Is There Proof God Exists? Yes
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 май 2024
- For centuries, people of faith have tried to prove God exists. Have we succeeded?
SOCIAL MEDIA:
Newsletter: breakinginthehabit.org/newsle...
Facebook: goo.gl/UoeKWy
Twitter: goo.gl/oQs6ck
Instagram: goo.gl/ShMbhH
Podcast: goo.gl/xqkssG
INTERESTED IN BECOMING A FRIAR?
Holy Name Province: goo.gl/MXKb2R
Find your Vocation Director: goo.gl/2Jc52z
SUPPORT THE MISSION
Order my books: amzn.to/386QDpR
Donate Monthly: goo.gl/UrrwNC
One-time gifts: goo.gl/eKnFJN
MUSIC
Epidemicsound.com
The problem with most philosophical works aimed at proving God exists is that, at most, they prove a creative force or intelligence. However, they failed to bridge that entity with the god of any particular religion, particularly Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Whether it is the apologetic works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anslem, or more modern Christian philosophers like Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Alvin Plantinga, they can't seem to fill the chasm between the intelligent vague being they are attempting to prove and the *SPECIFIC* God they want us to believe in. When I was an atheist, I found these arguments to be wholly insufficient. I became a believer, not because of their sophisticated polemic. I became a believer because of how empty my life was without belief.
And that is the point! That search for "the missing something" that nothing in life can satisfy will always bring a person back to the truth of God.
Very true, but to someone who doesn't believe there is a maker, we must first show them there is a maker in the first place. Funny enough, the best argument that I heard to prove the Abrahamic God was from a Muslim trying to disprove the Trinity. He said something along the lines of if there was multiple gods, there would most likely not be order in the universe and the similarities between order on earth and order in the universe. Mainly because multiple gods with individual consciousness would disagree on a lot of things like we humans do. So if there was a sun god and a lightning god, they could disagree with each other at any point and it would collapse the whole universe. It didn't hold in disproving the Trinity for me because it's not three gods (which a lot of Muslims tend to believe).
I think the best and most efficient way to prove which God exists (this is not trying to convert anybody, be atheist into theist or a non-Christian theist into a Christian), is how that god is close to being a failure (or even some cases an abomination) or the spiritual elevation of the God of that religion, for example, the Gods that usually require human sacrifice, specially of children are demons, and I won't budge on this, then there is gods who are usually reprobates, they were usually good leaders in military or beautiful persons, but had a lot of problems, then, there is the normal gods(usually leaders of stablity), then there is sage gods, usually sages, priests or virtuous philosophers or the best leadership of a nation(be a tribe, country, city, etc) then, there is the gods who were close to a total virtuous life, and they had ways to back up the way they live, and Jesus of Nazareth excels in this last category, where other ultravirtuous persons would be similiar and conclude in the same way, usually they didn't claim to be a god in their contexts if you read their stories, Jesus did, the proof about Jesus claiming to be a God is the behaviour of the apostles, the writings of the earliest of earliest of Church Fathers who usually were direct disciples of the 12 apostles, the way they lived their lifes compared to Jesus Christ, the fact that they died in horible ways imaginable(be the earliest church fathers or the apostles), and the logical and philosophical ways they behave, not only, God is not contingent to the limitations of this world, so, questions like saying "if he created something heavier than him" doesn't work because it is trying to put an incontigent into a contigent, not only, but usually followers of a cult leader are usually disloyal and violent towards the autority, even when it favours it, my objective is not converting, debating, fighting, or calling anybody ignorant, so, I will not debate this with anybody and you are free to not accept this claim I'm making, I'll listen to arguments against what I've said only if you are catholic and you are trying to correct my point of view based on church fathers, scholastics, documents of the church and catholic theologians/priests(and please, if you are doing this, post the source of your claim), I'm just showing my point
It’s all the same God just various different understanding of the nature of God. Is the the Christian triune God or the nature that Islam understands and even within Christian denominations there are differences much more nuanced than Judaism or Islam
But those nuanced differences exist.
So they are not arguing over whether God exists in reality they are arguing over the nature of God
@@catholicguy1073 that's what I believe is happening between the three Abrahamic religions. Some people believe we aren't worshipping the same God the Muslims do, but how do we know we aren't, but are simply looking at him from two different perspectives. Something I think about a lot.
The cosmological argument has a small but non-negligeable weakness, the fact that everything that is was caused by something that is itself acausal does not necessarily means that it is god.
Why must there be a first cause? Just because things we know have them doesn't mean everything must have one.
thats not logic..
@@nvnmochi"God" is illogical
depends which one.@@SamoaVsEverybody814
It is intuitive to think that everything has a cause because we never see anything not have a cause. Well, you are right. This argument only makes sense with that intuitive presupposition. But that is a very high and impractical level of scepticism that you need to have to reject this presupposition. You don't live with that much skepticism. Let me give you an example: Your girlfriend/boyfriend tells you in a very romantic moment: "I love you". What would you do? Would you reject their statement? Because you can not and will never absolutely know if they truly love you in that moment. You can't know their hormones for sure. You don't even have a very good definition of love. But still you would believe them. It is intuitive to believe them because all the evidence of their behaviour points towsrds love. And for the cosmological argument all evidence of the observable universe points towards being caused. Therefore everything has a cause that is outside of itself. Therefore the universe has a cause.
@@Benny-sw8xs Yes. Plus humans can conceive of things that aren't empirically possible by our current understanding of natural processes. I can conceive of the universe coming from the GI tract of a giant cosmic unicorn for instance, wether that's possible, much less probable, is an entirely different story altogether.
The sad thing is. No matter what we say, prove, show. Most people won't listen and they will keep their beliefs and say that its just a coincidence
Yep! But Will be willing to believe humans came from monkeys. 🤷♀️
@@SquidwardsangryfaceActually evolutionary theory doesn’t hold humans came from monkeys but that the two came from a common ancestor. There is strong evidence for theistic evolution.
@@Squidwardsangryface Well, that's an oversimplified and inaccurate view of evolution, or "natural selection". In fact, the Catholic Church accepts evolution. The "first cause" is understood to be God.
Faith has always been necessary and faith is tricky.
@@bman5257Humans literally are monkeys according to monophyletic classification. All classifications are ultimately nominal though, since in reality every organism differs from every other one. Monophyletic classification exists for the convenience of humans.
I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that some god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating such a claim.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument that also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
5. Of the many logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain either logical fallacies or false or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
I mean, I experienced a lot of divine and different interesting things in my childhood, but even now I don't believe in any religion and you claim that atheism will stop until there is evidence that there is a god, trust me if there is a god, it is in destiny and you will be destined to die before you can pray to god because assumptions and The things you keep waiting will not stay at the same point, we will not always remain strong, we will grow old, XD So in short, you understand what I mean.
Can I have a go at a debate?
@@brandon1832 Certainly. Which topic would you care to debate?
@@brandon1832 Are you there?
@@Theo_Skeptomai yeah
Why is it prayer seems to be a one-way street? I've prayed, sought His 'help', asked for that 'joy unspeakable and peace that etc' yet I NEVER get ANY RESPONSE, SILENCE!!! I have sought his 'face' for 50 + years and = NOTHING! WHY? if he desires a relationship why is it a 1 way street? Where is my Abba?
Yea he never answers my prayers. My whole life has been absolutely shite.
That's proof enough for me.
