I was recently watching some videos from Minute Physics regarding different theories on the universe, and was wondering what you guys thought of them.
These two videos go over something I think I had asked somewhere before, the cyclical universe theory and the parallel universe theory. However, I think these questions deserve a bit more analysis, as (judging by what the narrator said in the video on the Big Bang and religion) these could be potential points of contention from science and faith.
My thoughts are itâs irrelevant if the âuniverseâ always existed or even if causes regress infinitely in the past in a linear fashion. The cosmological argument for Godâs existence (based on Aristotleâs prime mover and Aquinasâs first two ways) doesnât care about any of these and though I am partial towards the KCA, and generally question an infinite regress, they are utterly irrelevant to classical theism and rational proofs of Godâs existence. Iâd classify both of the ideas you asked about as unknowable guesses playing dress up in lab coats.
Vinnie
Could you explain a little bit of these arguments? I would be very curious to know more.
However, I think the author makes a fair assessment. I mean, re-interpretation based on new evidence is kinda Biologos thing. However, the way he framed this specific issue (and considering the name of the one video) had me believe that there was a big issue at hand.
I think you are entirely correct at the strictly philosophical level. Classical theism (especially as articulated by Aristotle and Aquinas ) does not depend on whether the universe had a temporal beginning or whether there is an infinite regress in time. Aquinas himself explicitly held that reason alone cannot prove that the world began in time (ST I, q. 46, a. 2). His First and Second Ways concern hierarchical causation in the present, not temporal beginnings. So in that sense, you are absolutely right: the cosmological argument of classical theism does not rise or fall on Big Bang cosmology or the impossibility of infinite past regress.
However, I think there is another dimension to consider, not strictly philosophical, but epistemic and cultural.
While classical theism may not require a temporal beginning of the universe, the overwhelming majority of people are not engaging with Aristotelian metaphysics or the distinction between per se and per accidens causal series. For most people, arguments like the fine-tuning of the universe or the apparent contingency of cosmic constants function as intuitive, accessible pointers toward transcendence.
If our universe is uniquely fine-tuned with probabilities so astronomically low as to approach zero, that fact operates as an immediately graspable rational sign of design. Many contemporary philosophers of religion (such as Robin Collins and William Lane Craig) have argued that fine-tuning provides a powerful abductive case for theism precisely because of its probabilistic structure.
But if one posits a multiverse containing trillions (or infinitely many) universes with varying constants, the explanatory force shifts. The appearance of design can be reframed as a kind of âcosmic Darwinism,â where selection effects replace teleology. Whether or not that ultimately refutes classical theism is another matter (it does not ) but culturally and psychologically it renders God far less obviously necessary to the average observer (which already tends to be tiepid regarding God but at least right now if he wants he can find some good evidence of His existence).
In that sense, while metaphysically irrelevant to classical theism, such developments are not culturally neutral. They can shift the intuitive plausibility structure within which people form beliefs. As Alvin Plantinga has argued, belief in God may be properly basic, but cultural conditions can either support or erode the ease with which such belief is formed and sustained (Warranted Christian Belief, 2000). If the intellectual atmosphere increasingly frames reality as self-explanatory through impersonal mechanisms, even if those mechanisms do not logically eliminate God, they can render Him psychologically superfluous for many.
A similar dynamic appears in discussions surrounding the âhard problem of consciousness.â Philosophers like David Chalmers have argued that subjective experience resists reduction to purely physical processes. Yet if, hypothetically, a fully reductive material explanation of consciousness were demonstrated, classical Christianity could still affirm the resurrection of the body as its ultimate hope. The Christian doctrine of resurrection does not require the survival of the soul; it requires divine re-creation and continuity of personal identity (however, such a development would significantly affect traditions that dogmatically teach an intermediate disembodied state between death and the resurrection, since those traditions would see their doctrinal authority completely undermined.).
