I actually laughed out loud when they read Hawking's statement of "There isn't a possibility of God because before the big bang, time didn't exist, so a being couldn't exist". Like...wait...really? THAT'S IT?! The church has already dealt with this idea like over a million times....c'mon man, pay attention.
@Perkin Warbeck oh boy, sounds like someone has a grudge :). Yes, the Church has dealt with this before. You think Stephen Hawking was the only one to bring this up? The problem people have with this is they think of God as they think of us. They think God is a creature that cannot exist beyond time. The Church has long said that God exists outside of time; that time has no hold on Him. If this wasn't the case, He wouldn't be God because He'd be bound by time just as we are. As for your discussion on evidence of God, I'd recommend you read up on St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs of God's existence. These proofs are based entirely on sound strings of logic and have no religious flavor. The argument from contingency is especially intriguing. Also, your mention on the big bang is a little ironic, because guess who came up with the Big Bag theory? It was a Priest....and it got approved by the Pope at the time...lol so no, Catholics are not idiots. If you really believe that the overwhelming majority of the Earth's population are all complete idiots (as most people believe in God), it sounds to me like you either have a superiority complex or you're just mad because life didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. Instead of going to a *religious* RUclips channel specifically to mock a large group of people and call them idiots, you should go to your local Catholic Church and ask the priest about why anyone believes this stuff, that would give you far more information. Also, what evidence exactly contradicts the idea that there is a God?
@Perkin Warbeck You're missing the point. I don't care if you have 20 PhDs or only a high school diploma, you're confining God to abide by the same rules of physics every other creature does. You don't need to be a Physicist to understand that the very *nature* of God is outside of any tangible rules we've observed in the universe. You have to tackle this issue from the religious point of view if you want to ever convince anyone that you're right. For the sake of argument, you need to assume that God is *not* bound by *any* of the rules we are, because that's the God I'm talking about. Could you provide me with these countless scientific bodies that completely disprove Aquinas' logic? Your Big Bang comments *are* ironic, because my point was *not* to suggest that God exists because a priest came up with the theory, that'd just be stupid. My point was that Christian/Catholics aren't inherently stupid because of what we believe. I'd assume you'd have respect for the man who created the theory and agree that he wasn't stupid. My point was to suggest that if a priest was the one who made the theory, clearly not all Christians/Catholics are stupid. As for the comments about no proof of the resurrection, I'd recommend researching the historical evidence of the resurrection. This article [www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/] is a debate that discusses this very thing. This topic is also summarized at the end of this talk [ruclips.net/video/o5qJPZySo7A/видео.html] starting at 7 mins in. Almost universally, history scholars agree that *many* people had attested to seeing the resurected Jesus, and these aren't just some crazy people who decided to make this plot. These were groups of 500 or more at multiple instances who all attested to seeing Him at the same time. This couldn't have been a hallucination, unless you wanna start saying they were all just crazy or were high on some drug. These people weren't always already believers either. There were also ordinary people who had not believed until they saw what they saw. These accounts were backed up by scholars dating these accounts *after* Jesus had died and His tomb found empty. Is this "evidence" that God exists, no. But can it just be explained away by science or other historical evidence? No, it can't, which leaves us with a question: were all those people simply in on some insane hoax even though they weren't all believers and these occurrences happened at different places? Or, is there something odd you can't really place your finger on? I'm of the opinion that the later is true, but you decide. There's also other miraculous accounts such as Eucharistic miracles where the transubstantiated host turned into organic tissue. After examination of the tissue by *scientific personnel* they concluded that the tissue was actually Cardiac tissue. There were also several other tests done (DNA tests, etc.) that concluded that the tissue was in fact human tissue with an AB-positive blood type; the same blood type found on the Shroud of Turin which is believed to be Jesus' burial cloth. Your last comments aren't really worth any refutation. You're claiming that I'm some mean RUclips bully when you're the one who first started calling an entire group of people idiots; so good luck playing the victim card, it ain't gonna work.
@Perkin Warbeck Don't text and drive brother, I don't want you getting hurt or hurting someone else for a RUclips discussion hahaha. When you're at a safe place, I'd like to know how you would define God *IF* you believed in Him. Wouldn't you think that God being the ultimate being who, as Christians believe, *created* the very fabric of the universe and thus the very *formula* you speak of, would be able to exist outside of that formula? The very thing that you say liberates you from the "primitive" ideology of religion is the same thing that imprisons you from seeing outside the scientific worldview.
@Perkin Warbeck Haha no problem man 😎, I hope you're not driving that cyber truck though...LOL sorry but that thing looks ugly in my opinion hahahaha 😂 and ok, how about I phrase the question like this: what are the limits of God from the Christian perspective? And *exactly* ! It's a law that "participants" of the law must obey. If God participated in these laws, He wouldn't be real, would He? Thus, God *cannot* and *does* *not* participate in these laws if He is real. Thus you cannot use these laws to completely disprove the existence of God, doing so would be intellectually dishonest. He isn't in time. He isn't in space. He's outside of all that. That's why He's God. In order to create something, your very existence cannot be contingent on that thing. When a couple has a child, their existence doesn't depend on that child, if it did, they wouldn't exist because the child does not yet exist. Yet, their existence does *not* depend and is *not* contingent upon the existence of that child and so they're able to create that child. It's the same premise with God. As for your series of questions, there always seems to be this idea that religious people just blindly follow a teaching regardless. I frequently hear people criticizing the entirety of Genesis and the creation story. The Bible is not a *single* book. It is a series of books. To read it as a *single* book, you'd need to read it with a *single* genre in mind (i.e. either everything in the book is non-fiction or it's not). But because the Bible is a *series* of books, every single verse of every single book is not to be taken literally. Jesus frequently used parabols to teach a lesson. I would put my money on saying that most Catholics don't take the creation story literally. I think most people who believe in the Christian God understand that not everything is to be taken literally. As for Noah's Ark, there have been historical accounts that could suggest such an ark existed and landed somewhere in the region of Ararat. Jesus spoke of the flood, but I'm not sure if the Catholic Church has a specific teaching on if the ark existed or not. I'd encourage you to read/watch atheist conversion stories on how and why they converted. Some notable names are Dr. Holly Ordway, Dr. Paul Lim, Sarah Salviander, etc. These witnesses may help you to understand why the transition to belief isn't as crazy as the world may have you believe. When it really comes down to it man, I believe what I believe not simply because someone said so, but because of two things: 1) the beautiful and incredibly complex way this entire universe, nature, the human body and everything else was built and 2) because of my own experiences. You can explain to me what science teaches about the way things were created or how they were created, but science can *never* teach us anything about *why* this all came to be. It can never touch that. Just because we've discovered the Big Bang doesn't mean there's no God, and just because we've discovered complex physic rules doesn't mean there's no God, in fact, one would think that the very existence of something that intricate and complex would be more so evidence that an intelligent being created it, not only random chaos. I can only do so much and say so much from a RUclips comment, but if you're really so adamant about God not existing, why don't you genuinely try to talk to Him and see what happens for yourself? Isn't that a scientific way to approach things anyway? Saying a small, quick prayer genuinely everyday can be enough for Him to open a door. But don't make the excuse where you say it only once and then expect the Earth to shake as a sign lol, that annoys me when people use that argument. I guess I just wanna leave you with an honest truth. I don't have all the answers. If you're being truthful about your education, I don't have as much knowledge as you do in physics. Yet, what I do know is that sometimes, the most real things on this planet are the things we can't see. I know God exists because I've heard Him and I've experienced Him in my life. As a curious Physicist, I'd imagine you'd be interested in pursuing Him too, because if He does exist, that's the most incredible discovery you'll *ever* make. As someone who's so set on researching for yourself, you should start researching God yourself by praying everyday! That's the best way to research Him. Be honest with Him. Tell Him what you think and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. If after a life of prayer you find that he doesn't exist, you've lost nothing. If you find that after a life of prayer He does exist, you've gained *everything* .
Do you really know what the word physics means? Do you know what the word facts means? Do you know what fiction, tales, fabules means? If you have any prove there is a God, bring these proves into fact to show your God. There's a God in the Church?, or they make you believe there's a God in the church? Then if there is a God in the Church, then why people go to church to get cured of sicknes, but never find cured at all. They go to hospital to get cured by physicians. I was raised to be an adult believing in a God, that tranforms into many other Gods. but none pf this Gods cure any one of my friends in Church or family members, for the 45 years i had lost believing in nonsense false Gods. One day they worship the Jesus, the other sunday it's God with no name. You have contact with this fake God, bring him with you next time you talk about it. False Preacher. False God believer.
Anthony Atento Bello Im a Christian Preacher and the Bible which was written 2000 years ago predicted what was going to happen close to the end times and what the Bible said what was going to happen Is happening right now keep in mind what was predicted didn’t happen for the next 14 15 or however many century’s until now God is real if people think God doesn’t exist I need them to prove me he doesn’t chances are knowone has proof that he doesn’t exist therefore he is real only a fool deny’s Gods existence
@@richiefaultner7860 It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I can spend an eternity saying I know 15 unicorns and you can never prove they don't exist. that's an impossible standard of proof.
5:12 This is very, very true. As someone who grew up when the internet was really coming into prominence hearing how some of the "smartest people in the world" are atheists can really affect your thinking.
*It's a sad situation when the delusion that these celebrities are some of the smartest people in the world and nobody has the intelligence to challenge and disprove the claim because it's very easy to do.*
@Juno Donat Well, Juno it's arguable that Basilisk is a bona fide "idiot" which has a precise psychological definition. No question, however, that Basilisk is gullible, knows no science, understands nothing of philosophy, and is intransigent in his irrational views. But that's not really an "idiot." You agree?
Juno Donat No, Catholic faith is not imagination. Catholic faith, or theological faith, is when you ACTUALLY encounter God and He says to you He exists. It's not blind like Protestant faith. Nor is it based on a need for consolation like how many Protestants think of religion. The cross is not at all consoling. I blame Protestantism for the rise in atheism because it has encouraged very false understandings of God, especially how religion is presented as only or primarily a source of comfort. I think that's why many believe God is imaginary. If you feel the need for comfort, just imagine a supernatural being, and all will be ok. No. It's not like that at all. Christianity is not primarily about consolation.
Juno Donat Wow! Did you copy paste that from your files? Did you comment without listening at all to the talking? The Bishop answered all of your points.
Thank you Bishop Barron. Please visit my country, the Philippines. Our people needs an English-speaking Catholic intellectual. The lay people here are so vulnerable to proselytist Mormons and other Protestants.
Hey I just wanted to say that I lived in the Philippines for a year. And I miss it so much everyone made me feel so welcomed take care my friend ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Catholic intellectual? RELIGION is for non-intellectuals. So your saying, the catholic church is smarter than a great physicist who contributed a crap ton of things into the field of astrophysics? How stupid.
@@xaphiron While the credit almost only goes to Hubble, the man behind the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest, Fr. Lemaître. The Vatican has one of the worlds powerful observatories which is located in Arizona, USA. The Holy Bible, one of the most important scriptures among world religions was canonized by the Catholic Church through series of councils by the popes in the early centuries of the Church. The Gregorian Calendar itself is a product of the Catholic Church. The Cyrilic Alphabet that is currently used by Turkic and Slavic countries was invented by two Orthodox-Catholic intellectuals who are now considered as saints in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.
I think it's a 'good' time to catch Bishop Barron when he is still coming to terms with jet lag. It's not often that you see him setting aside his usual softness and going straight for the jugular. I just loved this Q&A.
@@wamozart9094 I'm agnostic, but I can totally agree with some of this arguments. If you can't take this bishop's opinions and considerate them enough to take some sense from them, then you're as naive as the people you're criticizing
He really did concentrate on religion and God in his final days. I read that people find God in their final years or hours because they lower their walls and open their hearts to more possibilities. I read a book by Jesuit Fathers about how God comes in when you open your heart and lower your walls.
That is very true. Also when people fall to their worst depths they become vulnerable and their hearts as you said become more open. I've felt it myself. Orthodox Christianity actually teaches that the human pride is the main source of all problems.
Is Bishop Barron right about disagreeing with the smartest person? He says Hawking is arrogant in his confidence that there is no god, yet Bishop is just as arrogant in his confidence that there IS a god!
As of today there's no reliable individual who can make a reliable assessment of important and sought after topics and makes it available for others one and all. Brilliant take on 'Hawking and Company'! Thanks Bishop Barron and thanks Brandon!
@@marypinakat8594 Glad you're looking forward to that! But, as a scientific naturalist, I don't care about "authority" or "credentials." I care about verifiable evidence and powerful, robust, coherent, broad, mathematically elegant, falsifiable, and predictive explanations. Professor Hawking delivered those very well. Barron delivers nothing of the kind. He delivers assertions, conjectures, opinions, and speculations. Not good enough for me,
@@alexanderborodin7884 'scientific naturalistic'. No caps for the qualification? Well, I had presumed I was dealing with some follower of Christ sort of if not a Catholic. Regrets.
