I'm so glad to have you guys here for this brand-new series talking about the proof of god and thanks for coming out I want to especially thank a certain group of people I want to thank you for friend or a family member or just a neighbor someone invited you and maybe you don't believe in God or you don't believe in the Bible and you you tend to lean towards science instead of God and that's maybe been your hang-up I want to thank you because if you're a scientist or scientific minded person and you're here today you're actually showing us you're truly open-minded you truly want to see where the facts take you and I just want to say that's amazing because the truth is today people are biased and so now before I go any further you may say hold on pastor you're a pastor you teach the Word of God so obviously you're totally biased I'll tell you what I'll admit my bias if you'll admit yours all of us have a bias none of us look at the truth without having some assumptions built into it we're gonna talk about that a little bit today we should start by pointing out that we shouldn't assume that anything is the truth simply because you or I say it is we can't call anything truth until we can show whether it is true until then it is never wise to believe what anyone says without question without reservation without reason especially when you're a teacher hasn't gotten anything right yet you don't teach the Word of God for example you preach from a story book written by mere fallible men pretending to speak for their God understand also that religion is a bias by definition but the scientific methodology purposefully minimizes or eliminates bias by design because every postulation must be objectively verifiable and based on indications of prior evidence and there has to be a way to prove it wrong if it is which religion will not admit or submit to scientific skepticism reason and rationalism work exactly opposite of irrational religious faith because in science accuracy and accountability are paramount and we know better than to call it truth unless we can show the truth of it which of course faith can't do and somehow doesn't even care about that faith endorses a complete conviction without any evidence at all you use logical fallacies instead while science encourages doubt even of our evidence lest we be deceived by our own overconfidence which is all faith is and does so we're very much on opposite ends of the spectrum regarding bias and also truth in your three-part seminar you did not speak truth the truth is what the facts are and you got all of your facts wrong so once I saw the videos wherein you claim to have scientific proof of God I contacted your office trying to schedule an on-camera interview with you to personally correct you on a number of things you've got inexcusably wrong in your gross misrepresentation of evolution but you denied me that opportunity your secretary asked what I wanted to talk to you about and I said I'm a science communicator and author of foundational falsehoods of creationism and that my channel is dedicated to improving understanding of evolution as she said but but bill doesn't believe in evolution and I said I know but he also got it all wrong in his seminar and I want to talk to him directly about that in person and she said if you want to know bill's views there online you know there they're out there and I said I know that his views are out there that's the problem I don't want to ask what his views are I already know what they are and he's got it all wrong so I'd like to meet with him and talk to him about what it really is and show him that it's not at all like what he said it is but she said bill wouldn't be interested in that again I know because bill is biased where I am NOT if you don't care about factual accuracy then you don't care about honesty either but I do I would rather correct my errors and improve my understanding of the way things really are regardless what the truth turns out to be while bill would rather make believe whatever he wants to regardless whether it's true or not and his position requires that he mislead and deceive others to believe it too so there's no way he would have agreed to meet with me on video and let his admission of his many mistakes and misinformation be a matter of public record his job will not allow him to correct himself what a tangled web we weave when we are paid to deceive now pastor Cornelius because you chose to ignore my request and refused to meet with me then what really would have been a polite discussion of less than an hour will be a string of videos going on for a couple of hours so we don't miss anything because you got everything so wrong that my viewers are in for some amusement your expense to be sure your three-part seminar began with your misunderstanding of Big Bang cosmology followed by two videos wherein you misrepresent evolution although you don't understand evolution well enough to realize that both of those videos dealt with that you don't realize what evolution is so you didn't know that it's all about biodiversity which was your third video I've dedicated half my life to the study of evolution so I'll cover the latter two videos in that series but Big Bang cosmology is an entirely different subject and not related to my specialty at all I have no business even talking about that so this first video is a collaboration I brought in my go-to guy for Physics in cosmogony an academic content creator whose channel like mine is dedicated to correcting creationists on scientific subjects so take it away King Crocodoc hi I'm King Crocodoc and I'm gonna be debunking some creationist crap for you today before I begin I'd like to say a couple of things first I want to say thank you to our in raw for inviting me onto his channel to contribute to this little project secondly I'd like to say damn you to our Unruh for putting me up against this absolute airhead pastor bill Cornelius who seems to think that the field of cosmology proves the existence of God let's hear what he has to say I want to thank you for friend or a family member or just a neighbor or someone invited you and maybe you don't believe in God or you don't believe in the Bible and you you tend to lean towards science instead of God and that's maybe being your hang-up I want to thank you because if you're a scientist or scientific minded person and you're here today you're actually showing us you're truly open-minded you truly want to see where the facts take you and I just want to say that's amazing because the truth is today people are biased and so now before I go any further you may say hold on pastor you're a pastor you teach the Word of God so obviously you're totally biased I'll tell you what I'll admit my bias if you'll admit yours all of us have a bias none of us look at the truth without having some assumptions built into it we're gonna talk about that a little bit today but I want to start off by saying try to let the facts take you where they take you we'll do bill and while we're at it I'll go ahead and admit my bias I'm biased towards models of reality that have predictive accuracy meaning that they can accurately describe the manner in which future phenomena will present themselves to our senses explanatory efficiency meaning that instead of shoehorning in superfluous nonsense these models are composed entirely of evidence-based propositions that explain our observations and optimal flexibility meaning that these models are sufficiently flexible so as to be open to revision in light of new evidence but not so flexible so as to be able to subsume all possible observations under its explanatory framework thus becoming unfalsifiable so with that in mind I can promise to allow the facts to take me wherever they lead me and I will be diligently pointing out whenever you fail to do the same now according to bill there are five facts from cosmology which prove the existence of God and he'll be unpacking them for us in the minutes to come let's hear it then the first scientific fact I want to give you is this the universe has the beginning would you write that down the universe has the beginning that is a scientific fact now used to not be there used to be what's called there still is out there called the steady-state theory which says that the earth just always existed that the universe is always existed that the Sun and the moon just always