Because it's all Lies. The bibles even have verses where their god says specifically says -- "whoever searches for him WILL FIND him"... Proven nothing more than Lies. Their excuses never end. If only they would READ their bibles with an Open Mind.
You don’t ask for a good life you ask for his forgiveness and love. You don’t ask for prosperity you can’t love both money and God
@@LennyChildOfJesus -- You said -- "You don’t ask for a good life you ask for his forgiveness and love. "
According to the bibles, you can ask for ANYTHING. Do you disagree with that "god" when he said that? Also remember, it says many times that you are not to Add, Take Away, or even Interpret his word. So what it says... it means. It says ANYTHING... so it means ANYTHING.
Face it, religion LIED to all of us. Do yourself a Huge favor = Read the bibles with an Open Mind, ask all the tough questions, and you will be Freed of those Plagiarized Lies.
“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” - Isaac Asimov
So you having a bad life means religion is false? Also, you think it’s coincidence that the universe is so fine tuned?
If it is not observable it is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.
Yes exactly. A god that exists outside of time and space. And cannot be measured in any known way. Is the same thing as a god that doesn't exist.
If there is a God, he has no need or want to prove himself to you, it's the other way around.
@@lukesutton4135 you just made up that.
Did…did you just actually say “if I don’t know about it, it must not exist” in fancier words?
@@jaegercat6702 that's not what was said at all. A god who exists outside of space and time. And is not measurable by any means. Is the same thing as a god that doesn't exist.
Addendum: it's not that we can't see god. It's that there's no method to demonstrate that a god exists. We can't see air. But we can measure it. You can't do this with a god. Science can neither prove. Nor disprove the existence of a god.
Universe wasnt created because there is no previous instance to be possible without time. So we can exclude God based on this crucial fact. No matter the argument, the time is the answer. Without time nothing is created. We live inside time. You can measure what happens within a time, but time itself cant be measured because we are inside it.
A great saying I heard is
“ God is not a mind issue, it’s a heart issue”
Partially correct. When I was in seminary, my theology professor made the point that one person (actually, one being) who would be sure to score 100% in his class would be Satan. Head knowledge--in and of itself--does not lead to salvation. As Jesus said, He wants "circumcision of the heart": for us to repent of our sins and to love and serve Him and love and serve others in His name, through the guidance of God's Holy Spirit.
For purposes of clarity, however--especially in this day and age of one-sided atheist propaganda and misportrayal of theism in general and Christianity in particular--these proofs of God's existence really need to be presented to counter the intellectual dishonesty in the way Christians are portrayed. Thanks very much to "Breaking In The Habit" for doing so!
Yep.
Someone who does not want to believe in God at the end of the day will do everything they can to get around doing so
@@77Catguy that is so true ... I find it dead easy to bet Christians in Bible quiz. It is like they never read the sacred word of their own god. Pretty weird.
So don't think just believe?Hmm I can see a bit of a problem with that
@@stephanhirons3454 Nope, Catholics love solving and thinking about everything
That’s why we have funded so many universities
"It's not that i don't understand you, it's that i don't believe you" - Rose Laylonde, Homestuck.
These "arguments" shouldn't convince anybody.
1) Demonstrate that your intuitions of causality extend beyond space and before time, and that there is a "beyond and before spacetime" in which for things to exist.
2) For the ontological argument to even start to make any sense, there has to be an absolutely objective definition of "greatness", down to exacting detail. Otherwise the greatest thing to me is different than your greatest thing and now we have billions of necessarily existing gods roaming the heretofore undemonstrated "beyond and before spacetime"
3) Saying "many people agree that X is true" is not equal to saying "X is true" . Morality is subjective in the same way favorite foods are, just to a different degree. If you polled many cultures and found that children ages 5 to 10 most preferred frozen treats as dessert, would that make frozen treats the objectively correct dessert choice? No, it just means humans are similar, and so act similarly. In the same way, wanting to increase wellbeing is just popular because we and our societies are similar. It doesn't mean it's the absolute and objectively correct choice for what we ought to care about.
(That said, once a goal is chosen, moral facts can be found. If I want to maximize wellbeing, I ought not unalive people for fun, for example. I think it's this part that makes people think morality is objective. It's not, it only is once you agree on goals.
I could go on with other objections to this, but I'm trying (and failing) to be brief)
4) First, before this argument can even get off the ground, demonstrate that the universal constants are able to change. Bonus points if you can quantify their ranges, gradations, relationships, and probability distributions. But so far, we don't even know that they could be different than what they are. You don't just get that for free.
Bonus quibbles cuz I can't shut up:
7:10 You don't see objects acting in patterns *towards ends*, you see objects acting in patterns *and assume there's an end they're acting towards*. In reality, they're being pushed forward by prior events, not pulled towards future ones desired by some designer. Your car didn't start because you wanted to get to work, it started because you turned the key.
In the conclusion, you saying you need faith to accept these arguments is tantamount to saying the arguments are worthless. Your side is gonna believe what they believe because they think they have a relationship with a god, not because of these hobbled arguments. And my side isn't gonna be convinced by these hobbled arguments to believe in a god. So what's their point? What value do they add to anything?
Dude! I'm sure the spam detecting bot would have silenced me for a message that long. I'm sure glad you are here to make all those important quibbles :)
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I wish I was more brief, I saw a guy a lil lower down say everything I did, in better wording, and in like 1/3 the text. I'm just such a chatterbox and it's a problem lol
What is the cause of the God?
1. God made of what materials
2. Why God created the universe
3. What are duties and responsibilities of the God
4. What is the relationship between God and us
5. Why God created human
And many more questions I have.
There is no proof of God.
If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence
Scientifically thinking people know this, as world is full of evidence for God. On the other hand, no proof is enough for fervent atheists. This has been admitted by famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins and others.
That's why the ontological argument fails. A god that has convinced everyone it exists would be greater than a god that has not. No such god has done so, therefore it doesn't exist and contradicts the argument.
@@psilynt1 I like your thought process here, but it depends on what you mean by term greater. From a human's perspective I can imagine that a "greater" god would have to prove itself, but from a god's perspective, wouldn't the greater god be one who didn't have to prove itself and people choose to worship without evidence?
@@goobyboxxton8526 I suppose. Could use the same argument with number of worshippers. Greatest god is the god worshipped by all people. Not all people worship, therefore God is not the greatest.
One could argue the God that exists and is worshipped by the fewest is 'greater', but that'd be the God that nobody worships.
@@psilynt1 Thank you, yes, that's exactly what I was trying to elucidate. Without an agreed upon meaning of the word "greater" then any logical conclusion drawn using that word cannot be evaluated.
by logical arguments you mean broken arguments full of logical fallacies and scientific misunderstandings.
My dad was a mathematician. He used to say that you can't study mathematics without coming to an understanding that God exists. The basis of the universe is ordered from the start and at its heart is orderly. He used to say that numbers are the basis of everything and order is at the base of everything.
That's what Pythagoras said. Heraclitus worked from language, and reached the same conclusion.
Nonsense.
If your father was mathematician,he would never say anything close to that.
.. maybe you meant to say "substitute math teacher at religious school",not an actual mathematician?
@@thinboxdictator6720why this harshness? You didnt even show a point, you just disrespected someone you dont know. Anyway, study some math, so maybe next time you wont behave so rudely. There are many papers talking about this topic, relating god and math. Maybe if you will ever be able to read something, you wont state nOsEnSe without any point apart from your rudeness. Byeeee
Speacial pleading.