If God is love, and it is claimed that God does not exist, then the obvious conclusion is that love does not exist. Science may be able to measure what love looks like on the outside, but it cannot tell you anything about the experience of love from the inside.
@@Gpacharlie I have NEVER, EVER stated that I have VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that any of tens of thousands of gods including the 3-part god, does not exist. What I have stated repeatedly is far more compelling: The Cosmos exists and behaves precisely, completely, reliably, and predictably as we would expect ABSENT any of those thens of thousands of gods, including the 3-part god. Therefore, even if any or all of those gods exists, none is consequential or relevant to anything at all.
Alexander Borodin Well Al except that you state that the cosmos behaves as we would expect. Why would we have an expectation of such a supremely ordered cosmos? Why would we not expect randomness and chance and not a little chaos instead of the intricately ordered cosmos. Many scientists are coming to an unexpected understanding of how ‘rare’ our earth probably is, yet shouldn’t there be an earth around every cosmic corner?
@@Gpacharlie Naw, Chiuck, why SHOULD we expect "randomness?" The Cosmos behaves precisely according to the mathematical proscriptions that we've uncovered. Based upon those proscriptions, there appear to be untold numbers of Universes, but aren't we lucky to be living in this one? Even in this Universe, the verifiable evidence is enormous that every star has planets around it. How many galaxies? At least 2 trillion. How many stars in each galaxy? 300 billion. How many earth-like planets? Decent estimate: 40 billion.
I find it fascinating when certain thinkers (e.g. Hawking) are so demonstrably adept in complex thinking of one type (e.g. theoretical physics) but so demonstrably incompetent in complex thinking of another type (e.g. philosophy). It's a healthy reminder that the cleverer the mind, the cleverer the traps it can lay for itself (not to mention I imagine there's a social/psychological effect of a globe-ful of people hailing a man as a 'genius' and never challenging him to question his own elementary errors in a field outside his skillset).
Hey Natie: When you show me that you understand even a fraction of the physics and mathematics of Professor Hawking, and that you can use mathematics to demonstrate that he is incorrect, get back to me. OK? Thanks.
Yes, another book by Lennox, a man with zero training in cosmology or astrophysics, trying to say that he understands these subjects more than Hawking! The same goes for Bishop Barron, who has no training in astrophysics or cosmology yet thinks he understands these subjects more than Hawking!
The Bishop makes a very good point about the effects of the elevation of STEM and business in our universities and the diminishment of liberal arts. Looking back, I think it really started with the creation of the consumer culture following WWII and the launch of Sputnik by the Soviets in 1957. Consumerism placed a higher emphasis on wealth creation and Sputnik led to a concerted effort by the government to put science-based curriculum at the front of the line to close a perceived knowledge gap between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Over time, the diminishment of philosophy and liberal arts has led to an overall decline in critical thinking and creativity within our society. The clearest example of this loss of creative energy can be found in Hollywood where most of what is produced is either rehashed woke messaging or remakes of earlier movies and TV shows. But more to the point of this video, it always makes me shake my head when I hear the latest theoretical claim to explain existence. Science will grasp any straw to explain the Divine. I saw a video the other night where a theoretical physicist was carrying on about multiverse theory which is all the rage these days. He was trying to resolve the fine-tuning problem as they call it by saying the laws of physics may not apply evenly across the board, a handy argument to explain faster than light travel at the moment of the Big Bang (hyperinflation) and other pesky problems that plague their computer models. His case for a random universe came down to the argument that we were simply the winners of a 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 -1 cosmic lottery. He even went so far as to say there may well be universe's out there completely devoid of matter and energy. In other words, a vast galactic ocean of nothingness where anti-matter won the lottery, a universe that serves no purpose, which, quite handily, exists outside of space and time as we know it. So, entire universes can exist outside of time and space and break all kinds of rules as they do it but God can't. This is where the high priests of scientism display their intellectual dishonesty and engage in the very thing they call superstition on my part, faith. For me anyway, it takes a lot more faith to believe in a random universe than it does in one that is ordered by a being who transcends space and time. But that's just me. In the meantime, I'll continue to look for scientific answers in scientific places and spiritual answers in spiritual places. There is no contradiction for me but then again, I'm not competing against anyone or anything for supremacy in this world. I do wonder how that conversation between Mr. Hawking and God went, but that is a topic for another day.
Those extra universes of antimatter are simply useless to us, we are incapable of seeing whats truly there as there is never nothing no matter what. Its all the rage cause people wanna understand. Its funny how youll grasp at any straw to understand the science. Cause you think you already know but youre scared to admit you dont because the vastness of the universe is scary till it looks to you like its been encompassed by god. Or youre too embarrassed to admit he lost ya pretty early on. Those dimensions may not even be dimensions. Just places where there should be something but there isnt yet the item is still effecting the space around it but from another universe and we can actually reach all those other universes theres nothing actually separating us from them and we are looking at it all from our little pale blue dot. Just so you knwo scientists likely come off as arrogant cause they are tired of being talked down on by people like you who say things like "scientists will grasp at any straw to understand the divine" i just want you to know that ive never heard something anywhere near that arrogant comin from a scientist. Maybe thats why they dont like religion and tend to come off as arrogant, cause they think the same of you and choose to reject all of your ideas so that they can keep themselves separate from you. As hopefully a future scientist i kinda agree with them. I dont like you. While i find it useless to reject any kind of idea as there is always something to glean from anything you can learn i dont fuckin like you. Glad i got to read the book before i had to deal with you
God armed me in this by answering my request to show me the answer to that problem and faced me with solipsisms and the Void and saw me through them. It was arduous but it got me what I asked for.
Hawking argument seems to be basically dishonest. His view that God is subject to time is a very simple error that a first year philosophy student would find ridiculous.
Error? If God is not subject to time, he's either spatially variable, which conflicts with most religions, or he's the philosophical, not scientific, "non-potential unmoved mover" lying outside time and space. In that case, if God exists out of time, then at no time does God exist.
Kelly > Agreed. It does seem out of character for a scientist to definitively claim the non-existence of a creator because it's not falsifiable. If Hawking didn't find convincing evidence of God that's fair enough - but every scientist knows that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
Kelly ...that may be true ,,,but the christian claim is that God is revealed in time....I think Hawking would talk about the beginning of time. I think Simon Cox is better than this. The Bishop is correct in the mixing of categories...Your first year student is a good example ...Laws do not create anything ...nothing causes something ...the best of science!!
It's one thing to be wise, and another to debate. Debates are 50% knowledge, 50% being able to spit them out extremely quickly and taking notes and having witty replies. Bishop Barron likes to speak slowly, clearly, and profoundly, needing some time to flush out his thoughts in a very pastoral way. This is actually ideal when speaking to people who don't have a philosophy or theology background, but not great for debates. Not to mention that you can find about 500 videos of atheists giving witty replies (that are removed from their context, because in context they're usually dumb) in debates and wouldn't help in attracting lay people.
@@UnratedAwesomeness I don't know, the day I discovered bishop I was actually seeing an interview of dawkins to father coyne, I garantuee that dawkins was fascinated, I can imagine Sam harris listen for the first time that God is the sheer act of being and being mindblowned.
I'm a non believer, but Bishop Barron gives me hope that one day I'll have that ahh ha moment. I'm confident theres no personal God. There may be a creator, a force, but I don't believe in one as described by religion, or in one that some how influences the grain of sand that man kind in reality is. I must say though, Bishop Barron cracks the door ever so slightly. I wish I could have an educated discussion with an apologist half as thoughtful and percise as he.
@Juno Donat I think there are a few holes in your argument if I may be so bold as to point them out. I would agree that God cannot be demonstrated to exist by the scientific method, but that is not a claim Catholicism has ever made. In regards to logic and reason, see St. Thomas Aquinas, Avicenna, Aristotle, Dr. William Craig, Bishop Barron, and many more. All of these very intelligent, logical theologians/philosophers have put forward or illustrate many arguments for the existence of God. Also, not to sound snarky, but can you scientifically prove that science is the only way to prove something? If you look at the Judeo-Christian concept of God, it is argued that God necessarily exists outside of the universe seeing as God created it. Science is amazing at coming up with answers about how things within the universe function. God is not a part of the universe, one among many if you will, and therefore out of the purview of science. Also, I would of course be angry that the woman allowed her child to die and if she claimed in any way that Catholicism led her to that choice, I would severely challenge her understanding of the faith. I would also not snap to a judgement of stupidity, though clearly this person needs significant mental help. It is also unfair to lump all religions together seeing how divergent their beliefs are. Lastly, if we use body count, pardon my crude language, to judge the morality of something is not the best judge of its goodness. For example, the nation-state, and technology, daresay science, would win by far. Of course, I would never say that the concept of the nation-state or science are responsible for the atrocities done in the name of those concepts. That would be unfair. The same can be said for religion. Just because people pervert it and commit crimes using it as justification, doesn't disprove its truth or goodness, just that people can do really messed up things. There are some challenging arguments for the non-existence of God, though I don't find them convincing, but I do not see them in your comment. Have a great Veterans Day weekend!
@Juno Donat One more thing, if you are actually looking to convince me that I am wrong in a belief, a bit more grace and courtesy might be merited based on your original comment. I do not consider it a weakness to look to others for support in times of challenge and nor should you.
@Juno Donat First, agreed in regards to Christianity - I was simply stating God as creator outside of time and space. The mythic explanations of God, triune Father, Son, Holy Spirit, really do fall short -- all the business about Horus, Mithras, etc. The historical evidence doesn't back up the assertion that Christ is a synthesis or amalgamation of preexisting stories. However, that point is largely irrelevant to my claim at this point. In regards to your second paragraph, your basic assertion is that using the scientific method, we do not know of anything outside of our observable universe. I agree. Philosophy and reason can all help us understand things just like science can. I'm also not looking to prove anything to you. I was simply stating that I really enjoyed Bishop Barron's video. You directed a barb at me; not vice versa. Fair point on the poor choice of words regarding the scientific method's ability to ascertain cause. I am not invoking a God of the gaps argument as they are terribly weak. I am stating that for a thing to exist it must have a creator. If the universe exists, it to must have a creator. An infinite regress is impossible, therefore, there must be a first cause, which we call God. That is a middling rehearsal of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I also am also claiming that the limitations of science cannot be used as a disproof of God. Again, it would be foolish to use a flash drive to accomplish the same task as a hammer. Using science to prove the existence of God is such a misstep.
When the first premise by which you conduct your logical explorations is that "The material universe is all that matters," you will never come to any conclusions which question it.
If an out of control car was heading directly toward me, my mind might say, "I believe that if I dive forward right now, I will be out of the cars path, just in time.". And so naturally I would leave that mere belief, and move on over to the hopeful truth that it spoke of. If however I thought that the belief alone was enough to save me, and thus I chose to stick to that belief rather than move on over to the hopeful truth that it spoke of, no doubt the car would run over me, and possibly kill me. Simply believing in something, is not enough for you to reach the truth itself. You still have to move from where it is that you are currently located. Only if you are directly connected to the truth, need you not be dependent upon a belief. A belief is located at a distance from the truth, thus it is located within the zone of "Less than truth". Thus if you stick to "believing" in God, you will remain at a distance from him.
I was asked the other day by a coworker, was Steven Hawkins right about God?? I asked my coworker, I don't know, what did Steven Hawkins say about God?? She answered me this, he said he didn't believe in God, or God doesn't exist, something like that. Then I said to her, it's appointed unto man(the human race)to die once, then the judgment, we will have to wait until then to know.
When Hawkins says: "People who always cling to religion...do no trust or understand science" Never thought such a shallow statement could be made by sucha scientist. So basically he says: All of you fathers of modern science and scientists who believe in God. You dont understand science. Yes yes Mr Hawkins. Scientists do not understand science. GOshh...how dumb that statement is. And...Big bang from nothing...starting to think he wasnt scientist at all.
Just because a scientist claims to believe in God don't need to say they believe. Just because a priest says he believes in God don't need to say he believes. Sometimes there are motives to claim a belief.
It is so sad, Steven Hawking had the mind and training to see a portrait of God that I'd never be able to see and he denied it for some unknown reason.
"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
in the Philippines, if you are in a Jesuit university you're required to take philosophy the same credits (units in the US Educ) as theology. I used to complain why do I have to take 21 units(credits) of Philo, now I know
The best thing I ever did was major in Philosophy and minor in Theology. Father Spitzer, who wrote a book, "New Proofs for the Existence of God", stated that philosophy is needed more now than Theology. One cannot assert the authority of Scripture and the Church if those who you are evangelizing are atheists or agnostics (I do not use the term materialists because they are synonymous)
@@Goodkidjr43 Well, Goodkidjr43, I took a lot of philosophy too. It helped me to understand that supernaturalism, in its untold thousands upon thousands of mutations, permutations, denominations, sects, cults, organizations, churches, formats, formations, and fabrications is quite simply bullshit. Now the most valuable courses that I took, all the way through graduate school and a Ph.D. were courses in the many disciplines and sub-disciplines of biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Therein, I learned of the enormous power of unfettered inquiry, skeptically acquired verifiable evidence, the utter rejection of "authority," and broad, robust, coherent, compelling, elegant, falsifiable, and predictive explanations. Supernaturalism has never explained anything and never will because it cannot. When it tries, every supernaturalist throughout the world fabricates her or his own "explanation," all of which are absent verifiable evidence. Supernaturalists remain intransigent, constantly bickering with each other, because there is no common, global, cross-cultural, or consistent standard for even determining whether any assertion is plausible. For that reason, most of the world's conflicts have a sectarian basis. Consistent with this observation, the "explanations" of supernaturalism are constantly replaced with the predictive explanations of scientific naturalism. The reverse NEVER occurs. NEVER.
