Bang, Einstein, Hawking, & More - Science Uprising Expert Interviews

[@vtitu6557]

Only a genius can explain to anyones understanding such complex scientific issues. Congrats Dr. Meyer.

[@paulgraf4140]

It was an EXCELLENT combination of philosophy and physics! Think Stephen should make more videos like this!

[@Aengrod]

I second that

[@tedgrant2]

Oh I bet he will. He's got books to sell. And bills to pay.

[@calebjore3295]

45 minutes of Stephen Meyer lecturing on the Big Bang? Yes please.

[@shankz8854]

That would be like 45 min of Richard Dawkins lecturing on theology.

[@drmohammedusman3432]

ششش

[@DavidJJJ]

@@shankz8854 Richard Dawkins, who invented “panspermia”?!

[@kennethbransford820]

@@drmohammedusman3432 ==== Not 6 days, but six creative periods of time since it took millions or billions of years to where we are now..

[@williampennjr.4448]

@@shankz8854 there's clearly no intelligence behind that comment. It must have just spontaneously generated out , just like the universe. Maybe someone's cat just ran across a key board and all those letters just randomly formed into sentences.

[@petersmith8070]

A very articulate speaker indeed. You make these deep subjects somewhat within the grasp of the ordinary person like myself. A real skill, and a very important one.

[@fantasticbeast9962]

No, he doesn’t. He had no business lecturing on biology and evolution, nor should he comment on cosmology. He doesn’t study it. He doesn’t know it. Ask any physicist or biologist and they will say he is wrong. What he does do is oversimplify everything to the point where you are easily influenced by someone who is articulate. He may have a silver tongue, but if you take his word over an actual scientist who does this for a career because he makes it easy for you to understand, you’re getting the wrong information.

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

@@fantasticbeast9962 I think he studied those topics pretty extensively on his way to a degree in physics and earth sciences along with a PhD in the philosophy of science. So, yeah, he kinda does have business lecturing on those topics. But, shame on him for making it easy to understand.

[@Aengrod]

@@fantasticbeast9962 And here is the crux of the matter, your hypothetical scientist does it for 'career', but not to find the truth.

[@TheADDFiles-yk4dc]

His explanation of the Wheeler DeWitt equation relying on the person doing the equation to set parameters was truly mind-blowing. Brilliant illustration of the possibility of a conscious agent as Creator.

[@pastcolours]

Then...Einstein lied.....

[@downenout8705]

Just because something is "possible" is not in itself a sufficient reason to believe that it is true.

[@FrankPCarpi]

@@pastcolours no, he just didn't know, but he thought he did. Hawking actually lied when he said that he searched the universe, but he didn't find God. He hadn't even left his wheelchair unless someone helped him out, so how could he have claimed to search the universe?

[@abelincoln8885]

The machine category proves all life was UNNATURALLY created. The evidence of God has been in front of us since man ... unnaturally ... created the first tool or simply mechanical machine.

[@nikkigrace3816]

Agreed!

[@TheFhdude]

It's always exiting to hear Stephen Meyer explain. Amazing!

[@crusher1980]

Becasue he goes where the evidence leads him, thats science.

[@larainehruby1376]

@@crusher1980 I’m amazed he doesn’t get lost if he “goes where science leads”him. What an overwhelming feat of endurance! I’m sure the Creator of the Universe is helping him - I just wish he would give the Original Scientist credit - and I bet that Unique One-of-a-kind Creator and Innovator would appreciate some applause for His Handiwork too, don’t y’think?

[@tonygoodkind7858]

@@crusher1980 What makes you say that? Meyer believes in a god and intelligent design, neither of which are supported by reasonable evidence.

[@jacob.tudragens]

​@@tonygoodkind7858 Information comes from a mind! Random processes didn't make DNA! To think so is just ignorant.

[@MyMy-tv7fd]

this is the best Steven Meyer presentation I have ever heard, well done

[@alexandreferraro]

I agree

[@miraj101]

He is brilliant

[@ronaldmorgan7632]

He's been a part of some great panel debates as well where he kindly rips apart a speaker's last point. Wonderful to watch.

