11 yr old Genius Attempts to Prove the Existence of God

[Chowboy]

Personally, I'm agnostic about God as envisioned by man, but I try to keep an open mind to faiths and philosophies. This little guy is already in college and is studying to be an Astrophysicist.


Anyway watch the vid and post your opinion.

[Underwrought]

He might be smart, but still has the life experience and total knowledge of a potato. AKA like any college student, lets see what he says in 10-20 years.

Also from the video description .... "n this video ,This kid is literally a GENIUS, and has been declared one by Ohio State University psychologist, Joanne Ruthsatz."

That does NOT make you a genius LOL. Let him take the Mensa test then we will see.

[JoshSP1985]

That is all under the assumption that everything he said is factual. With that said I'm not smart enough to really follow the conversation regarding the interactions of gravity and space time.

[Tamorlane]

His argument is basic:

Something must have existed before the singularity of the big bang, and to him, that thing is "observed as God". Since something can't come from nothing. I'm sure every person here has heard that argument before.

It isn't "observed as God" either, otherwise we could show it to one another and produce conviction.

In Buddhism it's taught that the universe(s) go through an endless series of expansion and contraction, that alone explains the 'something from nothing' better than - 'we don't know, therefore God.'

We know energy cannot be created or destroyed in our observable universe, and everything from the macro to the micro is in a state of change/flux/alteration/inconstancy. An endless series of bangs and crunches of universes makes sense.

Another plausible theory is about how humanity is moving toward computation/AI and universal expansion if the speed of light can be manipulated. If a universe becomes interconnected it could 'awaken' in the same way our ape ancestors 'awoke' to a human consciousness, or how the first AI will eventually become conscious (ie. iRobot). If a universe becomes conscious and god-like, it could produce these types of universal systems that we are now experiencing.

There are 'rules' and laws within the universe that baffle even the most advanced minds:

Albert Einstein:

"Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."

[OPGenesis]

It has to be common knowledge that God exists at this point.

[Chowboy]

That is all under the assumption that everything he said is factual. With that said I'm not smart enough to really follow the conversation regarding the interactions of gravity and space time.

I'm with you on that. My understanding of relativity and space/time in pretty slim and he kinda lost me when he went into the gravity/no gravity stuff.


I'm hoping DuracellBunny chimes in. My recollection is he has a background in physics.

[Hartski]

And Stephen Hawking's last paper was just published and he said there is no god

[Tharsos]

This is just the cosmological argument with some extraneous high school physics.

[latverian41]

For one einsteins "theory" of relativity is not a 'THEORY'. It is a proven law

[dizzin9]

Huge if Jesus

[Chowboy]

His argument is basic:

Something must have existed before the singularity of the big bang, and to him, that thing is "observed as God". Since something can't come from nothing. I'm sure every person here has heard that argument before.

It isn't "observed as God" either, otherwise we could show it to one another and produce conviction.

In Buddhism it's taught that the universe(s) go through an endless series of expansion and contraction, that alone explains the 'something from nothing' better than - 'we don't know, therefore God.'

We know energy cannot be created or destroyed in our observable universe, and everything from the macro to the micro is in a state of change/flux/alteration/inconstancy. An endless series of bangs and crunches of universes makes sense.

Another plausible theory is about how humanity is moving toward computation/AI and universal expansion if the speed of light can be manipulated. If a universe becomes interconnected it could 'awaken' in the same way our ape ancestors 'awoke' to a human consciousness, or how the first AI will eventually become conscious (ie. iRobot). If a universe becomes conscious and god-like, it could produce these types of universal systems that we are now experiencing.

There are 'rules' and laws within the universe that baffle even the most advanced minds:

And here I though you were a complete dumbass. Tempted to rep...

[JoshSP1985]

For one einsteins "theory" of relativity is not a 'THEORY'. It is a proven law

Does that law hold true everywhere though?

[acrawlingchaos]

Kid is clueless to the scientific process regardless of his intelligence which is evident within the 1st 7 seconds of the video.