existed that the orbit always existed and so scientists believe this many of them and wanted to believe that and it's it's typically called in today's terms the steady state theory that energy just is a steady state we now know that is actually not the case the steady state theory says nothing about the perpetual existence of the Earth Sun Moon orbit or anything else other than the universe as a whole positing that the cosmos are infinitely big infinitely old and constantly creates new matter in order to offset the attractive effects of gravity for reasons that bill will attempt to highlight and which i will subsequently be clarifying this theory about the large scale and long term behavior of the universe was largely abandoned by the scientific community decades ago in favor of the Big Bang Theory which pauses the universe transition from a very hot and dense state into its currents cool and sparse one over the course of 13.8 billion years so what is it about the Big Bang Theory that excites bill so much Genesis 1:1 says in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth so there was a finite beginning now the biggest evidence that there is a God is found in what the father of modern science Francis Bacon called the law of causality well the science science is finding the cause behind right the effects right so we want to know what's the cause of cancer so we can solve this right what's the cause I mean right now people are saying what's the cause of hurricanes right be really great if we could figure that out because it helps us determine one one's coming and to get prepared for it and of course we do know meteorologists actually have discovered most of that but they still have some questions on it Francis Bacon said this true knowledge is knowledge by causes so what I'd like to argue today is what caused the world what caused the universe is there a great causal factor involved I believe that there is and so this is also typically called if you want to Google this sometime the cosmological argument cosmological just means cosmos in other words proof that there's a God because of the cosmos what does that mean it means the universe that means the stars in the sky the planets the orbital system the Earth's rotation all those things actually lead us to believe that there must be a god this is the cosmological arguments the big paints we're turning personation you say cosmological argument lemon all right now the cosmological argument here the three principles of that first is that everything that had a beginning had a cause the universe had a beginning and therefore the universe had a cause let's pretend for the sake of argument that classical Aristotelian notions of causality are meaningful in the context of the Big Bang whose first 10 to the minus 43 seconds were governed by physics that are not yet understood and whose features may not be amenable to common intuitions about the metaphysics of causality first of all and this is a point that I'll be repeating over and over the Big Bang Theory does not necessarily describe the origin of the universe in the sense that Bill implies all that it describes is the fact that the universe transitions from an extremely hot and dense state into a cool and sparse one and that this process was and continues to be facilitated by the rapid expansion of space this does not imply that prior to the first moment of expansion the universe did not exist merely that if it did it wasn't governed by the set of physics that subsequently came to describe our universe we set the zero point for the age of the universe at the moment of the Big Bang because it represents the first verified instance in which the universe entered a regime that was governed by the laws of physics as we know them consequently it might be possible that the universe emerged from a prior state and that the Big Bang represents a kind of phase transition analogous to the transformation of liquid water into gaseous vapor evaporation at this point in time there's simply no way to tell because there exists no comprehensive physical theory that adequately describes how the universe behaves at such extreme timescales temperature and density what is certain is that the proposition that the universe began to exist applies to the Big Bang only to the extent that began to exist means verifiably began to be governed by the same physics that apply today rather than was proved into being ex nihilo the latter proposition has no evidence to support it but even having said all of that the cosmological argument would still fail even if we did grant for the sake of argument that the universe was proved into being ex nihilo the first premise contains an equivocation between creation ex materia and creation ex nihilo creation ex materia involves something beginning to exist via the rearrangement of previously existing materials such as the Assembly of the house out of wood and plaster or the Assembly of a zygote out of sperm and egg by contrast creation ex nihilo involves the creation of something out of a philosophical noting the emergence of an entity out of a nonentity if the cosmological argument makes use of creation ex nihilo then the argument isn't supported by any evidence since we have no examples of creation ex nihilo apart from the one that this argument attempts to attribute consequently we are in no position to speculate that creation ex nihilo requires causal influence especially if one were to cite examples of creation ex materia as evidence that things which begin to exist have a cause this is where the equivocation lies evidence of the causal necessity of things that begin to exist via the rearrangement of pre-existing materials is not evidence of the causal necessity of things that begin to exist via being poofed out of nothing and this would still hold true even if examples of creation ex nihilo ever did surface the only valid application of the cosmological argument requires one to argue that the universe was created ex materia which would mean that God created the universe out of pre-existing materials aside from the usual problem of lacking evidence the scenario would present a whole host of theological problems for the theist but because I don't care I won't dwell on them if so what's unpacked I want to give you 5 facts today 5 scientific discoveries that are almost in arguable at this point the evidence is so obvious that you would be unfortunately showing a tremendous bias to go against the facts and so I now want to give you facts and here's what's great about this what I'm about to prove to you is that science which people used to use used to used to run away from the belief in God is now proving there is a God so the very science that was supposed to make you not believe is now forcing scientists that don't believe to believe the scientific activity does not operate under any mandate concerning the types of conclusions which ought to be reached and those who attempt to employ science in such a manner are at best setting themselves up for disappointment and at worst are liabilities to the scientific enterprise it is not the case that science is inherently atheistic nor that scientists have been attempting to employ their work in the service of non belief but regardless let's just go ahead and see what these five scientific proofs of God are which are supposedly turning atheist scientists into Christians left and right let me give you five simple things that have been discovered through science that we believe backs up the the argument that because of the cosmos because of the universe we know that there must be a God here it is first of all the second law of thermodynamics says this at one of the one of the effects of the second law of thermodynamics is this the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time entropy means break down things break down the total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease over time in all spent spontaneous processes the total entropy increases and the process is irreversible so the breakdown happens if you want to see the law of entropy look at my body I am breaking down right we are all breaking down some of us have more entropy than others right but the truth is is that once you hit puberty and sort of hit your your prime then what happens your body begins to break down your system is not created to last forever if you see a Ferrari there's a very