More broadly, even if it did not logically refute Christian faith, it would make transcendence feel far less necessary than it currently is in the cultural imagination and would entrench the materialists in their materialism even more (and would drive to materialism even many who are now open to the existence of a spiritual realm). Faith would not be disproven, but it would become far less reasonable to the average person.
We see a comparable pattern in historical Jesus studies. The so-called âThird Questâ significantly re-dated and reassessed New Testament sources, often arguing for earlier and more reliable traditions than Enlightenment-era skepticism allowed. The early formulation of the 1 Corinthians 15 creed (commonly dated by scholars such as James D. G. Dunn and Gary Habermas to within a few years of the crucifixion) provides historical grounding for resurrection belief. If, instead, critical scholarship had decisively confirmed a very late legendary development of the Gospels, Christians could still believe by faith, but that faith would appear far more detached from historical plausibility, resting on what critics would call wishful thinking rather than historically credible testimony.
So my point is this: at the level of rigorous metaphysics, you are correct. Classical theism does not depend on cosmology, neuroscience, or historical-critical consensus.
But at the level of cultural epistemology (the formation of belief among ordinary people ) these developments matter profoundly. They shape what Charles Taylor calls the âconditions of beliefâ (A Secular Age, 2007). When naturalistic explanations accumulate across domains ( cosmology, biology, consciousness, history ) they may not logically refute theism, yet they can create an environment in which God appears increasingly unnecessary.
And when God appears unnecessary, even if not disproven, many will conclude He is. So while I agree that infinite regress or an eternal universe does not threaten classical theism philosophically, I would add that such ideas can significantly affect the broader intellectual climate. They can strengthen atheists in their convictions and incline those who are undecided toward materialism, not because theism has been logically defeated, but because its intuitive plausibility has been diminished.
That distinction (between metaphysical validity and cultural plausibility ) seems to me essential in this discussion.
To be honest, I actually can relate to this on many levels. Iâve had serious doubts arise from both the question of the multiverse and the problem of consciousness. Neither problem bothers me anymore (I even think Biologos wrote several articles regarding the multiverse, which was actually what helped me with that issue). Even though I had recently heard about the evidence for the resurrection, I was still having anxiety because of these question. The debate still rages about these questions but I think that trying to push unnecessary arguments is what does cause some apologetic arguments to stumble. I often ask why the evidence for Jesusâs rise from the dead isnât the first link in every apologetics site. Instead, it seems that theists and atheists are locked in combat on issues like these that will probably remain unsolved for a while.
I actually think that, at present, consciousness is extremely difficult to reduce to materialism. I was speaking hypothetically, imagining a scenario in which it were conclusively demonstrated that consciousness is entirely the product of material processes, as strict materialists argue.
Even in that case, belief in the afterlife would not necessarily collapse, since the Christian hope of the resurrection could still stand on its own theological foundations. However, it would undoubtedly appear far more intangible to the average person, especially to those (99,99%) who are not engaging in philosophical discussions on platforms like BioLogos.
It is not surprising. I sometimes think that certain questions are pressed so insistently because some people are uncomfortable with the idea that faith might possess any degree of rational credibility. They would prefer faith to be confined to the realm of wishful thinking for ordinary people, and to abstract philosophical or metaphysical speculation for specialists, knowing full well that only a small minority engage deeply with those disciplines.
There seems to be a recurring impulse, to resist the notion that faith could have any meaningful empirical or commonly accessible rational grounding. Not necessarily because it has been refuted, but because its reasonableness itself is perceived as problematic.
The Resurrection is indeed the most powerful argument. Of course, in theory, a materialist could attempt to explain it away, for example, by suggesting that Jesus was some kind of highly advanced extraterrestrial being. That is not logically impossible, however childish, ridiculous or ad hoc it may seem. One can always construct alternative hypotheses if one is determined enough.
However, the strength of the Resurrection is precisely why many insist on the claim that the Gospels are late inventions, and that the divinization and resurrection of Jesus were later theological developments (there are many YouTube videos that bring these arguments), even if these theories have long been disproven. Such narratives are appealing because they tell many people what they already want to believe (as if eternal life, hope and purpose were bad news), and they know that most will not investigate the historical evidence closely. Yet the Resurrection remains uniquely powerful as an argument because the standard dismissals are deeply problematic.
