Bishop Barron on Scientism and God's Existence

[@Tedic476]

Hello! I'm an actual scientist (medicinal chemistry) in my mid-20s. Coming from an ex-atheist, Catholicism has given my life so much meaning and direction towards greater love and truth! Keep it up, Father Baron! Chicago pride!

[@BishopBarron]

Wonderful! Can I ask you a favor? Could you get into this game a bit, helping to convince your scientific colleagues that there is no conflict between authentic religion and authentic science?

[@Tedic476]

Fr. Robert Barron Of course! Science is meant to be a neutral discipline- intellectual and nothing more, eg. promoting an agenda like atheism. We can count on science to do many great things, but we can also count on it to make mistakes. If we put faith in science, we depend on imperfect, sinful, limited men, thus scientific history has been wrong about many things -> earth’s shape, flight, vaccines, blood transfusions, and even human reproduction. Quite simply, God is never wrong. There is no reason for a Christian to fear good science because truth has no fear in it. Learning more about the way God constructed our universe helps all of mankind appreciate God's work and wonder! People should embrace science that seeks the truth, but reject the “priests of science” aka New Atheists who put human knowledge above God -> Foolish

[@dog3croom]

Tedic476 So refreshing to hear, God Bless you brother

[@myopenmind527]

Tedic476 why did your life lack meaning and purpose previously? As an atheist I find it odd that your life lacked meaning and purpose. #weird

[@trustinjesus1119]

God is Love and we can respond to God/Love with love without knowing who God is (See Cyrano de Bergerac) but atheism does not do that.

[@BishopBarron]

Forget "design" for the moment and answer this question: where do the laws of nature come from? How do you explain the stunningly complex mathematics that can be found at every level of finite reality?

[@doctorwebman]

". . . where do the laws of nature come from?" Answer: Nature has always had laws. There was never a time where no laws existed, you couldn't even have that if your God was the only thing that existed. He would need to be governed by laws in order to have any characteristics or organized thought, or to interact with a universe he is creating in orderly fashion. "How do you explain the stunningly complex mathematics that can be found at every level of finite reality?" There is no such thing as 'finite reality', as reality does not have an edge. An edge requires an outside, and an outside is part of reality. Now, as for complexity, it is not an indicator of intelligent design, and, considering all the sloppy numbers and values in science, it certainly does not look purposeful in any way. You seem to think that unanswered questions are somehow evidence of God. You should know that you are basically using a logical fallacy to arrive at the conclusion that God exists, an argument from ignorance, where you seem to think that you can just insert 'God did it' anywhere there isn't an explanation yet. Your God keeps shrinking every time science does get around to explaining it.

[@lololauren55]

@@doctorwebman As a mathematical physicist I can tell you, you're wrong. Laws don't exist in time. Laws are mathematical abstractions, ergo timeless, but contingent nonetheless on the phenomena that they apply to. It wouldn't make sense talking about laws of nature in a universe that isn't governed by laws/is chaotic. So in order for the laws to exist the matter, energy, spacetime, fields of energy must exist because they are co-dependent on one another. The pauli exclusion principle isn't something that is written on the electron, its just the way the electron behaves. They don't have generative capacity, they are simply constraints and rules that determine the manner in which the Universe manifests. They are discovered yes, but the Universe doesn't care what we put on a piece of paper to attempt to describe these patterns and uniformities that are ubiquitous in nature. If you consider the Universe a logical system, the laws of nature are the rules upon which the elements are governed by. So, this means immutable rules of inference, prohibited outcomes, determined state of affairs. All of the quantum information is subject to these rules. I think your argument is another version of the "It just is", meaning the Universe is just there, and that's all there is to it. But by saying that, you're either implying is has no explanation so its unintelligible, and either our minds are too limited to make sense of it, or it requires no explanation. In both those cases, you're being both incoherent and/or simply lacking curiosity. Well, clearly the first case is false. We can make sense of the world, our technological advancements in the last 200 years prove it. The second premise is just obviously ludicrous. If you're gonna tell me with a straight face that you're not simultaneously in awe and disoriented from existence then you're either lying or somethings wrong with you.The way I approach is see if the arguments say put forth by Bishop Barron actually make sense. As a lifelong atheist, it would be dishonest for me to say that they don't make sense because their entire premises are based on logical axioms that are grounded in the scientific enterprise. So I grapple with them. And they absolutely make sense. Not only do they make sense, they are most probably correct as they are undeniable. Denying the conclusion derived from these arguments is denying reality. You have 2 choices. Either human reason is made for truth itself, or its just a useful tool that's a byproduct of evolutionary adaptations. If the former is the case, then you have no rational grounds for making a truth claim as the truth is subjective in an atheistic worldview.

