I think I'm in love. The arguments presented to him are so limited. The arguments assume that all current scientific theories are correct and that God is limited to the scientific laws that we currently understand. If God created the laws for everything to function within, why would God have to adhere to the laws he created?

This channel is legendary

I interviewed John P for "Tsunami:Where was God?" on Channel 4 TV in 2005....he hasn't aged a jot. Great man, great mind.

@Autobotmatt428

3 жыл бұрын

He seems like a very kind man

@santosturmio8189

2 жыл бұрын

Channel 4 is great 👍

Thank You! I liked hearing this man's thoughts. I will listen to it again.

I love this guy, I could listen to him all day. By jove, blimey causality, yes there's a god and it's a package deal!

@skronked

Жыл бұрын

Jove? Blimey? Quantum bloke?

@Mark1Mach2

Жыл бұрын

Jon bin jovi

Love this guys brain. May the Almighty be pleased with him

In all the universe, there is not one single particle. The things we call "particles," are in fact, waves. Electron is a wave, proton and neutron - all (deBroglie) waves. There is never a case where matter doesn't adhere to Schrodinger's wave equation, but plenty of cases where particle theory fails. Given that we live in a world of waves, where is the world of solid objects (particles)? Regarding interactions, where is faster-than-light? Faster-than-light is theoretically possible, look in any advanced physics textbook for the energy needed to exceed the speed of light? The solution involves the square-root of negative-one (i = √-1). Ask any physicist or engineer if "i" exists, they will tell you it's used by millions every day. So, speed is one possibility. Another interaction thought-experiment is to imagine a 2D world with a magnetic field in the "y" direction? Now send an electron in the "x" direction? The electron immediately disappears into the third-dimension, invisible to the 2D-man. (F = qv X B). Surely, some similar principle might connect our wave-world with a particle-world? A third possibility is the black-hole. Mr. Polkinghorne was somewhat disingenuous when he proposed information would rival energy as a measurable quantity "by the end of the 21'st century," because information-quantification's already in wide use today. Hawking based his black-hole theories on conservation of information. Regardless, if one were to take Big-Bang at its word, our currently-visible universe was once tiny compared to today. It's expanded greatly since. But if one were to calculate the event horizon for the mass of the currently-visible universe, it is 13Blyr. If our universe was once much smaller than 13Blyr, how did it ever escape its 13Blyr event horizon? And where do those galaxies and stars go when they are said to "expand" out of view? Do they expand-out or do they hit the event horizon (from the inside) wall? These are all questions that make science squirm. God knows, but science doesn't. Science can't make a self-consistent case. And while Polkinghorne resists, that's exactly what Godel said would happen. "There is no self-consistent set of rules." The universe requires outside-agency, the universe requires God.

Best interview in the series,...so far. And THAT is a MOUTHFUL in face of such awesome interviews (to date).

@willeykev

4 жыл бұрын

WITHOUT A DOUBT - TOTALLY AGREE! Great observation and a breath of fresh air!!

Rest in peace John March 2021

That was a delicious epistemological course. A bit too rich for my brain to filter on the daily, but definitely three star all the way.

We cannot ever fully understand our universe because we cannot step outside of it.

@santosturmio8189

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly my thoughts

Creative thinking about quantum indeterminacy

Brilliant man!

Rest in Peace

I just think quantum indeterminacy at the subatomic level makes more sense? Do they expect to look down there and see a little man waving at them?

How does causation manifest in physical reality and quantum mechanics?

His explanation was a bit biased and a little to reserved. But I still like the talk.

Genius. He will be missed

Love your thoughts on Big questions. From Pakistan Gilgit blatistan

You can start off with energy and get information but can you start off with information and get energy?

@Jopie65

4 жыл бұрын

You can express an amount of information in joules, like you can express the amount of mass in joules. The latter with E=mc^2. The former something with Boltzmann's constant. I heard that the amount of information on the internet had the weight of a strawberry 😊

@stevenfenster1798

4 жыл бұрын

Hint: What, exactly IS energy?

future is unpredictable? measurement in present leads to unpredictable future?

If quantum mechanics causes things to happen in classical reality, then is the future making things happen from the present?