I took a lot of philosophy too. It helped me to understand that supernaturalism, in its untold thousands upon thousands of mutations, permutations, denominations, sects, cults, organizations, churches, formats, formations, and fabrications is quite simply bullshit. Now the most valuable courses that I took, all the way through graduate school and a Ph.D. were courses in the many disciplines and sub-disciplines of biology, chemistry, physics, the social sciences, and mathematics. Therein, I learned of the enormous power of unfettered inquiry, skeptically acquired verifiable evidence, the utter rejection of "authority," and broad, robust, coherent, compelling, elegant, falsifiable, and predictive explanations. Supernaturalism has never explained anything and never will because it cannot. When it tries, every supernaturalist throughout the world fabricates her or his own "explanation," all of which are absent verifiable evidence. Supernaturalists remain intransigent, constantly bickering with each other, because there is no common, global, cross-cultural, or consistent standard for even determining whether any assertion is plausible. For that reason, most of the world's conflicts have a sectarian basis. Consistent with this observation, the "explanations" of supernaturalism are constantly replaced with the predictive explanations of scientific naturalism. The reverse NEVER occurs. NEVER.
That an atheist and a theist would finally terminate their argument (or debate if you like) wouldn't be attributable to one of them having won it; rather, it would be attributable to the fact that they finally wore themselves out.
Growing up, it was very interesting how atheistic theoretical physicists' attempts to disprove God's existence bolstered my faith through a flawed understanding of God that showed creation was even more impressive. By contrast, Catholics caused doubts through explanations that had obvious counterarguments. I'm encountering much more coherent logic from Catholics nowadays thanks to Fr. Spitzer and now this, so thank you to both of you.
@@alexanderborodin7884 You're right in a sense; normally science doesn't focus on proofs, though similar techniques to mathematical proofs can be used to extrapolate from laws and what we know. This part of theoretical physics doesn't have access to direct observation, though. It relies on mathematics to show what is possible in a system under certain conditions (a universe/multiverse expanding on average, as ours does) going back in time to negative infinity. It's naturally open to reinterpretation should new evidence come out about the universe's behavior, but the origins of the universe aren't something that can be directly observed. There are other approaches to take, such as looking at the law of entropy's effects, which point in the same direction. I probably chose the word "disprove" because it hinges on mathematical proofs and Hawking's career seems to focus an awful lot on the idea that God doesn't exist even though his field isn't suited to answering that topic. Also, this is a RUclips comments section, not an academic paper; of course there will be errors, as it's not carefully proofread. Even after that, academic works suffer from errors too. I'm not convinced that the point you made is entirely valid, though. The attempts to disprove God from a perspective of materialist scientism are to the point that Hawking's work has involved decades of focus on topics intended to show the universe doesn't need a creator and his public communication clearly communicates an atheistic viewpoint (hence the book in question.) To an extent it reminds me of Michelson from the Michelson-Morley experiment; he worked from the premise that the aether exists and couldn't truly accept the results of his own work showing that it didn't when he wanted to show that it did. He was still a good physicist who transformed the way people see the universe. The problem is when people treat Hawking or other scientists as an authority on God's existence when they aren't; he's working in completely the wrong field but seems to want to be seen as that authority anyways. Since Western societies now adhere to scientism in the mainstream and discount logical and rational thinking outside of science and mathematics (especially if there's something to be outraged or strongly emotional about,) a lot of people think he does have that authority. Philosophy and logic aren't even required in school anymore, since the attitude is "you'll learn to think by learning math and science." Science and math don't teach you to counteract your own logical fallacies for the most part or build a sound worldview, though. Do you have anything of substance to contribute? It's alright if you don't; not everything needs to be discussed and not everyone needs to comment, especially in RUclips comments of all places. It seemed appropriate to clarify for anyone who is considering the evidence and reads this. Just don't expect any further response to something that doesn't have substance or serve a worthwhile social function; such conversations are pointless.
@@evandelaalquarame4171 My friend Evandela. You don't have the least bit of understanding about scientific naturalism or even about science. You're hung up on "proof" stuff. Scientific naturalism can't "prove" anything at all. You really should understand that. It does provide powerful, robust, broad, coherent, falsifiable, and highly PREDICTIVE explanations. Professor Hawking relies upon these explanations to point out that even if the 3-part god exists, just as a teapot may be in orbit around Mars, that god and all the rest are inconsequential and utterly irrelevant to anything at all because the Universe exists and behaves precisely, completely, reliably, and predictably as we'd expect absent any of them.
@Alexander Borodin, certainly science provides coherent and predictive explanations _within its appropriate domain_ . It says little or nothing about morals or ethics, about personal relationships, in fact, about anything that most people consider important most of the time. Saying that god is inconsequential to anything at all is like saying an aeroplane pilot is inconsequential as the aircraft operates according to physical principles with or without him. Why, then, would most people would be uncomfortable with the idea that there's nobody in the driving seat?
I like when he says that no scientist can’t deny that god doesn’t exist because he does and everything adds up! Like he should confront a Priest and the priest will give him allllllll the answers!
Up to day, scientists still wrestled with the Truth, the question of God.. If God is a myth, then humanity would outlaw the question of God already.. But up until today , scientist could not erase God out of humanity.. That's something to think about
The comments from the atheists on this post remind me of a scratched LP, the same few things are being repeated over and over again. It feels like that LP has been running for over a decade now. Perhaps one day they will wake up and realise just how bloody boring most of them are.
Exactly, they are covering his blindness and under understanding by the "name of science," I bet they don't understand by themselves. I love science, I am interested in it all my smartness but I love God too and I Live and act as He exists.
New sub. Fr. Barron ,, do u believe in the new teachings of our Catholic Church of today sense Vatican 2 (( so called modern ? If u do I have a lot of questions on the new teaching's or better yet can u give a video on Vatican 2 and it's difference from before .
I want to say that there are spirits and alien among us and a lot of inexplicable miracle and powers i don't think it's just "luck" like he said there is a lot of thing that our eyes cannot see
Condescending dismissal of the questions all humans seek about where will they each exist throughout eternity. These scientists have no means to study, much less know, the answer to such questions. This is why God will make fools of the learned, and eternity will sadly think of how unimaginably blind and deaf anyone, like Stephen Hawking, can remain all his life to the source of all wisdom.
This argument is largely based on specific sentences that are put out of context. The conversation conductor seems to oversee the key proof of these affirmations. If you are to comment on this chapter, you need to truly present all the facts and explanations to these sentences for people who have not read or grasped the concepts behind it.
Science teaches us how to build a hammer. True religion teaches us how to use the hammer i.e. one should use it to hammer a nail but not to crush the skull of our opponent.
@Juno Donat We agree wholeheartedly!! Sincerely, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot aside: Your statement is a "religious" statement and a denial of religious history since the beginning of time. Remember: The oldest profession is the priesthood. God bless, Michael
@@GaoDaHoi You must not mistake someone having "religion" and someone being a good person. Human beings are flawed in many ways. If Hitler believed that trees are made of wood, that doesn't make it any less true because it was Hitler who believed it does it?
WenLi Yang: Very true, but again humans are flawed. Nowhere does the church teach that believing in God makes you above others. Its people that have their own misgivings.
WenLi Yang: The Church doesn't say that the priests involved in sexual abuse are not to blame. Those specific priests are to blame, but that does not mean that because some priests have done unspeakable things that the Church in and of itself is to blame. If you look through history the people in the church have never been perfect. How can it be when people are flawed. The teachings of the church are not the people.
I agree with you. What I don't understand is why he doesn't just speak of science and leave God out of it since he does not believe in it. Could the "EVIL ONE" have used him to convince us?
@Juno Donat Hi Juno. But they ALL do think that it's the biblical god, which starts out as a one-part god in the bible and presto-chango becomes a 3-part god. I'm glad that most of them violate the mandate of their 3-part god and do wash after toilet and before dining. It's a step forward, anyway.
@Juno Donat Very well stated: I liked it so much that I'll quote here and use it often: FAITH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A VOLUNTARY--A WILLFUL--COMMITMENT TO IGNORANCE.
NaYawkr what an ignorant thing to say. That’s why people remain ignorant, because their mind is closed and they don’t read. Next you’ll be burning books.
@jacegil The difference between a Universe from nothing and a talking snake consists of two things: MATHEMATICS and our observation that things pop into existence in the quantum world out of nothing constantly and inexorably.
Hawkins had previously supposed that the universe had arrived not from God, but from gravity. Other less exalted scientists were moved to ask; "Well, from where did gravity come from?
actually gravity is an attracting force due to exposure to a different or bigger mass. the more mass the more electromagnetic field it has, and such it attracts. the electromagnetic field could come from an Ione field with separate electrone floating around. and I can go on my filriend. the thing is that you can demonstrate it, anyone can. is just incredibly hard and It requires years of studying and practice. something that your religion still can't.
God has truly given us another wonderful gift. Mercifully giving us Word on Fire and igniting your whole self, Bishop Barron and those of your team to aid those of us, ignorant of the depth and the expansive richness of our Catholic faith. May our Lord protect and continue to guide you on the path he has placed you. May more of us in the Church, grow in a more intimate relationship of Love with Jesus and reflect the message, you have reopened for us in so many beautiful ways. Thank you for your relentless effort and love of. tending to a lukewarm flock, hoping to become on fire for our Lord, Jesus Christ.
Love your ministerial attention to building cultural harmony between religion and science! Most atheistic arguments demonstrate profound misconceptions about who and what God is and how we understand His role in existence. In recent years there seems to be a stronger push than ever before to "convert" people to atheism - always by otherwise intelligent people who have not taken the time in their studies to understand the actual teachings surrounding the nature of God. It is possible this is the case because once a person truly studies and comes to understand God "theory", he can no longer honestly profess his certainty of God's absence...
No, Daytona, that's not the point. The point is that it is highly consistent with every bit of verifiable evidence that we possess that your 3-part god, whether it exists or not, is utterly and completely inconsequential to anything at all in the Cosmos, and therefore utterly and completely irrelevant. Period.
I can see it's important to you to have the last word, even if it means twisting or misrepresenting what's being said. That's fine. But it's neither rational nor is it debate. I encourage you to continue to study science and rational thought and learn to present your arguments in quantitative specifics rather than reductive broad strokes. Learn to respect both the discussion and opposing views. You may never gain an understanding of who or what God is to a believer, but in time you'll at least gain an idea as to what God is not - and that will at least be a step toward mutual understanding 💜
Yep, after reading Professor Hawking's posthumously published book, I have no question that he's right not only about the 3-part god, but about all of the tens of thousands of gods ever worshipped by humans. The Cosmos exists and behaves precisely, completely, reliably, and predictably as we'd expect absent anything supernatural, and absent any of those tens of thousands of gods. Conclusion: not one, including the 3-part god, is consequential, and therefore not one is relevant to anything at all. Followers of the pseudo-philosophy of supernaturalism are welcome to worship the irrelevant if they choose. I'd suggest not attempting to foist such stuff off on thinking persons, however.
@@wickedhenderson4497 Isn't appeal to authority the lowest and most egregious error of any philosopher? And then to appeal to a supernaturalist who was opining without verifiable evidence. That seems even more egregious to me.
@@gfxpimp "Truth" is not a very useful term. I'd ask, rather, of all the explanations commonly used by the Roman church in the 12th century, how many have stood the test of time and still have genuine predictive explanatory power? That's a concise, well developed question.
Your question is a good one, but my use of "truth" should be interpreted by the reader to be on par with the term "God" or to be a "not very useful term" as you suggest. It is as concise and meaningful as the original statement about St. Albert, which is to say, perhaps not at all.
Also from Saint John Paul the Great by Jason Evert page 95 where John Paul inverted Marxism by saying opium "had become the religion of the people." For my own comfort I prefer Catechism of the Catholic Church item 258 "..one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are." And while we are investing in this I like those who say God was "uncreated" and "always was, is and will be."
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going." -Stephen Hawking
Oh, okay. Because there's gravity then Steve obviously solved the mystery that there's no need for a creator to bring the universe into existence. Incredible. Thanks anime profile guy.
Very simple answer. God created science. He created it all, including one's free will to not believe in Him. I pray Mr. Hawking saw the uncreated light before death. Even Steve Jobs reportedly said "oh wow, oh wow, oh wow" just before death -- what do you think he was seeing?