[@ExiledGypsy]

You are making assumptions and mistaking a model for reality. What have becomes laws of natures are based on concensus on observation by humans. It is not a guarantee that they reflect anything about "reality". As Emanuel Kant put it what we precieve and communicate are representational. In fact a lot of them don't fit as JWST has counteret our extrapolations in surprsing ways. What Sean Carroll did say was that God model doesn't explain our observations. Since you can't prove a negative, a logically driven conclusion regarding the question of existence of god is that we don't know if there is one or not. However possiblity is different to probablity. While it is not possible to rule out the existence of a god the probablities of there being one are remote. A more interesting question to me is that why the Judeo-Christian gets everything. I mean there could have been a god or several of them it doesn't change the calculous. It seems to me that Judas thought differently, Jesus was not the same god that had created the idiots of human race. The fact that the Church destroyed all other so called "new testements" seems to have been to design the Judeo-Christian god as such to beat all other gods which for a god is rather petty, don't you think?

[@BishopBarron]

I'm laughing as I write this, for you are, once again, involving yourself in an operational contradiction. By arguing with me, you are trying to get me to see an objective truth that you have grasped and that you feel I have insufficiently grasped. If truth is simply a matter of subjective events, then argument is pointless. You can't appreciate the Sistine Chapel's beauty without eyes, but that doesn't mean that your eyes are producing its beauty!

[@BishopBarron]

But metaphysically speaking, you're begging the question. For the quantum vacuum is necessarily in one state or another; it is giving rise to these particles and not others, etc. That is to say, it is in a state of potentiality and hence has to be explained. It therefore cannot be the non-contingent ground of contingency that the argument from contingency demands.

[@bencornwell8355]

I Love You Bishop Barron! The look on your face in this video... Thank You for fighting the good fight for all us Gods Kids! You have been so helpful to me. Your videos and Father Mike Shmitz and Scott Hahn have saved me from suicide and drug addiction and total thought disorder. I love you guys so much. Im trying to pass all the things you have shared with me on to still others. Please dont ever quit. Thank You Thank You Thank You.

[@BishopBarron]

We're kind of going round and around now, but let me try just one more time. Physicists and philosophers often use the same words but in radically different senses. Perhaps we could avoid the equivocation by dropping the word "cause" and speaking of "sufficient explanation." I'm arguing that a contingent event is one that requires a sufficient explanation. If we deny this, we are undermining all of science, including quantum physics. The rest of the argument follows as usual.

[@dazedmaestro1223]

@@ThePassiveObserver, wow, you're more ignorant than a 4 year old kid: 1- christianity wans't fabricated by a priest and a roman emperor, read more books instead of playing video games all day... 2-christianity doesn't derive from Mithra, you shouldn't watch Bill Maher's bullshit because everyone knows he's a twat; If you're so smart and knowledgeable maybe you should show me evidence for your claims...

[@ethanf.237]

@@ThePassiveObserver No... That's not what he's saying at all

[@luckyboy3811]

Robert makes a point, science can't explain the impossible. For who can resurrect the dead from their graves, the living God or science which bears no life in it. I assure the one who can resurrect the dead is the one who gave life in the first place. Science can never explain how to resurrect the dead from their graves. If all the living was created by science, then we have no souls. Then were did that love come from? Was it in genetics? Ridiculous. Seed after seed, is a way to explain why things are born. But for love to be born and intelligence wisdom, emotions, independency, creativity, to come from nothing, nothing bears none of those things. Nothing is awkward in all of those things.

