Arguments for God's Existence - Dr Peter Kreeft
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- 1. Argument from Design (0:40)
2. Argument from First Cause (8:04)
3. Argument from Conscience (18:20)
4. Argument from Desire (28:47)
5. Pascal's Wager (34:05)
www.peterkreeft...
This is a FANTASTIC intro to Thomistic ideology for all those wanting to study Aquinas!
Gratias Deo!
It's interesting to me that so many atheists watch/listen to these videos. I often wonder why. I also wonder why they are so vocal in comments.
Chris J I'd argue that it is the nature of many atheists to question everything more than bekievers, to confirm what they know to be true or be ready to be proven wrong. I typed "arguments for god" in my youtube search simply because I find it important to step out of my echo chamber which is tough to do on youtube as everything is presented to you based on what you generally watch. Cognitive dissonance also scares me hence my searching for arguments from time to time opposite of my ideas and truths. While I don't generally comment I do feel frustrated after wasting time hearing the same arguments over and over. Maybe that is why many atheists comment, frustration. I as an "atheist" am always ready to change what I know or think to be true. Imo the more digging done on the topic of god, at least The Abrahamic god(s), the tougher it is to believe and eventually the search must stop.
jaypell22 Ultimately, then you must concede that something came from nothing. Period. With that, I'd be frustrated also.
@@gambit00 I was an atheist for many years. 2 months ago. I was very depressed, and seriously tired of living. One morning I was walking my dog. I looked to the sky and I said to myself “I want to be with God.” I’m 42 and in all my life I’ve never felt such bliss. Instantly my heart was surrounded by a swirling energy, and it felt like it was being physically hugged by something, but it felt so good. My depression gone. My resentment and anger gone. That voice that says “I’ll be happy when” is no more. I had watery eyes for at least 10 minutes. and for about 2 weeks my heart felt like a cold glowing fire. God exists. I don’t just believe. I know. It is foolish not too. Atheists don’t find God because he not found in the selfish pride to satisfy our need to be independently in control.
@@ateam388 --Me too, I was very lukewarm most of my life and struggled with anxiety and near borderline depression, I could not make myself happy no matter what I did, no matter who I was with.... I remember thoughts pressuring me to leave the Catholic church, but I knew that if I did, I'd have no hope left and nothing to believe in. So I stayed and now I feel so on fire for God.
@@RumorHazi But your god fantasy created everything from nothing according to your irrational belief while coming from nothing. How is that satisfying?
Good to hear this. Thanks for the upload.
Perfect responses to all questions. Amazing!
Very strong and profound arguments. I love Dr. Kreeft! :)
WOW! Rob! That was profound!
"Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for the radio audience". Yes a cut paste from converapedia because it is such a beacon of accurate information.
So if you don't fully believe in the whats stated in the bible, then how do you believe any of it? How do you distinguish what is true and whats not, whats real and whats myth?
Yes because pointing at others who do evil things makes it better
🤔 hmmm
I assume you pointed this at me, but i didn't state any of that. Maybe you should use the reply button instead of just posting comments.
In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council solemnly proclaimed:
“Firmly we believe and we confess simply that the true God […] by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal […]” (DZ 428)
The Provincial Council of Cologne (1860) made the following pronouncement one year after the appearance of Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species” (1859):
“Our first parents were formed immediately by God. Therefore we declare that the opinion of those who do not fear to assert that this human being, man as regards his body, emerged finally from the spontaneous continuous change of imperfect nature to the more perfect, is clearly opposed to Sacred Scripture and to the Faith.”
Nine years later, the First Vatican Council (1869-1870), quoting the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), taught the following:
“This sole true God ‘immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing, spiritual and corporeal’ […]” (DZ 1783)
The accompanying anathema reads as follows:
“If anyone does not confess that the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing […] let him be anathema.” (DZ 1805)
i enjoyed this :)
So how do Christians refer to the bible 'The Word of God'. "The Bible is not the Christian religion" really, it appears to be very central to the Christian religion. So again How do you distinguish what is true and whats not, whats real and whats myth?
