I am going to go through this video, and show exactly where I have problems with it.
First as I already pointed out the creation of this dichotomy is disingenuous, that being why does anything exist? It is and always was or god.
Why I have problems with this is pretty simple this vastly oversimplifies the study of cosmology, to stick god or an eternal cosmos in as the only options is not being honest. Cosmology has many different attempts to explain how the universe was created, some are not eternal and yet have no need for a god in them and attempt to use evidence in the universe to study the possibilities, for example Brane collision theory is an attempt to explain the big bang without the assumption of infinite universes. Or you know instead of creating this either or about why does anything exist he could be honest and admit the real third answer we do not know yet.
His use of the term absolute nothingness, a philosophical concept which honestly has not been proven to exist in real life. When a physicist uses the term nothingness they are being very specific. Even empty space has vacuum energy so the statement that the universe comes from absolute nothingness is questionable; his dropping of this term in the lecture says volumes about what he is setting up. He says the big bang theory is a theory that the universe was created in a single instant by absolute nothingness, this is incorrect. To talk about nothingness before the big bang is like saying you are going further north once you pass the north pole. The big bang is a point where time is also supposed to have started so to say that it was ‘created from’ implies a temporal assumption. The big bang does not say this Doug Ell says this with no proof, it is a mischaracterization of big bang theory.
First off lets start with the idea that the universe has 3 dimensions of space, this is not as perfect as Doug implies. There are many theories in the physics community which argue that there are more then 3 spacial dimensions, string theory requires the assumptions of many extra compacted dimensions. Again this is all so simplified and leading. The assumption that the constants in the universe are fine tuned for life? really so that is why space can kill you in seconds and why space between stars is so enormous, just perfect for life? I don’t think so I know for a fact there have been studies that show that some of these constants can be flexed and you still get possibilities for life. For example lifting from Wikipedia;
“Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant α, and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.”
So some constants allow for changes in range, much like we can have many different possibilities of finding planets that can support our kind of life around different stars, at different distances and so on. Going even further he takes no account of his definition of life. What does he mean when he says fine tuned for life? find tuned for life as we understand it? and who is to say our understanding or type of life is the only type of life that can exist or be in the universe?
Further in the video he says that in order to believe in a multiverse you have to believe in a infinite amount of multiverses. Another example of his dichotomizing, again creating an either or position with no real reason for it to be so. He does not establish any reasons why this either/or position is required other then if you do posit infinite amounts of universes it must have a initial cause. that is not sufficient enough reason to create such a straight jacking either/or. He does not sufficiently establish the necessity for this assumption.
Beginnings of life
He says life violates the second law of thermodynamics, this is incorrect. Life does not do this if it has a metabolism, as long as the organism produces more disorder then the order that is required to keep it going it is perfectly in line with the law. His even saying this is an enormous error. Why we eat, why we give off heat, why cells take in sugars and go through chains to break it down is creating disorder. To say that life’s creation violates the second law of thermodynamics is silly and frankly just incorrect. This link explains it better.
He quotes an experiment which tried to create life through the idea of primordial soup idea from the 1950’s and completely ignores the fact that there are modern newer experiments that have been conducted to show the possibility of how life got started the most recent being here.
they have also gone a long way to creating a synthetic genome here.
You know what I am just going to stop here… going through this whole video is not something I feel like spending my entire morning on. I will just state that this man is being a charlatan, he is presenting this information in a simplified and leading way. He does not address the problems and ideas in a honest objective fashion.