nice car very well built but if you think you're going to drive that thing for 50 years without having a breakdown you're crazy it will break down even though it's one of the most fine-tuned machines there are even that fine-tuning will break down and so understand that this breakdown tells us that there must have been a beginning point that it was at its heights of creating right the right the creation for a Toyota is the day you drive it off the lot right and guess what happens to the value that car when you drive it off the lot goes down why is that because now they know this is gonna be at risk and just a matter of time until it it breaks down in some areas some cars last longer than others but they all eventually break down so that they have the law of entropy happening so the law of entropy is this with time things naturally fall apart and so guys learn Turek in their book I don't have the faith to be an atheist which I lean heavily upon for this for this message by the way they said this aspect of the second law of thermodynamics also tells us that the universe had a beginning since we still have some order left just like we still have some usable energy left the universe cannot be eternal because if it were we would have already reached complete disorder or entropy by now in other words the world is like a flashlight you left on all night there's energy left but it's not the same energy you had last night right it's starting to dim I won't dwell on the relationship between entropy and aging because even though that relationship was grossly oversimplified by Bill here it's tangential to the salient issue at hand before anything it's important that we achieve some clarity with regard to the meaning of entropy because this is one of the most popularly misunderstood concepts in physics and it's worth exploring in some detail my analogy of choice at least with those students who are not science majors involved as a pair of dice when we roll a pair of dice they may land in one of 36 possible combinations which we will call microstates 5 + 2 is 1 microstate 2 + 5 is another 1 + 2 + 4 is still another microstate the values of these microstates add up to what are called energy levels there are 11 such energy levels and their values are 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 and 12 if we were to plot the number of possible microstates that could manifest as a function of the energy levels that they produced we would do something like this first for energy level 2 there is only one possible way to arrive at this value and that's what Snake Eyes so we will assign the value of 1 to its frequency for energy level 3 you can arrive at this value either by rolling a 2 into 1 or by rolling a 1 and a 2 since there are two ways to arrive at energy level 3 we assign to it the value to moving on to energy level for you can arrive at this value by rolling a 1 into 3 a 3 into 1 or a 2 into 2 so we assign the value 3 to this energy level and continue with this process until we arrive at this distribution this distribution is called the statistical ensemble and its profile gives us information about the macro state of the system each energy level has a probability associated with it depending on the number of microstates that are able to produce it energy level 2 has probability 1 out of 36 energy level 7 has probability 6 out of 36 and energy level 13 has probability 0 since there's no possible way to roll a 13 with an ordinary pair of dice what this means is that if we were to roll the dice 36 thousand times we'd end up with a value of 2 1000 times a value of 7 6000 times and a value of 13 0 times over the course of many different rolls this probability distribution matches the distribution of values that actually manifests the profile of this distribution tells us something important about the manner in which possible energy levels may manifest energy levels 7 may manifest in six different ways while energy level 2 may manifest in only one way that is to say energy level 7 is 6 times more likely to manifest than energy level 2 is or to put it another way energy level 7 is 6 times more anthropic than energy level 2 that's right entropy at the end of the day really just refers to these kinds of statistical configurations and in particular the manner in which those configurations aggregate to produce energy levels and their associated probabilities in thermodynamics dynamical processes processes that involve motion require an energy gradient a difference in the values of energy that are associated with a particular system for example in order to move electrons across a circuit from the positively charged cathode of a battery passed a light bulb that makes use of the resulting electric current and back into the negatively charged anode on the other side of the battery there has to be a difference in electric potential between the cathode and the anode in order to generate a voltage voltage is basically the amount of push that an electrically charged particle like an electron will receive within this circuit and the bigger the voltage the bigger the push if the cathode has a potential of positive 10 V and the anode has a potential of negative 130 V there 140 volts worth of push on the electrons and they'll flow through the circuit but if both the cathode and the anode have the same value of electric potential say positive 50 V then there's no voltage generated between them and thus no push on the electrons they won't flow through the circuit and the lightbulb won't turn on what's key to notice about the situation is that the cathode and the anode still have energies associated with them but that because there's no energy gradient between the two subsystems they won't be able to do work let's go back to our dice we're going to play a game consisting of two rolls per round and the number of rounds is whatever amount is needed to get you to reach a score of 100 the rules are that you roll a pair of dice twice and each time you count the energy level that they sum up to then you find the absolute value of the difference between the two trials if you roll a 10 and then a 7 for example the absolute value of the difference will be 3 same story if you roll a 7 and then a 10 in either scenario your score is now 3 we are going to call this difference between the two rolls that constitute each round the energy gradient then for the next round if you roll another 2 times and maybe get a 6 into 7 the energy gradient the absolute value of the difference is 1 and your total score is 4 the sum of your scores from the previous rounds your goal is to reach a score of 100 before your opponent does so the rules are roll a pair of dice twice find the difference add the results to your score and repeat until you reach 100 now the game comes with a twist the dice are unfairly weighted in such a manner that their statistical ensembles deviate from that of the fair dice discussed earlier your opponent has a pair of dice which are loaded in such a manner so as to be able to produce any of the 11 energy levels with equal probability the chance of rolling 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 or 12 is 9 point 1 percent for each meanwhile the statistical ensemble of your loaded dice is such that the probability of rolling energy level 10 is 90% while the probability of rolling energy levels 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 or 12 is 1 percent for each who has the advantage in this game you with your highly anthropic dice or your opponent whose dice have low entropy the answer is your opponent because you are rolling the same energy level 90 percent of the time when you subtract the two values at the end of each round your score for that round is usually going to be 0 since both values are most likely going to be 10 and 10 minus 10 is zero meanwhile your opponent is very unlikely to land on the same value twice in the same round so their score for each round gets to increase and they'll reach 100 in no time you're highly anthropic dice are not as readily capable of producing the energy gradients needed to advance your score while your opponent's minimally entropic dice are easily able to produce all kinds of energy gradients nearly every round so now that we have a somewhat better understanding of the relationship between entropy and energy gradients let's consider the second law of thermodynamics which states