[@michaelclay7822]

Not an argument lol.

[@BishopBarron]

I'm not interested so much in physical laws as in metaphysical ones. The quantum vacuum--giving rise to myriad new forms of existence--and the singularity, which explodes in the Big Bang, are, by definition, contingent phenomena. Hence, they require a finally non-contingent explanation. Appealing to either of them is, as far as the argument from contingency goes, a complete non-starter.

[@BishopBarron]

Not so. A scientist might tell you how the eye and brain process data, but he can't tell you why something is objectively beautiful. As for Sam Harris, take a look at the video of his debate with William Lane Craig on this point. Craig brilliantly demonstrates the finally question-begging quality of Harris's system.

[@BishopBarron]

The unconditioned ground of contingency must be that whose very nature is to be. That whose very nature is to be must be fully actualized (actus purus). Matter or energy, precisely in the measure that they are capable of infinitely differing configurations, are not actus purus, not the sheer act of existing itself. To use more classical language, they are marked by radical potentiality. Such potentiality is repugnant to sheer actuality.

[@ExiledGypsy]

You are talking about the first cause which setting aside it own phenomenological probelms could be consdered a reasonable point but why does that first cause have to be the Judeo-Christian god or a "god" at all? Why does it have to be still around and why does it have to be a everything. An idea of Spinoza's god provides a possiblity of interconnectivity in the universe but that is several orders of magnitudes away from the Church's point of view. What you seem to be obvlivous about is the fact that words have all sorts of baggage of which history is one. Natural languages are problematic and full of ambiguity. Wars were started because of miunderstanding and a lot of context is also lost in translation. This is why Martin Heidigger invented new words and Lacan insisted on using certain ideas in French. Besides 80% of communication is non-verbal inferred from body language, the attire the speaker is wearing and its associated iconography and so on. So, when you talk about god you are talking about your God, the Judeo Christian god and even more specific than that. The Catholic god over which Catholics and other branchers sehd blood over. That is not a metaphysical argument, it is more of a salesman's pitch; yes we are all the same band there had to be a first cause but why don't buy into my ideas and abandon yours because mine is better, runs faster, needs less fuel and so on. There is plenty of disarguments even amongst the Abrehamic religions as to what do they mean by God. Christians believe that Jesus was the embodiment of God or he was singularly the manifestation of the supreme being when Muslims think that he was nothing more than a human being but a messanger of some supreme being. Then you have Jews who don't even accept that he was a profit and certainly not the messiah that they have been waiting for. Their concept of afterlie was/is also diffrent and not the promise of overcoming death that sets Christinaity apart from Judaism. The arbitrary way that on the one hand you claim that there is only one god but at the same time you fight over it, killing millions in its name and then brush it all under the carpet and assume we all agree over what we mean by god is an opputunistic atempt to confuse and manipultate. So before talking about God you need to establish a definition. Refusing to give one claiming it to be alpha, omega and blah, blah, blah is just an atempt at having your cake and eat it. It sounds like a convenient design rather than tackiling a metaphyscal argument. That is very different to what the phycist; Leonard Suskind admitted that we will never know if there was a first cause, intelligent or not.

[@BishopBarron]

More caricaturing, I'm afraid. The fact that matter or energy has to be in a determined state but could be in any number of other states shows that it is not self-explanatory. We have to find a reason to explain its actual condition. Now we cannot endlessly appeal to similarly conditioned causes, for then we haven't explained anything. Therefore, there has to be some cause which is not contingent, that is to say, which explains itself.

[@billybagbom]

Just when I was beginning to despair that Father Barron's point here was being lost on just about everybody, you came to the rescue. Thank you!

[@BishopBarron]

But friend, surely not all things! "Science" as such tells us nothing about aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, poetry, love, etc. As I've said a thousand times, science is wonderful--but it's not everything.