@@spaghettinoo I don't think I was harsh.
if I told you that my father was a physicist and got proof of Illuminati faking globe earth,what would you say?
btw saying there are "many papers" is making it sound like it's something legitimate,on level of actual mathematical proofs/conjectures .. meanwhile it's just some people trying to get to some specific conclusion ( instead of figuring it out and see where it goes ), which is ridiculous on it's face to everyone who at least partly understands the topic they try to base their argument on.
this one might have been a bit harsh,previous one wasn't.
I've seen a watchmaker in action. Your god has never provably made a watch or a blade of grass. I can prove my claim with evidence? You, got a feeling.
Well, of course you have because a watchmaker is a human making a watch in our world.
If there were tiny beings and galaxies being created by the same watchmaker insidethat watch, chances are the tiny beings wouldn't be able to physically find their maker in their world. The evidence of their maker is themselves and their world.
@@Squidwardsangryfacethat was not a good analogy. Sorry. But speculation such as. "If there were tiny beings inside the watch". Brings the discussion to a halt. And it certainly doesn't add to the watchmaker argument. That just adds a worse argument/premise. To an already poor argument/premise.
@@rationald6799 how is it bad? It literally paints the picture for creator being outside his creation.
@Squidwardsangryface It's an "if." In the here and now, we can demonstrate that watches and their makers exist.
@@vladtheemailer3223 I don't think you understand anything I said if that's what you got from my explanation.
My explanation is demonstrating a creator outside his creation. For example, the characters of Harry Potter do not know JK Rowling exists, since she is not physically present in their world. What is present in these characters' world is her intellect and creativity, and without her these characters wouldn't exist.
There are also miracles, events that don't make sense when observed scientifically but make sense when you look at them with faith. I am extremely impressed by what happened at Fatima in Portugal and this is a thing that strengthened my faith.
You have to prove that it was a work of divine intervention and nothing else. Which you can't. And miracle therefore god is a false correlation. It could be chance or simply something else. You can't prove otherwise.
One thing people tend to forget is that, by definition, you can't prove or disprove a miracle scientifically. Scientific inquiry requires repeatability, and since a miracle is defined as a conscious intervention by God into the natural order of things, it would be like trying to get someone to react to you the same way twice, who is already aware of you observing them.
And to those who say that such and such thing can't happen, that's kinda the point. An analogy I like to use is that it's like using a cheat code in a video game. The regular rules are being suspended in this case, so of course things don't behave as they normally otherwise would in a testable environment.
To be certain, it's a fine thing to still try to test these things and determine if they do happen to fit into the laws of physics (something the Church generally tries to do, with help of field experts, with any new claims of miracles), but to simply say that something can't happen on the basis that something doesn't normally happen can be itself fallacious, and is in its way a statement based on nothing but faith (albeit faith in the absolute order of the universe).
It's that a problem as well. St Thomas Aquinas hypothesis proposed demons, zombies, exorcism, levitation, ghosts and goblins.
Be honest here; if Father Casey started talking about vampires and smiting folk dead with prayer - all part of Roman Catholics doctrine - you'd not consider him the most authoritative advice of the origins of the universe. Perhaps ask a physicist rather than a magician
@@russellmiles2861 Oh another fun fact about St Thomas! He was an anti Semite. He hated Jewws!
Atheists: take Pascal's wager. What have you got to lose?
I like the ontological argument best. A god that has convinced me that he exists is greater than a god that has not done so, therefore the god that has convinced me he exists must exist, but no such god has done so, therefore this argument fails.
The most authentic arguments for the existence of a god are found in Islamic Philosophy.
But Unfortunately NONE of them prove the existence of a God.
There is no need for a first cause, since the spacetime continuum is not an effect and cannot be caused since that would be a temporal affair which cannot happen since there was no time before spacetime. And Einstein made it pretty clear that motion in itself needs no cause since that is the whole point of the theory of relativity. Thus the cosmological argument is a non-starter. If you want to have something that existed throughout, then you can take the universe directly, since it existed at any point in time, since it is like I already said spacetime.
The ontological argument falls also flat, since being able to imagine something better does not mean that this something better actually exists. And if I take it the other way around, that if your deity has the three omni properties that make it so perfect, how come then that the universe is then not also perfect reflecting that divine nature? Thus it is clear that if the universe has an origin in some entity, that entity is clearly no better than what it could make.
For the moral argument there is the Euthyphro dilemma, and worse there is no reason to think that moral realism or divine command theory are even a proper description of morality. Since moral relativism and moral anti-realism are equally valid positions to hold.
The theological argument is nonsense, since design is exactly the opposite from what we see. Design is elegance in simplicity not needless complexity. Furthermore that there is some order doesn't mean someone has to made these natural laws, for all we know there simply are no other options and thus all the proposed possibilities are just an illusion. The theological argument would be better if it would be impossible to exist and yet there would be life, and not just on our tiny planet, but everywhere and not relying on chemestry or energy but to be truly independent from any circumstances. Then you would have an argument that this would require some divine input. But as the world presents itself, the theological argument can be handwaved away as just a god of the gaps argument.
All those arguments are debunked centuries if not millennia ago. And the "gift of faith" as you call it seems to be what actual rational people would call a conformation bias. Don't get me wrong, you can believe whatever you like, but it would have been if you would have also addressed the criticism those arguments have and why they are not considered proof, since a proof has actually be conclusive and cannot be founded just on faith. Also, I find it funny how the video basically dismisses all the followers of religions which also do not adhere to these silly arguments. Guess this is just another case of the typical Christian arrogance that look down on others as not having proper faith. And then they are surprised that so many people rejecting their message...
👏excellent response! 🙏
God allowed us to be conscious beings with souls to realise God exists this is what makes us unique of all the life forms on the planet .
How do you know ,did God tell you
Oh nice another "everything is so complex and beautiful and we have empathy theres your proof that god must exist" video
The issue very surface level discussions of these arguments run into is that there have been counter points and further work done on all of these arguments which means presenting them in their most basic forms doesn't really cut the mustard.
The cosmological argument requires you to swallow an entire Aristotelian metaphysics of causes, which you don't have to just accept and other theories of causation exist. Additionally, you could posit a non-intelligent "purely actual" force and get the same result.
Kant neatly dealt with the Ontological argument by pointing out that "'being' is evidently not a real predicate"
The Moral Argument presupposes there cannot be a natural explanation for social animals to develop certain behavioural patterns...which is question begging (or 'assuming the antecedent', for those more academically inclined), and incidentally the teleological argument makes the same mistake.
Frankly, these are just not very strong arguments; which you'd come to expect given that these are being presented in essentially the same forms they were created in, with the oldest being around 1300 years old.
I imagine this suits folk with superficial level commitment to the Faith.
Father Casey, your videos consistently bring me joy and help me in my spiritual journey. Even though I'm not Catholic, I'm now seriously exploring the priesthood in my own tradition (Orthodox Christian) thanks to your videos.
If there was such an obvious & evident god don't you think there would be obvious & evident evidence?
The most concise treatment of this subject I’ve seen so far. The good friar’s final thoughts in this video provide context for the diversity of reactions in this string of comments.
A lot of special pleading, question begging, circular reasoning, non sequiturs and unsubstantiated claims.
Yup. If you remove all logical fallacies everything falls apart.
Go on then. List them.
@anthonyhulse1248 everything in the Bible is a logical fallacy by definition because they rely on the Bible to confirm the truth of the claim made. That's circular reasoning.