[@havlicekeys]

Mr Meyer is not only an exceptionally smart man, he's also one hell of a talented one. He somehow manages to make the unfathomable at least somewhat fathomable...the inexplicable kind of explicable. He does all this in a way that is engaging, even (*GASP!) entertaining! In the end, it seems to me (*and I can barely understand anything), he combines the best of what we know from observation and from accepted physics to come to a conclusion. That is, physics and math do not preclude the possibility of "an entity" being responsible for the universe. Indeed, the more physicists and cosmologists try (*and try they do!) to get away from that possibility, the more they inadvertantly wind up supporting it. Anyway, I rarely watch anything on KZbin this long, but this one kept me going for the entire ride.

[@jacob.tudragens]

I think you would like Chuck Missler.

[@spamm0145]

A truly amazing man with incredible knowledge and able to articulate complex theories into digestible form. This man knows there is intelligent design behind all that exists in this realm we exist within.

[@johncastino2730]

Exactly right Spamm!

[@yourfriendjaz]

Reading “Return of the God Hypothesis” currently… 9 chapters in, and so far it’s kind of a summary of “Signature in the Cell.” Can’t wait to get to the new BOOM moment in the new book. Anyone else already read or currently reading it?

[@gfujigo]

@@Unconskep I agree with you in part. The problem with ID is that no precise scientific mechanism is offered for the designer. In addition, key ID claims have been debunked by science. However, what do you mean when you say the supernatural needs to be “proven”? How did you come to conclude that for something to be true or real it needs to be “proven”? If something is not “proven” what does that mean? Thanks.

[@jawsbushaxen4179]

@@Unconskep the biggest minds on earth cant even prove the natural, and ure asking for proof of the super natural..?

[@MS-od7je]

The brain is a Mandelbrot set. Why is the brain a Mandelbrot set? The Mandelbrot set is a very specific fractal. It is not random. One must not only explain the fine tuning which caused the universe to allow for life but it must now explain an even more specific problem of the life design pattern which all life follows.

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

@@gfujigo Ironically, for me, the problem with Darwinian evolution is exactly the same. There is no "precise" scientific mechanism offered to explain how one species evolves into another. Different hypotheses are thrown about, but nothing definitive. Conjecture at best at this point in time. ID is just another theory that, for me, tries to address the short comings of evolution. Doesn't mean evolution is invalid or that ID is valid. "Right" and "wrong" have no meaning this context, but people use the terms as if they are absolutes. Maybe someday ID can be discussed without getting sidetracked with the injection of "supernatural" into the discussion. I am not remotely religious, but find ID to be a very viable topic for discussion in the scientific realm. But, that's just me.

[@steveflorida8699]

@@KelliAnnWinkler l accept the living intelligent designer - designed, implemented and sustains the laws of nature/patterns. And the bible is not a scientific text book. Therefore, human theology should blend its discipline into a more inclusive reality with science.

[@PastorBillwillard2147]

Praise God for Giving Stephen Meyer such a mind to defend the faith. Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

[@vhawk1951kl]

What is faith?

[@leowribeiro]

@@vhawk1951klTo believe in something even though there is no way to prove it correct. Essencially believing without seeing.

[@daMillenialTrucker]

@@vhawk1951kl i used to think all of this wasnt real just a week and a half ago, i gave my life to Christ researching anything everything, none of this at all make sense, theres no way this all happened by chance.

[@philipcunningham4125]

You’ll find that in the Nicene Creed as well. Of things seen and unseen.

[@johnbatson8779]

@@PastorBillwillard2147 always great to push Hebrew fairy tales as objective reality

[@dorotheaivanovna9457]

Could listen to Dr Meyer by the hour. Brilliant scientist, excellent teacher

[@JimCvit]

It amazes me that astronomers, cosmologists, and physicists will come up with any new ideas that tries to dispute or contradict the Big Bang because everything points to God. I look so forward to these videos. Thank you so much.

[@downenout8705]

You must be a troll, obviously people believed in the Christian God for centuries before anyone had any concept of a "big bang". Reality exists and theists will continue to assert that "reality" is contingent on a god, whether or not there was a big bang.