Please provide the verifiable evidence, Ekaterini, that "god created science" . and kindly be specific about which of the tens of thousands of gods ever worshipped by humans. Thank you very much for your erudite and thoughtful reply!
I'm geeking out on the topic, you guys are having, interesting discussion. I can't help but think of Sheldon on "The Big Bang" show, ha ha. Sheldon's obsessed with Stephen Hawking. (I'm a cradle Catholic, attend Mass, in Choir, so I genuinely, do believe, in G-d.)
Although I have not seen "The Big Bang", being obsessed with Hawking makes sense in that, once God does not exist, then there is no restrictions on human sexual behavior. But this results in no restrictions on ANY human behavior which resulted in the horror of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And their behavior was scientifically justified based on atheistic evolution and survival of the fittest (most ruthless).
@@michaeloconnor6280 Supernaturalists like to forget that humans, not gods, establish moral principles. The Greeks had the same argument. Some Greek philosophers thought that maybe their adulterous, murderous gods were not the finest examples of moral principles. Christians, Jews, and Muslims perhaps need to realize that murdering children and each other other is perhaps not the finest exposition of moral principles.
This is all very simple. It's a proven FACT that Jesus walked the earth. Why is it we know where the bones are to all the saints and apostles, we find caveman bones, fossils, and yet, no one has found the bones of Jesus AND the Blessed Mother? The two people that The Bible says were brought to Heaven. Coincidence...🤔
@Juno Donat Don't be afraid of the truth. Open your heart to Him, He's waiting for you. There wouldn't be a court of law if God hadn't formed the universe.
He uses a philosopher to prove how sciences cannot articulate everything than uses a philosopher to explain how creation happened without time. Perplexing.
I am absolutely certain that being confined to a chair and having the voice of a robot did nothing to color Stephen Hawking’s views on God. It’s not like he used his emotions to determine the outcome. Which every atheist swears they don’t do until you challenge them.
@@farringtonsamuel3413 I'd disagree, i think that being sarcastic about stuff does it misjustice. Unfortunately yes, many theists do not seek the truth, at that point they are no honest theists like I but mere sheeple. I came to catholicism after reading into atheism and it seeming irrational to me. I do pray for hawking's as I do admire him despite his atheism, he was still a person. I do think that doubt of beliefs is important for us to see what we truly believe. I heavily doubted my catholicism for a while becoming an agnostic but came to realize that all the evidence points to Yahweh, as he says "I am who I am" which implies he is being itself, not just something within being. The bet form of Christianity is the first, catholicism.
@@farringtonsamuel3413 There is some scientific evidence stuff that you could find with a google search or something like that, but the evidence for believers like myself are miracles or that stuff. religion isn't something that you can prove like 1+1 = 2. it is called faith. it will always be a matter of opinion and my opinion gets coloured by my personal experiences.
Curiouser and curiouser! I haven’t read this book, but from what you say about it, it sounds like Hawking’s understanding of the universe is really much closer to the one depicted in Hesiod’s Theogony (‘origins of the gods’, 8th century BC) than the Christian view is to either….
Reducing all statements that scientists make to “scientism” does not prove that you are correct and what you offer is not a better alternative. At least scientists admit when they do not know. You can have opinions but that is all. Opinions are not proofs of anything.
It's actually so annoying to see him listen to the argument against the god of the gaps and immediately shake his head. He says it's unfair to judge current religious beliefs by 'ancient' ones, but it was his religion that labeled AIDS as a punishment from god, and thousands of Christians label school shootings as the consequence for 'removing god from schools'. If a subject is just too broad, too complex, instead of modern religion saying 'we don't know' it's always attributed to god in one form or another.
There are so many people's dying of hungry,by disaster cyclone tsunami earthquake diseases if there was a god .then he is all powerful and evil or he is good but not all powerful
Barron attempts to paper over that argument in one of his videos. But he uses tissue paper, and you can see right through it. Well-stated! These supernaturalists have fabricated counter-arguments for all objections, but never have counter-verifiable evidence.
@@scinatphilosophy296 Yes, SciNat. The tissue paper is thin. The argument that the 3-part god "has a purpose" or "knows better than we can" or "should not even be questioned" is infantile, stupid, willfully ignorant, inhumane, and intellectually ridiculous. Right on, bud!
Steven Hawkings was indeed a very intelligent man however lacked the gift of Faith . Perhaps being confined to a wheelchair didn't do his spirituality any favors but God challenges us in many ways for reasons we may never know. And on that note R.I.P.
Only hope that in his last moments he had an aha moment and discovered God. In a way, he could be a poster child for the anti euthanasia movement. Here he was with that awful disease but a brilliant mind. Too many doctors and parents would consider this disease as a wasted life and consider euthanasia because they'd never consider that a person could contribute anything let alone a science like physics.
If anyone wants a summary relating theoretical physics to the beginning of the universe and idea of a creator, including Hawking's work to explain how the universe could begin from a nothing (which isn't the absence of everything, as mentioned in this video,) Fr. Spitzer's book "The Soul's Upward Yearning" has a sizable appendix on the topic. It will be hard to follow if you don't understand physics and limits going to negative infinity, but I was able to understand it with an engineering background. For others, the main part of the book contains a less technical summary and the rest is somewhat more accessible, containing reason-based evidence that existence goes beyond just the physical, and therefore the realm of science, from such diverse fields as philosophy and medical science.
@@alexanderborodin7884 If you'd like to edit this comment to be something seriously intellectual, I'll remove this comment. I don't like embarrassing others. Are you trying to troll or to hold a real discussion? Right now it comes across as the former. (Don't worry, I'm not upset, but it's concerning since this behavior is below your dignity.) I won't continue to reply should the posts continue to be based on disrespecting other people. Worse, there's no substance to your replies to me thus far, so this one is more of a self-accusation than a discredit to Fr. Spitzer. I won't reply further if there isn't the basic level of respect needed to have a real discussion, as that will only waste our time.
@@evandelaalquarame4171 Oh, go ahead Evandela. Be upset if you want! Perhaps it will drive you to THINK and thereby help you to wake from your delusion!
Those fallen ones dont only believe in God. They know Him like you know your fathers. They were living with Him. For you to say humans that God does not exist is laughable. You cant argue against the evidence of His existence.
We should pray for Steven halwking because he didn’t Bieleve in god in the begging but then he said himself that I was wrong and in the world there is a god!
I feel like the ingredients for creation are not just time and the laws of physics... It is not good enough to explain the origin of life, let alone trying to create life by following those theories....
@@GaoDaHoi No one is arguing that. He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life no one will come to the Father except through Me. So, again no one is arguing your comment but wether or not you believe in Jesus may determine where you spend eternity. I would hope that in His endless Mercy no souls would perish and if the turned to Him they wouldn't
Juno Donat idiot... Human have advanced so much in philosoohy and science.. If Catholicism and faith is a joke, then Catholicism and faith would have been erdicated already... Believers are intelligent beings who can reason... You have to think who is a fairy tale, maybe it is you who are fairytale and fiction..
Bottom line is that Stephen Hawking is quite correct that his CONCEPTION of God is not in fact a reality, though God Himself did in fact bring all of Creation with all the laws of nature into existence.
c mcc that is true for those souls who have chosen to go to Hell. Without God’s love and presence, their souls exist in an eternal state of being in despair and misery unfathomably many times worse than any kind of misery experienced here in Earth. Ergo, they are eternally existing in a state of nothingness. No purpose, no sense of love. Only abandonment, for they have chosen to abandon God’s mercy and love.
Excellent work as always God bless you. Just of interest business increasingly has a strong qualitative focus around ontology..purpose and there is research into spirituality there.
Would you debate a well known atheist...someone like Richard Dawkins? Your monologues need to be challeged. You remind me of a snake oil salesman. Lots of words to confuse the masses, with zero evidence for any of it.
“I was struck by the similarities with later communist-era methods: the same remorseless drive to wear down victims, expose their contradictions and destroy their moral certainties.” from - Jonathan Luxmoore - When Christianity Becomes A Crime.
Hey Chuck! Nothing is more dangerous to one's life in much of the world today, especially in Islamic and Hindus countries, than to "deny" the "faith." And nothing was more dangerous in Europe for most of the common era than to deny christianity. So, don't play the martyr with me, bud. It doesn't work.
intelligence, pride and human understanding has always been in the way of believing in a God. There's such a thing as "too smart for your own good" which sadly Hawking suffered from. He wasn't only wrong about much, but also a victim of his own understanding.
I actually laughed out loud when they read Hawking's statement of "There isn't a possibility of God because before the big bang, time didn't exist, so a being couldn't exist". Like...wait...really? THAT'S IT?! The church has already dealt with this idea like over a million times....c'mon man, pay attention.
Right..... god just always was there, correct? That makes sooooo much more sense.
@Perkin Warbeck oh boy, sounds like someone has a grudge :). Yes, the Church has dealt with this before. You think Stephen Hawking was the only one to bring this up?
The problem people have with this is they think of God as they think of us. They think God is a creature that cannot exist beyond time. The Church has long said that God exists outside of time; that time has no hold on Him. If this wasn't the case, He wouldn't be God because He'd be bound by time just as we are.
As for your discussion on evidence of God, I'd recommend you read up on St. Thomas Aquinas' 5 proofs of God's existence. These proofs are based entirely on sound strings of logic and have no religious flavor. The argument from contingency is especially intriguing. Also, your mention on the big bang is a little ironic, because guess who came up with the Big Bag theory? It was a Priest....and it got approved by the Pope at the time...lol so no, Catholics are not idiots. If you really believe that the overwhelming majority of the Earth's population are all complete idiots (as most people believe in God), it sounds to me like you either have a superiority complex or you're just mad because life didn't turn out the way you wanted it to. Instead of going to a *religious* RUclips channel specifically to mock a large group of people and call them idiots, you should go to your local Catholic Church and ask the priest about why anyone believes this stuff, that would give you far more information. Also, what evidence exactly contradicts the idea that there is a God?
@Perkin Warbeck You're missing the point. I don't care if you have 20 PhDs or only a high school diploma, you're confining God to abide by the same rules of physics every other creature does. You don't need to be a Physicist to understand that the very *nature* of God is outside of any tangible rules we've observed in the universe. You have to tackle this issue from the religious point of view if you want to ever convince anyone that you're right. For the sake of argument, you need to assume that God is *not* bound by *any* of the rules we are, because that's the God I'm talking about.
Could you provide me with these countless scientific bodies that completely disprove Aquinas' logic?
Your Big Bang comments *are* ironic, because my point was *not* to suggest that God exists because a priest came up with the theory, that'd just be stupid. My point was that Christian/Catholics aren't inherently stupid because of what we believe. I'd assume you'd have respect for the man who created the theory and agree that he wasn't stupid. My point was to suggest that if a priest was the one who made the theory, clearly not all Christians/Catholics are stupid.
As for the comments about no proof of the resurrection, I'd recommend researching the historical evidence of the resurrection. This article [www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman/] is a debate that discusses this very thing. This topic is also summarized at the end of this talk [ruclips.net/video/o5qJPZySo7A/видео.html] starting at 7 mins in. Almost universally, history scholars agree that *many* people had attested to seeing the resurected Jesus, and these aren't just some crazy people who decided to make this plot. These were groups of 500 or more at multiple instances who all attested to seeing Him at the same time. This couldn't have been a hallucination, unless you wanna start saying they were all just crazy or were high on some drug. These people weren't always already believers either. There were also ordinary people who had not believed until they saw what they saw. These accounts were backed up by scholars dating these accounts *after* Jesus had died and His tomb found empty. Is this "evidence" that God exists, no. But can it just be explained away by science or other historical evidence? No, it can't, which leaves us with a question: were all those people simply in on some insane hoax even though they weren't all believers and these occurrences happened at different places? Or, is there something odd you can't really place your finger on? I'm of the opinion that the later is true, but you decide.
There's also other miraculous accounts such as Eucharistic miracles where the transubstantiated host turned into organic tissue. After examination of the tissue by *scientific personnel* they concluded that the tissue was actually Cardiac tissue. There were also several other tests done (DNA tests, etc.) that concluded that the tissue was in fact human tissue with an AB-positive blood type; the same blood type found on the Shroud of Turin which is believed to be Jesus' burial cloth.
Your last comments aren't really worth any refutation. You're claiming that I'm some mean RUclips bully when you're the one who first started calling an entire group of people idiots; so good luck playing the victim card, it ain't gonna work.
@Perkin Warbeck Don't text and drive brother, I don't want you getting hurt or hurting someone else for a RUclips discussion hahaha. When you're at a safe place, I'd like to know how you would define God *IF* you believed in Him. Wouldn't you think that God being the ultimate being who, as Christians believe, *created* the very fabric of the universe and thus the very *formula* you speak of, would be able to exist outside of that formula? The very thing that you say liberates you from the "primitive" ideology of religion is the same thing that imprisons you from seeing outside the scientific worldview.