Ok i found the text you are talking about. But it is published on "Big Questions Online". You say that i shouldn't listen to "quack popularists" so where is this published other than this, on a pro religious website? Is it in nature? Is this the full text? Has it been reviewed?
Thanks!
As i don't understand, and can't find any papers to read i'll take your word for it with skepticism and i keep digging.
What is the connection between QM and the Yahweh. Where and how is that jump made?
What flavor of christian are you?
Also, Mr. Kreeft gave several examples of design: SOS on a desert island beach, a stone hut on the same island, a moon rocket, a painting in an antique store, Hamlet, the human brain, a computer in an airplane, the anthropic principle, and evolution.
But there is an example of design he chose to avoid -- the trinitarian god. The trinitarian god has a structure: a single god consisting of three persons, each of whom possesses amazing qualities. I think such a being has the appearance of design.
You need to stop including islam in your comments. It is obvious you do not know islam. Stick with what you know - Christianity.
No you guess wrong, i wrote these comments.
"Do you believe that you're the first one to make these objections?" no i don't, people much smarter than me have articulated them better.
"You think clear, concise intelligent answers haven't been available..." Of course they have, but the majority still believes a deity with no evidence, teach there kids and try to alter laws to suit those beliefs
"the name 'Big Bang' originated from atheist mocking" really, he stated that it was not to mock but a visual description. Also i don't think atheists picked a side. The side was based on steady state vs BB, i assume there were theists and atheists on both sides of the argument.
"No, the conception of God in Islam is counter-intuitive" why is that, because you were raised as a Christian and not a Muslim?
As for that article, i cant find it on PubMed or Google scholar, were was it published?
The god of Islam makes no sense from a philosophical/metaphysical standpoint. Atheists don't engage with such things, you operate on a much simpler plane while sitting on your self-made pedestal of assumed intellectual superiority that is built on nothing more than appeals to mainstream secular consensus and authority. This is why you hit a stumbling block with arguments like TAG.
"I know for sure that there was absolutely nothing contained in material reality" How do you know that, what evidence do you have for that position. I understand that the space and time we live is from the BB, but what evidence do you have for there being nothing before it. How do you have this info when the best of the best scientists would never make such a claim.
Who designed the designer? Where did he learn about design from, who and how was he created?
An Ultimate Reality doesn't need an explanation or "design". You obviously didn't listen to the presentation. I don't understand how people can claim to "think outside the box", but can't conceive a "Being" (BTW, which is what He calls Himself; "I AM", the ULTIMATE "TO BE") that IS outside OUR box. I suggest you go to the upcoming movie "The Principle" when it comes out in September. It should prove to be interesting. It's already created a mini shit-storm in the media.
When God was totally isolated not having created anything and totally supernatural he would have to be perfect since to be imperfect implies there was something to lack in the first place.
You have made a number of incorrect statements about islam. islam does not teach peace. it teaches submission. islam is not an Abrahamic religion. In order to be an Abrahamic religion, you must believe in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, islam does not.
And several others.
Islam does believe in the Old Testament, don't pretend you know Islam
This is my issue with Dr Kreeft. Despite his wisdom he buys into the "Religion of Peace" BS and the "its the same God" BS pushed by those who promote the false Gospel of ecumenism
Again lets resort to abuse, because its the christian thing to do.
When did i mention Scrodinger's equation? Publishing on a pro religious is not the same as publishing in a recognized journal. "has the citations to the papers" so what, that does not make it peer reviewed.
I am asking if the papers that you are using for evidence of your position have been peer reviewed in a recognized journal.
I guess i should explain the failures then. For design, he's starts by making the premise that the universe is designed, which is an assumption. The rest of his dribble is analogy with no facts. He promotes no evidence of design of the universe.
First Cause: He starts and i quote "nothing just is". Except god, whats his first cause? If you believe that he doesn't need one, then why does that not apply to the universe? You can't test either, it is an assumption not based on evidence.
Ok lets get some clear, you believe in a deity? That deity is the one from the bible? Otherwise please clear it up.
Im sure if asked most christian how important the bible they would answer very differently to you. "very central to the Christian religion." No, not really" are you claiming the bible is of no need?
"correlations occur between what is referred to as 'souls' and matter" i would love to read about that. What peer reviewed article states this correlation?