[@j7bsecond540]

Nothing points to god

[@henryknox4511]

Didn't a cosmologist come up with the big bang theory to begin with and isn't it the current accepted theory of how the universe began?

[@pastcolours]

@@j7bsecond540 ahhhh it all does, even the tool kit of science he gave you, full of all the little laws, gravity etc, that you all run around with saying, we , WE WEEE have discovered ALL of this. And we spontaneously burst forth from "Dead" matter, that had no understanding of what it was doing, just sitting in a lifeless pond ...chillin'. Science is not a God alternative or disprover , Sciens or more to the Point our understanding of life, the universe and everything amounts to one millimetre cubed of all the matter in all of eternity/ infinity, Christians know that , the hyper elite scientists know that. and yet all the Professor Dave's run around you tube channels trying to tell everyone they know more than God...Bwahahaha

[@gfujigo]

@@j7bsecond540 God is by far the best and only sensible explanation of reality as we observe it. Nothing else is even remotely close in explanatory power and scope as God.

[@culture3469]

Stephen thanks for actually explaining physics and not manipulating it! Like other physicists

[@fantasticbeast9962]

Lol! You mean how he totally doesn’t manipulate physics to claim there is a god?

[@richardmorgan3938]

@@fantasticbeast9962 There is a God. You don't need to manipulate anything to come to this conclusion.

[@pungommeyo8782]

😊😊😊😊😊😊

[@Reclaimer77]

@@richardmorgan3938 man you're pathetic. There's zero evidence of a god. There's at least TONS of evidence we live in a totally material world. Yes, you have to manipulate basically everything to come to your conclusion.

[@markoveselinovic4683]

You really need to open your eyes! Every SYSTEM has information & behind every information there is inteligence! ​@@fantasticbeast9962

[@wearandtear6692]

Science writer Kitty Ferguson explained in her (1995) book 'Fire in the equations': „When it became evident that the universe, regardless of anyones preference was indeed expanding, Hermann Bondi, Tom Gold, and Fred Hoyle came up with 'Steady State theory' … that would not require the universe to have a beginning. The three of them were outspokenly resistant to an explanation which seemed to support a biblical view of creation and they were not alone in their disappointment when observational evidence supported the Big Bang rather than the 'Steady State theory'. For reasons entirely apart from scientific objektivity, the Big Bang was a bitter pill to swallow and a few still have it hiding behind a tooth.“

[@cptrikester2671]

It always amazes me how some scientists will propose anything so that they won't need to admit a Creator. It becomes an issue of intellectual honesty.

[@kyle-rv7zd]

I was on you tube watching Richard Dawkins get asked how to debunk a creationist. He basically said we were to hard headed. I listed some a list of good places to start. For instance, explain how natural unguided processes can bring something out of nothing, a fine tuned universe, information in DNA or the complexity in life. I got a lot negative and cheap shots condescending comments. They get really hostile when you ask the right questions. It seemed like there answers were very weak. They seamd to have a huge problem with the word nothing. They can't seem to understand nothing means the absence of anything. I saw Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krause on you tube giving a seminar on what nothing is. It's rediculus. I can't believe mainstream science has come to this. We need scientists like Stephen C Myer and Johnathan Wells.

[@joxyjoxyjoxy1]

Right. "There is no God." Now let's go look at the stars.

[@joxyjoxyjoxy1]

​@@kyle-rv7zd condescension and malice is a perfectly natural reaction to heresy. These are not scientists, they are high priests to a dying religion.

[@marcusaurelius9123]

​@@kyle-rv7zdFor that which hasn't yet been discovered sets turn to the God of Gaps. A very lazy argument

[@ljshoreslokal]

@@kyle-rv7zd Dawkins, when pressed, thinks we may have been created from aliens, aka higher intelligent beings from another planet. He will admit anything except a God hypothesis.

[@coppersky]

Know what I like the most about Stephen? He's the type of guy that doesn't piss me off. In fact he'd be perfect to deliver bad news for someone lol.

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

That is actually a good point. He just has a way of explaining things in a way that is absent the arrogance and bluntness of others. He is never condescending.