The claim that the disciples simply fabricated the story does not withstand scrutiny. People may die for something that is false but believed to be true; they do not willingly suffer persecution and death for what they know to be a deliberate lie.
The âlate legendary developmentâ hypothesis has been disproven by the early dating of key New Testament materials, particularly the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, which many scholars date to within a few years of the crucifixion.
As for the hallucination hypothesis, it struggles to account for multiple group appearances, the empty tomb traditions, and the transformation of frightened disciples into bold proclaimers of the Resurrection. Hallucinations, as we understand them, do not typically function in coordinated, repeated, multi-person experiences.
For these reasons, the Resurrection remains the most historically grounded and intellectually compelling foundation of Christian faith, which is why the third quest has been a real thorn in the flesh for many.
P.s: sometimes I use this somewhat polemical language (that may seem a âtheyâ vs âusâ type of attitude) because I reject the notion that all people are good and are naturally seeking God. That is not true. Some people are indeed like this, but there are also those who (while not âbad peopleâ in the secular sense )are genuinely opposed to God and to His children. To believe that such people do not exist is like walking deep into the woods assuming that wolves and bears are not there and cannot harm you.
There are situations in which we are dealing with people who are acting in good faith, and others in which we are dealing with people who are truly closed to God. And the more visible and influential such people are, the more harmful their influence can be.
Good analysis as always. I think you are onto something with the conscience ideas but this particular thing doesnât bother me as much. I think a different Biologos article (I long forgot which one) briefly discussed ideas of consciousness and criticized efforts to try and find âstructuresâ where our consciousness communicated with the rest of the Universe. The thing that gets me nervous is new scientific discoveries in general. I donât think they would ever encompass theories relating to God but the idea that I could wake up and âdefinite proof that God doesnât existâ is sometimes a scary one. I think that I blow a lot of my fears way out of proportion. You, along with everyone else on this forum, seem to be much more comfortable with science than I currently am. Any tips for reducing this fear?
Me neither. On the contrary, as I said, I believe that today the idea that consciousness can entirely be reduced to matter is far weaker than in the past.
I understand where youâre coming from, because you live in a world that constantly tries to convince you that believing in God makes you naĂŻve or foolish. Letâs be honest about it, this is the broader cultural climate we are all breathing in. So itâs not surprising that this atmosphere can plant fear and doubt in many peopleâs minds; in fact, that is precisely why it exists.
The Bible speaks very clearly on this subject. In 1 John 5:19 it says: âWe know that we are from God, and that the whole world lies under the power of the evil one.â
So yes, we are living in a world that actively tries to pull people away from God, there is no denying that. The good news is that they (the principalities and powers that rule this world c.f Ephesians 6:12) are powerless when it comes to Christâs sheepâs.
John 10:28: âMy sheep recognise my voice and I know who they are. They follow me and I give them eternal life. They will never die and no one can snatch them out of my hand.â
So donât be afraid. Not because this world isnât evil but because our Lord has overcome this world and its prince.
John 16:33: âI have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.â.
Christ is the king, brother, and one day, at the name of Jesus, every knee will bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth.
There is nothing to be afraid of.
Pray a lot, pray for enlightenment from God, and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you. Be persistent and stubborn in your prayers to the point of being annoying to God LOL. Study as well, but above all, pray. And remember that many scientists are Christians, which would hardly be the case if science were truly in contradiction with faith.
I think one of the bigger issues I have is that there does exist an atheist (and other faiths, for that matter) population. To me, the fact that (despite the compelling evidence for Christ), some atheists (like my nemesis from before) and others can make a compelling case against Christianity makes me question how solid my faith is. Of course, this may very well be misdirected. Many of these arguments (as is the case with my nemesis) deal with mostly useless topics: criticism of God, doctrine, etc and not the real life Christ Himself. Sure, my nemesis may have come out of faith because of the concept of Hell, but that doesnât say anything about Jesus. Any thoughts?
