Judaism 101 - Shiur #5 - Cosmological Proofs of God

2:06 I'm going to check very quickly on the back of this board. Keep it in the ceiling. Keep it in the ceiling. I see that. Would you mind getting that marker? Secret book. Okay. What we're going to speak about today is called cosmology. And cosmology basically means we're going to discuss the creation of the world. In order to discuss cosmology, we need to start off by discussing the history of how we got to where we are today. There are basically three models for the world, how to understand the cosmos. Really, though, they're broken up into two. So there's two Two sections, three models. The first is what we'll call Not what we'll call, but what everyone calls The static model of creation. The static model of creation says the universe. The universe was, is And perhaps always will be. But the universe did not come into being. There's no evidence that the universe came into being. In a static universe, here's what you're going to see. You might see orbits.

3:37 But you will not see expansion. The universe itself is not in motion. In a static universe, it means everything is kind of just is. So the Earth is, Jupiter is, the Moon is. Baruch ato adonai eloheinu melech Olam Shem kohen Yisrael. Amen. So while there's orbits It's stationary. That is critical. One second. Let me just finish this, and I'll get right to you. Static model of the universe would preclude the notion of God. In other words, there was no beginning. Vayeshevara never happened. Everything was. The question is, if this is true. Which we'll see if it is or not, then that would run contrary to the faith of Judaism, which is that there was a God and God begat the beginning. Is the stationary universe also scientifically natural? Again. Right now, be with me in let's say year 1900. In other words, I want to go through the history, and you'll see why the history is important.

4:50 Then there is a second section. The second section is really going to be divided. This section number two. This section number one. The second section has two possible models. Both will involve expansion of the universe. One will involve a contraction of the universe. The first model is what we'll call an oscillating model. You guys know what the word oscillating means. An oscillating model of the universe And the last is what's called an open model of the universe. Why are we interested in an oscillating model versus an open model of the universe? Here was the theory. In an oscillating model of the universe, there is a Big Bang. But there is also a big. Anyone know? Crunch. Did you hear the big crunch? There's a reason you mattered. Wasn't that proof of your faith? Relax. I'm still in 1900. You're sitting in 2019. You're very smart, but need to in order to appreciate the value of where we are today. Which is true that we are in an open model of the universe. It's important to understand the theological implications of where we were holding 120 years ago. The oscillating model of the universe goes like this. It's possible that God exists, but doesn't have to be that way. In other words, as follows: perhaps the universe came into being.

6:20 And there was a big bang. With that big bang, there's a rapid expansion. And then what happens is that as the world continues to expand, like everything in life, what starts to happen there is a gravitational pull. And so what happens is that as things are expanding, they are moving against the force of gravity. If you hit a certain threshold of gravity, what's going to start to happen? Because the world is expanding, what's going to happen? It's going to start to crunch. It's going to invert back in. What will happen as the universe falls in on itself? What happens when the balloon pops? So it's going to come all the way back into that first moment of explosion and then it's going to. Explode again, so just like a fan oscillates and goes back and forth, so we would be in a constant process of expansion, contraction, expansion, contraction.

7:12 But what's critical is you don't have to believe in God. You don't have to believe in God in this model of the universe. Now remember, just to be clear, because I don't want anyone to ask me this in a couple of minutes, I'm not suggesting that in any one of these models you've actually proven God, because God himself cannot be measured. Just a question of whether or not it points potentially. Does it give us permission, so to speak, to believe in God? So you don't have to believe in God in an oscillating model of the universe. Why not? Because you could simply say as follows: the world always was Currently is, and perhaps always will be. The reason why we see that first explosion is because it just followed. It was what followed. The contraction. So if we could measure the explosion, it doesn't point to actual creation. Doesn't point to actual creation. Rather, it just points to the latest expansion of the universe. Elon.

8:06 What about the starting material? So at this point, you have one of two possibilities when it comes to an oscillating model of the universe. When it comes to an oscillating model of the universe, it goes as follows: Either the starting material was always there. The nature of it is expanding contraction. In the static notion, which is why you don't need to believe in God in the oscillating model of the universe. Whatever we see as an expansion does not necessarily point to a beginning; it just points to the latest contraction and expansion. But here's what's important: even in this model of expansion and contraction We have it. We have to ask ourselves a scientific question: Can expansion and contraction go on forever? Meaning? Is there always going to be enough gravitational pull in the latest explosion To create another contraction? So even if you could say in the oscillating model of the universe, there were only five expansions and contractions.