I see another insult, generally insults come from emotional reactions. Considering you have already made 4 reply's it appears that you do have time.
Its funny if you do a deeper search of Nature you will Lemaitre starting publishing there in 1931. When searching for big bang it lands in the 60's, but searching for primeval atom we are back to the 30's.
The paper "The Beginning of the Universe" by Lemaitre was published in 1951.
Maybe you should search a bit harder before making black and white statements. I can not find any reference to what your saying, as if you just made it up.
Argument from Desire: Nothing he says has any substance.
"A first state of the Universe cannot have a scientific explanation" does the universe require a first state? Do you know what was before the big bang? Is it possible they was a universe there?
So how do you know "My deity revealed himself among people"? What evidence do you have to make this statement?
So you know for sure that there was nothing before the big bang. Wow you should publish these finding and get your noble prize.
Yes i did fall from the skeptic tree, better than falling out of the gullible tree
As it did not show on Google, then i thought i'd try there. You are full of insults though, it is not very christian of you. It is funny how you insult, but you do not give a direction of the journal that it was published in.
There's a lot of fanatacism here, like "infinite injustice" = not believing if God exists.
I would say torturing small children is worse than nonbelief, hopefully in the eyes of any just God, yet Kreeft often elides nonbelief into the worst sort of sin.
Canonically speaking unbelief is not a sin. The Church to my knowledge (except during the Inquisition) has never held it was.
While I admire facets of Kreeft's work, what I find most prohibitive is his insistence that there is no such thing as an atheist or agnostic operating in good faith -- that it all must come down to a secret sexual hedonism or debauchery of some sort; that the problems of theodicy or the morality of Hell or the physics of miracles mightn't occupy serious minds in objecting to Christianity's premises without seeking merely to live a life of dilatory license...
As if Pascal's wager has ever been made soul-deep by a serious mind who wasn't aware he or she were trying to fool themselves away from their best approximation of existential truth.
+Spiritual Politics What makes Kreeft's sanctimonious bigotry even more ironically disgusting is that he pretends to be a philosopher, and no invested religious ideologue can be anything but an apologist poseur among the ranks of intellectually honest philosophers.
@@lawrenceharold8599
I was taking him more seriously as a thoughtful Catholic apologist engaged with modernity until I came upon his Angels and Demons lecture, in which he goes into baroque complexity about a subject he can hardly know the slightest about.
An adult man of decent intellect reduced to talking about something like hobbits, dwarves, elves, and the like as if they were all obviously existent and he could taxonomize their various modes of love.
But his take on Hell, always in the background, was better explained by his being a convert. The en passant comment that having a hot poker up one's behind for all eternity would be less bad that feeling the utter absence of God struck me as deranged, given atheists feel this utter absence every day.
But of course he means on dying the atheist will discover a new meaning to "utter absence" -- that itself however would be unethical for any just God to do.
@@spiritualpolitics8205 And yet such irrational nonsense is required of a devout Catholic apologist. Or at best, they retreat into "mystery" and trust that their god fantasy has a good reason for all which is inexplicable if doctrine is subjected to rational and moral scrutiny.
@@lawrenceharold8599
Yeah I'm fine with the Paglia versus the Hitchens view of religion, as I do think it does a lot more good than Hitch did.
And there is a strain of Catholic apologetics that more genially engages with nonbelievers without the brimstone, and with far more respect for doubt (including the lifelong sort). The C Church is a far bigger theological boat than say Evangelicalism in its tolerance for some heterodoxy.
Where I make common cause with Kreeft is against postmodernism and the wicked liberation theology in the Church which is full of Marxism (as is this pope). He's right about the crazy left.
It's just that he starts spouting fundamentalist nonsense at the drop of a pin. There is not the sense of a very sophisticated engagement with people outside the church, which I tend to overhear him saying basically "If you've heard the teachings and don't believe, you're in bad existential faith."
@@spiritualpolitics8205 Sorry, I can't ride with the apocalyptic terror over the Marxist/postmodern/CRT/transchaos boogieman.
Yes because "outward expansion of dense matter out of non-being" is such a catchie term. I not arguing if it was meant to be derogatory or not, just that hoyle stated.