@ 3:01 ...as signs of an actual "what"? ultmasless? openness? :( Lost me there.

@heracles2626

4 жыл бұрын

Openness

By what means does God communicate if not by the standard model?

I know why it’s so mysterious! Because we are not smart enough and science knows it! Some things a dog just can’t understand! We are no different

@zorashoes6482

4 жыл бұрын

so you are mysterianist.

@Snap_Crackle_Pop_Grock

3 жыл бұрын

Imagine if we gave that answer when we were trying to figure out gravity, or quantum theory, or evolution, or the atomic model, etc, etc. Many things for which there used to be no answer are now known. We can only test the limits of the knowable by venturing into what seems to be the unknowable. Just because it seems to be so, doesn't mean it is.

The closer to God came to science with Newton and no single body could order chaos at that time

And at the end there he's not chopping off the bits he doesn't like to fit into the bed he's familiar with :) The only conclusion is we ulitmately don't know anything for absolute certainty (except for taxes :)) and some of us who don't fully understand that have prejustices and look for justifications that support those prejustices - Having said that everything John Polkinghorne said (except for extrapolating certainties such therefore God exists and operates as he pleases - well yes OK there might be a programmer of this a virtual world) is to my knowledge true eg re: Quantum Mechanics etc n so John, having done a lot of thinking and being apparently very well read re: science, he raised some interesting questions & so it's an interesting video.

Mr Polkinghorne believes that humans have choice in deciding their actions - like "raising their right arms". Why? Whatever a human does or thinks results from a myriad of causes - neural, consequential, circumstantial, genetic, cultural, emotional etc, etc. If all these could be accounted for and computed the action would be revealed as inevitable. Quantum theory may introduce an element of randomness into the equation, but it cannot introduce real "choice". If I am right, Mr Polkinghorne cannot be held responsible for his actions or beliefs but if he is right, I can be held responsible for mine.

"God of the Gaps" all over again.

I don't understand. Do both of these guys have mustaches?

Can god put new info in my mind without changing the laws of physics.?

@keramatebrahimi943

4 жыл бұрын

@Sara C since laws of physics does not allow any place for god.the only place god can show himself is in our mind which is the source of information

Finally, you came across a man who truly understands reality - meaning, first, he basically mentions that our current knowledge is NOT the end all be all - history has proven this misconception wrong time and time again! Second, and the best of all, someone has FINALLY put science and all of it's wonderfully intelligent scientists (and I mean that with all due respect!) in their place, in that: of all the valid and preposterous theories people have presented throughout the centuries, science has allowed them to be heard and evaluated by these wonderfully intelligent people, except for one: God. I have always wondered WHY that is? We are still SO very arrogant with patting ourselves on the back for what we have achieved, what we know and the ability to learn more and ... all the while thinking that there can't be any more to what we currently know, let alone a God. Don't misunderstand me here: we should be PROUD, NOT ARROGANT, in what we have achieved. But even more importantly: we need to be HUMBLE to the fact that we still know VERY LITTLE about everything AND yet, simultaneously, concede that the idea of God existing IS a viable possibility and NOT write it off as something not even worthy of consideration!!!

@GeoCoppens

4 жыл бұрын

I will "write it off as something not even worthy of consideration!!!" The notion is an inanity!

@anterotalibutab298

2 жыл бұрын

You're on the right tract, keep going!

Why you not talkin about the church

About which God are they speculating about? Is it Ra? Ahura Mazda? Vishnu? Or is it Zeus? Odin? Or the great Juju of the mountain? Or one of the Abrahamic version? Yahweh or Allah? Or is it a Christian one, because it seems they are sitting in a church? Catholic? Orthodox (Russian or Greek)? Protestant? Which branch? Lutheran? Baptists? Calvinist? Or are they speculating about general properties any God has to possess to be a "God" no matter of cultural differences? That would be hard, because the God concept of the Greek mythology is totally different from, let's say, the Christian trinity or the Vedic philosophy.

