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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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 UKposts this long, but this one kept me going for the entire ride.

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.

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.

Very encouraging for believers living in a materialist culture - as always it's so good to hear your brilliantly informed alternative.

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.

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.“

Bravo Stephen shedding some light in this darken world.

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

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.

Meyer is brilliant.

Once again great work Mr. Meyers

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 😬

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“.

absolutely brilliant refutation of Krauss!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

knowledge is the key 🔑 thanks for sharing!

Omg just from listening to his first remark I genuinely just fell in love this person, I can see he is a straight forward genuine individual with a heart of a real gentleman, i seriously just love genuine people like him I actually want to study this man naw and seek his knowledge about the reality, genuine people like this 8:36 will generally give you real knowledge about the reality of things exactly haw it is. Haw can you not love genuine people like this.

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

Just stumbled upon this. This is amazing!

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

Loved every bit of it. Thanks for sharing

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

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.

Love Stephen Meyer!

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

Constraint requires intent. Intent requires mind.

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.

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

great work Mr. Meyers

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.

Great interview

Thank God for men like him.

Fascinating and amazing.

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..

Impressive! Well done.

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.

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.

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.

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

Thank You! Excellent video.

Great mind🙌🏽 I do have ask though, Whats the difference between abstract concepts (like math) and metaphysics? Both require a pre-existing mind to define the boundaries? Seems like it ultimately refers back to square one

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

Good overview of a complicated situation re BB alternatives.

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

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

Thanks Meyer.

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

Anyone have any recommendations for what I should watch or read to learn a bit more about cosmology? I know nothing about it

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

Thank you

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.

Has Dr Meyer written any book on this specific topic? If not I'd love for him to write one

Brillant explanations

Interesting discussion by Dr. Meyer. I agree that the universe is expanding because space and time are continually expanding. And if the Cambrian explosion can be proved so then can lead to a beginning. If there was a beginning, then that information collected by the Cambrian explosion research, then that information could be enough to support the hypothesis of ID.

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.

So cool!

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

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

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?

The existence of time requires a beginning

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

very good discussion

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.

Very good.

Thank you. ☦️

26:30 Interesting, when Copernicus proposed his model of the solar system, there existed other explanations. One of them were proposed by Tycho Brahe, and it put the Earth in the center. It itself it was a very elegant theory, but Brahe had not anticipated the huge distances in universe and so his model had to be abandoned.

Amazing

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

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_ ?

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!

Would someone explain how an abstract mathematical equation can actually cause things to exist?

... it's a nice piece of philosophy here and much Appreciated, but I prefer to go from the point of "hawking radiation" to Matter, as I find it more practical and valuable rather than speculating on mathematics ... . Thank You !!