[@bigears17]

Even my mouse brain could follow your very concise descriptions of these theories. Thank you for your talent to make complicated concepts accessible to mouse brains.

[@abashedsanctimony154]

Mouse brain evolution

[@lindawarner7496]

I agree

[@drewrommel]

Nicely explained for us laymen to understand. Great to hear of these great scientists slowly solving the problem and it looks suspiciously like Genesis 1:1.

[@wshow11]

Imagine that! Bravo!

[@professorneturman2249]

Astrophysics and Cosmology in no way supports any fictional characters of mythology.

[@ljshoreslokal]

Stephen C. Meyer is the Jordan Peterson of Philosophy of Science. His ability to speak on highly complex subjects, and convey it in a way that us layman's can understand it, is an art.

[@IzzyMann]

Well said

[@arieraaphorst1998]

😂

[@mikebutler7605]

What a brilliant mind has Stephen. “In the beginning….”.

[@kneedeepsnow16]

Thank you Sir for your work. Mr. Myers you are truly a hero and many of us recognize this! I love your book and recommend it all the time “ signature in the cell“.

[@Chicago-os9bl]

Meyer is brilliant.

[@nichetcher1]

I absolutely love each and every one of these presentations! However, there are many of us that are trying to simply listen to this and not watch it and it would be extremely beneficial to have the questions preceding the answers voiced over. That way there’s no need to read while driving 😬

[@grantperkins368]

Please turn up the mic volume for the audience :)

[@izziebon]

“In the beginning God..” (Science is thousands of years behind that simple statement; they are catching up fast!)

[@jamesdolan4042]

I am wondering who God was actually speaking in Genises, and not only God is the plural. This is very much a first hand witness account, and because God is using the plural there must have been at least another God. After all only a God is equivalent to a God.. Ah but. who was that witness hearing and recording as he set about this vast undertaking. I get the feeling this may have been made up. Genesis [1.26] Then God said "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth" Fast forward Mathew 26.39 Going a little further, he fell on his face to ground and prayed "My father, if it is possible, may this cup from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will" 26,40 Then he returned to his disciples and he found them sleeping. Jesus prays, God doesn't answer him, and the apostles were sleeping. So who heard him speaking directly to God?

[@andreasplosky8516]

@@jamesdolan4042 I think the questions you pose are too dangerous to think about for anyone who wants to keep their faith.

[@Dunning_Kruger_Is__On_Youtube]

Your acceptance of the existence of a god is predicated solely on unprovable faith assumptions and, any idea/theory regarding existence that is predicated on faith is feeble at best. Moreover, grounding your gods existence on faith would necessarily imply that you should be equally accepting of the existence of Santa Claus, magic unicorns as well as the egg laying Easter bunny.

[@Tadneiko]

@@jamesdolan4042 let us... this is the first manifestation of the trinity Your question about how the narrator knows about a conversation between the son and the father can be resolved by a)Jesus discussing his experience with the narrator prior to the crucifixion or b)revelation to the narrator by the holy spirit

[@MrJoebrooklyn1969]

@@jamesdolan4042 the Genesis account was given to Moses. The "we" is the Trinity. The verses u mentioned in Matthew, u have a good point.

[@obatemc]

Smiling from ear to ear...go Steven go!!

[@pattiharrison1211]

This guy explains complicated concepts, complicated science, complicated ideas so well. I actually think I can understand it. 1) The universe was created and had a beginning. 2) The best explanation for its creation and existence is God made it. ❤

[@Belmondo_RH]

This guy lies for money...a demonstrable fact. 1) no 2) that's not even an explanation...appealing to magic explains nothing.

[@peterockbx]

Once again great work Mr. Meyers

[@christianporter3638]

*ahem*…..Doctor…..*ahem*……Meyers…… (Just saying lol)

[@TheBackyardProfessor]

absolutely brilliant refutation of Krauss!

[@KelliAnnWinkler]

I have never understood how Krauss got ANY traction at all.

[@dsilva158]

Bravo Stephen shedding some light in this darken world.

[@andys3035]

And God said "let there be light"!

[@vickiezaccardo1711]

Even a static universe requires an explanation, in my mind. It just doesn't t suffice on its own.