I would challenge the very notion that they can make a compelling case against Christianity, honestly.
I think that the issue of Hell comes from interpreting Hell as a punishment inflicted by God rather than a real choice of the individual.
As C. S. Lewis said: âthe gates of Hell are closed from the insideâ
Spe Salvi 45-46 Spe salvi (November 30, 2007)
âWith death, our life-choice becomes definitiveâour life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighboursâpeople for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of peopleâwe may supposeâthere remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God.â
As for thisâŚ
The fundamental problem (for them) is that the Resurrection is, by far, the best explanation of the historical data we possess concerning what happened after Jesusâ crucifixion.
And this is not an apodictic assertion.
There are several minimal facts upon which virtually all critical historians agree.
The first concerns the sincerity of the apostolic witness. Virtually all historians agree that the earliest followers of Jesus believed that he appeared to them after his death.
The earliest written testimony appears in the creed preserved in First Epistle to the Corinthians 15:3â7, which most scholars date to within only a few years of the crucifixion.
The agnostic New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman writes: âIt is a historical fact that some of Jesusâ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead.â
â Did Jesus Exist? (HarperOne, 2012), p. 174.
Similarly, the atheist historian Gerd LĂźdemann states: âIt may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesusâ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.â
â What Really Happened to Jesus? (Westminster John Knox, 1995), p. 80.
E. P. Sanders, one of the most respected critical scholars of early Christianity, writes: âThat the followers of Jesus (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact.â
â The Historical Figure of Jesus (Penguin, 1993), p. 279.
Thus historians generally agree that the disciples had experiences which they interpreted (they cannot go further than this because they are bound by methodological naturalism) as appearances of the risen Jesus.
The second point concerns the radical transformation of the apostles. After the crucifixion, the disciples appear to have been fearful and scattered, yet soon afterward they began publicly proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead, even in Jerusalem, the very city where he had been executed.
This dramatic transformation requires a historical explanation.
Then we have Paulâs conversion. Saint Paul was originally a persecutor of the early Christian movement, yet he later became its most influential missionary.
According to his own testimony, his conversion occurred after what he believed was an appearance of the risen Christ.
Again, Sanders writes:âThat Paul thought he had seen the risen Lord is a fact.â
â The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993), p. 280.
Even skeptical historians generally accept that Paul sincerely believed he encountered the risen Jesus.
The New Testament also indicates that James the Just, the brother of Jesus, was initially skeptical of Jesusâ ministry. Later he became the leader of the church in Jerusalem and was eventually executed for his faith.
The appearance to James is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:7, an early tradition many scholars regard as highly reliable.
Another extremely important fact is that in first-century Judaism the resurrection was expected only at the end of the world, not for a single individual in the middle of history.
N. T. Wright explains:âNobody was expecting the Messiah to be executed and then raised from the dead in advance of the general resurrection.â
â The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress Press, 2003), p. 206.
Thus the early Christian proclamation was highly unusual within its Jewish context.
So materialists must explain several facts simultaneously:
the disciplesâ belief that Jesus appeared to them after his death
the sudden transformation of the disciples
the conversion of Paul
the conversion of James
the rapid emergence of resurrection belief in early Christianity.
Various alternative hypotheses have been proposed:
hallucinations
legendary development
theft of the body
symbolic resurrection belief.
However, many historians argue that none of these explanations adequately accounts for all the historical data taken together.
Dale C. Allison Jr. writes: âThe Easter experiences of the first Christians cannot be dismissed as easily as is sometimes imagined.â
â Resurrecting Jesus (T&T Clark, 2005), p. 324.
The hallucination hypothesis basically proposes that the disciples experienced visions or psychological phenomena rather than real appearances.
Historians frequently note several problems with this explanation, the most significant being that hallucinations are typically individual experiences.