that an isolated system which undergoes a dynamical process will increase in entropy that is to say the statistical ensemble of the dice is going to go from this to this making it nearly impossible to win the game anymore the resulting lack of an energy gradient causes the system to become increasingly incapable of exploiting differences in energy in order to do work and thus ceases to sustain dynamical processes the application of this principle to the cosmos as a whole implies that there will eventually come a point when the universe is no longer able to facilitate dynamical processes because as time goes on entropy increases forcing the universe to converge on one particular energy level the resulting homogeneity of energy will ultimately make the cosmos fall silent since the distribution of energy throughout the universe will be uniform represented by only this one level and that will make energy gradients everywhere equal to zero thus making dynamical processes impossible this is called the heat death of the universe according to Bill the fact that the universe has not yet undergone heat death is proof that entropy along with the rest of the universe originated at the moment of the Big Bang which was characterized by relatively low entropy that has since been increasing the net entropy of the universe does not decrease so it's finite value implies a finite age to everything while I concede that the thermodynamic arrow of time did not begin to run until the Big Bang there are some important details worth considering first as we saw an increase in entropy does not constitute a net decrease in the universe's energy that would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics Bill's impression that the universe is running out of energy is mistaken for reasons that we have already covered it's not the loss of energy that causes heat death with the loss of energy gradients second the bulk of the universe's entropy is concentrated inside of black holes which are the most massive objects inside of the entire cosmos consequently they contain the greatest numbers of particles and thus the greatest numbers of microstates which translates into the greatest values for entropy and these values for entropy truly are enormous if not for the existence of black holes the total entropy of the universe today would be approximately the same as it was at the time of the Big Bang the expansion of the universe is adiabatic which means that its growth doesn't contribute to the net entropy of the cosmos and the entropy coming from stars and planets is negligible by comparison due to their comparatively minuscule numbers of microstates just how anthropic is a black hole you ask well this is the black hole entropy formula first arrived by jacob bekenstein and Stephen Hawking in 1974 and it indicates that the entropy of a black hole is its area times these constants since the area of the black hole which we can calculate from the Schwarzschild equation for the radius of the black hole is proportional to the square of its mass it follows that the entropy of a black hole increases with the square of that already incredible mass in other words to find out how much entropy characterizes the most massive objects in the universe Square their masses and then multiply by a bunch of constants nothing else in the universe that we know of exhibits nearly this much entropy black holes are important to our consideration of the universe's change in entropy over time because at the time of the Big Bang there were no black holes which means that such stupidly big values for entropy could not arise in the early universe another thing worth considering is that the thermodynamic arrow of time already doesn't necessarily apply at the subatomic scale in the classical world if you break a window you can't recover 100% of the energy used to break that window in order to bring it back to its original unbroken state however it has long been known the time symmetry of this sort does in fact hold at the scale of subatomic particles which is the scale being considered when we're talking about the earliest moments of the universe at any rate we are in no position to speculate either way about the role of thermodynamics at scales that have not yet been tested by even our most powerful particle accelerators so the assertion that the origin of the thermodynamic arrow of time represents the earliest age of the universe is unjustified proof number one in addition to resting upon a messy understanding of entropy and the second law of thermodynamics makes claims about nature that cannot yet be supported Scripture that back set up then God looked over all he had made and he saw that it was very good when he began it was like it's good it's great but then guess what happened man chose to sin which meant when man chose us in God was no longer sustaining the perfection of his creation because of sin Genesis 3:17 says God said since you have listened to your wife and ate from the tree whose fruit I commanded you not to eat we're gonna just skip over that right now I don't want to unpack why it's sinful listen to your wife that's really not what I want to do today so the ground is cursed because of you all your life you will struggle to scratch a living from it it will grow thorns and thistles for you though you will eat from its grains by the sweat of your brow you will have food to eat until you return to the ground from which you were made for you were made from dust and to dust you will return he says say because sin came in the world everything that I made it so perfect is now going to entropy why because I'm not here to constantly sustain it in its perfection anymore which means it's a great system I created but systems break down you can have a beautiful garden if you know you leave it unattended what's gonna happen to it it's gonna break down so according to bill entropy didn't exist until after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit this is a hilariously stupid idea for several reasons the most medal of them being the following in the absence of entropy and thus in the absence of the thermodynamic arrow of time all processes spontaneously become reversible after Adam and Eve ate something and excreted it from their systems it would have been possible for their stools to crawl back into their anuses and up to their intestinal tracts draining nutrients from their blood streams before climbing through their stomachs up their throats out of their mouths and back onto the trees as fully-formed unchewed fruit i'm an atheist and even i thank god for entropy there's also the additional problem that non conservative forces like friction exist as a consequence of entropy which means that in the absence of entropy Adam and Eve would have been skating around the Garden of Eden without being able to control their emotions how they'd even have managed to grab on to and chew on the forbidden fruit in the first place as a mystery but hey that's creationist physics for you number one is this the universe is running out of gas the running out of energy if a car is full of gas and it runs out of gas isn't the evidence that a car ran out of gas proof that someone at one time put gas in it right would that be a natural cause you say well yeah I mean you know oh this car is running well then there's a natural cause that someone gassed it up putting aside the specious analogy for the moment this represents Bill's lack of understanding of what the second law of thermodynamics is actually about the universe isn't running out of energy any more than the cathode and the anode in the circuit have run out of electric potential it's the lack of energy gradients that prevents dynamical processes from taking place not the absence of energy per se and again the first law of thermodynamics prohibits the universe from running out of energy anyway also someone made it the evidence that there's a Ford Motor Company is driving all around you today because you see a Ford truck you're like well someone they that the evidence said that that there's a maker of that Ford is the fact that they're driving around because because how can those aqua you know let's just let's just go to a body parts store just throw all the parts in room together and if we just give it enough time eventually Ford will come out of that that's what you've been told and that's what you've been told by creationists