[@sirothtakanashi9707]

All I want is Stephen Meyer having a conversation with Joe Rogan. Love this man.

[@fantasticbeast9962]

Why?

[@chrisbraid2907]

@@fantasticbeast9962 Why not ? They both have Open minds …🙂

[@dianasadlemire-chabra1903]

Thank you Stephen Myers for getting us to put our thinking caps on. Wonderful

[@LLPOF]

The more we know, the more we know we don't know.

[@therick363]

Yes. And that’s why we keep investigating. It’s both a good thing and frustrating thing at times.

[@jackmiranda4608]

I can’t understand why science ever thought or still thinks eternity can exist in a material world where energy is finite. Eternity has no beginning and no end. Today will be forever in the past and energy would have all been spent.

[@jasonveritas9441]

“Energy” is not matter-

[@Oatmeal_Mann]

True. It's "irrational" to believe that a timeless, spaceless, immaterial God is eternal, but it's totally fine to believe that finite matter is eternal. A shame.

[@Oatmeal_Mann]

I hope science will shift more towards theism in the future

[@les2997]

Actual infinities cannot exist as they would lead to paradoxes, check the Hilbert Hotel paradox.

[@ThatIsDopeBro]

Energy doesn't run out it is converted and transformed and we interpret it as running out when we can't apply it to a specific task anymore.

[@gordonepema722]

Stephen Meyer puts other explicators of scientific discoveries, like Niel Tyson and Carl Sagan to shame. He's open minded, articulate, and treats his critics with Christian charity while dissecting their positions with laser precision. Every one of his lectures is a treat for the mind.

[@mimelnaggar]

Fascinating presentation. Thank you Mr Meyer. There is a verse in the Quran that many interpret as referencing the expansion of the universe. This is found in Surah Adh-Dhariyat (51:47): **"وَالسَّمَاءَ بَنَيْنَاهَا بِأَيْدٍ وَإِنَّا لَمُوسِعُونَ"** Translated to English, it reads: "And the heaven We constructed with strength, and indeed, We are [its] expander." (Surah Adh-Dhariyat 51:47, Sahih International) The phrase "We are [its] expander" or "We expand it" is often seen by some as a reference to the idea of an expanding universe, which aligns with the modern scientific understanding that the universe is continuously expanding.

[@kyle-rv7zd]

We need more scientists like Stephen C Myer and Johnathan Wells.

[@debblouin]

Constraint requires intent. Intent requires mind.

[@jerryjohnson9531]

Just stumbled upon this. This is amazing!

[@samipan3410]

How do you make all this sound so intresting and simple. Such a gift and annointing.God bless.

[@johncastino2730]

Dr. Meyer is the foremost expert on these subjects with an abundance of knowledge in the relative multiple scientific disciplines

[@RKPT9]

I have often thought that not only is there a mathematical problem with evolutionary theory but also with just the idea of how a mutation would happen during a single life span across a male/female dynamic without catastrophic repercussions.

[@joshuaphilander2222]

Thank God for men like him.

[@flyinghorseknuckles]

41:05 Krauss's necessity of inserting himself in the process of quantum decision making underlines just how rare such a universe as ours is. The odds that lead to the fine tuning of our universe are so improbable that it would be swallowed up by the infinite quantum choices that lead to "dead" universes. Reminds me of what you said about the improbability of random mutations leading to useful genetic changes, that like a software program, the number of useless mutations would so outweigh a useful one that the program would die before utility could be achieved.

[@guylindsay181]

There were two people debating weather the world was flat or round. The person who believed the earth was flat was a very good debater. He was well spoken, very persuasive, and very articulate the second person not so much. When the debate was over it was clear the well spoken person had won the debate. Moral of the story "the earth is still round" no matter what someone might say. (1 Cor 2:14) But people who aren't spiritual can't receive these truths from God's Spirit. It all sounds foolish to them and they can't understand it, for only those who are spiritual can understand what the Spirit means.

[@urso3000]

knowledge is the key 🔑 thanks for sharing!