@nevnad4587

4 жыл бұрын

He's an Anglican so he has in mind God within the broad Christian tradition. Anglicans are typically not too particular on specifics and open to a variety of concept within the umbrella of Christian theism. So, not too specific but narrow enough to preclude the limited deities of the Greek myths for example. He's pretty clear in the clip that he has in mind a personal providential God but I think some of his ideas are incompatible with Christian theism as well. For example, he seemed to suggest that the regularities of nature run on their own steam, which is incompatible with Christian theism I think and he's a well known proponent of a school called open theism which denies that God has knowledge of future event's which is incompatible with parts of the Bible and the mainstream view of the Christians throughout time.

If one thinks that God does not exist because He's 'immaterial' -- one's thinking is immaterial itself.

God can set a correlation between one lot of quantum randomness and another lot of quantum mechanics to produce any effect He likes. Easy !

Irrelevant answer

Some of the comments here are just tragic. These are the same people that would have cooked Jan Hus' goose.

All glory be to God. Hallelujah. Heard of this gem from the great Ravi Zacharias.

If humas are created In God's image and likeness, and He also make the whole universe, why we are still messing with old stuff In the world?😮

What is God??

@GeoCoppens

4 жыл бұрын

A imaginary creature, manmade!

@Lynda1357

4 жыл бұрын

Find out what his name really means and you will know. IT IS NOT I AM

@AlgernonGeorgie

3 жыл бұрын

Love

@anterotalibutab298

2 жыл бұрын

What is gravity an imaginary effect

Sounds like God 3.2. How to justify and fit what he knows to be “true” into current science. Nothing new there. It’s been going on since we learnt how to make fire.

Does `nt mention any of this in the Bible John.

@xtrofilm

4 жыл бұрын

@@CRAEager I can prove to John that i cant play the piano, he cant prove anything about God, pie in the sky.

@xtrofilm

4 жыл бұрын

@@CRAEager No idea mate.

Why "MYSTERIOUS"??...I would understand "DIFFICULT" ( -> to understand, if we're talking about quantum physics), but "mysterious"??...

We have to realize that maybe we are at a limit of our intelligence.

@robinhodgkinson

4 жыл бұрын

I’d suggest we’ve been at the limit of our intelligence for a hundred years. Why did we build computers. Soon artificial intelligence will be working it out for us.

Robert is always looking for god. Forget about it Robert there is no god.

@GeoCoppens

4 жыл бұрын

He wants spookiness and the like. Gods are fictions, Robert!

Let there be light and it was so and it was good! Sounds to me like a thought. The universe is the brain of our GOD and we are GOD's thoughts.

God works on all levels of the universe! So the whole universe is filled with God. The universe is God. God is the universe. 2 words, same meaning.

@thomasrummell890

4 жыл бұрын

How do you know?

@Jopie65

4 жыл бұрын

@@thomasrummell890 I don't. But that's what I get from his explanation...

@Jopie65

4 жыл бұрын

@Sara C As his God is defined the same as the universe, then yea I guess 😁

@Jopie65

4 жыл бұрын

@Sara C I know. The brain tumor is part of it. And disease and cruelty. In science this is understandable cause the universe has no will of it's own, at least not that we know of. I'm not sure about John of this video, but in church they usually assign an extra property to God on top of being the universe: e.g. it is a he and he is only good. And despite doing this sh*t to people and every living thing, they worship this God, and just say that he is good, like wtf? But I can't blame the church without blaming myself cause I used to be part of it.

@Jopie65

4 жыл бұрын

So to be clear: I was hoping that this would make people see that what John describes to be God, is actually what we usually simply call the universe...

If John had a better understanding of the Bible he could be so convincing. Unfortunately he has not been brought up to speed with accurate knowledge relevant to his topic.

@stevenfenster1798

4 жыл бұрын

Your dogma is not absolute truth and it is pretty much guaranteed that Polkinghorne, an Anglican priest, and theologian as well as a physicist, has studied more, thought more and more deeply than you have, and that you are merely experiencing cognitive dissonance because his depth of understanding is beyond the shallow waters you see as the absolute. www.britannica.com/biography/John-Polkinghorne

@stevenfenster1798

4 жыл бұрын

www.britannica.com/biography/John-Polkinghorne

I had to stop mid clip and I'm really unhappy with that. I'm sitting here with my drink on a Friday evening trying to relax on youtube on "Closer to Truth" after a week of having to deal with unicorn worshipers and I get stunned yet again. Please dear channel, make up your mind...its either science or not-science. Theres no in between.

