there's still about 5 more layers to this topic that hasnt been covered. 1)is god is reasonably intelligible to man? 2) then what is god's purpose? 3) then what is its interest in man? 4) what is its interest in the individual? 5) the catholic creed is the correct creed to answer 1-4.
_"Life has meaning"_ Nothing just... "has meaning." Things "have meaning" _to_ someone. Plenty of things in my life are meaningful to _me,_ but would have no meaning to anyone else. "Meaning" doesn't exist in reality, outside of a mind. If all minds in the universe disappeared, so would "meaning." Sure, we're all human beings, so we tend to find similar things meaningful. But that doesn't change the fact that meaning is subjective _to_ someone. _"Assisted suicide is a great evil"_ Why? Hmm,... according to you guys, Jesus took advantage of assisted suicide, didn't he? He _planned_ to have people kill him? Did he do a great evil, then?
@yvonetubla7682 _"you know you dont have to listen to intrusive thoughts right?"_ Heh, heh. What are you _talking_ about? Did you accidentally post that to the wrong thread? Because that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with what I said here. And it certainly seems meaningless on its own! If you've got something to say, please say it. If, on the other hand, it was just an accidental post, don't worry about it. Mistakes happen.
@yvonetubla7682 _"that comment clearly hurt you"_ Heh, heh. The stupid hurts my brain? You really _are_ faith-based, aren't you? You just make up whatever you _want_ to be true?
@yvonetubla7682 _"so why are you calling those comments stupid"_ Have you _read_ your own comments? You didn't reply to a single thing I said! In fact, as I pointed out, I had no idea what you were even talking about. So I asked you. I said, "If you have something to say, please say it." But you don't, huh? That's why I'm laughing at you. Sorry, but you brought it on yourself. Maybe grow up a bit?
Meh, IDK, it seems that most arguments don't really prove God, they just set up philosophical/metaphysical categories for defining what you mean by God
Thank you for posting this 2023 video clip. Are you aware that there was a film in 2016 titled "God's Not Dead" that introduced the intelligent design theory? It was an excellent film and 3 additional films were made since 2021. Thank you for presenting updated information in this 2023 video presentation since my Catholic high school education in Pennsylvania in the mid 1980s.
"Intelligent Design" is not a theory. It's religion they're trying to disguise as science, and it's been around - under several different names - for decades. It's silly. It's completely nonsensical. And, in general, you probably shouldn't get your information about science from the propaganda films of religious fanatics.
The claim 'there is no truth' is false, because if it were true, the very fact that the statement would be true would mean that truth exists, which creates a paradox.
@@papuciowy1465 So what? As I said at the start, it's easy to make paradoxes in English. Who would find that significant? No adult, I hope. And I have *never* heard someone say "There is no truth." I've only heard that from theists claiming that atheists say it. As far as I can tell, as an atheist myself, they're just lying.