9:10 But it doesn't necessarily point to an infinite amount of expansion and contractions. That's going to be important later on. Cover just a small reminder. The shiur is a phone-free zone. So I don't want to embarrass anybody, Rabbi. But I hope that you are not. Some people have a tendency to just stare down at their inner leg and flick. I'm sure that that's just because you're getting something off your pants or other unhealthy obsessions. But just, I'm certainly hopeful that it's not a phone. Welcome back. Last model of the universe. The last model of the universe is what we call the open model of the universe. The open model of the universe says there was indeed a beginning. There was a Big Bang. Okay. There is no possibility of a big crunch. Why? Because we simply don't have the requisite materials, and we're going to discuss what those materials are. We don't have the requisite materials to create the contraction.

10:09 So far, so good. In other words In order to know if the open model of the universe was true, here's what you would need to know: Can you measure the entire universe? That's a big claim, right there. Science would have to be able to measure all of the universe. That question for those of you that are following, that question would be followed by what constitutes the universe. In other words, we just right. We'd have to be able to measure all things that do exist and all things that are difficult to measure, like black holes, radiation Gas. So we have to measure all of those things to be able to get the number of what is the universe. When I say the universe, I mean everything that exists, all the cosmos. We have to be able to measure all of that, and we'd have to measure the properties which we're going to discuss that create that gravitational pull, and then we'll see if it hits a certain threshold, then it can create a contraction or not. But as Elon pointed out already in the oscillating model of the universe, the open model of the universe says that there was indeed a beginning.

11:19 Meaning, there was, and we're going to discuss what this means. There was something that didn't exist beforehand. It exploded into being. And when it exploded into being We are the product of what occurs. Let me pause here for station identification, as they say on WFN. Any questions, comments, reactions, or clarifications? Start with Elon. These are scientific. So then, how does one answer the question of starting material for even the oscillating ball? Sure, it's always there, but I mean Where did that philosophical question come from? Good. We're gonna get to that crossroads. Let's stay in the science for a second, but what you're pointing out is fair. I think what you're saying is that even science would have to acknowledge the notion of always. Has always been there. It is at a crossroads of science and philosophy. Science isn't necessarily interested in the question of why it's always been there or how it got there to begin with, because as it's always been there, and that's what we can measure.

12:30 But there is a philosophy there. There is a desire there. Schiff. Are there people claiming nowadays that it's possible to create something from nothing? Isn't there a As far as I know, I've never heard anything like that. What is? But where is that? I guess. Also, where is that? Are you like X nilo creation, meaning something from nothing? Right. I'm saying. I'm saying like, like once you say there's a big bang And then you ask, well then what was before that? And then people are just like That's going to be the next couple of years. In other words, what you're pointing out, which again, very fair, is even after we handle the science, which probably for the next week or two we're going to be handling the science of this a little bit. The next chapter, so to speak, that we pick up is: If there was a big bang, why is there a big bang?

13:15 In other words, why is there something instead of nothing? How does that fit into the notion of desire in general, Shlomo? Why does the open model reject? It doesn't necessarily reject the big crunch because we can't measure it. The oscillating model is saying there's for sure a big crunch. The oscillating model would say there is a big crunch, and the open model is saying there is not a big crunch. Here's the claim: because we've measured everything in the known universe, we know how to calculate that. We now know how to calculate gravity, and we know that there could not possibly be a big crunch. That's what the open model claims. That's why they rejected the big crunch. As opposed to we were going to calculate it. Correct. And they didn't just rule it out as a possibility because they didn't like it. They believe that they've measured the entire known universe and that they can prove that. For oscillating, if it's infinitely oscillating, then there wasn't a creator. But if it's not, then there was. In other words, it allows for both. In the oscillating model, it could be that it popped into being. It could be, but it's not necessarily that way.