[@illegalcommenter4300]

You both have done a wonderful job of not answering the question and jerking each other off. Now to answer the Bishop, yes it is true these things are generally out of the purview of science. Sean Carrol even admitted this in his debate with William Lane Craig. I don't understand why so many atheists feel the need to say that science can explain everything. I will give an example of one thing the scientific method can't prove: the scientific method. The scientific method must be proven using logic and reasoning, and so why could other things not be proven true using that same logic and reasoning? I will answer for you you insolent dolts: There is no reason why not. Also this entire narrative of science slowly pushing religion into a corner throughout history is absurd. IF IT WERE TRUE WHY WOULD SO MANY RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS FUND SCIENCE SO MUCH THROUGHOUT HISTORY? I bet none of you have read any history and just jerk off to "hitchslap" videos all day while sitting in your basement smoking pot.

[@doctorwebman]

You should study up on the science of love.

[@pureone8350]

@@ThePassiveObserver No, science isn't everything. For example, you cannot use nature to explain why nature does what it does! That's like trying to explain my body with my body. And your statement that religion is slowly dying has been said for 300 years, and that clearly hasn't happened. So simply that statement isn't true.

[@michaelclay7822]

Roger can you back up your assertions with evidence or arguments or are you going to just keep making baseless assertions? “You’re wrong” isn’t an argument.

[@Drp_br_]

Roger Piss off Mate! U close minded atheists are the reason why arrogance to other’s beliefs. And science is a wonderful tool for the physical world. But seeing that science has observed things and concluded that “God dose not exist is like using a metal detector on plastic and saying plastic dose not exist?

[@BishopBarron]

Come on, friend. That's a total caricature of the argument. Since matter is in a determined state, it must be contingent. That means it had to have been placed in that state by an extrinsic cause. Now was that cause itself contingent or was it absolutely uncaused? If the former, then we have to keep looking. But we can't extend the series of contingent causes indefinitely, for then we have explained nothing. We must come finally to some cause that is non-contingent. Answer that argument.

[@JonTonyJim]

Bro who r u talking to?

[@bemusedatheist5706]

Answer me this, how does this statement make the fundamentally flawed text that is the christian bible any more true? Doesn't change that many parts are plagiarised myths or the fact that we still don't even know who wrote most of the New Testament. Answer that.

[@BishopBarron]

@@bemusedatheist5706 For greater clarity on the authorship of the NT texts, I'd recommend Richard Bauchkham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and Brant Pitre's The Case for Jesus. But even if we were not entirely sure who composed every text of the New Testament, that wouldn't tell necessarily against the truth, either historical or theological, that is found in those texts.

[@bemusedatheist5706]

@@BishopBarron I see. I'll look those up. To further the point, what about 1 Peter? How do you reconcile the fact that it claims to have been written by Peter, however many scholars today believe that it is pseudonymous, given its advanced Greek, formal rhetoric and Peter's supposed illiteracy. Does that not affect its reliability for you?

[@BishopBarron]

Save Me Not at all! It’s the content that matters, not the authorship.

[@BishopBarron]

I'm not even talking about "religion." How about aesthetics, philosophy, poetry, intuition, etc. Your scientism absorbs everything in its wake. That's why I stand athwart it.

[@BishopBarron]

By "science," I mean those disciplines that follow the scientific method, which is to say empirical observation, the formation of hypotheses, the conducting of experiments, the drawing of conclusions, and the testing of those conclusions for consistency and repeatability. I have nothing but respect for this method. But friend, it just doesn't apply in regard to certain types of questions, concerning beauty, meaning, morality, ultimate causality, etc.

[@nickben2321]

That is your opinion, sir. You have nothing to back up your claim. Based on what I have learned, the Bible is another mythology in this world of mythologies that have been created by humankind. Read the book The Hero with a thousand faces? Read the book Primal Myths? Read the book The Myth and birth of the Hero? Not to mention the many numbers of religions that exist? They can’t all be less or more true than Catholicism?