Psychological hallucinations normally occur to individuals, not to multiple people simultaneously. Yet the early Christian tradition speaks of appearances to groups, including:
the Twelve
groups of disciples
a group of more than five hundred people (1 Corinthians 15).
Even skeptical scholars acknowledge the difficulty.
To quote Dale C. Allison Jr. again: âHallucinations are typically private events⌠explaining collective experiences is difficult.â
â Resurrecting Jesus (2005), p. 269.
Another theory suggests that the resurrection stories developed gradually as legends.
Yet historians point out that the resurrection belief appears extremely early. The creed preserved in 1 Corinthians 15:3â7 is widely regarded as very ancient.
The New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn writes: âThis tradition was formulated within months of Jesusâ death.â
â Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003), p. 855.
Even the most skeptical scholars date this tradition no more than a few years after Jesusâ death. But legendary development normally requires long periods of time, whereas here the belief appears almost immediately. So the idea of legendary development can be discarded.
Another proposal is that the disciples stole the body of Jesus and then proclaimed the resurrection.
This explanation faces serious difficulties.First, it does not explain the appearance experiences. Even if the body had been stolen, this would not explain why the disciples believed they had seen the risen Jesus.
As N. T. Wright observes: âAn empty tomb by itself proves almost nothing.â
â The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), p. 686.
Second (and even more importantly) this theory requires that the disciples knowingly proclaimed a deliberate falsehood while enduring persecution and possible martyrdom.
At least in the cases of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, historians are widely confident that they were indeed martyred. It is incredibly irrational to believe that individuals would willingly endure extreme suffering and persecution for something they knew to be a fabrication.
Paul himself describes the hardships endured by the early apostles: 1Corinthians 4:11â13: âTo this very hour we go hungry and thirsty, we are in rags, we are brutally treated, we are homeless. We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted,we endure it; when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world, right up to this moment..â
To suppose that people endured such suffering for a known lie stretches absurdity and plausibilty beyond reasonable limits.
Some scholars have proposed instead that the resurrection was meant symbolically, suggesting that Jesus âlived onâ spiritually through his followers.
Yet historians note that first-century Jewish language about resurrection was not symbolic.
In that cultural context, resurrection referred specifically to the bodily raising of the dead.
As N. T. Wright explains: âResurrection in the Jewish world meant bodily resurrection; it never meant a purely spiritual survival.â
â The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003), p. 83.
Therefore the earliest Christian claim that Jesus had been âraisedâ would have been understood as a real event, not a metaphor.
Moreover, there is no example in ancient Judaism where saying that someone ârose from the deadâ simply meant that their cause lived on.
Wright again writes: âNobody in Judaism said that someone had been âraised from the deadâ meaning that his cause lived on.â
â The Resurrection of the Son of God, p. 718.
Similarly, Dale C. Allison Jr. observes that early resurrection language reflects a genuine conviction that something extraordinary had occurred. ( Resurrecting Jesus (2005), pp. 287â288.)
Thus the symbolic interpretation appears historically anachronistic, projecting modern metaphorical assumptions onto ancient Jewish categories.
In short, each naturalistic hypothesis encounters serious explanatory difficulties. For this reason, some historians argue that the resurrection hypothesis provides the most coherent explanation of the available evidence regarding the origins of the Christian movement.
As Dale C. Allison Jr. concludes: âThe Easter experiences of the first Christians cannot be easily dismissed.â
â Resurrecting Jesus (2005), p. 324.
The problem here is methodological rather than evidential: the argument often rests upon a prior philosophical commitment, namely the apodictic assumption that God does not exist.
If one begins with the axiomatic premise that God does not exist, the conclusion follows automatically: miracles cannot occur, and therefore the resurrection cannot have happened.
But this is not a historical argument; it is a metaphysical presupposition imposed upon historical inquiry.
The reasoning becomes circular: God doesnât exist ; miracles cannot happen; the resurrection is a miracle; the resurrection cannot have happened.
Yet the key premise has already excluded the conclusion in advance.