@@travisgarrison8777Catholics don’t believe in ‘sola scriptura’ so there’s no fallacy here for us.
@@travisgarrison8777Have you ever read the bible lol idk what preachers your listening to that keep repeating stuff.
Point One) OK Something came first. Prove it was a god, then prove it is your god and then prove you have understood your god correctly.
Point Two) By your own admission this is NOT a proof of god's existence, but one of how a god must be IF a god exists at all. This "proof", therefore, is not a proof of a god's existance.
Point Three) Even if morality is something given to us by an external force, you have failed to prove that force is a god.However, you are wrong to say we are not taught morals. Of course, we are taught them. Have you not heard of bad parenting? It happens when parents don't teach the moral code to their kids. In truth, we have the same morals as others, because we benefit from them morals in the same way as others do. As tribes, nations and communities, we have all come to the same conclusions about what is best for us morally. It's a theory, anyway. For you to say our morals have ONLY come from god you would have to do two things: Prove a god exists (still waiting for that) and that my theory cannot be true.
Point Four) The puddle argument! I need say nothing more.
A whole life of belief gone with one YT comment!
There is nothing about the first cause theory that points to the cause being sentient, let alone omnipotent and omniscient, let alone good & loving
We Hindus too believe in the same concept of God: He is omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent etc, as followers of abrahamian religions do. Swami Vivekananda said that even if someone does not want to believe in God, it is okay. All they have to do is be speculative instead of living in complete denial. This way, there'll be a time when such an agnostic will realise that the purpose of life is beyond the regular, mundane chores: 'Self realisation is God realisation.'
Thank you for producing this video. Unfortunately these arguments have been put to bed over and over and should not be convincing. It's still cool to hear how believed see things even if I don't find the claims convincing
Yes. There are countless books, videos, articles, lectures, debates, etc. which demonstrate that the four arguments covered in this video are not proof of the existence of a god. I wonder if Father Casey has paid any attention to them.
@@tonyd3433 Better to asume ignorance than malice.
@@tonyd3433 well he failed to pay attention to any of the child abuse cases within his church
@@Zanta100, I don’t think you’ve watched all his videos.
Around the literally billions of people used to think the world was flat too. So what?
Just because there has to be a cause for the universe’s existence doesn’t mean it has to be a being, it could just be a ‘thing’.
My dear friend, in my quest to be a "good atheist" as per your definition I respectfully have to point out that the arguments of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas are merely logically unsound wordplay that no one should ever use and that your propagation of these bad arguments as if they had not been shown to be fallacious does not reflect well on your position at all.
'We don't know, therefore God.' has a name: The God of the Gaps. I'm sorry, but there are FAR too many other possibilities. Remember, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It is just as plausible that energy has simply always existed, regardless of its form.
I was also hoping to see an argument against the possibility of an infinite regress, but it was only hinted at :(
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I love the idea that entire universes could exist all around and within us, receding infinitely inward as well as outward.
When I get into my car to drive to the mall I always fasten my seatbelt. Why? Because blunt force injury resulting from a sudden stoppage could kill me. Blood loss could kill me as well. I'm mortal, I'm incapable of shapeshifting and I'm incapable of flight.
Contrast this with my natural enemy, the vampire. The vampire can do all the things I can not and the only way you can kill it is my driving a wooden stake through its heart. Why did God make vampires so powerful and humans so weak?
These are your best shots? Time to hand the robes in.
As a scientist and not necessarily a believer, I find these arguments very unhelpful. These arguments are not universally accepted by science, so you can't really call them proofs. Presenting them as proof is at best a mistake and at worst deeply misleading.
I think you might be conflating scientific proofs with philosophical proofs. They operate differently.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I don't think so. A proof has to be generally accepted by science to be a genuine proof. Otherwise, it's not a proof, it's just an opinion.
To that, you can respond that you believe that it's a proof, or that my criteria for what constitutes a proof are different from yours, but I would find both those responses rather disappointing.
If I hear the word proof, I don't want to discover sometime later that experts don't agree that it's a proof.
In fact, I read a comment below that basically calls non-believers stubborn for not accepting these kinds of arguments and that's another illustration of why the word proof should not be used. It causes confusion, in this case leading to prejudices stemming from a false belief that these "proofs" are somehow absolute certainties. That's exactly why using these proofs is at best unhelpful and at worst disingenuous. That is, unless you add a disclaimer that these "proofs" are not generally accepted by science and should be taken with a bit of a grain of salt.
As my own disclaimer: I don't want to lambast religion, I just criticise bad apologetics.
My advice to any apologist would be to point out the benefits of religion to one's personal life and try to identify why lack of religion, or other religions, don't offer these values. Forget proof, focus on people's emotional needs. That's why I'm reconsidering religion after decades of agnosticism anyway.
@@diedertspijkerboerTry Jainism or a wide variety of religions. Abrahamic religions ARE good but there are more.
@@BreakingInTheHabitPhilosophical proofs are not "proofs". They are only conjectures at best
Sorry, but there are no proofs. Those are just justifications based on ones preconceived concepts. All religion is based on faith alone, if there is proof, there is no need for faith.
Is there _anything_ that faith alone can NOT reveal to be true?
God is in your head, till you die. Then it stops. Its an illusion.
I'm glad he isn't in my head ☺
Can you do a video about how it is to join the catholic community as an adult? Genuinely curious about the whole process. I come from a very Catholic town but didn't grow up in the church myself. I do believe in God but am not sure how to join the congregation or how it would work as an adult coming in for the first time.
You will be welcomed! We have a program that teaches you what you need and want to know about Catholicism and all and any questions are respectfully answered. You can ask anything. We don't keep anything from you only to let you know the ugly truth later. (Don't worry, there is no ugly truth that I know of. I've been in the Church over 50 years) So, go to a near by Church and tell them you're interested. If they are not helpful and friendly, find another one and try again. I wish you the very best and want you to know it is so worth it to become Catholic! God bless you!
Call at local parish any Sunday and chat with an elder.
"Is There Proof God Exists? Yes"
- Why do you need to lie in your title?
Yes, in the absence of evidence, people turn to logic... however, logical arguments cannot prove anything in reality. Every one of the arguments he presents have been debunked many, many times over.
*Cosmological arguments* assert that God was the cause of X... they cannot demonstrate the validity of this assertion. It is made in total ignorance. It also engages in special pleading.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" don't know, could there be nothing? Can you show that God did anything? No? this is just an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how/if something happened, so insert God and call it a day.
*Ontological,* God exists at least in our minds... yeah, not going to bother going into this one too deep. If it is convincing to you, you have my sympathy. Does the maximally great pizza exist? Isn't it possible to conceive of something that's even better every time we conceive of a similar thing? Does what you think routinely affect reality around you? No? then why think it does in regards to God?
*Teleological arguments...* I can't understand or am amazed by X... so God did it. Complete arguments from ignorance. Many also assert that, when 2 things share 1 trait (often complexity) they must share another (usually that they were created by intelligence)... this is silly. A horse and motorcycle share the trait of being ridden by people, does that mean that horses must use rubber tires or that motorcycles must eat grass? Of course not, so why think that, since both watches and cells are complex, they must share the trait of being designed?
FTI, no one asserts that things happen ONLY by chance. Basic fundamental forces of matter/energy put limits on chance and randomness, as do processes like natural selection. If you want to assert that God is just the fundamental forces of the universe that's on you, just know that if you do that you need to discard all the stuff that the bible says and stop capitalizing "god" when you write it.