who want to knock down a straw man those who understand how emergent complexity works will know that complex systems cannot be understood merely in terms of their constituents that must be evaluated in terms of the relationships between their components that produce the novel patterns responsible for specific structures the images on your screen right now were generated with an algorithm that randomly organized a thousand circles and the ten thousand lines connecting them into these various forms with nothing but a certain set of boundary conditions parameters for how relationships between the circles and lines are allowed to manifest and randomly assign numbers from a uniform probability distribution I did not tell my program to sort these circles and lines in any particular way all that I did was impose a set of rules constraining the ways that these components are allowed to interact and then sat back and let the program do the rest it is not necessary for a conscious entity to intervene in place two circles and lines in two particular configurations just impose a set of boundary conditions like those that inform natural selection or the laws of physics and order will spontaneously be sculpted from the chaos there's a famous thought experiment involving typewriting monkeys and the works of Shakespeare is it possible for a set of monkeys in a room filled with typewriters to produce the complete set of Shakespeare's works if left to their own devices the answer is obviously no it's been tried but if you impose a certain set of boundary conditions and allow for a certain set of idealizing assumptions then not only is it possible for monkeys to randomly press keys on a typewriter and produce the complete works of Shakespeare but it's inevitable and moreover they'd be able to do it over a hundred times as fast as Shakespeare himself the complete works of Shakespeare have eight hundred eighty four thousand four hundred and twenty-one words in them the length of words in the English language is about five letters on average so this would come out to approximately 4.5 million letters that need to be typed assuming that there are just as many spaces as there are words and that punctuation marks feature in the works of Shakespeare about 10 times less frequently than words do then we're looking at no more than five and a half million characters that need to be typed in the correct order let's make the following idealizing assumptions first that each keyboard contains 26 lowercase letters 26 uppercase letters 1 spacebar 1 Enter key to create new lines nine keys that each contain one punctuation mark and 10 keys containing all of the numbers ranging from 0 to 9 that means that the keyboards that will be used by our monkeys contain exactly 73 keys with every character including capital letters and punctuation marks being allocated their own keys we will further assume that the monkeys in our thought experiment will hit exactly one key every second and that the key that they hit is decided completely randomly that is to say the probability that the monkey will hit any given key is 1 out of 73 finally the monkeys do not eat sleep defecate or otherwise pause throughout the typing process in principle we could take monkeys out of the equation entirely and just speak of computer programs randomly typing one of 73 characters every second and the intended result would still be the same but we're gonna stick with monkeys just for fun in fact we're going to assume that we have 73,000 of these very well-behaved and hardworking monkeys all in a room with their own typewriters the assumptions that I just introduced are the idealizing assumptions and their function is to operationalize the procedure in a consist Stinton systematic fashion what's key about these idealizing conditions is that they preserve the essential question associated with the thought experiment can completely random keyboard inputs generate the complete works of shakespeare again I claim that they can but not with what I've described thus far what we need now is some set of boundary conditions which I will formalize with the following straightforward algorithm in order to make sure that the 5.5 million characters are typed in the correct order the boundary conditions are this first we sort the monkeys into two categories those that are allowed to live and pass on their genes and those who die when they are tasked with typing the title the tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark the monkeys need to start off by hitting the key that corresponds to capital T because each of the 73,000 monkeys have a 1 in 73 chance of succeeding in this after the first second an average of a thousand monkeys will have correctly hit capital t and the remaining 72,000 will have hit something else this brings us to the second boundary conditions those monkeys who hit the correct letter will be sorted into the category of monkeys who get to live and those monkeys who hit the wrong letter will be sorted into the category of monkeys who died for failing to adapt to the demands of the procedure the monkeys who live are allowed to reproduce and their offspring will fill the empty seats of the 72,000 monkeys who died the moment they typed in the wrong letter we have allowed the number of offspring to equal the number of unoccupied typewriters which were previously occupied by the now disposed of 72,000 monkeys who had typed in the wrong character finally and most importantly when the new monkeys are seated at the now vacant typewriters these new monkeys start out with a new sheet of paper with the content of their parents papers in this case a capital T already in place in other words the moment the new cohort of monkeys are seated at their typewriters their papers already contain the letter that was typed by their surviving progenitors which means that they don't need to start from scratch the process has already advanced by one increment if you haven't caught it yet the analogy is this the demands of the procedure to produce the correct character in the correct order as the environment the letters typed onto the pages and the typewriters are the genes of the monkeys the monkeys who survived are the generation that adapted sufficiently to pass on their genes the monkeys who died are the evolutionary dead ends and the new generation of monkeys are the offspring who inherited the genes of their surviving parents hence the capital T's that are already in place on their papers so the process is monkeys type one letter an average of a thousand live an average of 72,000 die and are replaced with the offspring of the surviving monkeys and everyone's paper now has the exact same content then the monkeys typed the next letter at this point we are going to introduce one more idealization into our algorithm the time interval between the typing of a letter the death and disposal of 72,000 monkeys the birth and placement of 72,000 replacements of sheets of paper that contained the contents of their progenitors papers and the typing of the next letter spans exactly one second in case you're wondering how the monkeys in this scenario would be able to reproduce nourish their offspring allow the baby monkeys to become mature enough to be able to participate in the procedure and dispose of the 72,000 dead monkeys over the course of the single second just insert your science fiction Fiat of choice maybe to save time the DNA of every monkey that goes through this procedure is collected and their offspring have been rapidly incubated in such a manner that they have already grown up and are ready to participate in the procedure and are teleported into the vacant seats of the monkeys that died during the previous step while the corpses are all teleported to the moon and this whole thing is automated so it just takes a single second in reality generations take a much longer time to produce mature offspring but it doesn't matter the point of the science fiction a scenario is to make sure that every typewriter in the room has one of their keys hit every second this is effectively an assumption that the generations pass with constant frequency if we were talking about programs instead of monkeys the time would of course be much shorter than one second but the monkeys helped to illustrate that the letters that actually get typed are fundamentally random and that the only non-random aspect of this