Five ways of demonstrating the existence of God, huh? I'd be happy with just *one.* Do you have *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? Just *one* piece of good evidence, but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself? Spoiler alert: Apparently not, huh? _"1. Science and Intelligibility"_ What does that have to do with a god? _Any_ god, let alone a particular one? Did he forget what he was supposed to be demonstrating with the very first example? Obviously, this is indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. You _want_ your god to exist, so you look for reasons to justify your existing belief. But you need *evidence.* You need something that _is_ clearly distinguishable from wishful-thinking. Obviously, this isn't it. Note I can quote Albert Einstein, too. For example, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." And yeah, it's amazing that mathematics works in the real world _when mathematics was created by human beings to be useful to us in the real world,_ huh? Sorry, but this is just a whole lot of wishful-thinking. _"2. The Meaning of Life"_ First, you have to demonstrate that there _is_ a "meaning of life" - a particular meaning, not just that life is important to most people. You can't do that, but if you _could_ do that, you'd still need to demonstrate some connection with your god. Of course, that's not the argument _here._ The argument here seems to be that you really, really _want_ your god to be real (the specific god you were taught to believe as a baby, right?). Seriously, that seems to be the whole argument here. It's not distinguishable from wishful-thinking, because the entire argument is just wishful-thinking. Sorry, but that's why I don't believe your claims in the first place. It's because you seem to have nothing that _isn't_ wishful-thinking backing up your religious claims. (And no, even if your god existed, what he found meaningful would _still_ be "subjective." But it hardly matters, as this doesn't demonstrate that he exists, anyway.) _"3. Existence Itself"_ Existence is evidence that things exist. Obviously, it's not evidence that a _particular_ thing - like your god - exists. "Where does everything come from?" _Everything?_ I don't know. _You_ don't know, either. So the answer to that question is, "We don't know." Simple, huh? And no god required. Of course, you really, really _want_ your god to exist, right? You're just _desperately_ looking for an excuse to believe... what you started off believing, because you were taught to believe it from infancy? But "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it." It just doesn't. Sorry. _"4. Beauty"_ And is ugliness evidence that all gods are simply imaginary, then? :) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so beauty requires a mind. But human beings _have_ minds. And we _all_ agree that human beings are real. I love your misrepresentation of evolution, though. (Not really.) Even the Catholic Church, which is supposed to be more reasonable about science than the fundies, doesn't really like evolution very much, huh? No, adaptations aren't "meant" to be useful. Don't be silly! They aren't "meant" to be anything at all. And there _is_ such a thing as sexual selection, because it makes no difference - in evolution - how well you can survive if you leave no offspring. Obviously, that can make survival itself harder for the individual, in some cases. So what? Evolution isn't about planning, and species _do_ go extinct. And again, all of this is simply indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. That's why it's not evidence. _"5. Saints"_ First, you have to demonstrate that "saints" are real. People actually exist, but do "saints"? Maybe you should _define_ "saint" first? After that, why not pick *one* supposed "saint" and *make your case.* (Go ahead with Mother Teresa, if you wish. As it turns out, I think that would be a _particularly_ silly example, but that's up to you.) Well, I didn't expect much. This was a former pope, after all. I didn't expect brilliance. But I have to say that this didn't even reach to the very low level of my expectations. _This_ is all you've got? But I've got to mention what was probably the _silliest_ part of all of this: those syllogisms. Aren't those the absolute silliest thing you've ever seen? Obviously, they're worthless, because you can't demonstrate that the premises are true. In fact, for many of them, you're committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You're assuming that your conclusion is true in your premises! Heh, heh. Well, _this_ is why I'm an atheist. _Maybe_ a god exists. _Maybe_ it's even the particular god/gods you were taught to believe as a baby. But the time to believe that is _after_ there's good evidence it's actually true.
You can't throw up a "who knows?" for (3), and then assert the definite position of being an atheist at the end while not even addressing the challenge of why there's something rather than nothing. You're engaging in a sophist trick where the subtext of a statement directly contradicts the face-value text (e.g someone says "I don't know a lot about X/Y/Z" to signal that actually they should be listened to on exactly the topic of X/Y/Z). But imagine taking this line of reasoning for any other topic. Imagine saying that we simply don't know anything about string theory or quantum gravity beyond mathematical arguments, and since we don't have any experimental evidence for it, all the physicists looking into it are just engaged in faith-based wishful thinking (and if they were REALLY smart they would just throw up their hands and stop looking for a Unified Field Theory altogether right?) So either answer the challenge or don't - if you really thought you didn't know you would act like it