[@bernardbuela420]

I love Fr. Robert Barron. I am his avid fan. He possesses the truth about life and existence not by his own merits but by God who has revealed Himself in and through the Church. If I may simplify what Fr. Barron is saying here, it is the fact that science can't be what it is apart from intelligent man. The arrogance of scientism is the arrogance of man who eliminate God's existence as though man has brought himself into being; as though man gave himself his intelligence, his capacity to understand the nature of things. Indeed, no man, no matter how arrogant he is, can eliminate God's existence simply because no man has brought himself into being. All of us just came to realize that we exist, and much later in life because at the outset, at conception till we reach maturity, we did not know or understand that much. Even upon our death, there is much, much, much more to know than what meets our eyes. It goes ad infinitum, and sad to say, our average life span is 60, 70 years? After which, we are all at the mercy of God!

[@bobbolondz4211]

Bernard Buela Barron's overrated.

[@zachbos5108]

+Bernard Buela Religion is the arrogance of men who can not accept that they are simply a part of nature and have to believe in a supernatural explanation, without evidence. And then they believe that they are better than others who don't believe.

[@mikepublic111]

+Bernard Buela -- What is "scientism"? Is it anything like "godism" or "religionism"?

[@bernardbuela420]

Zach, you don't really understand what religion is. On the contrary, religious people are very honest to their human nature. Every human person is religious, whether one likes it or not, knows it or not. Religion is an innate anthropological dynamics where one explores his or her transcendence. Needless to say, we can say rather than religious nature, transcendental nature where one probes into the truth of one's existence. God is a term that signifies the ultimate truth. If it is not the Christian God, it may be the Islamic God, or Buddhism or Hinduism. Or it could be the god of capitalism, which is profit, or the state of a socialist or communist society. Religion is the human relationship with the meaning that one pursues for one's existence. The term supernatural means above or beyond the natural, above or beyond the physical-material. This is the realm of our transcendence, the vitality and forces that animate the physical and material, which on their own could not be what they are without the dynamics of life moved by the natural laws.

[@aughalough1]

Mike Public Watch the video again, or a few times.... you didn't understand what he said.

[@trishknaut1031]

There is empirical evidence of the presence of God and of the devil, validating the Bible & it is God's choice & timing of who &when someone will have their faith activated by acts of love & compassion & then they will realize that the kindness of the Lord leads us to repentance , fully believing that Jesus loves us so much that He died for us so that we could stay in the family of Papa God... Jesus becoming sin , dying & is risen with the Holy Spirit living inside us! Hallelujah thank you Bishop you are so inspiring

[@BishopBarron]

Well, I'm not sure how being "fundamental" or not has anything to do with it. Are there things that exist but don't contain the reason for their own existence? The answer to that is obvious. Thus, we have to seek out a cause or causes for their existence. We cannot appeal endlessly to causes which are themselves contingent. Therefore, we have to come, finally, to some reality whose nature it is to be. There are laws and patterns in the universe besides this. But so what?

[@angelicdoctor8016]

@Christopher Li You are correct, Christopher. Some atheists (we know who) not only won't QUOTE Aquinas to rebut Thomistic arguments, but they show that they can't understand the basics of philosophy to even READ Aquinas.

[@angelicdoctor8016]

@Christopher Li You're a little off, Christopher. There is no "Catholic Philosophy" . There is Thomistic philosophy though, which the Catholic Faith often embraces, as St. Thomas' thought is unusually excellent, with sound syllogisms. I think you should absolutely be critical of Thomistic philosophy to see if it stands up. I already know that it does. Shall we begin with moderate realism? Do you see any flaws in that metaphysical outlook that Thomas holds?

[@angelicdoctor8016]

@Christopher Li Here is an intro: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jF66qaZteLmCm80

[@angelicdoctor8016]

@Christopher Li Hmmm - I think I misread you. You seem quite respectful in that comment. Happy to engage.

