Believe in God in 5 Minutes (Scientific Proof)

God doesn't write in Letters, he writes in Math.

I want to believe in God but I wanna ask. If God just was there, he didn't get made, then why couldn't the universe have "just been made?"

Except the Big Bang wasn't really the creation of the Universe, it was merely the expansion of it. All the energy was already there - the Big Bang just sort of stretched it out.

How can something predate the big bang? Time itself began at the big bang. Any notion of before or after cannot be said about a timeless time.

As he said this scientifically proves the "God of the Bible".  So since it is the biblical God please explain scientifically why it took him six days to create the universe?

I'd love to see a debate between Dr. Gerald Schroeder and Lawrence Krauss. That would be fun.

I’m not convinced. Maybe as another commentator said, I’m not as smart as him. But it really seems to me like he’s coming from the conclusion that god exists and then fitting these discoveries to that conclusion.

Imagine having researched this for so long and still not having any proof or basic research and instead just saying: "Well something should have started it"

The most important attribute of God is left out: volition. Without volition, you don't have a God, you just have forces, natural laws.

To create a universe you must exist outside it.

This is all well and good, but i feel like the typical understanding of the abrahamic god as described in the bible etc. has a few more attributes than the ones you listed. To me this seems like you are moving the goalposts so to speak.

So if god is just the forces of nature, why should people pray to the forces of nature. It would be an assumption or an act of faith to assume that the forces of nature have a conscience which is capable of hearing, understanding, and acting upon those prayers.

So, if everything was created in "6 days" then what were these days based off of if the sun was not created until (what was it? the 3rd day?) How was there a day/night cycle without the sun yet?

This conflates the idea of natural laws as 'GOD' being equivalent to the notion of a 'person' that created the universe. They are very different notions. The rational argument that 'laws' must have predated the matter they act on does not prove the myth of an entity in whose image we are allegedly created and with whom we can have a personal relationship. Science can infer one, but not the other.

Leave put the part where he misunderstands the big bang, where instead of being a "beginning" it is just the point where our understanding of existence stops. It could easily be the point where we get the illeged something out of "absolute nothing" but there is just as much evidence for that as there is for, say a magical unicorn farting out a rainbow that then collapsed on itself and then exploded again and became the universe

One can mean anything with the word "God" that doesn't prove his existence tho. Only way to one day prove or disprove God is to 1st settle down and agree to a single scientific definition to the word "God". If we don't do that we can never claim that whatever God means exists or not.

I love how there's people in the comments that think they're smarter than this guy too. Lol

even if you accept literally everything he says in this video, you still don't reach the conclusion that god exists. you get that the universe has something that created it. you don't know if its a being, you don't know if there are multiple somethings which created the universe, and you certainly don't know that what created the universe was your very specific version of god which you only believe in because of your upbringing and what region of the world you were born in.

did he just conclude that the laws of nature are God itself ? like gravity is god , or electromagnetism is god ?

... the biggest flaw i see is the assumption that the 'laws create'. I think the general view would be that they describe. In this case an QuantumField without any forces are standard particles.  The theories he seems to refer to, almost explicitly, deny anything like an 'act of creation'. They describe instabillity of virtual particles in 'nothing'... no agent required, no time, no forces at work at that moment.. Given his four main points: a) in a sense the 'nothing' is a physical system (there are virtual particles) b) there are no real forces at work that act on anything (no causal chains) c) the physical universe could enfold out of this d) it doesn't 'predate' since there has no time.. but that almost seems more a matter of linguistics So... God would the describtion of the QuantumState of 'nothing'. Though i am not an expert .. this is (pretty much) the representation the scientists that did the research actually give... and it diverges rather far from this in ways that seem quite essential to the train of thought he tries to make.