@@Datroflshopper _"You can't throw up a "who knows?" for (3), and then assert the definite position of being an atheist at the end"_ Why not? "I don't know" and "I don't believe your claims, because you haven't backed them up with anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking" aren't contradictory. Why would you think otherwise? _"while not even addressing the challenge of why there's something rather than nothing."_ Why do you assume that "nothing" is the default? Is "nothing" even _possible?_ We've never experienced "nothing," have we? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no reason to think that "nothing" is the default state of the cosmos. So why is that a "challenge"? First, demonstrate that "nothing" is the default. Then I will happily tell you my answer as to why there's "something" rather than "nothing." (Spoiler alert: Going by the rest of this, you probably wouldn't like my answer, because I'd be honest about it. But I _will_ answer.) _"But imagine taking this line of reasoning for any other topic."_ Sounds good. Yes, let's imagine that, shall we? _"Imagine saying that we simply don't know anything about string theory or quantum gravity beyond mathematical arguments, and since we don't have any experimental evidence for it, all the physicists looking into it are just engaged in faith-based wishful thinking (and if they were REALLY smart they would just throw up their hands and stop looking for a Unified Field Theory altogether right?)"_ Heh, heh. Is that really what theists are doing? I thought they were _believing_ this nonsense, not just "looking into it." You can look into anything you want. Why would I object to that? But the time to *believe that it's real* is _after_ there's good evidence backing it up. I don't know anything about string theory or quantum gravity, but scientists come to a worldwide consensus (something religions can never do) when there's sufficient evidence backing up a hypothesis. Until that happens, my position is "I don't know." That's because I care about the truth, and I see no need to choose an explanation, no matter what, just because I can't admit that I don't know something. Try it, sometime. It's not so hard to admit that you don't know something. _"So either answer the challenge or don't"_ Sure. Meanwhile, why don't _you_ answer the challenge of why all gods are simply imaginary? :) See what I mean? It's not a "challenge" unless you can demonstrate that your premise is true. Show me that "nothing" is the default. Show me that "nothing" is not only _possible,_ but was actually the default state of the cosmos. Then I'll be very happy to answer your "challenge." Thanks!
What a beautiful conclusion! Thank you and God bless!
I miss Pope Benedict so much. What a holy and intelligent man!
Pope Francis is good too! I'm thankful social media wasn't around during JPIIs and Pope Benedicts time as Pope
❤ Truth matters
_"Truth matters"_
Yes. That's why I'm an atheist. It's because I care about the truth.
there's still about 5 more layers to this topic that hasnt been covered. 1)is god is reasonably intelligible to man? 2) then what is god's purpose? 3) then what is its interest in man? 4) what is its interest in the individual? 5) the catholic creed is the correct creed to answer 1-4.
Life has meaning, even in suffering. We have forgotten as a society. Assisted suicide is a great evil
_"Life has meaning"_
Nothing just... "has meaning." Things "have meaning" _to_ someone. Plenty of things in my life are meaningful to _me,_ but would have no meaning to anyone else.
"Meaning" doesn't exist in reality, outside of a mind. If all minds in the universe disappeared, so would "meaning." Sure, we're all human beings, so we tend to find similar things meaningful. But that doesn't change the fact that meaning is subjective _to_ someone.
_"Assisted suicide is a great evil"_
Why?
Hmm,... according to you guys, Jesus took advantage of assisted suicide, didn't he? He _planned_ to have people kill him? Did he do a great evil, then?
@yvonetubla7682
_"you know you dont have to listen to intrusive thoughts right?"_
Heh, heh. What are you _talking_ about? Did you accidentally post that to the wrong thread? Because that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with what I said here. And it certainly seems meaningless on its own!
If you've got something to say, please say it. If, on the other hand, it was just an accidental post, don't worry about it. Mistakes happen.
@yvonetubla7682
_"that comment clearly hurt you"_
Heh, heh. The stupid hurts my brain?
You really _are_ faith-based, aren't you? You just make up whatever you _want_ to be true?
@yvonetubla7682
_"so why are you calling those comments stupid"_
Have you _read_ your own comments? You didn't reply to a single thing I said! In fact, as I pointed out, I had no idea what you were even talking about.
So I asked you. I said, "If you have something to say, please say it." But you don't, huh? That's why I'm laughing at you. Sorry, but you brought it on yourself. Maybe grow up a bit?
@yvonetubla7682
Meh, IDK, it seems that most arguments don't really prove God, they just set up philosophical/metaphysical categories for defining what you mean by God
@@ShaneShelldriick could you elaborate?
Thank you for posting this 2023 video clip. Are you aware that there was a film in 2016 titled "God's Not Dead" that introduced the intelligent design theory? It was an excellent film and 3 additional films were made since 2021.