As C. S. Lewis famously observed, if one assumes from the outset that the supernatural is impossible, then no amount of historical evidence could ever establish a miracle, because the conclusion has already been ruled out by definition.
Thus the historian faces a methodological question: should historical inquiry assume philosophical naturalism from the outset, or should it remain open to the possibility that reality might include more than purely natural causes?
If one allows even the mere possibility that God exists, the historical situation changes dramatically. Historians are then free to evaluate the resurrection claim in the same way they evaluate other historical explanations, namely by asking which hypothesis best explains the available evidence.
And if divine action is allowed as a possible category, the actual resurrection of Christ becomes a remarkably powerful explanatory hypothesis, far, far, far stronger than the naturalistic alternatives typically proposed.
This is why the debate about the resurrection is ultimately not only historical but philosophical.
It is also worth noting that modern atheistic critiques of Christianity would possess a far stronger argument if certain Enlightenment-era hypotheses about the New Testament had been confirmed.
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries many scholars argued that:
the Gospels were written centuries after Jesusâ life
the traditions about Jesus underwent extensive legendary development
the resurrection narratives were late mythological constructions.
If these claims had been confirmed, they would indeed have posed a formidable challenge to Christianity. Yet, unfortunately for them, modern scholarship has moved in the opposite direction.
Twentieth- and twenty-first-century research (especially the movement known as the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus) has emphasized the early dating and strong Jewish context of the New Testament traditions.
Ironically, the historical research that many expected to undermine Christianity has instead reinforced the conclusion that the core traditions about Jesus emerged very early and within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.
In other words, itâs the resurrection of Jesus that constitutes a very compelling case against atheistic materialism. Atheists have no compelling case at all against Christianity, they simply begin with the apodictic assumption that God does not exist and therefore cannot perform miracles, even when the evidence points in the opposite direction. But this is circular reasoning and, ultimately, a deeply stupid argument.
I agree with you strongly. I think it is somewhat foolish to argue for the existence of God himself in the realm of science. I made this mistake and, in hindsight, makes sense why I failed: he is a metaphysical being, and I was trying to tie him down with physical laws. Also, even if we knew a god existed, which one? Several religions have gods, so which one is the Creator? This is why I thought Godâs Not Dead was somewhat a silly movie. However, God did something amazing. By putting a physical incarnation of himself on this rather meaningless planet in a random solar system, with tiny little monkey people roaming around it, God provides a verifiable means of his existence. Science can never show a being beyond our realm of existence, but Jesus shows that, if He indeed rose from the dead, then there isnât anything that science can say against God: we could prove that the universe is cyclical, a multiverse, and that consciousness arises from the brain, but for as long as Jesus rose from the dead, we know that this was all Godâs plan and design!
However, this does bring up one stupid question that I would ask for further analysis. I had once went into a different Christian forum and came across a man arguing that Jesus had only come for the Jews. He was far more cocky than that Jorge guy and (oddly) used emojis to mock others as being stupid. Essentially, since he was a Jew (at least that is what I think he was, as his profile showed a lot of pro-Christian views despite his counter-Christian argument), he believed that he was saved and that all of us non-Jews were doomed to Hell. He points to bits of scripture where Jesus says he must stay to his own flock and where he says no to helping non-Jews. had actually talked with anotherâs friend about this, and he said that it doesnât make sense in the wider understanding of the Bible (God made humans to have a relationship with, so why would he only save a fraction of the population?). However, I just wanted to see your thoughts on this fringe theory.
Exactly. And this is precisely where the atheistic conundrum lies: atheists are not compelled to reject the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus because that evidence is too weak, nor because purely materialistic explanations provide a more coherent or comprehensive account of what occurred after the crucifixion. Rather, they are compelled to reject it because it conflicts with their own preconceived, axiomatic/pre-factual dogma: that God does not exist. And if God does not exist, then miracles, by definition, cannot exist either.
In other words, the resurrection of Jesus confronts the materialist with the stupidly dogmatic (or dogmatically stupid) decision he made when he chose to believe that chance, necessity, and meaninglessness were the only Trinity worthy of devotion.