@Perkin Warbeck Haha no problem man 😎, I hope you're not driving that cyber truck though...LOL sorry but that thing looks ugly in my opinion hahahaha 😂 and ok, how about I phrase the question like this: what are the limits of God from the Christian perspective? And *exactly* ! It's a law that "participants" of the law must obey. If God participated in these laws, He wouldn't be real, would He? Thus, God *cannot* and *does* *not* participate in these laws if He is real. Thus you cannot use these laws to completely disprove the existence of God, doing so would be intellectually dishonest. He isn't in time. He isn't in space. He's outside of all that. That's why He's God. In order to create something, your very existence cannot be contingent on that thing. When a couple has a child, their existence doesn't depend on that child, if it did, they wouldn't exist because the child does not yet exist. Yet, their existence does *not* depend and is *not* contingent upon the existence of that child and so they're able to create that child. It's the same premise with God.
As for your series of questions, there always seems to be this idea that religious people just blindly follow a teaching regardless. I frequently hear people criticizing the entirety of Genesis and the creation story. The Bible is not a *single* book. It is a series of books. To read it as a *single* book, you'd need to read it with a *single* genre in mind (i.e. either everything in the book is non-fiction or it's not). But because the Bible is a *series* of books, every single verse of every single book is not to be taken literally. Jesus frequently used parabols to teach a lesson. I would put my money on saying that most Catholics don't take the creation story literally. I think most people who believe in the Christian God understand that not everything is to be taken literally. As for Noah's Ark, there have been historical accounts that could suggest such an ark existed and landed somewhere in the region of Ararat. Jesus spoke of the flood, but I'm not sure if the Catholic Church has a specific teaching on if the ark existed or not. I'd encourage you to read/watch atheist conversion stories on how and why they converted. Some notable names are Dr. Holly Ordway, Dr. Paul Lim, Sarah Salviander, etc. These witnesses may help you to understand why the transition to belief isn't as crazy as the world may have you believe.
When it really comes down to it man, I believe what I believe not simply because someone said so, but because of two things: 1) the beautiful and incredibly complex way this entire universe, nature, the human body and everything else was built and 2) because of my own experiences. You can explain to me what science teaches about the way things were created or how they were created, but science can *never* teach us anything about *why* this all came to be. It can never touch that. Just because we've discovered the Big Bang doesn't mean there's no God, and just because we've discovered complex physic rules doesn't mean there's no God, in fact, one would think that the very existence of something that intricate and complex would be more so evidence that an intelligent being created it, not only random chaos. I can only do so much and say so much from a RUclips comment, but if you're really so adamant about God not existing, why don't you genuinely try to talk to Him and see what happens for yourself? Isn't that a scientific way to approach things anyway? Saying a small, quick prayer genuinely everyday can be enough for Him to open a door. But don't make the excuse where you say it only once and then expect the Earth to shake as a sign lol, that annoys me when people use that argument.
I guess I just wanna leave you with an honest truth. I don't have all the answers. If you're being truthful about your education, I don't have as much knowledge as you do in physics. Yet, what I do know is that sometimes, the most real things on this planet are the things we can't see. I know God exists because I've heard Him and I've experienced Him in my life. As a curious Physicist, I'd imagine you'd be interested in pursuing Him too, because if He does exist, that's the most incredible discovery you'll *ever* make. As someone who's so set on researching for yourself, you should start researching God yourself by praying everyday! That's the best way to research Him. Be honest with Him. Tell Him what you think and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. If after a life of prayer you find that he doesn't exist, you've lost nothing. If you find that after a life of prayer He does exist, you've gained *everything* .
"Nothing is stupider than the presumed superiority of an atheist" - Nietzsche.
Do you really know what the word physics means? Do you know what the word facts means? Do you know what fiction, tales, fabules means? If you have any prove there is a God, bring these proves into fact to show your God. There's a God in the Church?, or they make you believe there's a God in the church? Then if there is a God in the Church, then why people go to church to get cured of sicknes, but never find cured at all. They go to hospital to get cured by physicians. I was raised to be an adult believing in a God, that tranforms into many other Gods. but none pf this Gods cure any one of my friends in Church or family members, for the 45 years i had lost believing in nonsense false Gods. One day they worship the Jesus, the other sunday it's God with no name. You have contact with this fake God, bring him with you next time you talk about it. False Preacher. False God believer.
@@anthonyatentobello7953 lol, find me any verse in any religious book that says "god will cure you".
Anthony Atento Bello Im a Christian Preacher and the Bible which was written 2000 years ago predicted what was going to happen close to the end times and what the Bible said what was going to happen Is happening right now keep in mind what was predicted didn’t happen for the next 14 15 or however many century’s until now God is real if people think God doesn’t exist I need them to prove me he doesn’t chances are knowone has proof that he doesn’t exist therefore he is real only a fool deny’s Gods existence
@@richiefaultner7860 It's impossible to prove something doesn't exist. I can spend an eternity saying I know 15 unicorns and you can never prove they don't exist. that's an impossible standard of proof.
@@quilavatrainer3348 thing is you need to prove what exists. Saying sth doesnt exists is just declining something there is no reason to believe in
5:12 This is very, very true. As someone who grew up when the internet was really coming into prominence hearing how some of the "smartest people in the world" are atheists can really affect your thinking.
*It's a sad situation when the delusion that these celebrities are some of the smartest people in the world and nobody has the intelligence to challenge and disprove the claim because it's very easy to do.*
I really love the way you guys talk science and religion in this episode. It's mind opening. :)
All I can say is that Stephen Hawking NOW knows of God's existence!
Hey David: What's your verifiable evidence, bud?
Absolutely correct, David. I wholeheartedly agree.
@Juno Donat Well, Juno it's arguable that Basilisk is a bona fide "idiot" which has a precise psychological definition. No question, however, that Basilisk is gullible, knows no science, understands nothing of philosophy, and is intransigent in his irrational views. But that's not really an "idiot." You agree?
Juno Donat No, Catholic faith is not imagination. Catholic faith, or theological faith, is when you ACTUALLY encounter God and He says to you He exists. It's not blind like Protestant faith. Nor is it based on a need for consolation like how many Protestants think of religion. The cross is not at all consoling. I blame Protestantism for the rise in atheism because it has encouraged very false understandings of God, especially how religion is presented as only or primarily a source of comfort. I think that's why many believe God is imaginary. If you feel the need for comfort, just imagine a supernatural being, and all will be ok. No. It's not like that at all. Christianity is not primarily about consolation.
Juno Donat Wow! Did you copy paste that from your files? Did you comment without listening at all to the talking? The Bishop answered all of your points.
Love that answer to Elizabeth's question. Thank you.
Thank you Bishop Barron. Please visit my country, the Philippines. Our people needs an English-speaking Catholic intellectual. The lay people here are so vulnerable to proselytist Mormons and other Protestants.
Hey I just wanted to say that I lived in the Philippines for a year. And I miss it so much everyone made me feel so welcomed take care my friend ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
@@englishgoddess8238 You are always welcome here madame. Ang aming tahanan ay iyo ring tahanan. (Our home is your home.) 😊🙏
@@ProximaCentauri88 Salamat po I really appreciate that much love 💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕💕🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰
Catholic intellectual? RELIGION is for non-intellectuals. So your saying, the catholic church is smarter than a great physicist who contributed a crap ton of things into the field of astrophysics? How stupid.
@@xaphiron While the credit almost only goes to Hubble, the man behind the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest, Fr. Lemaître. The Vatican has one of the worlds powerful observatories which is located in Arizona, USA. The Holy Bible, one of the most important scriptures among world religions was canonized by the Catholic Church through series of councils by the popes in the early centuries of the Church. The Gregorian Calendar itself is a product of the Catholic Church. The Cyrilic Alphabet that is currently used by Turkic and Slavic countries was invented by two Orthodox-Catholic intellectuals who are now considered as saints in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.
I think it's a 'good' time to catch Bishop Barron when he is still coming to terms with jet lag. It's not often that you see him setting aside his usual softness and going straight for the jugular. I just loved this Q&A.
Beautiful arguments. Thank you, God bless you, bishop Barron!
Actually, Dinh, specious arguments, but supernaturalists swallow them hook, line, and sinker.
@@wamozart9094 I'm agnostic, but I can totally agree with some of this arguments. If you can't take this bishop's opinions and considerate them enough to take some sense from them, then you're as naive as the people you're criticizing
Haha lol. You were deluded by a bronze age delusion.
He really did concentrate on religion and God in his final days. I read that people find God in their final years or hours because they lower their walls and open their hearts to more possibilities. I read a book by Jesuit Fathers about how God comes in when you open your heart and lower your walls.
That is very true. Also when people fall to their worst depths they become vulnerable and their hearts as you said become more open. I've felt it myself. Orthodox Christianity actually teaches that the human pride is the main source of all problems.
Is Bishop Barron right about disagreeing with the smartest person? He says Hawking is arrogant in his confidence that there is no god, yet Bishop is just as arrogant in his confidence that there IS a god!
As of today there's no reliable individual who can make a reliable assessment of important and sought after topics and makes it available for others one and all. Brilliant take on 'Hawking and Company'!
Thanks Bishop Barron and thanks Brandon!
Actually, Mary, not "brilliant" at all. Totally ineffective assertions and contentions. Not supported by verifiable evidence.
@@alexanderborodin7884
Looking forward to one of your expositions so I can verify your credentials and measure your resourcefulness.
@@marypinakat8594 Glad you're looking forward to that! But, as a scientific naturalist, I don't care about "authority" or "credentials." I care about verifiable evidence and powerful, robust, coherent, broad, mathematically elegant, falsifiable, and predictive explanations. Professor Hawking delivered those very well. Barron delivers nothing of the kind. He delivers assertions, conjectures, opinions, and speculations. Not good enough for me,
@@alexanderborodin7884
'scientific naturalistic'. No caps for the qualification?
Well, I had presumed I was dealing with some follower of Christ sort of if not a Catholic.
Regrets.
@@marypinakat8594 Poor Mary. Reduced to pablum-speak.
If God is love, and it is claimed that God does not exist, then the obvious conclusion is that love does not exist. Science may be able to measure what love looks like on the outside, but it cannot tell you anything about the experience of love from the inside.
Hey Norma: You made your first mistake by asserting that your 3-part god is "love" absent verifiable evidence to support your contention.
Alexander Borodin and your verifiable evidence that God does not exist? Do share.
@@Gpacharlie I have NEVER, EVER stated that I have VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE that any of tens of thousands of gods including the 3-part god, does not exist.
What I have stated repeatedly is far more compelling: The Cosmos exists and behaves precisely, completely, reliably, and predictably as we would expect ABSENT any of those thens of thousands of gods, including the 3-part god. Therefore, even if any or all of those gods exists, none is consequential or relevant to anything at all.
Alexander Borodin Well Al except that you state that the cosmos behaves as we would expect. Why would we have an expectation of such a supremely ordered cosmos? Why would we not expect randomness and chance and not a little chaos instead of the intricately ordered cosmos. Many scientists are coming to an unexpected understanding of how ‘rare’ our earth probably is, yet shouldn’t there be an earth around every cosmic corner?
@@Gpacharlie Naw, Chiuck, why SHOULD we expect "randomness?" The Cosmos behaves precisely according to the mathematical proscriptions that we've uncovered. Based upon those proscriptions, there appear to be untold numbers of Universes, but aren't we lucky to be living in this one?
Even in this Universe, the verifiable evidence is enormous that every star has planets around it. How many galaxies? At least 2 trillion. How many stars in each galaxy? 300 billion. How many earth-like planets? Decent estimate: 40 billion.
I find it fascinating when certain thinkers (e.g. Hawking) are so demonstrably adept in complex thinking of one type (e.g. theoretical physics) but so demonstrably incompetent in complex thinking of another type (e.g. philosophy). It's a healthy reminder that the cleverer the mind, the cleverer the traps it can lay for itself (not to mention I imagine there's a social/psychological effect of a globe-ful of people hailing a man as a 'genius' and never challenging him to question his own elementary errors in a field outside his skillset).
Well said
Tough to argue with that.
Perfectly stated!
Hey Natie: When you show me that you understand even a fraction of the physics and mathematics of Professor Hawking, and that you can use mathematics to demonstrate that he is incorrect, get back to me. OK? Thanks.
Alexander Borodin Well, it’s not a matter of mathematics, but rather philosophy.
Every tiny things in this world has purpose and goal... Even the smallest cell in a human body has goal and purpose
We will have to wait and see
If anyone is interested about reading more about this specific topic I recommend a book from John C. Lennox - "God and Stephen Hawking".
Thank you so much ☺️
How about reading Hawking's work himself?
Yes, another book by Lennox, a man with zero training in cosmology or astrophysics, trying to say that he understands these subjects more than Hawking! The same goes for Bishop Barron, who has no training in astrophysics or cosmology yet thinks he understands these subjects more than Hawking!
