Did Science Accidentally Point to God?

👉 Learn for free on Brilliant for a full 30 days, go to https://brilliant.org/arvinash Brilliant is also generously offering Arvin Ash viewers 20% off an annual Premium subscription, which gives you unlimited daily access to everything on Brilliant.

As an agnostic myself, I think this was very well balanced. However, I would stress one point that the fact that the universe had a beginning or not is not as significant as it is sometimes made out to be IMO because our experience of time flowing forward is an illusion, as according to relativity, a static, 4D spacetime is what exists with the worldlines of our lives winding through them like frozen rivers. Assuming there is no objective flow of time, only a percieved flow, then spacetime is merely a 4D geometry with a boundary condition (the big bang) while an eternal universe would merely be one that doesn't have such a boundary condition. A better question is thus: Why should spacetime exist at all? Why not just no matter, no space and no time?

Mr Arvin Ash. Ever since we interacted over this incredible internet, I have been bound by a bond of affection and trust and interest of the scientific realm. I am scrambling with today's ideas but I know I suddenly feel things with my body when I observe destructive moments on screen. I feel pain. I also know that I AM, without someone else telling me. You have helped ground me and now I am confused as I do not know when I began. I will meet you and we vwill speak! 🇦🇺💛

"Science is just the naming of phenomenon present in universe"~ Unanimous

Its impossible for anything at all to exist. Even if there is a creator or not, how can something come from nothing and if it cant, how it can always exist?

Fine-tuning rules out a creator. The Ikeda-Jefferys argument. No supernatural force is needed to explain life that arose under conditions ideal for life. But if everything were exactly the opposite of what we observe, if the laws of the universe forbade the existence of stars, planets, and life, yet they existed nonetheless, then a supernatural explanation would be appropriate.

I'm an ex-christian who was raised by an intellectual, minister father who practices apologetics professionally. He and I have weekly, cordial chats about these topics so all of Arvin's points in this video are top of mind for me. 1) I believe I, Arvin, and my father are sufficiently intelligent 2) We all acknowledge and agree on what data is available 3) Our conclusions paint pictures of WILDLY different realities Why? I find these differences fascinating and somewhat disturbing. I respect Arvin’s intelligence, yet I am baffled that he thinks these arguments point toward a god. I imagine he would be baffled that they don’t convince me at all (note: I would prefer for God to exist). I have a hunch that these different interpretations of the same data all boil down to what Sartre said: “existence precedes essence”. This rings very true for me. But I think the opposite, “essence precedes existence” would feel more true for these theistic-leaning intellectuals. Example: in the video Arvin points out that science works because the universe operates rationally. This indicates to me that he intuits that the essence of “Rationality” is separate from the universe; then when he compares the universe to this ethereal “Rationality” it feels uncanny and mysterious that it matches. But to me it doesn’t feel mysterious at all! I believe that “rationality” came from brains observing their surroundings then becoming better and better at predicting what would happen next. If the universe were different, rationality would be different (but likely not exist at all). I suspect our brains naturally prioritize either existence or essence, and then all other thinking on these topics stems from that. But which is it? Is there a test we can conduct to find out if, in fact, existence precedes essence? I bet Arvin and my dad would ask that question very differently lol.

Physicist Sabin Hossenfelder shot down the fine tuning argument in one of her earlier videos. SeanCarroll debated William Lane Craig on this and refuted it. Steven Weinberg also refuted it. There are many arguments by notable physicists against the fine tuning argument over many decades. Life adapts to the environment not vice versa. Abiogenesis is how life began. It’s just chemistry on a suitable planet with a steady shining sun.

come on arvin, who "made" the "creator" reducto adinfinidum

“A mind choosing laws” and creating a universe based on those laws is not a simpler explanation. Such a mind would have to be much more complicated the universe it creates, so it explains nothing. Then there is the infinite regression problem of what caused that god and what caused that cause? Why can’t we just accept that we don’t know and probably never will? Isn’t it just hubris to believe that a Our Brain which evolved to survive and procreate in certain very specific environments is a good tool to understand the deepest nature of existence? “Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.” - Werner Heisenberg