FYI 2. We don't assert that watches are created because they are complex, we do so because we have evidence of watches being created. We don't have that for God and the universe.
God is exactly a Santa Claus character.
Except there are evidence for Santa Clause.
The gifts.
@@freddan6fly
The Tooth Fairy: money replacing a baby tooth.
I dont think these arguments work. Their premises aren't all correct.
Apologist feel is moral to lie in defense of Faith.
@russellmiles2861 I don't think most apologists lie. I think those that make these arguments think they are sound. I just disagree.
@@danielgalvez7953 I use to feel most Apologist held sincerely felt views that they wanted to shared. I merely had a passing interest in early church history - it is a fascinating topic. I had my father's old books as he was likewise interested. I honestly didn't look at such things deeply.
During our long lock down I took a few online courses on the topic. Language is not a strong point so I found Greek and Hebrew hard.
Regardless, I met some wonderful folk with excellent language skills. I certainly learnt much about Biblical texts had emerge, translated and developed. I also realised that Aplogiticist had study such to a high level in seminaries and university. They were not make mistakes - they seemed to be purposely misrepresenting texts, selectively citing texts and avoiding much. The sincerest ones seem to feel that there were things they might never know. Others stated things as facts that they clearly knew were not. They weren't stupid.
@@russellmiles2861 interesting. That isn't my experience, but perhaps I haven't looked into things as deeply as you. I'm a fan of a lot of apologetics, just not these arguments.
Practice makes perfect. The enthusiasm to create & bravery to present are commendable. The delivery & information itself was sporatic & inconclusive. Keep working on it ✌️🤝👏
The greatest gift my mother gave me was making sure I was baptized. I feel sorry for people who have no faith, what an empty life to live.
You are openly expressing and appreciating the sin of pride. Don't feel sorry for them, they've made their choice and it is entirely possible they are just as content (or moreso) than you without religion. Belief is not a necessary facet of the human experience, and neither is faith, they may enhance it for some people but for the most part, if a person is trying their best to be a good person, regardless of religion, they are a good person, and they will probably feel content with their lives. I, along with many other Christians, believe that's what God wanted when He free'd humanity: for people to be good of their own volition for the simple reason that it is right, not out of some cosmic threat that they might suffer if they aren't.
I feel bad for you. You have no hope and no purpise without a deity. Thats more sad. Some people can be happy, fullfilled and live great lives without believing in something that boils down to magic.
Yes, my life is very empty ...but the price I must pay to avoid eternity with a bunch of no it all Aplogiticist.
you're living the same life you're just delusional
On the contrary, my life has been far better since I lost my belief. I no longer have people telling me I am sick so they can offer me a cure, for one. No more fear of death/hell either. No more forcing myself to believe lies. etc.
Now, instead of pretending to have purpose, I need to create my own. Its great.
This is so funny to watch bro is speed running logical fallacies 😂😂😂
Making such a short video is imprudent. The arguments he describes are far too complex and nuanced to be explained in 2 minutes.
How marvelous that there is proof of a Magic Unicorn who created a septillion stars, designed the human brain, and has a Master Plan for our entire existence, in spite of being strangely unable to stop the wars, or feed the starving children in the 14 billion years since the universe began. Has this amazing proof been submitted to scholarly journals and scientific publications for peer review? Has the Nobel Prize been announced?
Thank you, Fr. Casey Cole
This is right up there with “Look at the trees!“
Same old tired, worn out and debunked arguments... and not one iota of proof.
For the purposes of this argument, I will accept the premise that there must be **A** being that created the universe. Prove that it was your particular being. Please avoid any circular reasoning such as "the bible says it's true, which we accept as true because the bible says so"
And 100 years ago, everyone “knew” that the world was flat. >:D
100 years ago not a single person thought the world was flat. In fact, 2000 years ago no one thought the world was flat. Flat earthers are a modern idea.
So, in summary: these aren't convincing, or logically coherent arguments. They are just crutches to reinforce your confirmation bias.
Exactly
I just got out of a philosophy of religion class where we were debating the existence of God, feeling frustrated - and this was the first thing I saw. Deo gratias!
You're telling me that stuff like "cosmological argument" here,was not mentioned and explained to your satisfaction as an example of bad reasoning?
@@thinboxdictator6720 hope they didn't pay to much for that class XD
I would have assumed that any proper philosophy course would have ripped these arguments to shreds... must have been heavily leaning towards belief in god bias.
@@timeshark8727 well no they might remain pretty netural about such things.
If you thought that was a good argument for your god you need to turn around and go right back into that philosophy class! Such bad epistemology! What if it were a Muslim video? Or an atheist one? You would believe those? No. This is confirmation bias.
Not knowing what happened before the beginning of your or our understanding isn't proof of God. This is insane.
I think that there are thousand of reason excist why there must be a creator of this universe. God is the mastermind between everything we can see and experience on earth.
If there was even a single discovery showing a god was real, it would be bigger news than Covid-19 and REPORTED ON as such.
If a discovery was made that actually showed the 'Christian God' was real, it would be huge, life changing news! Especially to the Billions of non-Christians! That one discovery would be the top story on every news outlet for months!
Yet not a single discovery showing your god is real has been REPORTED ON. Zero.
_How do you explain that?_
With all due respect, this is a waste of breath, word salad, click bait. Of course there is no proof of god, and it doesn’t matter- That is the reason why religion is called faith.
The religious no longer have faith. They have received too much truth.
Respectfully, I disagree, and I think it might be because you have misunderstood the point. Please, if you haven't, listen to the final paragraph of the video (which is always where the main point will be made.) In it I say that it's not so much about proving to non-believers beyond a doubt, but rather giving logic and coherence to those who already believe. The former is likely not worth our time, but the latter is imperative.
@@BreakingInTheHabit What you said was your opinion. Keep that in mind.
I assume you are intelligent @@BreakingInTheHabit so why your knowingly lie in this presentation ... each of your assertions is logically flawed. Eg, the watchmaker hypothesis. The eye is far more complex and refined than any watch. And we can observe that this has evolved independently 4 times, and amazingly devolved in two cases. But more this is a false correlation: while have millions of watches where we can identify the make there is not a solitary case, he argues of a twig having a designer, let alone a universe ... the exitance of watches cannot be used to infer that our universe has been created by an intelligent designer in the same way that a watch has.
When I teach: I present leaners with a range of ideas including ones I don't like... be dead easy to include the retort. That would still not disprove a God.
Regardless, folk have a human right to practice whatever faith they wish and raise their family as they choose.
That is Enough!
@@russellmiles2861 He couldn't include any retorts, he started the video saying atheists aren't even aware of any of this stuff.
This is one of the worst, weakest collections of arguments for a god I’ve ever seen. Genuinely.
It is an accurate, if not condensed, recanting of most of the a priori arguments for a god ever made. The fact that they are so weak is why atheism is such a strong position: atheism lives and dies on the inability of theists to prove their god(s), and the fact that even the best arguments are weak ones is ongoing demonstration that atheism is a belief that is more parsimonious with logical coherence than theism.
@V0idFace What are some of the stronger ones you've heard?
@@darkdrow66 that’s like asking “what is the best flavor of sh*t you’ve had?”
@@V0idFace There can be weaker and stronger arguments in favour of a proposition that is false. You said it yourself by saying these ones are weak, so I'm curious what stronger ones you've heard.
@V0idFace Sounds like you already had your mind made up before clicking on this video. Probably best to put this topic behind you and move on with your life. Stop wasting your own time.