The problem with the first video is that it speaks of one possibility as if it were fact, i.e. that the universe is infinite. It is entirely possible that the universe did begin at a single point and this still applies even if the whole universe is 20 times the size of the observable universe. It is unreasonable to speak of something we cannot actually measure or observe as if it were fact. The good thing about the video is the emphasis on the possibility of the infinite universe, because this is too often ignored and left out of explanations.
The point that the âbig bangâ is a terrible name for the theory nevertheless hits the nail on the head, because even if the universe is finite, the beginning is not a explosion into empty space but an expansion of space itself.
It occurs to me, it is interesting that the universe itself hides so much of itself â how convenient that we cannot even know whether the universe is finite or infinite. Somehow this seems an appropriate response to those who claim that God hides himself. LOL
As for the second video, the reason he gives for the many worlds interpretation being testable is the most ridiculous bogus reason I can imagine. For it to be testable you must have a procedure which can test it. Frankly, what I am getting from both of these videos is the the author likes the infinite universe and the many worlds interpretation. He would really like these to be true and thus he hopes they can be proven in some way that we currently do not know.
The idea that Jesus came only for the Jews and that non-Jews are excluded from salvation is not only a fringe interpretation but one that collapses entirely when the New Testament is read in its full context. In other words, this interpretation can only arise from isolating a few passages while ignoring the broader narrative of Scripture.
It is true that Jesus sometimes said things like:âI was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.â âGospel of Matthew 15:24
But statements like this refer to the historical order of Jesusâ mission, not to its final scope.
Within the biblical narrative, Israel had a particular role in salvation history. The Messiah was expected to come through Israel and to Israel first, because the covenant promises had been given to that people.
Saint Paul expresses the same idea when he says the Gospel is: âto the Jew first and also to the Greek.â -Romans 1:16
âFirstâ does not mean âonly.â It means historical priority.
And even during His earthly ministry, Jesus did not actually restrict his help to Jews, actually important examples show the opposite:
These stories are significant because they show Gentiles receiving the very blessings that some Jews expected only for themselves.
Jesus repeatedly spoke about the nations (the Gentiles) being included in Godâs kingdom.
For example: âThis gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations.â - Gospel of Matthew 24:14
And after the resurrection he gives the famous command: âGo therefore and make disciples of all nations.â - Gospel of Matthew 28:19
At this point the scope of the mission becomes completely explicit.
And earliest Christians,who were themselves Jewish,quickly recognized that the message of Jesus was meant for the whole world.
A decisive moment occurs in the conversion of the Roman centurion Cornelius in the Acts of the Apostles. When this happens, Saint Peter declares: âTruly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him is acceptable to him.â - Acts 10:34â35
This became the foundation of the Christian mission to the Gentiles.
Aldo the entire New Testament consistently teaches that Christâs saving work is for all humanity.
For example: âThere is neither Jew nor Greek, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.â - Galatians 3:28
And again: âGod desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.â 1 Timothy 2:4
Christianity, from its earliest days, understood Jesusâ mission as universal in scope.
The Gospel of John also states: âGod so loved the world that he gave his only Son.â - Gospel of John 3:16. Not Israel alone, but the world.
The idea that Jesus came only to save Jews arises from taking a few statements about the initial phase of his ministry and ignoring the broader narrative of Scripture.
In the biblical story:
The Messiah comes through Israel.
His ministry begins with Israel.
But his mission ultimately extends to all nations.
This is why the earliest Christians, many of whom were Jews themselves, rapidly spread the message of Jesus across the entire Mediterranean world.
So the interpretation you encountered is not just fringe; it fundamentally misunderstands the structure of the New Testament narrative and the universal scope of the Gospel.
It is, like every heresy, the result of isolating certain partial truths, absolutizing them, and then setting them against other truths rather than holding them together within a coherent synthesis.
lmao exactly. 
Regarding your 1st video:
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