The Bishop makes a very good point about the effects of the elevation of STEM and business in our universities and the diminishment of liberal arts. Looking back, I think it really started with the creation of the consumer culture following WWII and the launch of Sputnik by the Soviets in 1957. Consumerism placed a higher emphasis on wealth creation and Sputnik led to a concerted effort by the government to put science-based curriculum at the front of the line to close a perceived knowledge gap between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Over time, the diminishment of philosophy and liberal arts has led to an overall decline in critical thinking and creativity within our society. The clearest example of this loss of creative energy can be found in Hollywood where most of what is produced is either rehashed woke messaging or remakes of earlier movies and TV shows.
But more to the point of this video, it always makes me shake my head when I hear the latest theoretical claim to explain existence. Science will grasp any straw to explain the Divine. I saw a video the other night where a theoretical physicist was carrying on about multiverse theory which is all the rage these days. He was trying to resolve the fine-tuning problem as they call it by saying the laws of physics may not apply evenly across the board, a handy argument to explain faster than light travel at the moment of the Big Bang (hyperinflation) and other pesky problems that plague their computer models. His case for a random universe came down to the argument that we were simply the winners of a 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 -1 cosmic lottery. He even went so far as to say there may well be universe's out there completely devoid of matter and energy. In other words, a vast galactic ocean of nothingness where anti-matter won the lottery, a universe that serves no purpose, which, quite handily, exists outside of space and time as we know it.
So, entire universes can exist outside of time and space and break all kinds of rules as they do it but God can't. This is where the high priests of scientism display their intellectual dishonesty and engage in the very thing they call superstition on my part, faith. For me anyway, it takes a lot more faith to believe in a random universe than it does in one that is ordered by a being who transcends space and time. But that's just me. In the meantime, I'll continue to look for scientific answers in scientific places and spiritual answers in spiritual places. There is no contradiction for me but then again, I'm not competing against anyone or anything for supremacy in this world. I do wonder how that conversation between Mr. Hawking and God went, but that is a topic for another day.
Those extra universes of antimatter are simply useless to us, we are incapable of seeing whats truly there as there is never nothing no matter what. Its all the rage cause people wanna understand. Its funny how youll grasp at any straw to understand the science. Cause you think you already know but youre scared to admit you dont because the vastness of the universe is scary till it looks to you like its been encompassed by god. Or youre too embarrassed to admit he lost ya pretty early on. Those dimensions may not even be dimensions. Just places where there should be something but there isnt yet the item is still effecting the space around it but from another universe and we can actually reach all those other universes theres nothing actually separating us from them and we are looking at it all from our little pale blue dot. Just so you knwo scientists likely come off as arrogant cause they are tired of being talked down on by people like you who say things like "scientists will grasp at any straw to understand the divine" i just want you to know that ive never heard something anywhere near that arrogant comin from a scientist. Maybe thats why they dont like religion and tend to come off as arrogant, cause they think the same of you and choose to reject all of your ideas so that they can keep themselves separate from you. As hopefully a future scientist i kinda agree with them. I dont like you. While i find it useless to reject any kind of idea as there is always something to glean from anything you can learn i dont fuckin like you. Glad i got to read the book before i had to deal with you
Love bishop Barron. Yet, it makes me uncomfortable when you call him "Great" bishop Barron...
Excellent review on that first chapter. God bless
God armed me in this by answering my request to show me the answer to that problem and faced me with solipsisms and the Void and saw me through them. It was arduous but it got me what I asked for.
Lololllilil. Week people.
Stephen Hawking: God doesn’t exist.
*later*
God: Stephen Hawking doesn’t exist.
God: Actually, he exists in a super hot place now for eternity
@@TheStripedots How do you know that? U happy with that your ill assumption?
Thank you, Bishop. Such an informative discussion!
Hawking argument seems to be basically dishonest. His view that God is subject to time is a very simple error that a first year philosophy student would find ridiculous.
Error? If God is not subject to time, he's either spatially variable, which conflicts with most religions, or he's the philosophical, not scientific, "non-potential unmoved mover" lying outside time and space. In that case, if God exists out of time, then at no time does God exist.
@@sagnikmondal4058 not really, given that God exists outside of the measurable 4 dimensions in the 'spiritual' realm.
Kelly > Agreed. It does seem out of character for a scientist to definitively claim the non-existence of a creator because it's not falsifiable. If Hawking didn't find convincing evidence of God that's fair enough - but every scientist knows that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
@@tinman1955 I love this contribution
Kelly ...that may be true ,,,but the christian claim is that God is revealed in time....I think Hawking would talk about the beginning of time. I think Simon Cox is better than this. The Bishop is correct in the mixing of categories...Your first year student is a good example ...Laws do not create anything ...nothing causes something ...the best of science!!
Thank God......for science.
No god of any kind is required for science. it's strictly a human invention, and probably the most wonderful human invention ever made.
I truly believe when you debate and have conversations like this one, Jesus speaks through you.
What boorish comments!
@Juno Donat lol
I enjoyed listening to this. Looking forward to future uploads. God bless WoF ministry.
Great conversation, the bishop is so well prepared that I wish he is going to debate some big caliber new atheist one day.
It's one thing to be wise, and another to debate. Debates are 50% knowledge, 50% being able to spit them out extremely quickly and taking notes and having witty replies. Bishop Barron likes to speak slowly, clearly, and profoundly, needing some time to flush out his thoughts in a very pastoral way. This is actually ideal when speaking to people who don't have a philosophy or theology background, but not great for debates.
Not to mention that you can find about 500 videos of atheists giving witty replies (that are removed from their context, because in context they're usually dumb) in debates and wouldn't help in attracting lay people.
@@UnratedAwesomeness I don't know, the day I discovered bishop I was actually seeing an interview of dawkins to father coyne, I garantuee that dawkins was fascinated, I can imagine Sam harris listen for the first time that God is the sheer act of being and being mindblowned.
@@astrol4b That would be awesome!
A debate would not change anything. Christians would still believe there is an invisible man int the sky and atheists would not believe.
I'm a non believer, but Bishop Barron gives me hope that one day I'll have that ahh ha moment. I'm confident theres no personal God. There may be a creator, a force, but I don't believe in one as described by religion, or in one that some how influences the grain of sand that man kind in reality is.
I must say though, Bishop Barron cracks the door ever so slightly. I wish I could have an educated discussion with an apologist half as thoughtful and percise as he.
I needed this today.
@Juno Donat funny how you're so angry at something you claim doesn't exist 😂
@Juno Donat I think there are a few holes in your argument if I may be so bold as to point them out. I would agree that God cannot be demonstrated to exist by the scientific method, but that is not a claim Catholicism has ever made. In regards to logic and reason, see St. Thomas Aquinas, Avicenna, Aristotle, Dr. William Craig, Bishop Barron, and many more. All of these very intelligent, logical theologians/philosophers have put forward or illustrate many arguments for the existence of God. Also, not to sound snarky, but can you scientifically prove that science is the only way to prove something? If you look at the Judeo-Christian concept of God, it is argued that God necessarily exists outside of the universe seeing as God created it. Science is amazing at coming up with answers about how things within the universe function. God is not a part of the universe, one among many if you will, and therefore out of the purview of science.
Also, I would of course be angry that the woman allowed her child to die and if she claimed in any way that Catholicism led her to that choice, I would severely challenge her understanding of the faith. I would also not snap to a judgement of stupidity, though clearly this person needs significant mental help. It is also unfair to lump all religions together seeing how divergent their beliefs are.
Lastly, if we use body count, pardon my crude language, to judge the morality of something is not the best judge of its goodness. For example, the nation-state, and technology, daresay science, would win by far. Of course, I would never say that the concept of the nation-state or science are responsible for the atrocities done in the name of those concepts. That would be unfair. The same can be said for religion. Just because people pervert it and commit crimes using it as justification, doesn't disprove its truth or goodness, just that people can do really messed up things.
There are some challenging arguments for the non-existence of God, though I don't find them convincing, but I do not see them in your comment. Have a great Veterans Day weekend!
@Juno Donat One more thing, if you are actually looking to convince me that I am wrong in a belief, a bit more grace and courtesy might be merited based on your original comment. I do not consider it a weakness to look to others for support in times of challenge and nor should you.
@Juno Donat First, agreed in regards to Christianity - I was simply stating God as creator outside of time and space. The mythic explanations of God, triune Father, Son, Holy Spirit, really do fall short -- all the business about Horus, Mithras, etc. The historical evidence doesn't back up the assertion that Christ is a synthesis or amalgamation of preexisting stories. However, that point is largely irrelevant to my claim at this point.
In regards to your second paragraph, your basic assertion is that using the scientific method, we do not know of anything outside of our observable universe. I agree. Philosophy and reason can all help us understand things just like science can. I'm also not looking to prove anything to you. I was simply stating that I really enjoyed Bishop Barron's video. You directed a barb at me; not vice versa. Fair point on the poor choice of words regarding the scientific method's ability to ascertain cause. I am not invoking a God of the gaps argument as they are terribly weak. I am stating that for a thing to exist it must have a creator. If the universe exists, it to must have a creator. An infinite regress is impossible, therefore, there must be a first cause, which we call God. That is a middling rehearsal of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I also am also claiming that the limitations of science cannot be used as a disproof of God. Again, it would be foolish to use a flash drive to accomplish the same task as a hammer. Using science to prove the existence of God is such a misstep.
@Juno Donat Again, you claim the only way to know anything is the scientific method. I would posit that a false premise.
When the first premise by which you conduct your logical explorations is that "The material universe is all that matters," you will never come to any conclusions which question it.
If an out of control car was heading directly toward me, my mind might say, "I believe that if I dive forward right now, I will be out of the cars path, just in time.". And so naturally I would leave that mere belief, and move on over to the hopeful truth that it spoke of. If however I thought that the belief alone was enough to save me, and thus I chose to stick to that belief rather than move on over to the hopeful truth that it spoke of, no doubt the car would run over me, and possibly kill me. Simply believing in something, is not enough for you to reach the truth itself. You still have to move from where it is that you are currently located. Only if you are directly connected to the truth, need you not be dependent upon a belief. A belief is located at a distance from the truth, thus it is located within the zone of "Less than truth". Thus if you stick to "believing" in God, you will remain at a distance from him.
Very good job Reverend! 👏
Reminds me of the saying "God is dead: Friedrich Nietzsche
; Friedrich Nietzsche is dead: God"
Really appreciate this video.
I really love You Father Barron 😍 💖
I was asked the other day by a coworker, was Steven Hawkins right about God??
I asked my coworker, I don't know, what did Steven Hawkins say about God??
She answered me this, he said he didn't believe in God, or God doesn't exist, something like that.
Then I said to her, it's appointed unto man(the human race)to die once, then the judgment, we will have to wait until then to know.
This is the most tremendously unsatisfactory answer 😂
When Hawkins says: "People who always cling to religion...do no trust or understand science"
Never thought such a shallow statement could be made by sucha scientist.
So basically he says: All of you fathers of modern science and scientists who believe in God. You dont understand science. Yes yes Mr Hawkins. Scientists do not understand science. GOshh...how dumb that statement is. And...Big bang from nothing...starting to think he wasnt scientist at all.
I can almost hear the irony in your comment.
Just because a scientist claims to believe in God don't need to say they believe. Just because a priest says he believes in God don't need to say he believes. Sometimes there are motives to claim a belief.
Wow wonder what your iq is?
Oscar Fish Who you talking to?
@@zephyr056 temp911luke
It is so sad, Steven Hawking had the mind and training to see a portrait of God that I'd never be able to see and he denied it for some unknown reason.
"I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children."
Because he was a fool
in the Philippines, if you are in a Jesuit university you're required to take philosophy the same credits (units in the US Educ) as theology. I used to complain why do I have to take 21 units(credits) of Philo, now I know
The best thing I ever did was major in Philosophy and minor in Theology. Father Spitzer, who wrote a book, "New Proofs for the Existence of God", stated that philosophy is needed more now than Theology. One cannot assert the authority of Scripture and the Church if those who you are evangelizing are atheists or agnostics (I do not use the term materialists because they are synonymous)
@@Goodkidjr43 Well, Goodkidjr43, I took a lot of philosophy too. It helped me to understand that supernaturalism, in its untold thousands upon thousands of mutations, permutations, denominations, sects, cults, organizations, churches, formats, formations, and fabrications is quite simply bullshit.
Now the most valuable courses that I took, all the way through graduate school and a Ph.D. were courses in the many disciplines and sub-disciplines of biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. Therein, I learned of the enormous power of unfettered inquiry, skeptically acquired verifiable evidence, the utter rejection of "authority," and broad, robust, coherent, compelling, elegant, falsifiable, and predictive explanations.
Supernaturalism has never explained anything and never will because it cannot. When it tries, every supernaturalist throughout the world fabricates her or his own "explanation," all of which are absent verifiable evidence. Supernaturalists remain intransigent, constantly bickering with each other, because there is no common, global, cross-cultural, or consistent standard for even determining whether any assertion is plausible. For that reason, most of the world's conflicts have a sectarian basis. Consistent with this observation, the "explanations" of supernaturalism are constantly replaced with the predictive explanations of scientific naturalism. The reverse NEVER occurs. NEVER.