Any who picking on hoyle, who disagreed with evolution and earth based abiogensis must of been a stubborn man. Even to his death BB was not possible in his eyes.
Painting that all atheists of the 30's disagreed with the BB is a massive claim, that you can not back up.
The airtight mathematical and information-theory challenges to evolution 🐜🐟🐁🐒🙋🏻♂️🧬 strengthen this.
As does the fact that all of the many cosmological physicists of note (except one) acknowledge the universe🌌 💫 🌎 is on a knife-edge of apparent fine-tuning and it begs explanation.
+I B Person There are no such imaginary "airtight" challenges; there is only desperate, inferential, non-scientific denialism produced by the Discovery Institute and its revolting ilk.
The quite probably inexplicable can do all the begging it wants. The hilarious irony of the fine-tuning argument is that everything about the universe indicates that the universe is predominantly hostile to human life and that life seems to be incidental rather than a teleological eventuality.
@@lawrenceharold8599 People cling to, and enforce the lie of evidence so dogmatically and unscientifically it’s just laughable. Ive never seen a mathematician approach the subject without concluding it’s impossible, from the great Von Neuman through the MIT information theory profs at the 1967 Wistar conference to Berkowitz to John Lennox, and a dozen others. Theyve used pure information theory, population genetics, bioinformatics, and protein space mapping. Always the same answer: this is stupidly impossible. Or mito dna and the fact that no mammal has ever been found that had less germline mutations than its parents. Creatures run down not up.
Even finding soft tissue in dinosaur fossils was not enough, then even collagen, and now even dna. There is NO WAY dna lasted 100,000 years or more.
Again i understand that you are stating that there is a Deity that created the universe. Cool i understand, i cannot deny it.
But how do you move from that Deity to the God of the bible?
So i watched the ' 'how free will works.' clip, but how doed it prove any god, let alone Yahweh which ill assume you believe in. I don't really think that something that cannot be tested or observed or has any evidence falls into science. It really sounds like 'the secret'.
I do not under stand QM, crazy stuff happens. But i do not think that it helps with a proof of any god. Does any holy book, explain the higs, or wave function, or age/size of the universe accurately?
Dhivarayak muhudhaa rakiya karannak visnu givisumaka nam ghandrava pavaa magaa samaga givisumaa thami magaa kathaa virayaa naagaingaa kathaa navi virayaa nagaingaa kathaa mata thibunaa naha virayaa nagaingaa kathaa vanuvan kaalaya naasthi kirima magin pruthuviyata pavathmak ko pruthuviyata pavathma illuva misaka viraya vapuranna avsya unaa naha viraya vapurannata mata avsyathaavayak naha
Cool where can i read "writings of the early Church fathers" , i searched for it and got all types of crazy stories like the Jesus the Rabbi story.
Why was the bible written, what gospels got in and which ones didn't.
"that passage in the Bible is a mythology" really, so what is myth and what is not? I never claimed, and never would that no deity exists.
The evidence for Yawhehs existence is different from the bible we can deduce that he does not, due to the errors which have been found by science.
Are you claiming that quantum mechanics is proof of a deity?
My objections are not to be interesting, they are cause thought.
You appear to have an emotional reaction to what i wrote, why is that?
Your "true historical models" are not what im finding, i find papers about the BB, i find records of it in nature, i don't find atheists in the streets denying it or records of it.
Which bible do you read?
"be seen in the light of christ" you made this statement, i was just mirroring. It appears that you forgot about your aunt sally
How and where did i the statement "morality is relativistic under atheism",
Holman christian standard bible
Or nkjv
Yes im sure that all atheists denied the BB till 1993, and they scoffed at theists that believed it.
You are so bold in your claims, im having doubts that you can back them up. Im sure there was some resistance to the BB, but it goes with any new, ground breaking research.
I assume you know the history of evolution, or let me guess, you don't think that's real.
So what you have been told is wrong, the evidence to the claim that Nature has been censoring BB is incorrect. Why would they publish any of Lemaitre's work if they were against what he was saying, if they were trying to silence his hypothesis.