Father Casey is it a sin to trie to give God a image like a painting of Our heavenly father ?
According to the Catechism 2502:
Sacred art is true and beautiful when its form corresponds to its particular vocation: evoking and glorifying, in faith and adoration, the transcendent mystery of God - the surpassing invisible beauty of truth and love visible in Christ, who "reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature," in whom "the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily." This spiritual beauty of God is reflected in the most holy Virgin Mother of God, the angels, and saints. Genuine sacred art draws man to adoration, to prayer, and to the love of God, Creator and Savior, the Holy One and Sanctifier.
1159-1162 of the CCC also promotes holy images and iconography when celebrating the liturgy.
@@JuanMPalacioYeah but we cant se The body of God because he dosen't have a face so dose giveing God an image like a beard a sin
@@JuanMPalacio so when it mentions The Chatolic church supporting holy figurures as in images that mean giveing God like a beard or eyes isin't as in or i'm wrong?
@@DavidelCientificoLoco I don’t think the Catholic Church considers it sinful to make artwork of God the Father if it is respectful.
The Church has a lot of classic “white-haired man with a beard” paintings. For example, one of the best known paintings in the Vatican is “The Creation of Adam” by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. It portrays the Father and Adam reaching out at each other.
These only point at some kind of origin, some event or expression of energy. It can't prove the god of any religion or philosophy. However...there is one: Personal, transcendent experience. I had one such event. It went against everything I had up until that time. It went beyond my beliefs, expectations, doubts and all of the notions I'd heard or read. "Something" touched me, made me whole, removed my deepest doubts. And the amazing thing, the proof, is that I didn't ask for it. There's no chance I'd psyched myself out. With NO EXPECTATION, it moved through me. It claimed no religion or belief or doctrine. It touched me with healing love and reassurance. Out of the blue. Now maybe there's some fundamentalist out there who thinks I was touched by the devil. Well, here's my reaction: You weren't there. I was.
The fact that the Universe existes,proves God's existence,too.
If we deny the existence of God,we deny the existence of everything.
I see the universe every day. I don't see God
@@Oliver_without_a_twistTo not see Him doesn't mean that He doesn't exist.
@@gabrielvalerio3992 but it means that your argument is not a argument at all
Dragons and Pegasus do not exist. So God cannot exist, since it would be expected that God would have created such marvelous creatures instead of cancer cells.
The existence of a Universe proves there is no god
According to St Thomas Aquinas a God that which no greater can be imagined
St Thomas Aquinas also asserts
Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist; but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout Christian. They often discussed their views concerning God, as their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving in proper order around this were small balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These bails were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony when turned by a crank.
One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move with their relative speeds in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed,
"My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?"
Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, "Nobody!"
Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?"
Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is."
Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much larger system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a design and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"
Love it!
Oh did the other scientist, who apparently has no name, turn to Newton and say "because I've seen mechanical toys being built by humans, have you seen a stellar body shop creating a sun in front of your eyes?"
@@WolfA4 I like that! My comment was a copy-and-paste from an article I read. I am pretty sure it was an allegory, because I could find no evidence of who this 'other scientist' was either. I agree more with your comments. It's always problematic for me when we (humans) resort to declaring something a 'miracle' merely because we lack the knowledge to understand. In centuries past, we would have declared it all 'sorcery' (such as the upcoming solar eclipse). It's OK to say 'We don't know ... yet.'
How are we to pray the lent fast
The friars four arguments have been debunked long ago, do the research.
None of these arguments stands up to even a cursory analysis. You have to start by believing in god to consider these “proofs”. ( i.e. they’re really post-hoc rationalizations, not proofs).
The third one. Teleological argument is my thought. That if you look at everything. As small and complex as an atom to heck where the planets are perfectly place with ours being perfectly placed to sustain life itself is proof.
I wonder if this is why a lot of folks like the idea of the multiverse so much, as it's an easy out. With that, one can simply reduce the argument down to the survivor fallacy. I.e., we just happen to live in the one universe, of many, where things worked out this way, where we can even ask the question in the first place. If we are only one of infinite universes, this outcome is simply a matter of inevitability. But if there really is only one universe, let's just say it's pretty weird!
@Descriptor413 Personally........ I leave the whole multi verse thing to DC and Marvel comic books lol. Mainly cause of how, it's like the whole cartoon bear thing of thinking one thing was/is another. The Mandella Effect where folks say (I feel at times jokingly) that we're in another universe.
Another logically flawed hypothesis
@@Descriptor413 Even in a single universe, though, the vast number of planets, stars, galaxies etc. out there over the course of billions and billions of years would seem to provide many chances for life to develop.
@@BardicLiving Oh, for certain. But the teleological argument also applies to a number of physical constants which, if slightly different, would make complex life impossible throughout the universe.
Naturally, that's still not a hard proof, as the particular configuration of the universe may simply be a foregone conclusion of its existence to begin with, but it's still interesting.
I’ve been blessed with proof. Praying for all those who need it too.
Ok, I’ll ask. What’s your proof?
In a season of great doubt, I used the Lord's name in vain and requested evidence of His existence. A few moments later, I heard what I believe to be angels singing. I'd never heard anything like it before and I've never heard anything like it since.@@vermontmike9800
Can you elaborate on this proof for all of us non-believers?
Are you going to tell us what this "proof" is?
@@OGmemegenerator i don’t think the proof I was given would pass the skeptical tests. But here goes. Many years ago, after questioning the existence of God and saying something to the effect of “I would believe if I had proof” in a heated argument with a Christian, I received a private revelation. I heard Angles sing. It was like nothing I had heard before or since.
I can’t reproduce this miracle, I can only attest to it. I don’t think this will change your mind and don’t care to argue with you or anyone. And I have no interest in converting you-I don’t think evangelization of this kind works in the modern age. But I will never forget what I saw that day.
Using philosophical arguments to prove that something exists in reality is just silly. "Does X exist in reality?" is not a philosophical question. To answer that question, you need evidence. Philosophical arguments are not evidence.
The statement “ …..because God made it this way!” Brings to mind what my mother would say when I questioned her orders she replied “ because I said so “. And I cheerfully accepted this. “. Not that my mother was God. It was just substantial enough reason for me. Why keep questioning God when our minds or far the finite to understand God completely but understanding the INFINITE: GOD and accepting God as all knowing Omnipresent Omnipotent living loving God. Our creator.
I do not question God, I question people who say that there is a God, and they are all severely lacking.
Using terrible, debunked arguments doesn't proved god. It just shows theists like you still have nothing.
I recently disagreed with you, but I still love your channel, it's so nice to see a young man who has devoted his life to God, especially in these crazy times, especially one who is so well spoken
A flaw in deducing the existence of god from philosophical consideration is that those considerations can only produce hypotheses.
The way to verify the certainty of a hypothesis with respect to reality is to confront it with data from that reality.
Hypotheses will always be assumptions.
To be fair, without infinite data, any conjector still leaves room for doubt. We only allow hypotheses to elevate beyond that stage based on the assumption that reality is absolutely consistent, which itself is technically an unprovable hypothesis. A very likely one, to be sure, with lots of observation to back it up, but still not irrefutable.
@@Descriptor413 A little data is not the same as no data.
Either god is an absolute truth or god is just a possibility.
One does not go around the world evangelizing just one more possibility.
One cannot have an entire history of massacring infidels based on just one possibility.