14:15 Because all you're measuring is the latest contraction expansion. The explosion doesn't necessarily indicate that there was a pop into being; it might be, but it also might not be. And as you could ask yourself, what created that initial explosion? That's exactly the point Elon was making. Shalom. Then you start to get into questions of infinity and at what point is there? If you could cause the entire universe What's on the other side? And like that type of an if everything has a cause, then type of that type of causal link type of thing. Those are great questions. I'm with you 100%. Agreed. Now let's learn a little bit. Now that we understand the three models, let's learn a little bit of history. How are we doing? Abe, clear and science, clear. Remind me, because I don't want to forget it. When we get back to the open model, I need to discuss with you two laws. Number one is the law of inertia.

15:19 And the law of Conservation of matter and energy. Remind me that we need to get this back. So for an oscillating mass. With the inertial thing If there's something like pushing against it, how would it ever stop? The point is there is something pushing against it. There's gravity. We understand. In other words, as the universe is expanding out from that initial point, more mass is present, and now, as a function of that new mass, there's a greater gravitational pull, which will make it implode on itself. Travel back in time with me to 1913. In 1913, there was an astrologist. The astrologist's name was Vesto Slipher. And he undertook what he believed to be the study of a new galaxy—that's what he thought it was. He was expecting, because many believed in the static model of the universe, he was expecting to see the regular orbits of the galaxy.

16:33 And instead, what he found was that the galaxy was rocketing away from Earth at 700,000 miles per hour. It was 1913. Middle of World War One. That's going to be important in a moment. And he was the first person in the world that discovered the concept of not just a static universe, but a universe that was moving and expanding at a rapid rate. So he spent the next nine years of his life until 1925 studying galaxies and seeing if they were merely orbiting or moving. What he discovered, again, and this was only in the early 1900s, so his technology was very limited. What he discovered on his own is 42 different galaxies that were all rapidly expanding away from Earth. What was his initial reaction? His initial reaction was Is the static model of the universe true? Continue on. Before we get to any questions, continue on to 1916. 1916 was a very important year because Albert Einstein came up with the theory of relativity.

17:39 And I don't have the capacity to explain right now. It's not really relevant to us exactly what the theory of relativity is. There are some amazing articles that make it very easy to understand. There's two types of theory of relativity. There's special theory of relativity. There's general theory of relativity. If you're interested in that, definitely go do your research. But what's critical is this: Einstein put out his publishing. The world went crazy. Theory of relativity. Three theory of relativity. What happens after you publish a paper, guys? Other scientists. Good, very good. So now, initially, publishes his theory, the whole world goes crazy. Theory of relativity, time and space are connected. Which means that how we measure speed is relative to what exists. And they started checking his math, and it turns out there were some holes. These didn't negate what Einstein had said, but they raised some important questions. And the questions were: if theory of relativity is true, without getting into all the science because it's irrelevant, if theory of relativity is true.

18:38 There were those that posited that the static model of the universe could not be true. It was the only way to account for the holes in Einstein's math. So in nineteen seventeen, there was a Danish scientist whose name was William de Sitter, who pointed out the theory of relativity can only work if there's an open, expanding model of the universe, meaning either oscillating or an open model of the universe. In nineteen twenty-two, again, none of these people were speaking to each other. Why weren't they speaking to each other? A couple of reasons. Number one, there was no internet. Number two. Was that language an issue in this case? But there was a much bigger issue. There was World War One. So people couldn't communicate with each other. Remember that Einstein was in Germany, and this guy Alexander Friedmann was a major Russian scientist at the time in 1922. Independently, totally independently, not aware of William De Sitter's work at all, and certainly not aware of Vesto Slipher.