I took a lot of philosophy too. It helped me to understand that supernaturalism, in its untold thousands upon thousands of mutations, permutations, denominations, sects, cults, organizations, churches, formats, formations, and fabrications is quite simply bullshit.
Now the most valuable courses that I took, all the way through graduate school and a Ph.D. were courses in the many disciplines and sub-disciplines of biology, chemistry, physics, the social sciences, and mathematics. Therein, I learned of the enormous power of unfettered inquiry, skeptically acquired verifiable evidence, the utter rejection of "authority," and broad, robust, coherent, compelling, elegant, falsifiable, and predictive explanations.
Supernaturalism has never explained anything and never will because it cannot. When it tries, every supernaturalist throughout the world fabricates her or his own "explanation," all of which are absent verifiable evidence. Supernaturalists remain intransigent, constantly bickering with each other, because there is no common, global, cross-cultural, or consistent standard for even determining whether any assertion is plausible. For that reason, most of the world's conflicts have a sectarian basis. Consistent with this observation, the "explanations" of supernaturalism are constantly replaced with the predictive explanations of scientific naturalism. The reverse NEVER occurs. NEVER.
Thank you . I really needed this.
Finally find this video
That an atheist and a theist would finally terminate their argument (or debate if you like) wouldn't be attributable to one of them having won it; rather, it would be attributable to the fact that they finally wore themselves out.
Growing up, it was very interesting how atheistic theoretical physicists' attempts to disprove God's existence bolstered my faith through a flawed understanding of God that showed creation was even more impressive. By contrast, Catholics caused doubts through explanations that had obvious counterarguments. I'm encountering much more coherent logic from Catholics nowadays thanks to Fr. Spitzer and now this, so thank you to both of you.
@Juno Donat Mathematicians disprove things that haven't been proven. Negatives are easy to mix up, so I'm guessing this is a typo.
No good physicist would ever use the term "to prove." Please take a course in a natural science at the university level. Thanks!
@@alexanderborodin7884 You're right in a sense; normally science doesn't focus on proofs, though similar techniques to mathematical proofs can be used to extrapolate from laws and what we know. This part of theoretical physics doesn't have access to direct observation, though. It relies on mathematics to show what is possible in a system under certain conditions (a universe/multiverse expanding on average, as ours does) going back in time to negative infinity. It's naturally open to reinterpretation should new evidence come out about the universe's behavior, but the origins of the universe aren't something that can be directly observed. There are other approaches to take, such as looking at the law of entropy's effects, which point in the same direction.
I probably chose the word "disprove" because it hinges on mathematical proofs and Hawking's career seems to focus an awful lot on the idea that God doesn't exist even though his field isn't suited to answering that topic. Also, this is a RUclips comments section, not an academic paper; of course there will be errors, as it's not carefully proofread. Even after that, academic works suffer from errors too. I'm not convinced that the point you made is entirely valid, though.
The attempts to disprove God from a perspective of materialist scientism are to the point that Hawking's work has involved decades of focus on topics intended to show the universe doesn't need a creator and his public communication clearly communicates an atheistic viewpoint (hence the book in question.) To an extent it reminds me of Michelson from the Michelson-Morley experiment; he worked from the premise that the aether exists and couldn't truly accept the results of his own work showing that it didn't when he wanted to show that it did. He was still a good physicist who transformed the way people see the universe.
The problem is when people treat Hawking or other scientists as an authority on God's existence when they aren't; he's working in completely the wrong field but seems to want to be seen as that authority anyways. Since Western societies now adhere to scientism in the mainstream and discount logical and rational thinking outside of science and mathematics (especially if there's something to be outraged or strongly emotional about,) a lot of people think he does have that authority. Philosophy and logic aren't even required in school anymore, since the attitude is "you'll learn to think by learning math and science." Science and math don't teach you to counteract your own logical fallacies for the most part or build a sound worldview, though.
Do you have anything of substance to contribute? It's alright if you don't; not everything needs to be discussed and not everyone needs to comment, especially in RUclips comments of all places. It seemed appropriate to clarify for anyone who is considering the evidence and reads this. Just don't expect any further response to something that doesn't have substance or serve a worthwhile social function; such conversations are pointless.
@@evandelaalquarame4171 My friend Evandela. You don't have the least bit of understanding about scientific naturalism or even about science. You're hung up on "proof" stuff. Scientific naturalism can't "prove" anything at all. You really should understand that. It does provide powerful, robust, broad, coherent, falsifiable, and highly PREDICTIVE explanations. Professor Hawking relies upon these explanations to point out that even if the 3-part god exists, just as a teapot may be in orbit around Mars, that god and all the rest are inconsequential and utterly irrelevant to anything at all because the Universe exists and behaves precisely, completely, reliably, and predictably as we'd expect absent any of them.
@Alexander Borodin, certainly science provides coherent and predictive explanations _within its appropriate domain_ . It says little or nothing about morals or ethics, about personal relationships, in fact, about anything that most people consider important most of the time. Saying that god is inconsequential to anything at all is like saying an aeroplane pilot is inconsequential as the aircraft operates according to physical principles with or without him. Why, then, would most people would be uncomfortable with the idea that there's nobody in the driving seat?
Blessings .
I guess Stephen Hawking now knows or does since he does not exist anymore.
I like when he says that no scientist can’t deny that god doesn’t exist because he does and everything adds up! Like he should confront a Priest and the priest will give him allllllll the answers!
Mr. Vogt always looks so enthused to be involved in this, it's infectious
Up to day, scientists still wrestled with the Truth, the question of God.. If God is a myth, then humanity would outlaw the question of God already.. But up until today , scientist could not erase God out of humanity.. That's something to think about
You're using the word "scientists" as if there is no religious scientists and all of them are the enemies of religion. It's not the case at all.
The comments from the atheists on this post remind me of a scratched LP, the same few things are being repeated over and over again. It feels like that LP has been running for over a decade now. Perhaps one day they will wake up and realise just how bloody boring most of them are.
Exactly, they are covering his blindness and under understanding by the "name of science," I bet they don't understand by themselves. I love science, I am interested in it all my smartness but I love God too and I Live and act as He exists.
New sub. Fr. Barron ,, do u believe in the new teachings of our Catholic Church of today sense Vatican 2 (( so called modern ? If u do I have a lot of questions on the new teaching's or better yet can u give a video on Vatican 2 and it's difference from before .
I want to say that there are spirits and alien among us and a lot of inexplicable miracle and powers i don't think it's just "luck" like he said there is a lot of thing that our eyes cannot see
Condescending dismissal of the questions all humans seek about where will they each exist throughout eternity. These scientists have no means to study, much less know, the answer to such questions. This is why God will make fools of the learned, and eternity will sadly think of how unimaginably blind and deaf anyone, like Stephen Hawking, can remain all his life to the source of all wisdom.
13:52 look the bishop has a heil mic.
I would love to have one for my Ham radio.
This argument is largely based on specific sentences that are put out of context. The conversation conductor seems to oversee the key proof of these affirmations. If you are to comment on this chapter, you need to truly present all the facts and explanations to these sentences for people who have not read or grasped the concepts behind it.
Science teaches us how to build a hammer. True religion teaches us how to use the hammer i.e. one should use it to hammer a nail but not to crush the skull of our opponent.
@Juno Donat We agree wholeheartedly!!
Sincerely,
Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot
aside: Your statement is a "religious" statement and a denial of religious history since the beginning of time.
Remember: The oldest profession is the priesthood.
God bless, Michael
@@GaoDaHoi You must not mistake someone having "religion" and someone being a good person. Human beings are flawed in many ways. If Hitler believed that trees are made of wood, that doesn't make it any less true because it was Hitler who believed it does it?
WenLi Yang: Very true, but again humans are flawed. Nowhere does the church teach that believing in God makes you above others. Its people that have their own misgivings.
WenLi Yang: The Church doesn't say that the priests involved in sexual abuse are not to blame. Those specific priests are to blame, but that does not mean that because some priests have done unspeakable things that the Church in and of itself is to blame. If you look through history the people in the church have never been perfect. How can it be when people are flawed. The teachings of the church are not the people.
WenLi Yang: belittle in what way?
Before debating /arguing one needs to be clear that what does God mean.
I won't be spending money on any Stephen Hawking compilations of his distorted view of reality.
I agree with you. What I don't understand is why he doesn't just speak of science and leave God out of it since he does not believe in it. Could the "EVIL ONE" have used him to convince us?
@Juno Donat Hi Juno. But they ALL do think that it's the biblical god, which starts out as a one-part god in the bible and presto-chango becomes a 3-part god. I'm glad that most of them violate the mandate of their 3-part god and do wash after toilet and before dining. It's a step forward, anyway.
@Juno Donat Very well stated: I liked it so much that I'll quote here and use it often: FAITH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A VOLUNTARY--A WILLFUL--COMMITMENT TO IGNORANCE.
NaYawkr what an ignorant thing to say. That’s why people remain ignorant, because their mind is closed and they don’t read. Next you’ll be burning books.
@jacegil The difference between a Universe from nothing and a talking snake consists of two things: MATHEMATICS and our observation that things pop into existence in the quantum world out of nothing constantly and inexorably.
Good and interesting discussion.
Hawkins had previously supposed that the universe had arrived not from God, but from gravity. Other less exalted scientists were moved to ask; "Well, from where did gravity come from?
Hes an arrogant peice of shit
actually gravity is an attracting force due to exposure to a different or bigger mass. the more mass the more electromagnetic field it has, and such it attracts. the electromagnetic field could come from an Ione field with separate electrone floating around. and I can go on my filriend. the thing is that you can demonstrate it, anyone can. is just incredibly hard and It requires years of studying and practice. something that your religion still can't.
@@BALLI5tICAL but he's right and he can demonstrate it and he did.
@@SkaterDuck92 in doubt it what are the chances?
Balli5tic_I4n who made god then ?
God has truly given us another wonderful gift. Mercifully giving us Word on Fire and igniting your whole self, Bishop Barron and those of your team to aid those of us, ignorant of the depth and the expansive richness of our Catholic faith.
May our Lord protect and continue to guide you on the path he has placed you. May more of us in the Church, grow in a more intimate relationship of Love with Jesus and reflect the message, you have reopened for us in so many beautiful ways.
Thank you for your relentless effort and love of. tending to a lukewarm flock, hoping to become on fire for our Lord, Jesus Christ.
u realise thats bulshit right?
Love your ministerial attention to building cultural harmony between religion and science! Most atheistic arguments demonstrate profound misconceptions about who and what God is and how we understand His role in existence. In recent years there seems to be a stronger push than ever before to "convert" people to atheism - always by otherwise intelligent people who have not taken the time in their studies to understand the actual teachings surrounding the nature of God. It is possible this is the case because once a person truly studies and comes to understand God "theory", he can no longer honestly profess his certainty of God's absence...
No, Daytona, that's not the point. The point is that it is highly consistent with every bit of verifiable evidence that we possess that your 3-part god, whether it exists or not, is utterly and completely inconsequential to anything at all in the Cosmos, and therefore utterly and completely irrelevant. Period.
@@wamozart9094 Ironically everything in your point exemplifies mine. Impasse achieved 😉
@@OurLadyofLourdesDaytona Very happy that you agree that you worship something inconsequential and irrelevant! Congrats on your awakening!
I can see it's important to you to have the last word, even if it means twisting or misrepresenting what's being said. That's fine. But it's neither rational nor is it debate. I encourage you to continue to study science and rational thought and learn to present your arguments in quantitative specifics rather than reductive broad strokes. Learn to respect both the discussion and opposing views. You may never gain an understanding of who or what God is to a believer, but in time you'll at least gain an idea as to what God is not - and that will at least be a step toward mutual understanding 💜
@@OurLadyofLourdesDaytona Again, congrats on awakening from the delusion of your superstition! It's a definitive accomplishment!
We can never know till we pass
Bishop Barron should _bilocate_
I hear it's a more efficient form of travel 😉
The very fact that we are debating whether there is a God, itself is proof that there is no God. This is my take on the topic. Too simple?
that misunderstands religion. God gives us a free choice to decide if we want to believe. Religion isn't as simple as atheists make it out to be.
Yep, after reading Professor Hawking's posthumously published book, I have no question that he's right not only about the 3-part god, but about all of the tens of thousands of gods ever worshipped by humans. The Cosmos exists and behaves precisely, completely, reliably, and predictably as we'd expect absent anything supernatural, and absent any of those tens of thousands of gods. Conclusion: not one, including the 3-part god, is consequential, and therefore not one is relevant to anything at all. Followers of the pseudo-philosophy of supernaturalism are welcome to worship the irrelevant if they choose. I'd suggest not attempting to foist such stuff off on thinking persons, however.
Right on!
I definitely agree with you now.
The universe is exquisitely ordered. It is a significant question as why.