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

Freeman Dyson's conclusions regarding the misunderstandings and erronuous assumptions in the field of quantum physics: 1. "statements about the past cannot in general be made in quantum mechanical language...as a general rule, knowledge about the past can only be expressed in classical terms". Lawrence Bragg, joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1915, mentioned: "everything in the future is a wave, everything in the past is a particle". 2. "the role of the observer in QM is not to cause an abrupt reduction of the wave packet with the state of the system jumping discontinuously at the instant when it's observed. The picture of the observer interrupting the course of natural events is unnecessary and misleading. What really happens is that the quantum description of an event ceases to be meaningful as the observer changes the point of reference from before the event to after it. We don't need a human observer to make QM work, all we need is a point of reference, to seperate the past from the future, to seperate what has happened from what may happen, to seperate facts from probabilities." Please stop taking people like Alexander Vilenkin and Stephen Hawking seriously, they are totally misusing quantum mechanical language in their statements about the past condition of the universe and the so-called "singularity"; and in the case of Vilenkin who perhaps some may want to argue that he doesn't do that, he still doesn't point out the above that Freeman Dyson correctly concluded concerning QM and quantum mechanical language, which is the most important thing to mention and realize in response to Stephen Hawking's way of thinking about quantum cosmology, and all the other quantum cosmologists who refuse to recognize these facts/certainties/realities/truths (things that are factual/absolute/certain/conclusive/correct, without error; all synonyms) cause it undermines their entire field of research and their entire fruitless careers in quantum cosmology. A field that deserves to be thrown into the bin with the rest of the failed philosophical fields in the past posing as science/knowledge or insight into reality, like Bishop Berkeley's philosophy of immaterialism, which also makes matter dependent on the observer, a mind, as Stephen Meyer would say; see Dyson's conclusion nr. 2. None of that way of thinking is an adequate counter to materialism/philosophical naturalism. Also, even though this will probably go over everyone's head without further elaboration, I'd still like to remind the people at the Discovery institute that time has always existed and energy has always existed. God is not transcendent to either, he has always experienced the progression of time (otherwise the term "eternal" is inapplicable to Him, since that is an expression of an amount of time he has existed, an infinite amount of time in both directions of the figurative or conceptional timeline if you want to think about the subject of time, a single line that stretches infinitely in both directions, cause God has always been around, so time was always around as well, from God's perspective; that is why the Bible speaks of God having existed from "time indefinite" to "time indefinite") and he has always possessed an abundance of dynamic energy as one of the Psalms explains, a portion of which he has used to create our universe, He did not create our universe from nothing (which is what you end up with when saying that energy had a beginning, which violates the law of conservation of energy; too bad you didn't get that right in the Science Uprising video about the notion of a universe from nothing). Other than those little caveats, keep up the good work, but don't get too intrigued with human philosophy posing as science, which includes everyone using quantum mechanical language in statements about the past, that's not science/knowledge (Latin: _scientia_ ), that's philosophy. Or anyone who's trying to make a name for himself responding to these philosophers and their nonsense, seriously addressing it (like Alexander Vilenkin in the BGV theorem). Schrödinger has already told you that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM leads to a contradiction/paradox, no better than claiming that nothing = something. Using a wave function to describe the early condition of the universe is moot, cause wave functions only describe future probabilities, the origin of the universe is something that already happened in the past, wave functions and so-called quantum vacuums are inappropiate terms as Freeman Dyson explains (unless you are using it to describe a state of future probabilities or potential from the perspective of a point in time in the past, but a particle for example doesn't exist as that state, it existed as described in classical terms, and since it has all already happened in the past, we no longer need quantum mechanical language to describe what already happened and for which we already know the outcome, no need to talk about future probabilities or potential from the perspective of a point in time in the past anymore then). I hope that helps, even though I'm not as articulate as Freeman Dyson (so perhaps that will be more helpful in realizing that invoking quantum vacuums for the description of events that have already happened, or wave functions that have already collapsed if you will, is a waste of time, no pun intended). The full background regarding the 2 conclusions from Freeman Dyson above and how this relates to using a wave function to describe the early condition of the universe can be found in Freeman Dyson's presentation that is also available on youtube called: Freeman Dyson posits "QM cannot be a complete description of nature" He gets into Stephen Hawking's wrong way of thinking about quantum physics as well as David Bohm and Wheeler DeWitt (although Bohm quite shortly in the questions and answers section at 27:46 when he's asked something about David Bohm). There's too much speculation and philosophizing going on in the field of quantum physics; string theory is also not a scientific theory nor science, it's pseudoscience akin to ideas about a multiverse and M-theory, and it all goes back to conclusion nr.1 from Freeman Dyson above, because they take the wrong path there, they end up in the wrong place, even thinking that particles have no definite properties before they are observed, that they're popping in and out of existence, and all that nonsense philosophy and assumptions that lead to paradoxes/contradictions. Paradoxes aren't cool or intriguing, it means you did something wrong in your thinking, synonyms for paradox as listed in one online thesaurus: mistake, error, nonsense. Granted, these are not listed as the most applicable synonyms or synonyms that are the closest to the word "paradox", but they are still related in a synonymous manner (the thesaurus I'm looking at uses different color schemes, for the most related they use red, then orange, then yellow; the words I mentioned are in orange, "absurdity" is in red). Also regarding the BGV theorem and Einstein, if spacetime is neither referring to space nor time, why call it spacetime? Isn't that more than a little confusing? Like saying that reality is merely a persistent illusion? A contradiction in terms just like nothing = something. Maybe you shouldn't put Einstein on such a high pedestal like the character Lucius Lavin in Stargate Atlantis S3E3. He also was affected by the deism of Spinoza. If he can't see through that scam and charlatan, maybe you should pay more attention to Isaac Newton instead, especially when he's talking about theology and the doctrines of the Church (see video on my channel called "Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality"). The English word "science" comes from the Latin _scientia,_ meaning knowledge, which is also still a synonym for "science". Essentially, knowledge/science means familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. I.e. things that are factual/absolute/certain/true/conclusive/correct, without error. Realizing that, you may recognize another contradiction in terms in this mantra (which comes in many shapes and is extremely popular): "... there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science ..." (Alexander Vilenkin) That would be the exact opposite of what the word "science" really means, or should mean given its origin that I just explained (because people at that time, Newton's time, liked to show off their Latin skills; those who nowadays call themselves "scientists" used to call themselves "philosophers", that term became unpopular because of the many failures of their speculative philosophies, which is why Newton felt compelled to object to the use of hypotheses in what Newton still called "experimental philosophy", which later became known as "modern science", after it was already screwed over by those who insisted on the continuation of their careers in speculative philosophy, with one failed hypothesis after another, so now we get untestable so-called hypotheses, which according to an encyclopedia for scientific terminologies should not be classified as scientific hypotheses). Inductive reasoning when properly used and based on the observable evidence from experiments and observations, leads to the discovery of facts/certainties/realities/truths, things that are absolute/certain/factual; so science is _only_ about things that are absolute/certain/factual, otherwise, it's not science but unverified philosophy (compare Colossians 2:8; 1 Timothy 6:20 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21). Such as those described in Newton's Law of Gravity. They never change, propositions collected by general induction from them may be refined in order to make these propositions more accurate in different situations, or liable to exceptions, but the basic facts on which they are based remain the same.

The video seems like it's a collection of separate cuts pieced together as there's no narrative here, he explains things multiple times in different ways at different times, as if his original talk wasn't in the order presented in the video

The Cosmological Constant is so interesting - Einstein discovered /postulated / mathematically described it - then thought he was mistaken and it didn't exist - turns out he was wrong but right iykwim .......... fascinating

Interesting...matter created in the same way as clouds. When expansion causes a pressure drop they just form.

Awesome

Good stuff, but don't stop the short, cinematic versions. Scientists don't often convert because of facts as you know. Depending on your audience, you may be overshooting them, but what do I know? Love your work..keep it up!

28:54 Who/What established the "laws of the universe" that caused it to come into existence?

Explanation of Hawking PhD dissertation is the logical next interview. A deep dive to Hawking’s singularity is in order.