19:28 Came again to the independent conclusion that if indeed Einstein was right and the theory of relativity was true, then the static model of the universe could not be true. So far so good. This was the beginning of the end of the static model universe. So for those of you that earlier were like, "Wait a second, this can't be true!" The static model of the universe is not true. That's when we discovered it wasn't true. Einstein himself, after World War One, found out about all this research that was being done on the theory of relativity, and he found out that there were gaps in his math. And he discovered that those gaps in his math started pointing to the death of the static model of the universe, and Einstein, as if understanding exactly what that meant, wrote to them and he said, "I have not yet fallen into the hands of priests"

20:16 Which meant what? He was saying rejecting the static model of the universe was bringing us one step closer to theologians that would believe in a beginning of the universe. And Einstein was very reticent to do that. So Einstein defended. Again, now we know it's not true, but at the time, Einstein was radically defending the notion that theory of relativity could be true and the static model of the universe could be true, because he understood that losing one meaning he would either lose theory of relativity, but he could not lose the static model of the universe. In 1925 A man who you have all heard of in this room. The largest telescope in the world in 1925 was the Hubble telescope. Run by Edwin Hubble. William was as good a shot as any of them. Edwin Hubble, using the largest telescope in the world, was able to measure every galaxy within a hundred million light years.

21:17 Want to know what he discovered? Every galaxy within a hundred million light years of Earth was rocketing away from Earth at a rapidly expanding pace. So what did Hubble do? Hubble wrote to Einstein, and he said, I know the static model of the universe isn't true. I'm literally watching the universe expand. He invited Einstein to come see his discovery. Einstein went, and at the time of Einstein's death, he still wasn't a hundred percent convinced. But he did acknowledge that, in all likelihood, the static model of the universe was indeed incorrect. And that's where we left off at the time of Einstein's death. Now we're still not at a Big Bang. That still doesn't exist yet. All we know at this point is that the universe is rapidly expanding, and if it's rapidly expanding, it's likely—that's not 100% sure—but it's likely that the static model of the universe is no good. Which means the only model here that didn't allow for God is almost dead.

22:19 And we're going to kill it now. Ready? So far, so good. Anyone confused? That means you're all with me. I have one question. Why what? You'll see in a moment. Again, I'm not trying to prove God All I'm trying to prove is that it's possible. In other words, it's very nice what we discussed before Sukkis. Everything there is philosophically sound. But we have a problem. It's very nice to say that, but it's theory. The point is, science is measuring facts, so it needs to be possible. That's all it needs to be. Because if it's static, what it means is it always was here. It's not moving. There's no indication that it popped into being. There's no indication that there was a beginning. All there It was. It wasn't always will be. Science is not concerned with how it got there because there was no beginning. You're assuming a beginning because you've been raised in an Orthodox Jewish home. You were raised on voracious baralukim. You've been brainwashed, but the truth of the matter is, it's always been here. When did it start? There is no start. Science doesn't point to a start. Once you leave the static model of the universe, it's possible for a start to exist.

23:41 Because it's always here. Why not? Our lives are so complicated. That's tomorrow. Tomorrow we're going to get to the role of DNA. Say that again. Everything's so complicated. You're getting into what's called the theory of design. We're going to get there, but right now let's just stay with cosmology. You're involved in teleological proofs, which are amazing, but not yet. So why I don't understand why Einstein wasn't. If everyone's interested in expanding galaxies and all that, I don't understand how that. I'm not sure how he wasn't convinced either. It turned out he was wrong anyway, so it didn't matter. Wrong about the possibility of a static model of the universe because we were able to measure the Big Bang. Why was he so involved into believing God? That's a separate question. But static. I don't understand how no one would be. I didn't say some other people weren't convinced of dynamics not static, because how does the expanding go? How does that end with the fact that galaxies are rapidly expanding from Earth and time models of the universe? How does that complete the gauge of the time model?

24:48 Meaning, once there's expansion, static should be dead. But what we haven't done—the one thing we're missing, which is what we're about to do—is we haven't shown that there was, in fact, a beginning. We haven't shown that there was ever a bang. But all we know is that right now this is not true in the sense that things are expanding. But we don't know if there was maybe that's just the nature of it. It expands. Was there ever a beginning point? Was there that beginning explosion? Exactly right. And how did it happen? There were two guys. And their names were Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, when they were working in Bell Telephone Laboratories. While they were working for Bell Telephone, they were dealing with this very sensitive microwave detector, and they began to pick up an unidentified background noise. It was about a three-degree Kelvin hum.