Thank you for presenting updated information in this 2023 video presentation since my Catholic high school education in Pennsylvania in the mid 1980s.
"Intelligent Design" is not a theory. It's religion they're trying to disguise as science, and it's been around - under several different names - for decades. It's silly. It's completely nonsensical. And, in general, you probably shouldn't get your information about science from the propaganda films of religious fanatics.
The claim 'there is no truth' is false, because if it were true, the very fact that the statement would be true would mean that truth exists, which creates a paradox.
So what? It's easy to make paradoxes in English. Is that your point? But if so, why would you post it _here?_
@@Bill_Garthright The statement 'there is no truth' cannot be true because being true would make it false.
@@papuciowy1465
Again, so what?
@@Bill_Garthright So heresy of relativism is not only contrary to the Faith, but also to natural reason.
@@papuciowy1465
So what? As I said at the start, it's easy to make paradoxes in English. Who would find that significant? No adult, I hope.
And I have *never* heard someone say "There is no truth." I've only heard that from theists claiming that atheists say it. As far as I can tell, as an atheist myself, they're just lying.
Five ways of demonstrating the existence of God, huh? I'd be happy with just *one.* Do you have *anything* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? Just *one* piece of good evidence, but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself?
Spoiler alert: Apparently not, huh?
_"1. Science and Intelligibility"_
What does that have to do with a god? _Any_ god, let alone a particular one? Did he forget what he was supposed to be demonstrating with the very first example?
Obviously, this is indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. You _want_ your god to exist, so you look for reasons to justify your existing belief. But you need *evidence.* You need something that _is_ clearly distinguishable from wishful-thinking. Obviously, this isn't it.
Note I can quote Albert Einstein, too. For example, "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
And yeah, it's amazing that mathematics works in the real world _when mathematics was created by human beings to be useful to us in the real world,_ huh? Sorry, but this is just a whole lot of wishful-thinking.
_"2. The Meaning of Life"_
First, you have to demonstrate that there _is_ a "meaning of life" - a particular meaning, not just that life is important to most people. You can't do that, but if you _could_ do that, you'd still need to demonstrate some connection with your god.
Of course, that's not the argument _here._ The argument here seems to be that you really, really _want_ your god to be real (the specific god you were taught to believe as a baby, right?). Seriously, that seems to be the whole argument here. It's not distinguishable from wishful-thinking, because the entire argument is just wishful-thinking.
Sorry, but that's why I don't believe your claims in the first place. It's because you seem to have nothing that _isn't_ wishful-thinking backing up your religious claims. (And no, even if your god existed, what he found meaningful would _still_ be "subjective." But it hardly matters, as this doesn't demonstrate that he exists, anyway.)
_"3. Existence Itself"_
Existence is evidence that things exist. Obviously, it's not evidence that a _particular_ thing - like your god - exists.
"Where does everything come from?" _Everything?_ I don't know. _You_ don't know, either. So the answer to that question is, "We don't know." Simple, huh? And no god required.
Of course, you really, really _want_ your god to exist, right? You're just _desperately_ looking for an excuse to believe... what you started off believing, because you were taught to believe it from infancy? But "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it." It just doesn't. Sorry.
_"4. Beauty"_
And is ugliness evidence that all gods are simply imaginary, then? :)
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so beauty requires a mind. But human beings _have_ minds. And we _all_ agree that human beings are real.
I love your misrepresentation of evolution, though. (Not really.) Even the Catholic Church, which is supposed to be more reasonable about science than the fundies, doesn't really like evolution very much, huh? No, adaptations aren't "meant" to be useful. Don't be silly! They aren't "meant" to be anything at all.
And there _is_ such a thing as sexual selection, because it makes no difference - in evolution - how well you can survive if you leave no offspring. Obviously, that can make survival itself harder for the individual, in some cases. So what? Evolution isn't about planning, and species _do_ go extinct.
And again, all of this is simply indistinguishable from wishful-thinking. That's why it's not evidence.