One does not try to create laws based on religious beliefs that are only a possibility and then impose them on those who do not see the relevance of something that is only a possibility.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd I mean, you say that like it's not also true for pretty much any endeavor. Hard physics is one thing, where you can set up recurrent testible systems and get a pretty solid answer every time. But the applicability of that is incredibly limited due to a combination of complex system behavior and the potential for non-deterministic behavior (which, to be fair, is itself unproven so far).
We humans have faith in a lot of things, even beyond religion, because there's a lot of things that you can't empirically prove, merely hint at. It's why we give the soft sciences such a hard time, after all, but why they are still necessary.
Economics systems, ideologies, philosophies, sociological frameworks. All things that people also evangelize, legalize, and even murder over. Things that are necessarily unprovable either because they systems they encompass are too complex to give hard analytical proofs for, or for which free will makes inherently unpredictable. But these are still things to believe in. Things that you have to believe in at some point, because to do otherwise is to complete check out of life. They all have some vague evidence to suggest they work. Metrics to work off of. Logical assumptions and outputs. But not inherently provable outside of their own first assumptions. But that doesn't discount or discredit them on its face.
Yes, philosophies are always going to be assumptions. But even the hardest of sciences still has its own underlying assumptions. And the fact is, empirical scientific inquiry is incredibly limited. Other modes of thought still have their place. It's a necessary part of trying to figure out creation.
To me the first argument makes the most logical sense. The other arguments are easier to believe if you already agree that there is a god. We are working with a set of 1. While it is valid to observe the seemingly ordered nature of reality and attribute it to god, it would also be valid to point out that we don’t know what potential other species of intelligent life would find moral, maybe our morality is underpinned my the nature of scarcity. Also we don’t know what all the other permutations of the universe would be like if we altered its structure and laws. If the speed of light was slightly faster or gravitational force more present in respect to the other forces, we cannot imagine the results. That’s why I think infinite regression is the hardest devil to advocate for. You can theorize all day but you still have the question why hanging over it all. Why something rather than nothing. The answer is that the start was set in motion by something not confined by our nature of reality. God.
The usual = Can't explain how it is... so there MUST be a god. Also, how convenient that said god is the one you were born into.
Nothing more than the God of the Gaps and the Argument from Ignorance. So much for "Proof god exists".
For me, the biggest surprise newly coming to faith was the realisation that I did not need to prove to myself that God exists. It was the concept of there being no god was what made no sense.
Oh. That makes total sense. Now that I think about it, if I try to conceptualise the beginning of time I don't even know how time would be created.
But for some reason a part of me doesn't want to believe in God for absolutely no reason
@@DoTheFlopp Good attitude. You should not simply believe in God. In fact you should not tell anyone that you believe in god unless circumstances apply. God is the Infinite. God is not the Good or the Evil. God exists Beyond, as it studied by Laws and Order and Change. Following God requires Active action not passive belief. It's about the Hero's Journey. Even the Atheist argument is still following God, since it is on the upwards.
In order for a creation to manifest, the previous occuring event deducting further indication must preserve its manipulative gusto.
What proof does a creature requires to be convinced he was created? The existence of the person asking for a proof is more than enough proof if the person is still able to reason correctly.
If as you say: "god is by his very nature Perfect", then we wouldn't exist.
Honestly, take a step back and think about a Truly Perfect and Flawless being. It would want = Nothing. it would need = Nothing. Why? Because it is Perfect and Truly Flawless. Think about that.
If that being were real, we would not exist. Why would such a being make us? Some say to have a "relationship" with us. So he did Lack something. If one lacks anything, it is not Perfect or Complete.
Besides all that, going by what he himself called Flaws and Sin, the "god" of the bibles is FAR from Perfect and Flawless.
The very last part of this post was its best! When I was in the seminary, at the end of my priest-professor ‘s statement, “ There you have the five proof for God’s existence”, I asked him what if I met someone who just denied the actual existence of God. After all, that would have been a normal question brought up by someone who didn’t believe. His response was “you ask too many questions”. Your tieing up the way the strings of the REASONABLENESS of belief would have been a far better response! To wonder and ask questions of things is important. Otherwise your act of faith would be only an act of scientific thought.
Every single day I become more grateful that I left Catholicism for Atheism
Believe you made a mistake and you will regret it...
@@dessieeditss nah
"... there's no way that all of this is the result of mere randomness."
Correct. When you throw sodium and chloride together, you get table salt. Nothing random about it, it's just how the world works.
Hi Fr Casey, I appreciate you a lot, you are such a nice person, charming and intelligent. I love your name Casey 🥺 it sounds so tender on you, because you are tender ^.^
Proof would be a compromise to faith. If everyone knew god was real, it would be just a matter of doing right and wrong as if you were following a law.
I heard the explanation of God being outside of space, time and matter explained this way. The inventor of plastic could not have been made of plastic so the inventor of matter cannot be made of matter. The inventor of plastic had to exist before plastic in order to invent it so to did the inventor of matter need to exist before all matter came into being,
Epic
To be fair, there's nothing saying that plastic couldn't happen naturally. It's just highly unlikely. Sorta like that natural nuclear reactor they found in a uranium mine in Africa, where the ores just happened to be perfectly arranged to allow continuous fission.
The point is that Plastic was invented by someone and that person existed before plastic and could be made out of anything except plastic.
@@gtaliente Why would we assume though, in a vacuum, that plastic had an inventor?
Another way I like to look at it is, when God speaks to Moses, He just says He is. He doesn't define Himself by who He is, what He is, or how He is; He just is, and I think that goes against our limited understanding of existence in general.
1) Tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe
2) Shroud of Turin
3) Apparitions at Zeitoun Egypt
4) Eucharistic miracle at Legnica Poland
... these are just some of many miracles that God has given man to prove He exists.
What they are proof of is that someone in the year 2024 can be duped by things that were discovered to be hoaxes decades ago.
Those claims prove nothing.
If there was even a _single_ discovery showing a god was real, it would be bigger news than Covid-19 and REPORTED ON as such.
If a discovery was made that _actually showed_ the 'Christian God' was real, it would be huge, life changing news! Especially to the Billions of non-Christians! That one discovery would be the top story on every news outlet for months!
Yet not a single discovery showing your god is real has been REPORTED ON. Zero.
_How do you explain that?_
Do you ever doubt God and feel like he is forsaken you? As a veterans, being in combat I question God and why things happened the way it is.
When discussing creation I find it amusing that some individuals have no problem accepting spontaneous creation from nothing without cause while calling intelligent design fantasy.
🕊️
Perhaps it is because we can observe something coming from nothing.
But to be obtuse: you have a choice of believing in a god or not; before that there is no state of belief-and after an expression on belief. You might call this Free Will. But it is something from nothing. Unless you feel your most sacred belief, nothing much.
@@russellmiles2861
I am fairly literate on cosmology, I don’t think we have witnessed the void. That is, the creation of something from nothing.
Please correct me if I am incorrect.
There is God or there isn’t. My belief will not change that. An emotional response comes from something, it is a reaction to something.
🕊️
I don't understand what's amusing to you. An atheistic account of the existence of the universe is plausible, and so is an atheistic account of design/non-design. I'm a theist too, but I have trouble piecing together your criticism of these theories.
@@No_Comply
It is an individual’s ability to discount one as fantasy while believing in the second as fact that I find amusing.
It isn’t the theory itself.
I hope this helps explain my OP.
I appreciate the reply.