If it's immeasurable then its infinity. Hawkins forgot energy cannot be created nor destroyed. It's always there. That's conciousness that's God.
hello which of bishop barron's books explores in writing these answers he gives regarding faith and science? thank you!
St Albert the Great taught that science and religion should co-exist.
No HocusPocus hitler thought that 2+2=4 and so do you. Your rhetoric is terribly childish
@@wickedhenderson4497 Isn't appeal to authority the lowest and most egregious error of any philosopher? And then to appeal to a supernaturalist who was opining without verifiable evidence. That seems even more egregious to me.
Of all of the things taught in the 1200s, how many of them do we think are true?
@@gfxpimp "Truth" is not a very useful term. I'd ask, rather, of all the explanations commonly used by the Roman church in the 12th century, how many have stood the test of time and still have genuine predictive explanatory power? That's a concise, well developed question.
Your question is a good one, but my use of "truth" should be interpreted by the reader to be on par with the term "God" or to be a "not very useful term" as you suggest. It is as concise and meaningful as the original statement about St. Albert, which is to say, perhaps not at all.
Our Mom died 2 days ago. Bishop Barron please guarantee to me that she is in Heaven, the Faith seems so far away...
@@displaychicken thanks x x
Also from Saint John Paul the Great by Jason Evert page 95 where John Paul inverted Marxism by saying opium "had become the religion of the people." For my own comfort I prefer Catechism of the Catholic Church item 258 "..one God and Father from whom all things are, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and one Holy Spirit in whom all things are." And while we are investing in this I like those who say God was "uncreated" and "always was, is and will be."
Reguardless of where Stephen Hawking is now, I do hope he is free and found what he wanted in the end.
John Lenoxx has already explained this issui before , even , he published a book.
Oh wow! Ednaldo! A book! A book! The issue is settled then.
Magic is real. JK Rowling wrote a book about it.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
-Stephen Hawking
Oh, okay. Because there's gravity then Steve obviously solved the mystery that there's no need for a creator to bring the universe into existence. Incredible. Thanks anime profile guy.
Very simple answer. God created science. He created it all, including one's free will to not believe in Him. I pray Mr. Hawking saw the uncreated light before death. Even Steve Jobs reportedly said "oh wow, oh wow, oh wow" just before death -- what do you think he was seeing?
Please provide the verifiable evidence, Ekaterini, that "god created science" . and kindly be specific about which of the tens of thousands of gods ever worshipped by humans. Thank you very much for your erudite and thoughtful reply!
@@wamozart9094 Wow ... 11 months and he still has not come up with an answer.
I'm geeking out on the topic, you guys are having, interesting discussion. I can't help but think of Sheldon on "The Big Bang" show, ha ha. Sheldon's obsessed with Stephen Hawking. (I'm a cradle Catholic, attend Mass, in Choir, so I genuinely, do believe, in G-d.)
Although I have not seen "The Big Bang", being obsessed with Hawking makes sense in that, once God does not exist, then there is no restrictions on human sexual behavior. But this results in no restrictions on ANY human behavior which resulted in the horror of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And their behavior was scientifically justified based on atheistic evolution and survival of the fittest (most ruthless).
@@michaeloconnor6280 Supernaturalists like to forget that humans, not gods, establish moral principles. The Greeks had the same argument. Some Greek philosophers thought that maybe their adulterous, murderous gods were not the finest examples of moral principles. Christians, Jews, and Muslims perhaps need to realize that murdering children and each other other is perhaps not the finest exposition of moral principles.
This is all very simple. It's a proven FACT that Jesus walked the earth. Why is it we know where the bones are to all the saints and apostles, we find caveman bones, fossils, and yet, no one has found the bones of Jesus AND the Blessed Mother? The two people that The Bible says were brought to Heaven. Coincidence...🤔
Any evidence that he was the son of God?
@Juno Donat I strongly suggest you read the Diary of St. Faustina or at least Google her and read for a few minutes. Oh, and I've seen him
@Juno Donat why are you afraid of him? His endless Mercy is for everyone's salvation
@Juno Donat Don't be afraid of the truth. Open your heart to Him, He's waiting for you. There wouldn't be a court of law if God hadn't formed the universe.
@Juno Donat I would like to say, by all your comments, you're proving the Bible correct
He uses a philosopher to prove how sciences cannot articulate everything than uses a philosopher to explain how creation happened without time. Perplexing.
I am absolutely certain that being confined to a chair and having the voice of a robot did nothing to color Stephen Hawking’s views on God. It’s not like he used his emotions to determine the outcome. Which every atheist swears they don’t do until you challenge them.
Most theist do not seek the truth they just find ways to reassure their beliefs😒so what's the point in debating or challenging them.
@@farringtonsamuel3413 I'd disagree, i think that being sarcastic about stuff does it misjustice. Unfortunately yes, many theists do not seek the truth, at that point they are no honest theists like I but mere sheeple. I came to catholicism after reading into atheism and it seeming irrational to me. I do pray for hawking's as I do admire him despite his atheism, he was still a person. I do think that doubt of beliefs is important for us to see what we truly believe. I heavily doubted my catholicism for a while becoming an agnostic but came to realize that all the evidence points to Yahweh, as he says "I am who I am" which implies he is being itself, not just something within being. The bet form of Christianity is the first, catholicism.
@@masteroogway9487 pls do tell me about the those evidence that points to Yahweh.
@@farringtonsamuel3413 There is some scientific evidence stuff that you could find with a google search or something like that, but the evidence for believers like myself are miracles or that stuff. religion isn't something that you can prove like 1+1 = 2. it is called faith. it will always be a matter of opinion and my opinion gets coloured by my personal experiences.
@@louisleycuras8357 So then there is no real evidence👍.
Curiouser and curiouser! I haven’t read this book, but from what you say about it, it sounds like Hawking’s understanding of the universe is really much closer to the one depicted in Hesiod’s Theogony (‘origins of the gods’, 8th century BC) than the Christian view is to either….
Reducing all statements that scientists make to “scientism” does not prove that you are correct and what you offer is not a better alternative. At least scientists admit when they do not know. You can have opinions but that is all. Opinions are not proofs of anything.
It's actually so annoying to see him listen to the argument against the god of the gaps and immediately shake his head. He says it's unfair to judge current religious beliefs by 'ancient' ones, but it was his religion that labeled AIDS as a punishment from god, and thousands of Christians label school shootings as the consequence for 'removing god from schools'. If a subject is just too broad, too complex, instead of modern religion saying 'we don't know' it's always attributed to god in one form or another.
Bishop Barron must be one of God's best salesmen.Brandon is his best customer, he agrees to buy it.
There are so many people's dying of hungry,by disaster cyclone tsunami earthquake diseases if there was a god .then he is all powerful and evil or he is good but not all powerful
Barron attempts to paper over that argument in one of his videos. But he uses tissue paper, and you can see right through it. Well-stated! These supernaturalists have fabricated counter-arguments for all objections, but never have counter-verifiable evidence.
@@scinatphilosophy296 Yes, SciNat. The tissue paper is thin. The argument that the 3-part god "has a purpose" or "knows better than we can" or "should not even be questioned" is infantile, stupid, willfully ignorant, inhumane, and intellectually ridiculous. Right on, bud!
Really sad that the booklet and DVD are only available for US residents :(
Steven Hawkings was indeed a very intelligent man however lacked the gift of Faith . Perhaps being confined to a wheelchair didn't do his spirituality any favors but God challenges us in many ways for reasons we may never know. And on that note R.I.P.
No Michael. I'm afraid not.But I s'pose you're entitled to an opinion.
@@mimoochodom2684 Verifiable evidence that it isn't a curse?
@@wamozart9094 It is what it is.
@@mimoochodom2684 Wow! Mimo! Profound! You just have to be a supernaturalist.
@@wamozart9094 No, Just an opinionist....that apparently no-one shares. lol.
22:57 that's right, that's exactly what I was thinking.
Only hope that in his last moments he had an aha moment and discovered God. In a way, he could be a poster child for the anti euthanasia movement. Here he was with that awful disease but a brilliant mind. Too many doctors and parents would consider this disease as a wasted life and consider euthanasia because they'd never consider that a person could contribute anything let alone a science like physics.
As someone who is both Christian and confined to a power-wheelchair, I couldn't agree with you more.
If anyone wants a summary relating theoretical physics to the beginning of the universe and idea of a creator, including Hawking's work to explain how the universe could begin from a nothing (which isn't the absence of everything, as mentioned in this video,) Fr. Spitzer's book "The Soul's Upward Yearning" has a sizable appendix on the topic. It will be hard to follow if you don't understand physics and limits going to negative infinity, but I was able to understand it with an engineering background. For others, the main part of the book contains a less technical summary and the rest is somewhat more accessible, containing reason-based evidence that existence goes beyond just the physical, and therefore the realm of science, from such diverse fields as philosophy and medical science.
My experience is that Spitzer is a 2-bit hack. Not serious intellectual.
@@alexanderborodin7884 If you'd like to edit this comment to be something seriously intellectual, I'll remove this comment. I don't like embarrassing others.
Are you trying to troll or to hold a real discussion? Right now it comes across as the former. (Don't worry, I'm not upset, but it's concerning since this behavior is below your dignity.) I won't continue to reply should the posts continue to be based on disrespecting other people. Worse, there's no substance to your replies to me thus far, so this one is more of a self-accusation than a discredit to Fr. Spitzer. I won't reply further if there isn't the basic level of respect needed to have a real discussion, as that will only waste our time.
@@evandelaalquarame4171 Oh, go ahead Evandela. Be upset if you want! Perhaps it will drive you to THINK and thereby help you to wake from your delusion!
This guy actually has no good points he just changes the subject.
Those fallen ones dont only believe in God. They know Him like you know your fathers. They were living with Him. For you to say humans that God does not exist is laughable. You cant argue against the evidence of His existence.
We should pray for Steven halwking because he didn’t Bieleve in god in the begging but then he said himself that I was wrong and in the world there is a god!
When he said that?
How stupid. God doesn't exist. Religions were made a few thousand years ago. They STILL lack the knowledge of science at that time.
I feel like the ingredients for creation are not just time and the laws of physics... It is not good enough to explain the origin of life, let alone trying to create life by following those theories....
Until the day he died, he still searching for the question of God....
I think he got his answer. Hopefully in Jesus' mercy even though I still have trouble saying it sometimes, I hope he was forgiven
@@GaoDaHoi No one is arguing that. He said, I am the way, the truth, and the life no one will come to the Father except through Me. So, again no one is arguing your comment but wether or not you believe in Jesus may determine where you spend eternity. I would hope that in His endless Mercy no souls would perish and if the turned to Him they wouldn't
@@GaoDaHoi thanks bud. Just keep in the back of your mind, you're ALWAYS welcome to join us
Juno Donat idiot... Human have advanced so much in philosoohy and science.. If Catholicism and faith is a joke, then Catholicism and faith would have been erdicated already... Believers are intelligent beings who can reason... You have to think who is a fairy tale, maybe it is you who are fairytale and fiction..
Juno Donat prove your points my friends... Oppression and brutality...
Bottom line is that Stephen Hawking is quite correct that his CONCEPTION of God is not in fact a reality, though God Himself did in fact bring all of Creation with all the laws of nature into existence.
After death there is nothing.
c mcc you an atheist why?
c mcc that is true for those souls who have chosen to go to Hell. Without God’s love and presence, their souls exist in an eternal state of being in despair and misery unfathomably many times worse than any kind of misery experienced here in Earth.
Ergo, they are eternally existing in a state of nothingness. No purpose, no sense of love. Only abandonment, for they have chosen to abandon God’s mercy and love.
The end is a beginning!!
Indeed, there is no evidence to believe otherwise. Live your life to the fullest, my friend.
@@sagnikmondal4058 No evidence? Are you calling Jesus a liar? Do you think He was a lunatic? There is much evidence to the contrary...
Excellent work as always God bless you. Just of interest business increasingly has a strong qualitative focus around ontology..purpose and there is research into spirituality there.
Would you debate a well known atheist...someone like Richard Dawkins? Your monologues need to be challeged. You remind me of a snake oil salesman. Lots of words to confuse the masses, with zero evidence for any of it.
You sure of that zero evidence part? Did you listen to the video?
I think in the past he's made it clear he's always up for a serious debate
I mean...I'm pretty sure that Edward Feser has been wanting to debate Dawkins for a bit now.
I subscribed to the Bishop's channel..He makes sense.
“I was struck by the similarities with later communist-era methods: the same remorseless drive to wear down victims, expose their contradictions and destroy their moral certainties.”
from - Jonathan Luxmoore - When Christianity Becomes A Crime.
Hey Chuck! Nothing is more dangerous to one's life in much of the world today, especially in Islamic and Hindus countries, than to "deny" the "faith." And nothing was more dangerous in Europe for most of the common era than to deny christianity. So, don't play the martyr with me, bud. It doesn't work.
intelligence, pride and human understanding has always been in the way of believing in a God. There's such a thing as "too smart for your own good" which sadly Hawking suffered from. He wasn't only wrong about much, but also a victim of his own understanding.