25:41 And they wanted to know what it was, so they started checking because this was the most sensitive microwave detector at the time. They wanted to know what the hum was that they were picking up. There are a couple of options. Number one, birds pooped on the instrumentation. That was their first thing. So they repeatedly cleaned it over and over again until they were convinced that it was not damage in the actual equipment. That was the first thing they did. The second thing they did is they thought that maybe there was a local broadcaster that was accidentally jamming their microwave antenna. So they started doing all this research and finding out if there was anybody around that was accidentally doing it. They did a massive amount of research, and it turned out that there was nobody jamming their signal. The last thing they did is they thought, okay, well that means that the entire system is broken. So they overhauled the entire system, replacing all of it. And when they rebuilt it, it turned out that the three-degree Kelvin hum was consistent and was there. So the question was, where did it come from?

26:43 They started measuring this three-degree Kelvin hum. And they said maybe it's only occurring within our atmosphere. And it turned out that as they started measuring it, it didn't only come from within the atmosphere, but it was consistent throughout our entire solar system and beyond. So what had they measured? So they stumbled on a paper Written by a student. Remember Alexander Friedman from Russia? He had a student that wrote as follows. He said if indeed there is an expanding universe, microwave radiation ought to be detectable as residual noise from the latest explosions. He theorized that it would be around a five-degree Kelvin hum. So they realized what they had discovered? They had discovered the beginning of the universe. And for this they were awarded a Nobel Prize. So that's where they first ran into the notion of a Big Bang. What was that? That's when they worked out bells.

27:47 You could get smicha for that joke. That's a terrible joke. I get nachas from it, but you shouldn't get that much nachas from it. Not yet. They had accidentally discovered the Big Bang. But still weren't done yet because all they know is that there's this noise, this residual noise that they're hearing from that initial explosion. But they said, wait a second. If there was indeed a Big Bang, then we have the theory to know. How the universe should look. Basically, 75% hydrogen. 25% helium, and one part in a million of everything else. So scientists around the world started measuring. Guess what they found? 75% hydrogen, 25% helium One part in a million everything else. This conclusively proved for the first time in the 60s. This conclusively proved for the first time there was indeed a big bang. The universe did at least have some explosion at some point that resulted in what we currently live in.

28:55 So far, so good. With that, the final nail in the coffin on the static model was dead. Nobody today in the scientific world believes in the static model of the universe. So far, so good. Now the only question is this: oscillating or open. Oscillating allows for the possibility that God does exist. The possibility that God doesn't exist. Open doesn't tell you for sure that there's a God. But it does beg the question: If everything began Why did it begin? So far, so good. Questions, comments, reactions. I'm seeing too many eyes that are half shut. I admire the fight. Nobody admires the head natter more than me. This guy, you know this guy? That guy's a fighter. Especially the guys that go backwards. Those guys are fighters. They're the heroes, pushing through at three forty-five in the afternoon because they want to get closer to the truth. I admire those guys tremendously.

29:58 Okay. Yeah. That was they. They had cheshbend. That in order for a big bang to exist, that's what the world would need to have. In other words, that would be the scientific evidence that would tell us what was necessary to cause that explosion. So we should find those Divisions in the universe. And indeed, that's what we found. So is it I suppose talking about Dennis Schroder? Not Dennis Schroder. Gerald Schroder. Gerald Schroder. Sorry, basketball player. Gerald Schroder, right? Dennis Schroder played for the Hawks. I think he got traded to OKC. Gerald Schroder. Super relevant, yes. Didn't he write a paper that said that We're gonna get to that again. I think that's touching on his question. That's what we're gonna get to tomorrow. It's not necessarily. But the point is, I think what you're harping on already is the odds of all of this happening, as we're going to see in a moment are next to nothing.

31:01 And that's why right now we're positing theories in the scientific world, like okay, well maybe it has indeed happened trillions of times. And there are all these unknown universes that also exist. We just have no idea about them, and so there was that amount of rolling the dice, and we happen to live in the one that is. But that's also a little bit ridiculous from a scientific perspective because it's total theory. We have no proof that that's true, and maybe in five hundred years they will prove it's true. So then, we also talk at one point about if you like, how can you possibly be atheist? We're gonna get there. That seems more rational than being an agnostic or being a theist. Being more irrational. I agree. I'm a big fan of healthy skepticism, and I have no problem with agnostics. I think atheism is a little silly, but I'm going to show you where their argument comes in.