🕊️
@@DavidCodyPeppers. I guess I considering particle physics, where antimatter and matter particles pop into existence destroying each other although leaving a residual - in black holes refer to as Hawkins radiation. I gather this seems to have no cause and effect. But as you would be aware: what was considered a vacuum state only a few generations back - contains massive amounts of energy. So there may be a cause to what we can observe at particle level.
Regardless, this does not preclude there may be a god ... I am more suggesting one can't prove such by logic or scientific observation. I may be wrong. I appreciate the conversation.
God of the gaps ...
Nobody knows what causes lightning ⚡🌩️
So there must be a god.
Zeus.
The cosmological argument is the only one that I find actually challenging. However, I believe that the argument only stablishes that their must be a first uncaused cause... not that the uncaused cause has to be god. Besides, you could argue, why doesn't god have a cause? I can't think of a reason why we couldn't stop the regression a little before getting to god (maybe the universe itself is the uncaused cause) or after god (something else that caused god to exist)
If something caused God then that would be God.
Me and my cat are atheists. My dog is a confused theist cuz he thinks I'm a god. No reasoning with him, so me and my cat just pity him 😞
There is also mathematical proof of God, by Kurt Goedel. However, such thoughts don't convince many people. I like Schleiermacher: "Religion is our feeling for the eternal"
Goedel's proof is actually Anselm's proof expressed in formal logic, the only difference being that Anselm is talking about the greatest being, while Goedel is talking about the greatest good. Both suffer from the lack of definition of what greatest being or greatest good mean.
@@piotr.ziolo. Yes, it s not easy to grasp the Eternal
Both Anselm and Goedel are ultimately begging the question. Anselm's argument, more properly expressed, would not look like this:
[anselm's agrument for god]
But rather like this:
If a god exists, then [Anselm's rgument for god]
He doesn't prove that god exists. He merely point out that IF a god exists, then his argument must be true.
The odds of an watch coming to existence by randomness... This is the most simplest proof and most powerful proof of god's existence
Oh dear oh dear, the old watchmaker "argument"? Who says the universe operates on pure randomness? Order doesn;t require a directing mind.
@@richardgregory3684 Yes, order does require directing mind. Default position of world is Randomness keeps increasing.
@@anisursamsung _Yes, order does require directing mind_
It really doesn't. Tip a pint of oil into a bucket of water. You will end up with an ordered separation of the two - for no other reason than the oil is less dense. Unless you think that god has a special team of angels assigned to doing it?
@@richardgregory3684 Yes. The example you just gave is the concept of entropy. Which is actually randomness.
Chris Langan has done a lot of interesting work on this topic as well.
"4:00 - If god is that which nothing greater can be thought, then god must be omnipresent, all loving, and sufficient." Say what now? I'm going to go with, no. Another thing, maybe stop mentioning " logic" in ANY argument for god, as there is NONE.
we live on a planet where feeling creatures eat eachother. no god.
Why would an all knowing, all powerful and all good God have any need or desire to create? What would be the point?
Because he is all good
Boredom
Please bump if "because he is all good" gets explained. I also don't understand
@@bariumselenided5152
I might build a house to live in.
God doesn't need a house.
I might create a painting to sell and earn some money.
God doesn't need money.
I might create a sculpture to win an award and receive praise.
God has no need of praise or awards.
I might write a novel just to see how good I could make it.
Anything God created would be perfect.
I might write a song to seek stardom and the admiration of others.
God doesn't need stardom or admiration.
I might try to make others happy.
Okay, why doesn't God make people happy?
@@bariumselenided5152 he created the heavens and the earth and saw that it was good. He created man in his image so that we may partake in the glory of his creation. We have mind; we have the capacity to create. And so, our relationship with our Lord is ever more apparent when we tend to our talents, and when we use our cognitive faculties to ponder about things. For those who are suffering, they can partake in Christ’s passion as to suffer with him and to know him better. God loves us all and his presence is always here - it is just felt less when we abandon him. He wants us to be holy so we can know him more and be his friend.
I wish I could use reason to evangelize but it is just frustrating that most people are not willing to hear what we have to say
It's that they can't. God's wrath abides on them, so they cannot even perceive it.
@@BKNeifert perhaps ... I mostly ask folk to name the 12 Diciples - they can rarely get past 4 or 5 and include John. They usually excuse themselves at being found they are so ignorant about their own sacred text . Equally a neighbour of my who stands on the street promoting Bible course is happy to chat about some of oddities and inconsistencies in the Bible. He is very charming. It depends on the day which of us prevails in Bible quiz.
@@russellmiles2861 John, Peter, Thaddeus Judas, James Son of Thunder, James The Lesser, Nathaniel Bartholomew, Simon the Zealot, Doubting Thomas, Matthew son of Alphaeus, Matthias (or Paul, depending on who you ask), Andrew, and Philip the Evangelist. Now all of those, except Andrew I did by memory, and while I was looking through the Bible, the Spirit told me to look up his name in Acts.
The sons of Jacob are Reuben, Isachar, Gad, Dan, Joseph (Manasseh and Ephraim), Judah, Benjamin, Naphtali, Zebulon, Simeon, Levi and Asher. Which I had all those remembered except Asher, which I recalled by looking at Revelation.
@@BKNeifert I commend your effort ... I only met one person who confidently recited them all - they were a Methodist ministers working at a school. They also were able to give the variants of names such as Judas not Judas Iscariot is also refered to as Thaddeus - I remember that name as it was the Chief of Controls first name. Apparently he was coy about revealing such to Max... Anyway that is a good memory aid
With the 12 Tribes as I am sure you know there is a lack of clarity. While Joseph son's are repeatedly refered to as half tribes. They are also referred to Tribes in their own right along with Levi in one passage. Another passage states that Jacob adopted them: so they are both sons and grandsons. The inference being that the relationship with Jacob denotes entitlement to land, not to Joseph - who is mentioned as having others wives and children who aren't entitled to land - they don't even have names given. Oh, Manassas is also refered to as having land split by a river with two leaders - one on each side. So comprising two half tribes not half on one tribe.
Thus, one can read as 12 Tribes as Hebrew culture would have it. But may be also seen as 13.
This clearly has no importance to scriptural understanding as just a piece of pedantry.
Then again, Revelation counts the Tribes differently and includes Levi so giving rise to speculation as to what the sons of Jospeh may have done to be left out. The postulation is they failed to drive out the Cannites and instead lived among them and married between each other. To our modern ears, not engaging in ethnic cleansing seems of odd sin.
I reckon you should create a quiz for as to check our studies
@@russellmiles2861 That's because Levi didn't have a portion of the Land, but were dispersed among the twelve tribes to do the priestly duties.
Hi I wanted to ask you something about what you said in a video about homosexuality you said "Taking a stance against homosexual
00:07:25.480 actions may be our biblical responsibility, but judging, condemning, or casting out people
00:07:31.400 simply for how they are created… couldn’t be further from the true teaching of the Bible." did you mean that homosexuals were created like that by God ?
user:
Everyone is created in the image of God, aren't we?
Not the right place to take this theme here. Go back to the video in question and ask there. There are a lot of commenters there too.
@@therealong Yes but when adam was made he wasnt homosexual so this means that yes everyone is created in image of God but not homosexual like this friar says because then its clearly fault of God for creating someone in a wrong way and then calling him sinner.
@@therealongUnfortunately, the video they're referring to no longer has comments enabled, so...
@@Laura-ef3mm
Really? But are the old comments still there?
@@therealong yeah, not only you can't comment anymore, but you can't see the older ones neither 😶