[@faithinchrist9386]

God bless you Stephen! Clearly an honest scientist and bright And there are very few like you. Thank you for stating the obvious that the life around us as we see it is designed. I just happen to think of the Christian mind the designer as the Lord Jesus Christ.

[@DanielApologetics]

Great interview

[@phillipchalmers3363]

This man is emerging as a gifted teacher as well as a brilliant scientific thinker. A feature of his expertise is to put quite complex thinking into works accessible to non-scientific and non-scholastic people without talking down to us. I have been amazed at how juvenile is the writing of Dawkins and been left with the question as to whether he is simply an immature thinker or is talking down to his audience.

[@stephenoni2019]

the beat drops at 26:52 ! That was such an amazing description from Professor Meyer

[@bobcirba2626]

Meter is one of the few heroes of mine. I love the man.

[@vedantsatsang]

For anyone trained in Advaith Vedanta this is music (extremely melodic) to the ears.

[@faithinchrist9386]

Even apart from great scientific minds. We can read the Bible and read the mind of the creator who made all things. We are very fortunate to have the book that he left us the Bible

[@ikemuoma8495]

Fascinating. I'm currently reading this mans book, The Return Of The God Hypotheses and can't put it down.

[@kgeo2686]

I love this guy so much. He even covered oscillating universe!

[@geobla6600]

Touched on all the main theories on the origins of the Universe and showed how truly implausible these theories really are. Excellent presentation as always. Well done!

[@downenout8705]

You clearly don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. There is currently no way of investigating anything prior to Planck time, which is why the best science can do is use the language of math to hypothesize what might be there. All you have as an alternative is a few verses in an old book.

[@geobla6600]

@@downenout8705 Well I believe it's you and others that endlessly present these lacking hypothesis's as "Theories" ,when in fact you do know the difference between the two and yet always present these hypothesis's as theories to give them validation which they so desperately lack until their implausibility or impossibility are completely refuted by the scientific evidence and then again they become what they are ,"bias speculation presented as theories".

[@steinarb77]

@@downenout8705 I am intrigued by your reference to a mythological entity that resides in your cosmology and that is capable of hypothesizing by using the language of math. This raises a question in my mind: Since I've heard others who present arguments similar to yours reference this same mythical creature, I have done enough research to realize that you are influenced by or a card-carrying member of the religion of scientism. The question I have is this: considering that the mythological creature you have named 'science' is the highest deity in your religion, is there a pantheon of deities in that religion or is this the only one?

[@waynecassels3607]

Fascinating and amazing.

[@ciaoinman]

Love Stephen Meyer!

[@davidkwong3369]

Thank you for explaining all these complicated things in an understandable way! That is how you tell who is lying and not is truth seeks understanding or light where liars try to achieve compliance through confusion or not understanding.

[@anapaulasimao8846]

I just love to lissen dtr. Setephen. Thanks for all time you spend teathing us. Its just amazing.

[@paxcssr]

now, i will start looking for his books...

[@hegel5816]

Some atheist disliked the video even before watching it...

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

Some of us Like it before We watch it. Because we have a good idea what Stephen is going to say.

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

hehe...

[@lawrencesmith1985]

Lol exactly!

[@dogsbollox4335]

Too true,they wouldn't dare research the evidence there terrified of finding no argumen t .

[@cosmicsapientia2447]

Atheist??? You mean theist? Atheist do not believe in God but in ways of science, theist are the religious people who might not accept scientific studies in thier origin of life and other aspects

[@paradigmbuster]

Scientists claim if a theory is proven false they will abandon the theory. However in some circumstances they don"t abandon a theory, they just add another theory to make the theory work, I call this theory stacking.

[@turtle6401]

ye if some new observation is discovered, that isnt explained by the model but doesnt directly contradict it, the model or theory can be expanded to explain that observation

[@south644]

Thank you

[@wellinformed8998]

As a laymen I’m trying to get my head around red shift. 1. Is red shift measured from the point of observation (Earth) 2. Is the red shift constant in all spherical directions? 3. Is red shift only true along one axis? ( The direction of the expansion. ) 4. If we look backward away from the direction of expansion is there a lesser red shift?