entire procedure would be the demands of the environment which in this scenario is analogous to natural selection if we remove to the science fictiony elements from this procedure the only thing that would change would be the time interval between each letter that gets typed we would have to wait for the surviving monkeys to mate and for their offspring to mature before moving on to the next step which of course would affect the total time of the procedure but the central point of this whole process would remain unchanged the key is that the monkeys hit are still fundamentally random and they still end up typing Shakespeare's complete works we are only introducing the science fictiony step to reduce the I'm interval between each iteration of the algorithm to one second so the process repeats itself for another iteration this time the procedure demands a lowercase H 72,000 monkeys including most likely those who survived the previous round press the wrong key and die while a thousand survivors get to pass on their genes to the next generation of monkeys who now start out with papers with the letters Big T and little H and on and on the process reiterates until after 40 seconds and almost three million dead monkeys the title of Hamlet and all of its 40 character glory is typed there are now 73,000 typewriters with the title the tragedy of Hamlet Prince of Denmark on their pages iterating this process over the course of all 5.5 million characters of shakespeare's collective works hours hype writing monkeys can produce the complete works of the bard in sixty three and a half days again the keys that they hit were completely random all that we imposed was a set of boundary conditions that ensured that the correct inputs were distributed to the progeny of the survivors which is exactly what evolution and more broadly natural processes do everyone else died and in this particular experiment we end up with an average of about 400 billion dead monkeys hey what can I say nature is cruel the takeaway is that the presence of randomness does not preclude the possibility of complexity for boundary conditions like those that characterize natural selection are what sculpt order out of the chaos anyway I've walled on for long enough about entropy emergence and complexity so let's just move on to proof of god number two number two Einstein's theory of general relativity proved that the universe has a beginning and was not eternal therefore disproving the steady state theory he did this in 1916 by the way a couple things he know about Einstein Einstein found his calculations irritating I find that funny why would you be irritated by the result you found in a science project unless you had a an intent of what you wanted it to be versus what it actually is another word sounds like Einstein had a bias he didn't want to discover that there must be a creator but he stumbled upon it he won the university eternal and realized that it was not since he didn't like this he created a mathematical fudge factor do you know that Einstein cheated he create what's called a fudge factor this folks factor was later uncovered to be untrue by a British cosmetologist named Arthur Eddington just a few years later Eddington solar eclipse discovery just a few years later to confirm the theory of relativity which bothered him again why are these scientists bothered by what they're discovering I thought it was just the pursuit of truth wherever it takes us and why are you so bothered by this truth because they had a bias going in did everything that they could discover had to be material and they realized wait a minute this there's some things that that I can't put my hands on there must be a a creator it bothered him and so he said this in fact this is a quote from Eddington philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me I should like to find a genuine loophole Wow that's a bias 1922 mathematician Alexander Friedmann exposed the fudge factor of Einstein he's the one that first really showed the world since no one else is smart enough to do his equations also this guy comes along he gets equations and he basically said you know an Einstein did to make sure that all this matched he did the fudge factor he multiplied everything by zero which even the great school student knows you know let's do that math and so he did that so the theory of relativity once you take out the fudge factors improve into the fifth decimal point by the way and so it's it's definitely proven 1927 something else happened Edwin Hubble you guys heard of the Hubble telescope I never heard of that the guy who they named it after Edwin Hubble using his telescope proved Einstein's theory of an expanding universe and Einstein himself traveled to California's Mount Wilson to look for himself the redshift proved an expanding universe would was and is obvious for any observer there was a if you if you look at the university's telescope you see this red shift happening in other words basically it's like slow motion you're seeing movement happen here's what we discovered we discovered that the universe is constantly expanding in every direction now if you go to a bomb site you know how they can find where the bomb is because it's expanding in every direction from that point right so if you see something and it's expanding in every direction if you were to record that like a movie you'd see going out in every direction now rewind the movie whoa this calls what you call what the Big Bang so according to Bill the sneaky atheistic scientists Albert Einstein and Sir Arthur Eddington didn't like the implications of general Relativity because of their religious predispositions with the former having introduced a fudge factor into his equations that involved a multiplication by zero and the latter having dismissed the evidence that he'd personally collected that would have exposed Einsteins fraudulent actions then the good and presumably god-fearing scientist Alexander Friedman came along and exposed Einstein properly since no one else was smart enough to understand the underhanded and conniving manipulations that Einstein had made and proved that the universe was expanding then in 1927 Edwin Hubble came along and proved the Big Bang Theory with his observations of spatially proportional galactic redshift I'm gonna be honest bill this is one of the worst histories of physics that I have ever had the Miss Martian to listen to and believe me you're up against some pretty hefty competition we'll start from the beginning with general relativity this is Einstein's field equation it's actually several equations condensed into one but here are the takeaways this is the Ricci tensor the Ricci scalar and the metric tensor which basically tells us about the geometric properties of a certain region of space-time this is the stress energy tensor which tells us how energy is distributed along that region of space-time this is the speed of light this is the universal gravitational constant and this is the cosmological constant which according to Bill is the fudge factor that multiplies everything by zero what this equation is basically saying is that the more mass energy that is located at a particular region of space-time the more that space-time is going to distort and consequently when paired with an equation that gives the shortest paths and hyperbolic elliptical geometries these equations explain how space-time will influence the trajectories of the mass energy the facture involving the cosmological constant is added in because when applied to the universe as a whole Einstein's field equations produce the result that the universe is either expanding or contracting which at the time went against the prevailing wisdom of the static universe unlike the steady state Theory the static universe model does not postulate the continuous production of matter over time stipulating instead that the universe is infinite with an infinite amount of matter that attracts everything to everything else in every direction thus maintaining static equilibrium at the largest scales of the universe this was the theory subscribe to since before the time of Newton and was held to be correct by pretty much every scientist most of them theists until the development of general relativity the problem with an infinite universe with an infinite number of stars that maintain its structure is that it falls prey to something called