31:49 That's fine, but even if Even if, even if we do Even if somehow we prove that the possibility of God is there. All right, fine, great, but how do we know it works for right versus deism or anything else? Fair point. When we get to what's called now, what you're asking is, I just want to show you guys why I'm doing what I'm doing. His point is this: He's saying, okay, so now let's say there is the possibility of a God, but why Judaism Right? Why not anything Any, one in Christianity, one in Islam, one in Hinduism, one in Buddhism. That's a question, right? Good point. But I just want to show you the genesis of how you ended up where you ended up. We started off in the beginning of the year, and we spent the first couple of weeks proving that you can't prove God. You can't measure God. That's not what we're trying to do. We're not trying to measure God. What we're trying to do is connect our soul, if indeed it exists, to Him. That's the vehicle. For that's the vehicle for connection. We're now moving on to the next chapter, which is: Does science support the notion of a god? Not that they're for sure is a god, but does it support it?

32:44 Then you want to move into, well, why? What are the various missions of various religions? And you want to know: Is this true? Very fair. But you see, you got to walk the ladder with me. I can't jump to those steps. A lot of times, Rabbayim do that. They jump like, okay, let's discuss Christianity versus Judaism. Let's discuss Hinduism versus Judaism. But I'm not up to there yet. Because how can I? How can I get there first? First, we're holding still by building blocks. Also, let's say for example. Before Stephen Hawking passed away, he wrote, "There is no God." What would you say to that? We'll get to that. God is necessary. So he clearly knows it's tough. He doesn't have that good reason for it. We're gonna get there. We're gonna get there. In fact, we're gonna quote Hawking soon. Okay. Okay. So here's the measurement you need to know. Goes as follows. If you want to have a big crunch, then you need to have one hydrogen atom per every ten feet of space in the entire known universe. That would be what would be necessary to create a big crunch.

33:46 So from 1965 to 1978, scientists all over the world measured over and over again the amount of hydrogen that exists in the known world, and to the best of their knowledge, measured the entire universe. And what they kept coming up with over and over again was one very simple fact. They were very far short of having one hydrogen atom per ten feet of space. Sometimes to the tune of thousands. Meaning, for every ten feet of space in the known universe, there was needed to be one hydrogen atom that was going to be able to create that gravitational pull to be able to have that what's called to be able to have that contraction. But where's the space? Gets me to the next point. So you're asking where is the missing matter? What's the next thing? So in 1978, the director of NASA, of the Goddard Center of NASA, his name was Dr. Robert Jastrow. He was able to prove that even when taking into account radiation, gas, black holes, and all invisible matter, the universe was still ten times too small to stop the expansion of the universe. So in the late 70s, early 80s, for the first time, science said, "We now know that the oscillating model of the universe is not true."

34:56 That left us with the open model of the universe. Going to get the questions in one second. That was it. There's no other options. We're now holding by. There's no dispute. There's no scientist in the world that would tell you the oscillating model of the universe is true or the static model of the universe is true. One second, get the questions in a moment. Even Stephen Hawking In 1988 Admittedly, most people don't want to acknowledge that time has a beginning because it smacks of divine intervention. The open model of the universe is correct. Still didn't believe in God. But he said conclusively, everybody knows the open model is correct. Now I'm going to quote to you from the New York Times an article from Dr. Robert Jastrow. He wrote a book on this very shmat book And he wrote, "This is an exceedingly strange development" Unexpected by all But the theologians. He's referring to the scientific discovery of the open universe.

35:51 They have always accepted the word of the Bible. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance. He is about to conquer the highest peak. As he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. That's what Dr. Robert Dastro The person who basically was the one who proved conclusively the open model of the universe. We're there. We've arrived at least—not to God. We haven't proven God. We've at least arrived at the possibility that Baruchas Bar Elokim is indeed, from a scientific perspective. Is true. Something did begin. Questions, and then we're going to finish up. Is the universe? The universe is too small to stop itself from expanding.

