First, having read about this CONFORMAL CYCLIC COSMOLOGY, and this guy makes a LOT of assumtions (and says so), and deliberatly ignores some stuff (and says so). Basically, it is an idea, nothing more, based not on evidence but on assumptions, many unproven, perhaps even unprovable. Thus it is irrelevant if you beleive it or not, it isn't science untill it is possible to at least try and prove (or disprove) something.
Ive seen the videos linked by Byblos, and they are appropriet to this question. The problem is that this universe to turn out the way it did, capable of supporting carbon based life forms is so very improbably that it cannot happen by any natural means, hence, naturalism at the point in time of the beginning of this universe is impossible. The specific thing here is that making universes before this one actually makes the problem worse, as one of the very improbably things about this universe is how it started out with such low entropy. If you put another universe in front of this one, the problem actually gets bigger, now you need another universe with even lower starting entropy. Here is the quote:
Roger Penrose's probability for low entropy calculated on the order of 10*10*123 (10 to the power 10 to the power 123, 2 exponents). That is as close to infinity-to-1 probability as any number can get, and again, that is irrespective of the number of universes.
BTW, that number is so large, with so many zeros, that to make room for all the zeros, you must write one on every proton, neutron, and electron in this universe, and the do the same for billions of more universes. I mean, the chance of this universe is soooooo small, and now you want to try and do it AGAIN?? That's not science, that's insanity. With odds like that, you could go to Vegas with a bankroll as big as the entire universe, and then some, and come out penniless.
This also brings up thwe infinite regression problem, or "it's turtles all the way down" . This is nothing more that that excuse dressed up as "science", and which has to be carefull not to mention the entropy problem to even be taken seriously (only the ignorant will be fooled).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"[1]
BTW, this link also has this:
:If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject"
I would agree with the idea, every THING has a cause. A thing is a material object, it is made of atoms or protons or photons or even the tiny neutrino. God however is a spirit, and not made of , anything we can detect, no matter, no energy, not even a tiny neutrino in fact, not made of anything but pure thought. As such, since we have proven that all material things in this universe are subject to time (that time changing depending on the relative motions of the thing), then God, not being material, not being a thing, is outside of time. Thus, it is possible for God to be eternal. Thus, we see the universe being born 13.7 billion years, ago, God sees it being born NOW. For God, all time is NOW. And God, not being a thing, can BE the cause, both because he is not a thing, and because, being eternal, nothing can come "before" God to be the cause of God. One can see that the Christian God is outside of time by the way that God foretold things that happened long before they happened
http://www.oldwireroadchurch.com/fulfil ... omises.php .
A second point, this universe is so improbable that it must have been designed by a being of literally infinite itelligence. Such a being cannot be a thing, because things are subject to time and other natural laws. Because of that, we know that there is a finite limit to the speed and power of any computer, thus, nothing in this universe can have infinite intelligence. Therefore, if this universe exists (duh!), then there must be a being of infinite intelligence, who must be a spirit and thus outside of time. Such a being would be unable to be hurt by such limited beings as ourselves, and so this being would be a god of love, since hate comes from fear, and this being hasd nothing to fear. Also, such a being would be so powerfull and intelligent that it would need nothing from us, it could do it all itself if it wanted, thus all the worlds religions but one are eliminated, since all but Chrisianity have you do something to make god accept you, where in Christianity only, God (Jesus) does it all and you simply accept that. Conclusion, from a purely naturalistic, scientific perspective, there must be a god, and the Christian God must be it. Now, how much does this physisict actually beleive in naturalism, because it only leads to one conclusion.
This is also stated in the bible, here Rom 1:20. Here it says that Gods invisible (spirit, non material) qualities can be clearly seen by what is made (the material worlds, matter, energy, etc), and this is true back to the foundation of the world, which, scientifically speaking, goes all the way back to that improbably big bang. Thus the bible says the same thing I just said above, if you actually believe in naturalism, you must believe in Jesus.
And as for no miricales being possible, check out this quote:
In the multiverse, anything can happen for no reason at all
in other words, a materialist is foced to believe in random miricles as an explainatory priniciple (to not believe in non random miricles).
In theistic universe, noting happens without a reason, miricles are intilliegently directed deviations from divinly maintained regularities and are epxpressions of rational porpose
thus scientific materilaism is self defeating and makes scientific rationality impossible.
Basically, if you can believe that something with odds against it in just one universe of 10*10*123 against can happen, and then happen multiple times over, you must believe in random miricles. Either way, you are stuck with miracles, there's no getting away from them.
The argument against miracles goes like this (the always unvoiced assumtions are in perenthesis):
(We know that there is no God)
(Therefore miracles are impossible)
Since miracles are impossible, they did not happen
Since they did not happen, we know that there is no God.
In actual fact, if miricles happen
http://castroller.com/podcasts/FocusOnThe/1415285 ,well then, from a scientific perspective, they happen. If scientists say one thing, yet evidence says another, than what the scientist said is not science, since it does not follow the scientific method which relies on evidence.
I must conclude that if this physicist is a true naturalist and physicist, he must believe in Jesus. If he doesn't, then he must not realy beleive in either physics or naturalism.