Olbers paradox basically if the night sky has an infinite number of stars in it the sky should be infinitely bright at all times and that evidently wasn't happening so Einstein postulated that there actually exists a finite amount of mass in the universe in order to avoid this problem but this suggests that the gravitational attraction of this finite number of bodies about their center of mass should cause the entire universe to contract the addition of this cosmological constant term was motivated by the desire to counteract the gravitational attraction in order to make the universe static and as you can see it doesn't involve doing anything as pure Isle as multiplying by zero this was not a scheme by biased atheists who hate God this was a natural response to a problem that seemed to contradict what was known at the time ultimately Einstein famously disavowed the cosmological constant and the apparent mistakes which led to its implementation because without it he would have been able to predict the expansion of the universe in fact he ended up calling the cosmological constant his biggest blunder it's also complete nonsense to say that nobody but Alexander Friedmann understood the content of Einstein's equations or the motivations behind the implementation of the cosmological constant every one from David Hilbert to M another had been completely aware of all of this and were 100% onboard it is likewise nonsensical to suggest that Einstein was displeased with edingtons confirmation of his theory with the eclipse of 1919 since that event was responsible for making Einstein into a celebrity literally overnight or that edingtons displeasure with non-static models of the universe was rooted in his atheistic predispositions since Eddington was a Quaker it is similarly nonsensical to suggest that the God fearing Alexander Friedmann who was an atheist had rejected the cosmological constant since the equations which bear his name feature it rather prominently here it is Friedman's equations combined with an equation of state tell us how the large-scale dynamics of the universe are driven by the curvature of space along with the density and cosmic distribution of mass radiation and whatever the cosmological constant represents on that note it's worth pointing out that ever since it was discovered in the 80s that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating physicists now make new use of the cosmological constant as the term which facilitates this accelerated expansion rather than merely holding it at equilibrium in a static universe as Einstein had originally intended these days the entity that the cosmological constant is taken to represent is called dark energy anyway the picture that bill has painted of biased atheistic scientists being trumped by religious discoveries is simply nonsense Sir Arthur Eddington who bill has unfairly maligned alongside Einstein as being biased against contradictory hypotheses was responsible for training and ultimately advocating for the Catholic priest who first suggested that the expansion of the universe implied an initial hot in dense state that subsequently expanded George Lemaitre Eddington's protege was always treated kindly and fairly by Einstein despite his initial disagreements with the idea of a dynamic universe and ultimately when the Big Bang Theory was supported by Hubble's discovery of the universe's expansion in 1929 via spatially proportional galactic redshifts Einstein went on to publicly give standing ovations Toula Mitro at a conference saying this is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened and la Mettrie to his credit had the good sense to insist that the Big Bang Theory is as all science should be neutral with respect to theological dogma having chastised Pope Pius the 12th for proclaiming that his work had scientifically proven Catholicism bill would do well to follow la Mitra's example as he maintained over and over throughout the duration of his life that science and religion ought to not mix and that the Big Bang Theory neither confirmed nor denied any theological belief system so here's my question there's the Big Bang who pulled the trigger who caused that to happen and so everything expands out one direction just means someone set something off something someone larger than the universe set it off to cause it to happen and I like to say it this way God said it and bang it happened it is bad form to proclaim that some set of scientific principles of indicates ones cherished belief system if one has not taken the time to understand those principles people who conduct themselves in this manner cannot properly be said to be engaging in education as what they're doing more closely resembles advocacy and regrettably this entire presentation seems to consist entirely of bungling up the science misrepresenting the history or shoehorning in God wherever there are ambiguities and uncertainties in our current understanding of these topics at the start of this presentation bill invited us to follow the facts where they take us but for some reason he keeps wanting to take a detour taking every opportunity to cram God into the gaps of our knowledge I thought we were gonna try to be objective bill I thought we'd be smarter than this in any event the universe is not expanding in any one direction as though it were a gas cloud pouring from God's gun it is expanding in all directions simultaneously and so God put it into motion but that's my bias but what's not a bias is that it did happen this way and Einstein Theory relativity prove that there is no steady state theory number three the universe is expanding which supports a big bang boom this is just proof number two again general relativity the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang are all part of the same story don't try to sell me one proof for the price of two next number four radiation from the Big Bang it's an obvious evidence to the Big Bang then they said okay now that we have this radiation evidence there must be some more evidence and they thought you know one thing we know about nuclear bombs we know about giant heat-seeking missiles we know this about microwave you know cooking right we know that when you cook something when you have great heat and explosion you have waves of heat which means that when you cook your meatloaf today in your microwave there's hot spots what cold spots why because a wave went through it and so part of it got hot and part of a stayed cold and so that that's why you said they said that why you think they have a turning dish because you know that just sits flat well this part of me hot really hot and this part of me cold so that to turn it to make sure those waves hit every part of it because heat and explosions create a wave so you thought if this is true if what we found is that there's a Big Bang the universe expanding every direction and we have now the evidence that there's a Big Bang because the state of state Theory proves it but also now we also know that we have this radiation that we see this residue of this Big Bang then there also must be evidence of a wave in our universe so bill thinks that the cosmic microwave background radiation or CMB our is like the energy that radiates from an explosion and that the inhomogeneities and it's temperature are the result of the Constituent waves nodes and antinodes as in a microwave oven in reality the CMB r is the result of the conditions of the early universe approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang during this era the entire universe was covered in an extremely hot plasma composed principally of highly energetic electrons and hydrogen nuclei which made the entire cosmos opaque the high density of matter in relation to the size of the universe at this time made it impossible for light to travel freely as it was constantly being scattered around by the thick gaseous material that pervaded all space however as the universe expanded and cooled the threshold energy for the formation of stable neutral hydrogen nuclei was reached meaning that hydrogen nuclei could now capture and bind with electrons light is transparent and neutral hydrogen so when this happened light beams were finally free to travel long distances and that's basically what the CMB are is it's that ancient light having travelled for 13.8 billion years in every direction the CMB r is important for a