He also used apologetic arguments.

[Chowboy]

Does that law hold true everywhere though?

I believe TOR breaks down with Black Holes and at the Quantum Level. Someone will surely correct me if I'm wrong.

[Chowboy]

Kid is clueless to the scientific process regardless of his intelligence which is evident within the 1st 7 seconds of the video.

He also used apologetic arguments.

Explain. Layman's terms, please.

[401Delta]

11 yo trying to grasp the ungraspable; he's just not smart enough to realize it.

For one einsteins "theory" of relativity is not a 'THEORY'. It is a proven law

Sit down, Waldo.

[TurkBrah]

Who cares? Its 2018. Why waste your life for something that is unknown

[acrawlingchaos]

Explain. Layman's terms, please.

His first statement in that video said he wanted to prove that god is real. That statement shows that he has an obvious confirmation bias. He wants to prove that god is real, which is different than trying to prove whether or not god exists. The difference is minute, but important, especially in the scientific community.

Also apologetic arguments are arguments that hold no real value outside of confirming the bias of believers. An example would be saying "God is real because look at all these magnificent things" or like this kids said "something can't come from nothing, therefore god".

He's just young and inexperienced, not to be taken seriously until he matures.

[Chowboy]

His first statement in that video said he wanted to prove that god is real. That statement is shows that he has on obvious confirmation bias. He wants to prove that god is real, which is different than trying to prove whether or not god exists. The difference is minute, but important, especially in the scientific community.

Also apologetic arguments are arguments that hold no real value outside of confirming the bias of believers. An example would be saying "God is real because look at all these magnificent things" or like this kids said "something can't come from nothing, therefore god".

He's just young and inexperienced, not to be taken seriously until he matures.

I see where you're coming from now and I agree. His argument that a God is the only answer to what is not known was bit of a leap.

[BrocepCurls]

This is nothing other than the cosmological argument/proximate cause.

Couple things worth noting:

1) The idea that everything that begins to exist has to have a cause is simply derived from our everyday experience seeing things coming into being ex-materia, or from already pre-existing matter. We've never seen anything begin to exist ex-nihilo (out of nothing) as the universe is claimed to have, so there's no reason why the same principle we observe for objects within the universe has to apply to the universe itself. We know absolutely nothing about creation ex-nihilo. Fallacy of composition in philosospeak.

2) The idea that the universe "began to exist" 13.8 billion years ago isn't strictly true either. All we know is that our classical (ie. based on general relativity, not quantum mechanics) description of the universe is not past eternal, but nothing more. That obviously is an incomplete picture of the universe's history and we don't know enough at this stage to say if the universe truly had a beginning.

Smart kid is smart nontheless, but his arguments are introductory level

[adimare]

That is all under the assumption that everything he said is factual. With that said I'm not smart enough to really follow the conversation regarding the interactions of gravity and space time.

Being able to follow the BS the kid said has nothing to do with being smart. Even if you're the smartest guy in the world, if you're not into physics and haven't read up or studied the subject, there's no way you'll understand wtf he's talking about. And I'm pretty sure that's the idea, throw a bunch of nonsense at people until they feel confused and assume the kid knows what he's talking about, then follow up with "therefore God exists" and hope for the best.

It's the same tired-ass old "God of the gaps" argument from always, it goes as follows:

1) Present a phenomenon that's not currently explained or properly understood
2) Say "God must've done it"

For one einsteins "theory" of relativity is not a 'THEORY'. It is a proven law

Wrong. A theory is always a theory, there's no process it can undergo to become something other than a theory.

[numberguy12]

Not an argument at all....in fact not a good understanding of how science works either. Anyone who is 11 gets a pass on this, understandably.

As a side note, I never really got the notion of "child geniuses", and sending 11 yr olds to college. Besides the missing out on social life part, I think bright students would be better off absorbing critical material when their brains are more fully matured and they could process it better. 17 and 16 I could understand. 11? Not so much.

