See, here's the difference between you and me: you need to be told but I have to know.
While you march wherever you religious leader tells you to ("Looking at those horrible gays! And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain or what he does with the altarboy."), I just ask myself how I'd feel if somebody treated me like I treat others. It's call empathy.
Of course you don't need that, you have somebody to tell you when it's ok to stone someone to death or how to treat your slaves. I actually have to think about that, consider my actions and try to understand how their consequences affect others. Sometimes I even have to be reminded I am an asshole and have to deal with the fallout of making the wrong choices but you don't have to fear that. You have a book that is several hundert years old written by various people who lived at a time where a Walkman would've been considered witchcraft. And since it has been translated and edited a couple of times, it got only better, especially in the expanded universe fan-fiction edition that you consider canon today. How dare those heathens to question you?
It must be great if everything is so clear cut, so black (phew, nearly typed a nasty word...) and white. I actually have to fear backlash if I mistreat the human beings around me. You on the other hand only have to fear that a man (of course, a man), who really, really loves you, condemns you to eternal torture because you kissed a boy and liked it.
You and your damned, old book. Your standard of morality is no better than that of the Quran.
I have to know I did the right thing, you just need to be told you did good. That's the difference between our morality. That's the difference between relying on your faith or relying on your humanity. That's why I refuse to tell a gay kid it's broken and needs fixing or strapping a bomb to my chest, because that shit is wrong and I just know it. No matter what somebody like you tells me.
Get the fuck out with your claims of morality and go clean your temple from the child molesters.

I'm not sure what I think of them rebooting the canon yet. I was pretty stoked on them exploring the expanded universe.

Hmm... I think this website does a much better explanation of explaining why the sky is dark at night.

http://www.arachnoid.com/sky/index.html

@Retroboy The website I posted explains why dust wouldn't stop the night sky from being bright even in an infinite (non-expanding) universe.

^ I think you've missed the point there, he switches to talk about the big bang in relation to the paradox. He explains that the paradox is explained by the expanding universe, its current size and how light travel is not instant, but goes on to say that in the earlier universe when it was smaller (soon after the big bang), the volume of space would have been smaller but the energy would have been the same, so space would have been alive with photons whizzing about, and what he's hinting at is that the cosmic background radiation is more or less the "bright sky" from that period - we just can't see that wavelength with our eyes.

At least, i think so. It's like saying "Here's how it is now, and here's how it was before. It's cos the distances involved are so big now that we don't have a bright sky."

Basically, he's saying the sky is dark at night because the volume is space is really fucking big and the amount of light in it is finite. The bigger space gets, the darker the sky.

I did not mean to offend any pastafarians...

This video is an argument of philosophy, not an argument of science. As such, it doesn't matter if we bring string theory into it. One could say instead "imagine if there were 10 dimensions, but we can't see all of them". We don't know why gravity works yet, but you just have to accept that Newton and Einstein's work was incomplete. Big Bang theory is based on observations of an expanding universe, but it's impossible to say what happened before that point in time (t=0). It's ok for Scott to use that, but not ok for me to use string theory? Maybe it's an oscillating universe, and it's impossible to observe because humans have not had the capacity to make observations for a long enough time span on a cosmic scale.

I thought Scott presented a good argument in the video. My comments are not to disprove his argument, I stated that already.

>> ^rottenseed:
I'd like to think that I'm going to be a millionaire one day. Like to think all I want, I'd have better luck learning to love top ramen.

Oh and you're really bringing string theory into this? It's a little early in the game to consider string theory a load bearing part of any argument. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy mathematics leading the charge of what we know about the physical world, but let's pump the brakes a bit.

That's like some sort of Pot Droid from Star Wars.

It would be called PT-420, would appear in one scene for about 2 seconds in one of the feature films. A comic book would feature it a few more times and it's cult following would truely start. Soon after a paper-back would be written with it as a main character as it hurled it's way fully into the expanded universe. The plot would involve an assasination attempt on yoda by the PT-420, thwarted by yoda's natural ability to consume as much narcotics as exists in the known (Star Wars) universe. "Stoned I am, always. Why talk like this, you think?", they would then befriend each other and take on imperial scum for the grand finale.

...oh my god, did I just make all this up just now? haha.. *puts down device*

What lies beyond the edge of the expanding universe?

It boggles the mind to ponder it...anyone know of any theories?

I find these hosts to be overly dismissing, but on the other hand I do understand their position, they are being attacked by people who are amazingly ignorant and silly, i personally would have tried to respond by starting to explain evolution to this guy, but there wouldnt be enough time I guess, so I'd end up with the same stalemate.. I guess what I'm saying is that hey are basically right, but since the caller is ignorant, and because they've heard that ignorance so many times, they end up arguing simplisticly

EDIT:

The one question I'm sorta screaming at the screen is "Where does complexity come from?" we start out as complex, thinking individuals and work our way back, what we find , is that as a matter of FACT, we are the result of 3.5 billion years of increasing complexity, before that, our planet is a result of an expanding universe that started as extremely hot and dense energy that cooled of and expanded for 10 billion years, when we look at cosmology, the uniiverse gets simpler, smaller and hotter for every second of that time. It takes some mind-bending physics to explain beyond that, but at no point in that process there seems to be a good time to start with an all-powerful COMPLEX intelligent agent. Compexity and intelligence are LATE arrivals in our universe