This guy needs some lessons in elocution.

God was newtonian and now is quantum.....Come the next major theory in physics he will also be of course that.The arrogance of religion with their omnipotent arguments.

@dreyestud123

4 жыл бұрын

Philosophers can be arrogant too.

Why assume God is non-physical?

4 жыл бұрын

Saint August prove that God must be it. must be different the substance

God of the gaps eh

@vibechecktsundere4912

Жыл бұрын

Everything John says is consistent with the standard model of particle physics and QFT. He’s asserting his own theory based on what’s known about this, not inserting God into whatever we don’t know, because the Standard Model doesn’t give such wiggle room for mysticism. John would know this, he helped develop the standard model through his work on quarks. We revise our knowledge on what’s known, this happens in a theological and scientific sense. Calling it a gaps argument doesn’t make sense because his statements on the physical world are VERY consistent with what secular scientists also say

Sean C. Kindly disagrees

You are not exploring, it's just mumbled crap. Remain silent, you cannot speak of this.

The intellectual difference between interviewee and interviewer is like that between the Jolly Green Giant.....and a fruit fly.

Vacuous wishful thinking to justify the supernatural.

Very confusing explanation. Make up your mind. Materialism or Idealism? This is what happens when you're a physicist and theologian. Oboy.🤔

I just can’t listen to nonsense.

*_1_* _The question of the existence of God is the single most important question we face about the nature of reality._ -John Polkinghorne No! The single most important question is Can the ego (the self) end so that we stop killing children and each other worldwide in the name of God and country. *_2_* _Science flies you to the moon. 🚀 Religion flies you into buildings._ ✈️ -Victor J Stenger *_3_* Science has proof without certainty. Religion has certainty without proof. *_4_* _Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing...Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going._ -Stephen Hawking, _The Grand Design,_ 2010, p 180 💕 ☮ 🌎 🌌

@2serveand2protect

4 жыл бұрын

Moron. XD :D

@georgedoyle7971

3 жыл бұрын

“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings” (V. Stenger) “Because there is a “law” like gravity the universe creates itself” (Stephen Hawking) “Science has proof religion has certainty without proof” Science does not provide “proofs” as it’s common knowledge in academia science can only infer. Only the logic contained in philosophy can provide proofs as such. Equally, what 9/11 has to do with the Anglican priest and physicist John Polkinghorn is beyond me and I suspect most rational people. This is a perfect example of attrition/ confirmation bias and what happens when your indoctrinated by “New Atheist” KZread propaganda. This cynical and divisive quote from Victor Stenger is opportunistic and succeeds in nothing more than the demonising of millions of moderate believers making it acceptable to kill and torture religious people in the name of rationality and “science”. It is an insult to the bereaved families of 9/11 many of whom were religious. It also resulted in these disturbing statements from the “New Atheists” Sam Harris and Daniel Dennette. “the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible, but necessary” (Sam Harris). “Moderate religious believers are more dangerous than extremists as they make extremists appear respectable” (Daniel Dennette) Does that mean moderate atheists should feel uncomfortable for making Stalin and Pol Pot appear respectable? “I don't join the New Atheists. So, for example, I wouldn't have the arrogance to lecture some mother who hopes to see her dying child in Heaven - that's none of my business, ultimately. I won't lecture her on the philosophy of science. (Noam Chomsky) “Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life - on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state - must be cast in the language of human rights” (Johnathan Sacks) The eminent physicist and Mathematician Roger Penrose, who worked closely alongside Hawking in developing gravitational singularity theorems actually described Hawking's new book The Grand Design as "misleading" adding that M-theory, which Hawking claims has made God redundant as a cause of the universe, was "not even a theory" and "hardly science" but instead "a collection of hopes, ideas and aspirations. Asked whether science shows that the universe could "create itself from nothing" as claimed in the book, Penrose was strong in his condemnation of the 'string' theory that lies behind Hawking's statement: "It's certainly not doing it yet. I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many”. All the best to you ❤️