36:51 The universe does not have enough gravitational pull to contract them. Can there be a point where it becomes big enough? Because there's not enough. There's not enough hydrogen that would exist to ever create a. Even if Even if what the scientists were getting around the bush and not the same spot as all the other objects. To a certain degree, I feel I almost feel like there. I guess we could say the fact that they question if there was a beginning, decide to go out and prove something. I guess he's giving some credit for you know what I mean. Give them some credit. Give them a ton of credit. I always think the problem from the religious theological point of view is that you're not going to try and prove it and just say all right this is what it is and then you just accept it and move on.

37:37 I would I don't know if I'll take it that far because if the following statement is true, then I understand the theologians. The theologians, by the way, would have no problem at least from a Jewish perspective. We would have no problem with science studying the known universe and bringing us to the same conclusion. In Yiddishkeit, we make a bracha on a great scientist. So we're not actually afraid at all of the science. But here's what I would tell you: if the inventor of something comes and tells me the properties of it, as the person who's studying from the inventor, the scientist is now going to go measure those properties, which is great. But if I know the inventor, the inventor is not lying to me. So then I don't think it's intellectually lazy to ask: Is the inventor lying to me? It is just as equally an important task to understand what the inventor told me.

38:25 So there's two things going on. Both are important. There's science that says let me check the inventor's facts. Important. And then there's the theologians who say what did the inventor actually do? Why did he do it? What was the purpose of it? It's not intellectually lazy. They're just assuming because they feel they have intimate knowledge of the inventor because they know what the inventor communicated. Which we could debate, but because they know that it is meaningful. I think it's kind of a leap of faith to say I have the manuals on the adventure itself. Gazillion people instead with a gazillion manuals say this is the correct one. You're not wrong, but again, you're skipping steps. Because we're still here. You're jumping to okay, so now if there is indeed a manual Who has the manual? Good point. And I'm jumping the gun. I just I only need again. I'm not I'm not ignoring the question. You're just gonna have to give me a couple weeks to get there.

39:19 You're asking the same question as what he asked before, and we're gonna get there. But here's what I want to point out. Right now, you have no idea. Which again, this is not really a science quest. Right now, you're so convinced that the open model of the universe is true. That it's like, wait a second. I know Hawking didn't. Here's your leap of faith. I trust Hawking. He's a genius. So if he says it's not true, then something is off. But that's as much a leap of faith as anything else. That's all again, and it's not. It's a fair question but it's not really a question. If the Big Crunch was real, how would it work? How does the Big Crunch actually work? Meaning all the matter in the universe, all the energy in the universe implodes on itself. It comes back to that initial point, and as everything crunches in on itself. That force creates again an explosion. Think about a balloon, right? In and out. So it's all there. It's just expanding and contracting.

40:22 And again, that allows for the possibility that perhaps there was a beginning of all that explosion, but perhaps there wasn't. Maybe it was just always doing that. Eli. What's called? What's the name of this? Wait, I don't know. So where do you? Are these like the only three? I'm trying to make sure something is black and white, or how. No. These are the three models of the universe. One, two, three. It's like a no. I'm saying there's no fourth model of the universe. Where does, where do you, where does one learn? I've never learned anything about astronomy, astrology, mythology. Like where do you learn? There are some amazing books that I can point you to that'll give you the what's called. We could start if you really want to start. It's a great place. I'll get you Jastro's book. Thank you. He kept his job after he learned that. That was pretty. It's pretty hard. I'm very... Where did you learn the three things from over here?

41:09 Where did I learn them from? This is years and years of work, but Rabbi Doctor Leib Kellerman is the person that put a lot of this together. Can we finish off now? We have one minute left. Don't forget to mention that's what I'm going to do right now. Thank you, Shai. We have a law. Let's go backwards. We have a law. It's called the law of inertia. The law of inertia says objects that are at rest. Remain at rest. We have a second law. Which is the law of conservation of matter and energy, which says the total amount of matter and energy cannot increase or decrease. Which tells you this. This initial dot that popped into existence. From which that bang. From which everything else expanded in all possible directions. What laws does that violate? Conservation of energy. Meaning If it always existed, it was inert. So what should be? It should be. Say inert. Say inert. And if it did pop into existence Something can't come from nothing. Can't. All that energy was. So now the only question is If it came indeed As we suggest. If it popped into existence, who popped it? And that allows for the possibility of God. We'll stop here for today, guys.