You hear all the time about child geniuses who are 10-12, have "higher IQs than Einstein.....", "calculating prodigies" etc. They seem to be a dime a dozen and all over the place, but you dont hear much more about them down the road. I dont really put much credence into the whole concept of early genius....make original contributions in higher mathematics or physics as an adult, then we'll start talking.

[dakensta]

I dunno about genius or God, but I know that kid needs rhinoplasty.

[Dorich]

Who cares? Its 2018. Why waste your life for something that is unknown

I swear you're one of the dumbest posters in the history of this forum. srs

[wincel]

Yeah he's wrong. Most of what he said is a lay interpretation of GR. He's in community college and definitely doesn't understand the math or physics necessary to grapple with questions about the nature of the early universe. "Absence of spacetime? Outside the universe? Expanding into the void?" These are naive ideas of someone grappling with his first encounter with GR. Yes, he is a very bright kid, but he doesn't understand the physics well enough to make these claims. As another poster said, in a few years, he will likely change his tune. There is so much wrong with what he said that it is hard to even take him seriously. Yes, he is a bright kid and I hope he continues to study physics because to even think about these ideas at that age is great.

[wincel]

Not an argument at all....in fact not a good understanding of how science works either. Anyone who is 11 gets a pass on this, understandably.

As a side note, I never really got the notion of "child geniuses", and sending 11 yr olds to college. Besides the missing out on social life part, I think bright students would be better off absorbing critical material when their brains are more fully matured and they could process it better. 17 and 16 I could understand. 11? Not so much.

You hear all the time about child geniuses who are 10-12, have "higher IQs than Einstein.....", "calculating prodigies" etc. They seem to be a dime a dozen and all over the place, but you dont hear much more about them down the road. I dont really put much credence into the whole concept of early genius....make original contributions in higher mathematics or physics as an adult, then we'll start talking.

Some child geniuses end up doing awesome stuff. But yeah, it is not good for them. It probably really screws up their lives.

[numberguy12]

Still not on board with the notion of childhood genius....but if I had to pick one, here would be an actual childhood prodigy, at least in the realm of math:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss

By the time he was still a late teenager at 19, Gauss

-conjectured the prime number theorem, in that there are approximately n/log(n) primes up until n (he even conjectured the better approximation ∫1/log(x)dx from 2 to n.)

-showed that the regular heptadecagon (17-gon) could be constructed with straightedge and compass, and went on to say the regular n-gons that are constructible are exactly the ones where n's prime decomposition is equal to a power of 2 and distinct Fermat primes.

-proved the law of quadratic reciprocity, a vital theorem in number theory (by around 20)


There are also various anecdotes about Gauss's prodigy in earlier years, like when the schoolteacher told him to add the numbers 1+2+3+4+5.....all the way to 100. Gauss supposedly replied very quickly "5050" while the rest of the students were toiling away at the sum. Gauss figured out a quick way to add consecutive integers without having to actually add them (truth of this story is uncertain).

Anyway...hmm I wonder exactly what all these other "child prodigies" you see on tv are actually doing in regards to original contributions, or were they deemed prodigies by psychiatrists based on mere IQ tests. lol

[sy2502]

I stopped watching at "the absence of space time means pure gravity".
This, children, is what happens when a kid thinks he understands Relativity.

[johnnydeep1]

You mean 11 year old retard?

[I3igAl]

This is just the cosmological argument with some extraneous high school physics.

This sums it up pretty well.
All the problems classical arguments of the first cause have this one has as well. Some would be:
-"What caused the first cause?" could be asked over and over again leading to infinite regress.
-You'd first need to be able to be able to reliably distingiush cause and causation, which we can't
-If something is outside of spacetime, it is still pretty weird to measure it in terms of causation
-If there is something outside of our universe not following the rules of space and time, there is no indication it would be close to a biblical god, who was incarnated in Christ. It could as well be an invisible teapot or a flying spaghetti monster, Allah or Nyarlathotep. So even if that argument points into the direction of some kind of higher entity, it rather supports some primitive form of monism than the big religions.