If this claim of yours is incorrect, i wonder how many more are
Peter Kreeft's Argument from Design:
Major premiss: Where there is design, there must be a designer.
Minor premiss: Design throughout the universe exists.
Conclusion: There must be a universal designer.
The word "design" implies a designer. Mr. Kreeft has committed the fallacy of Begging the Question; i.e., circular reasoning. The conclusion is contained within the premisses.
Peter Kreeft, a Catholic philosopher who teaches at Boston College, has tried to deceive us.
Not at all, you seem happy to make claims that you cannot back up, and it does go against what your holy book says, just rationalize around that with its to be seen in the light of christ.
But my real point was that science is slow to pick up new ideas and even if per say that it took 20-30 years for the bb to be widely excepted it is pretty good going. How long did evolution take to be excepted? Even now there are lots of scientists that deny evolution
"someone before you has thrown out the many-gods objection?" yes of course, but do you have to have more than one of pascals wagers going at once for each god? Do you a wager with Yahweh and Allah?
"simply ignore extra 'gods' based on background knowledge" how do know that Allah is not the real God? There is just as much evidence of Allah then of Yahweh.
Argument from Conscience: He states that EVERYONE knows that they should be good. First point based from what moral, Yahweh or Jesus? Very different morals. Second what about psychopaths, are they included? If the morals are the same then why such a difference of morals, across the world now, and back though history? Don't forget these perfect morals come from a god who killed everyone in the world bar 1 family.
He didn't offer that our conscience is based on our environment
"authenticated documents that conformed with their unbroken tradition" oh really, where did you learn this, one of the youtube channels you sub to?
Just like you claims of the Quantum free will, which are based on a couple of YT clips and 1 article on a religious website. What you have is a hypothesis and that is all.
This is very disappointing. I took a philosophy course with Dr. Kreeft back when I attended Boston College and I remember him to be quite intelligent. The shallow, clichéd nature of these arguments, however, suggests that his intelligence is limited to non-theistic matters.
David Lippman Plus those BC jerks keep blackballing UConn.
Then you surely care to explain why his arguments are weak, right?
+David Lippman
sir with my respect ,i hope people Don’t fall into the trap of trying to understand this life and this universe from a media that don’t care about truth , they do not want you to know anything, they want to keep you ignorant , they plays a huge role are most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the people ignorant and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses,Any human being with even little common sense can understand how much Media can influence people in a way they want! Its pity to see that even literate people falling for that, sir if you obey the media, they will mislead you from the way of truth. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying out of ignorance, conjecture and assumption,You have been given a brain to research, to reason and to analyze the facts, the believing is not a religion of blind faith but is a religion that strongly calls on man to use his logic, reasoning and intellect, draws attention to the importance for man to remember and to recall to give thought is to increase or acquire new knowledge, and to recall and remind yourself of relevant knowledge and events because which are important for one’s faith,i invite everyone to look further and investigate about this life and about this universe, Understand and explore by your yourself , seek your own ways that comply with what you think,Only then will you get the real idea about this life and about this universe ,please focused on reading actual articles and books, rather than media aimed at ignorance towards the people ..i hope i didn't hurt your feeling
Argument from Design fail
Argument from First Cause fail
Argument from Conscience fail
Argument from Desire fail
Pascal's Wager fail
Argument for God fails too
J M J
Pascal's Wager: 50/50 chance, that sounds good, get the drugs. Lotto 50/50 chance again. So he is placing 50/50 chance of the Christian god of the bible being real?
What about every other god. What about Allah? Or Vishna? Do they get some action? And its not a no loss bet. The time, energy money into God/Church could be used in better ways. 1 pair of hands working do more then 1000 clasp in prayer.
Yup, super lame arguments. This guy has never watched The Atheist Experience.
Yup, super lame comment. This guy is an angry atheist that came to hate
EarnedMyResp3ct I'm not the one with the lame arguments, of which, nothing is new. Same pathetic crap from small minds.
+Cary Francis Is there an cogentargument there somewhere or should we just take your word?
Augustino Give me your best augment for the existence of god then.
If you can't follow the arguments made by the speaker here, what chance would there be you could follow, say, my arguments?