_"5. Saints"_
First, you have to demonstrate that "saints" are real. People actually exist, but do "saints"? Maybe you should _define_ "saint" first? After that, why not pick *one* supposed "saint" and *make your case.* (Go ahead with Mother Teresa, if you wish. As it turns out, I think that would be a _particularly_ silly example, but that's up to you.)
Well, I didn't expect much. This was a former pope, after all. I didn't expect brilliance. But I have to say that this didn't even reach to the very low level of my expectations. _This_ is all you've got?
But I've got to mention what was probably the _silliest_ part of all of this: those syllogisms. Aren't those the absolute silliest thing you've ever seen? Obviously, they're worthless, because you can't demonstrate that the premises are true. In fact, for many of them, you're committing the logical fallacy of Begging the Question. You're assuming that your conclusion is true in your premises! Heh, heh.
Well, _this_ is why I'm an atheist. _Maybe_ a god exists. _Maybe_ it's even the particular god/gods you were taught to believe as a baby. But the time to believe that is _after_ there's good evidence it's actually true.
You can't throw up a "who knows?" for (3), and then assert the definite position of being an atheist at the end while not even addressing the challenge of why there's something rather than nothing. You're engaging in a sophist trick where the subtext of a statement directly contradicts the face-value text (e.g someone says "I don't know a lot about X/Y/Z" to signal that actually they should be listened to on exactly the topic of X/Y/Z).
But imagine taking this line of reasoning for any other topic. Imagine saying that we simply don't know anything about string theory or quantum gravity beyond mathematical arguments, and since we don't have any experimental evidence for it, all the physicists looking into it are just engaged in faith-based wishful thinking (and if they were REALLY smart they would just throw up their hands and stop looking for a Unified Field Theory altogether right?)
So either answer the challenge or don't - if you really thought you didn't know you would act like it
@@Datroflshopper
_"You can't throw up a "who knows?" for (3), and then assert the definite position of being an atheist at the end"_
Why not? "I don't know" and "I don't believe your claims, because you haven't backed them up with anything distinguishable from wishful-thinking" aren't contradictory.
Why would you think otherwise?
_"while not even addressing the challenge of why there's something rather than nothing."_
Why do you assume that "nothing" is the default? Is "nothing" even _possible?_ We've never experienced "nothing," have we? As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no reason to think that "nothing" is the default state of the cosmos.
So why is that a "challenge"? First, demonstrate that "nothing" is the default. Then I will happily tell you my answer as to why there's "something" rather than "nothing." (Spoiler alert: Going by the rest of this, you probably wouldn't like my answer, because I'd be honest about it. But I _will_ answer.)
_"But imagine taking this line of reasoning for any other topic."_
Sounds good. Yes, let's imagine that, shall we?
_"Imagine saying that we simply don't know anything about string theory or quantum gravity beyond mathematical arguments, and since we don't have any experimental evidence for it, all the physicists looking into it are just engaged in faith-based wishful thinking (and if they were REALLY smart they would just throw up their hands and stop looking for a Unified Field Theory altogether right?)"_
Heh, heh. Is that really what theists are doing? I thought they were _believing_ this nonsense, not just "looking into it."
You can look into anything you want. Why would I object to that? But the time to *believe that it's real* is _after_ there's good evidence backing it up.
I don't know anything about string theory or quantum gravity, but scientists come to a worldwide consensus (something religions can never do) when there's sufficient evidence backing up a hypothesis. Until that happens, my position is "I don't know."
That's because I care about the truth, and I see no need to choose an explanation, no matter what, just because I can't admit that I don't know something. Try it, sometime. It's not so hard to admit that you don't know something.
_"So either answer the challenge or don't"_
Sure. Meanwhile, why don't _you_ answer the challenge of why all gods are simply imaginary? :)
See what I mean? It's not a "challenge" unless you can demonstrate that your premise is true. Show me that "nothing" is the default. Show me that "nothing" is not only _possible,_ but was actually the default state of the cosmos. Then I'll be very happy to answer your "challenge."
Thanks!
@@Datroflshopper
Did you get my reply?