[@Belmondo_RH]

1. Yes, earth and probes close by (in an astronomical sense) 2. Yes. the center of the universe is either everywhere or nowhere. Imagine an expammding cookie dough with choclade pieces in it rather than an explosion. Space-time expands in all directions from every point in it. 3. See 2. 4. there is no "backward away from the direction of expansion" The older the light aka the farther away it's origin...the greater the redshift. Demonstrably aka obsevably so.

[@catholic_hermit]

Regarding the beginning and expansion, what about Penrose's idea of Conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC)?

[@mattmiller478]

I watched a video from a WHO conference recently. The truth they speak among each other about the uncertainties they have on human health is much different from the lies they tell the public about their certainty.

[@SpeakerBuilder]

I just love Stephen's great skill in fully explaining what are for most of us extremely complex ideas in such a way as to render them understandable. What he did not cover, and could well have as having written one of the signature works on the topic, is the intersection of the theory of the origin of the universe pointing to a creator (what he calls intelligent design) and the theory of the origin of life which as well points to a creator (see his book, "Signature In The Cell"). Seeing these together, along with theories of the origin of morality which I would add as necessitating a creator, produce a compelling argument for such a creator. Each of these proofs require some effort to understand, but well worth the work in shaping our thinking away from materialism and towards our creator, since rejection of God has been the principal source of so much evil and suffering in the world. Difficult enough to live in a physically corrupted world (disease, natural catastrophes, aging, etc.) without the addition of self-induced maladies.

[@professorneturman2249]

He doesn't "explain " he voices personal opinions based on faith.

[@gordonepema722]

He does this (bringing together the historical, cosmological, physical and biological evidence for a Creator) in his latest book Return of The God Hypothesis. Highly recommended.

[@gordonepema722]

@@professorneturman2249 No he doesn't. He cites evidence from the latest discoveries in physics and cosmology and in other instances, biology, to support his ideas. He's well supported by credible workers in these disciplines, many of whom originated these discoveries.

[@josefadario6593]

This is Extraordinary ! How much linear thinking wisdom went into following all the existing thinkers and their models, one by one, to postulate the final Statement ? Intelligent Design ! I want to learn more about Quantum Mechanics, as it's 'unsavoury' to me at a first glance..

[@nashgujjalu104]

Impressive! Well done.

[@marcobenor3087]

Mindboggling to the point of actually beginning to understanding how God created the Universe.

[@zeeshanshahzad4355]

Loved every bit of it. Thanks for sharing

[@SRILANKANCHRISTIAN]

great work Mr. Meyers

[@RubRodGuitar]

Thank You! Excellent video.

[@marciliocarneiro]

Brillant explanations

[@geraldbritton8118]

This video feels like there is an interviewer in the room asking Dr. Meyer the questions. For me, it makes the interview disjointed that I cannot hear the questioner. Worse yet, I'm listening in the background while working on other things. That means I cannot see the printed questions, doubling the problem of not hearing the questions being asked. Please consider re editing the video to add the audio for the interviewer back in

[@brycew2]

Thanks Meyer.

[@jjcm3135]

Good overview of a complicated situation re BB alternatives.

[@laurajocelyn]

The existence of time requires a beginning

[@rocketsauce08]

No it doesn't

[@u2mister17]

'Nothing' can't exist without 'something'. Nothing is the absence of something. So, if there was no something and no nothing... there was "Perfect"!

[@davidblick2192]

Hawking's was trying to find a way to explain the universe without God. He was biased because of this. Very smart, but not wise.

[@pastcolours]

Hawking was a genius inside the tool box surrounded by 6 sides called Science: A brighter star has rarely shone like him, Unfortunately like most humans and despite his veil of humility, what drove him is what drives most of our species. His credibility in his own field was never going to be compromised by evidence to the contrary.

[@kpkpm3604]

Lawrence Krauss is great. Even Stephen Meyer seems to understand his work. And no, Krauss' work does not require a (more or less) intelligent designer.

[@eswn1816]

Reality: Scientists are not necessarily objective. Their views and beliefs affect their interpretations and conclusions. Origin of life and human consciousness pose tremendous challenges to atheism.