number of reasons not least of which is that its existence was predicted by the Big Bang model over a decade prior to its discovery and that specific properties pertaining to it its blackbody profile its temperature the region of the electromagnetic spectrum that has been red shifted to and the extent of its inhomogeneous were all accurately predicted by the Big Bang model long before these things were actually measured thus the cmbr serves as the strongest experimental verification of the Big Bang Theory so far as for the hot spots and cold spots this has nothing to do with microwave ovens there aren't even any parallels in the physics governing microwave ovens and those physics that concerned the CMB are the only thing they have in common is the word microwave the hotter areas pertain to regions of the early universe which had greater mass density and the cooler areas pertained to regions with lower mass density the information contained here gives us clues about the large-scale structure of the universe especially when paired with the aforementioned Friedmann equations by discerning the various densities of mass radiation and dark energy it becomes possible to learn what the composition of the universe is and what its ultimate fate will be so they were so confident in this in this theory that they had at the time that they spent 200 million dollars at NASA just to discover this one thing and so they wanted to know whether this really does exist if the Big Bang Theory exists and scientists predicted there would be slight variations of temperature in the universe or ripples in 1989 NASA launched a $200,000,000 Coby satellite stands for cosmic background Explorer George Smoot lead astronomer on the project announced Kobe's findings and it made news all over the world he said if you're religious it's like looking at God this guy's not a believer but he had to admit he's like there it is right in front of me they found that the universe in fact I want to show you a picture of quick that's the Coby satellite picture now before you think oh that's a picture of a world or the planet no actually that's the lens that's the entire universe shot that we took that they took through the Coby satellite and they did this through an infrared heat picture and so you can see obviously where there's heating or there's cooling and you can see clearly that there are pockets of both which is a sign of waves it's not steady there's no steady state which means that someone began the universe and everything went out from there in waves in every direction which means that there must be a creator you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about have you bill look these waves are going on about they didn't issue from some central source like God's at the center of the universe he caused it to explode in every direction and now he's doing this light show where he's shooting waves everywhere the cmbr is nothing like that and it doesn't imply what you're insisting it does you're not letting the facts take you where they take you bill you're just making things up as you go along he went on to say this he said if you're religious it looks like you're looking at God the University of Chicago astrophysicist Michael Turner said of the findings the significance of this discovery cannot be overstated they have found the holy grail of cosmology of in cosmology as a study of the cosmos Stephen Hawking how many guys know that guy doesn't believe in God Stephen Hawking said this about it he called it the most significant discovery of the century if not all time in other words here's a smoking gun stays state there he's dead there had to be a big bang someone had to start it and so they were so precisely at smooth the guy who ran this satellite for NASA also called them the machining marks from the creation of the universe and he also called it the fingerprints of the maker Wow this is scientific evidence that there is a God who spread out the heavens okay this is just obnoxious first of all it really annoys me when theists act as though atheists aren't allowed to take poetic liberties when Stephen Hawking referenced the mind of God at the end of a brief history of time Christians went absolutely nuts and said aha he said God the universe proves God case closed without paying attention to the context or the spirit in which he said it people like you bill make people like me want to delete God from our vocabularies because we know that every time we utter that word in any context other than a skeptical one you're going to come running out of the woodwork and triumph that even the atheists are starting to see that the proof of God is closing in it simply does not do bill to glance at scientific discoveries take the enthusiastic proclamations of scientists who take poetic liberties and celebration of their discoveries and try to connect the two as though there some relationship between finding inhomogeneities and background radiation and proving god the steps that you keep taking from steady state is atheism and it's wrong but BIGBANG is Christian and it's proven and therefore Christianity is proven isn't going to be convincing to anybody who isn't already initiated into your belief system and certainly is not respectful of the science have some class bill this is just sad number five great galaxy seeds also known as ripples this was discovered in 1989 do you know how current that is you understand in the scientific realm that's like yesterday we're still quoting Newton we're still quoting the guy that wrote a book on evolution right Darwin how old that is you know old that that technology was when he wrote that theory and yet we still Bank everything on that antiquated concept I don't understand what could have made you think that this argument would be a good idea bill Newton's Principia was published nearly 400 years ago yes but do you honestly believe that the concepts described therein are any less valid today than they were back then science is not a fashion show bill scientists don't score points by pushing novelty divorced from substance science is self-correcting yes and constantly updating the knowledge that it's produced that's the nature of the business but it does not imply that old models are less valid and less important than EWTN's there isn't a single physics department on this planet whose curriculum doesn't dedicate at least a year if not more to the topics that Newton either pioneered or helped to advance and that situation isn't likely to change for the rest of human history ditto for Darwin and life science departments so we have new technology that's proving otherwise more on that next week but basically this proves to us that there are fingerprints of the maker great galaxies seeds discovered 1989 was also confirmed in 2003 with more studies and they also said this in turing they said it's so specific they could not believe how specific the waves were it was so obvious it's just just imagine taking a ball and dropping it in water and what happens it ripples out in every direction I was laying this summer we're on vacation I was laying in a really nice piece of waters beautiful area and in a coastal area now if I laid there the water was real still I was in a little Inlet and all of a sudden my raft just cuz I was like what what happened and I looked up immediately say where's the boat because I knew when my raft rippled what does that mean that's the effect there's a cause somewhere someone drove by and created a ripple if you have ripples the universe who drove by I'm gonna stop here because there's really nothing more to add bill doesn't understand the topics that he's been Tiffa cating about but he knows that they somehow prove God he doesn't understand the history behind the development of the topics that he's presenting but he knows that it's a battle between biased atheists like Einstein and honest god-fearing men like Friedman and he doesn't understand why shoehorning God into scientific discoveries constitutes proof of God's existence but because some scientists took poetic liberties and used the word God surely he's at least in the ballpark I'm King Crocodoc and I would say that this has been a pleasure but it hasn't ahran thanks for letting me hang out on your channel for a bit audience thank you for taking the time to watch if you like my stuff my channel link is in the description you know what to do peace