[@commandingnationsintl7792]

True. I'm no scientist, but even a child can see huge holes in falsehood. Everyone has a predisposed bias. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" is mine. "Whatever makes me less convicted of my sin" is the atheist version of this.

[@ezbody]

You can't live without referring to your imaginary enemy -- the atheists, can you? LOL Why not study the science yourself, instead of going after the leftovers from second hand sources?

[@chrisreal5367]

This video shows clearly, that regarding the origin of the universe, materialist scientists are guilty of atheistic philosophical gymnastics, not following the most likely explanations from observation.

[@shankz8854]

Atheistic philosophical gymnastics? Like what? Care to share an example?

[@alanthompson8515]

@@shankz8854 Good questions! I'd like to know too. It'll be a change from all those years, nay centuries, of theistic philosophical gymnastics which STILL haven't manged to reach agreement re: the existence and nature of godhead.

[@nickdial8528]

@@shankz8854 Hawking claiming that "because the universe has laws, it can and will create itself from nothing " That is complete mental gymnastics. It's contradictory. Laws are not "nothing" and an intimate entity is not going to create itself. It's ridiculous.

[@sardarkhan8475]

THANKS TO ALMIGHTY GOD,MY RELIGIOUS BOOK IS FULLY BASED ON SCIENTIFIC IDEAS ,AND USES SCIENCE TO TEACH ITS BELIEFS INCLUDING THE BIG BANG THEORY AND MANY MANY MANY MORE SCIENTIFIC IDEAS.

[@lokeshjha2642]

very good discussion

[@Im_No_Expert_72]

Thank you. ☦️

[@rosalindhernandez1129]

Dr. Stephen Meyer is remarkable. Not pseudo science but facts shown.

[@junacebedo888]

In layman's term: Einstein CHEATED but he was caught with the discovery of the 'red shift'

[@ezbody]

No, he didn't, someone "very Christian" is lying about it. 😏

[@pamelaforth7820]

Yeah, but he had the decency to admit it when he was faced with truth. A lot of scientists would just keep lying.

[@henryb1555]

In postulating an expanding universe, one has to ask at what starting point (moving body) could we reliably measure a red shift and know that this meant an expanding universe and not just a body on a orbital trajectory moving away from the point of measurement "at that time" only?

[@ozowen]

Other bodies are moving away from each other.

[@alinv75]

So cool!

[@tasdad2116]

Reminds me of a verse from a very old book. Here it is... Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

[@laurajocelyn]

“dark matter” is the conjecture of “scientists” who must plug it into the math, to solve the problems. "And He is before all things, and all things subsist together, cohere IN HIM;" (Colossians 1:17)

[@jamessheffield4173]

The balloon got blown up, but no one did it, makes perfect sense to me. lol

[@Mellownius]

The energy to blow It up is present but it would need to also want to use the energy to blow the air to blow up the ballon iand energy wouldn’t want to do that , only we would 🤩 Perfect analogy sir thank you !

[@shankz8854]

The universe must have a cause, even although time did not exist before the universe. Makes perfect sense to me.

[@flimsyjimnz]

3:03 "back extrapolate"? ie interpolate? Einstein told Lemaitre he didn't like his 'Primeval Atom Hypothesis' because “it suggests too much the idea of creation” Yet after closer scrutiny “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory [scientific] explanation of creation I've ever heard”!

[@WARTV-dn5fk]

NOTHING exploded and magically arranged ITSELF into everything, and they all lived happily ever after 🦄

[@uweburkart373]

@ياا اخي اتق الله و استعن بالقرآن so what?!

[@gersonfreiredeamorimfilho3012]

Amazing

[@deepaktripathi4417]

What a wonderful discussion! Thanks a lot Mr Meyer!

[@abelgutierrez1283]

Question: How did the mechanisms needed to spawn a universe, such that multiverse and String theory require, come into existence? How did something come from nothing? Doesn't the explanation of where some- _thing_ came from imply that it came from some- _thing_ ? Explaining how the universe was formed by saying it was formed by something seems to just move the goal post. Where did everything come from if not an outside intelligent influence? After all, isn't nothing the absence of _everything_ ?