[@angelicdoctor8016]

@Christopher Li Sure Christopher. My take on Descartes is a Thomistic take. I would say that Descartes "inverted reality", since thinking is a function of being, not the opposite. So I would say "I am.; therefore I think". Your thoughts?

[@stevewilliams3393]

Bishop Im often in this argument. Youve put it brilliantly. Its my aim in life to be able to think at your level. I watch you and listen to you every day. I love your work. You certainly are a man of God. Thanks. Steve Williams. GBF.

[@BishopBarron]

You know friend, dropping the insults would really help. It is indeed true that everything except God has a cause, but that is the conclusion of an argument, not a bald assertion.

[@davidvazquez1425]

HAIL SATAN !!!!!!

[@BishopBarron]

Leave the supernatural out of it for the moment. The beautiful has been theorized about for millenia by philosophers. One of the classical definitions is that beauty occurs at the intersection of wholeness, harmony, and radiance. My point is that the physical sciences in themselves simply can't answer properly aesthetical questions, just as they can't adjudicate ethical disputes. Again, science is great, but science ain't all there is.

[@doctorwebman]

Beauty is a neuroscience issue, as well as evolutionary biology. There is an evolutionary explanation for our subjective experience of beauty. For example, we find a plate with lots of colors on it more beautiful, more appealing, than a plate with hardly any colors, and science has shown that plates of food with many colors are usually healthier than otherwise. We find lush greenery to be beautiful, and it just so happens that lush greenery usually accompanies abundant and diverse food. When it comes to people, there is the science of what makes a person attractive, such as that one is lopsided and thus ugly, and the other is symmetrical, and is thus beautiful. Neurons in the brain respond to certain combinations of shapes and colors so that we react emotionally, and this is survival of the fittest, as beauty plays a large role in mating and eating. Neuroscience can explain aesthetics, which are subjective human experiences. Just think, there is a spider that finds other spiders to be beautiful.

[@greendragon222]

Ok. I'll take this opportunity to thank you for your sermons, KZbin videos and books. I've listened/watched/read lots of them and I find them very compelling. It often seems how the church does indeed hide its light under a lamp rather than being a light to the nations so it's great to see a believer, well-trained and with conviction, helping to spread the good news. I will send you a short message privately to which I hope you'll choose to respond. In any case, all the best to you.

[@BishopBarron]

As I said before, you have hereby entered the world of magical thinking. Friend, this is a very good example of how an ideological opposition to God actually leads you by a series of small steps to complete irrationality. To make sure that God is disallowed, you have surrendered reason. Nothing in quantum theory justifies the claim that events or phenomena are "uncaused" or "without explanation." What is the quantum vacuum itself but a causal nexus?

[@doctorwebman]

No, it is you who has entered the world of magical thinking: talking donkey, ghosts that wander the Earth orchestrating a conspiracy to destroy you and yours, mating livestock before a striped pole to get striped offspring, a disk-shaped or circle Earth, a magical ghost that created the cosmos and the killed a bunch of children out of anger when he regretted what he had made (An all powerful, all-knowing God should not have regrets, unless he has severe personality issues), and a man magically walking on water and coming back from the dead. If there is anything irrational, it would be that, and belief in it without question - faith. You have certainly surrendered reason, and you sound like a child trying to reason out how Hogwarts and magic must be real, and you are taken about as seriously by those who do not abandon reason at the drop of a Bible.

[@dazedmaestro1223]

@@ThePassiveObserver, Robert is a wise man who's read a lot of books unlike you, an atheist that isn't smart/still a kid .

[@dazedmaestro1223]

@@doctorwebman, damn you're stupid, man, you read the bible as a fundamentalist does, you can't even understand it and that's the reason you're an atheist... Watch Jordan Peterson's biblical lectures and you will become wiser.

[@ethanf.237]

@@ThePassiveObserver Responding to a five year old comment.... Well done

[@angelicdoctor8016]

@@ThePassiveObserver Tell us, Roger, about ANY philosophy university course you EVER took? 😆😆😆😆😆🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@BishopBarron]

1) It decidedly is not a god of the gaps argument, for it does not conclude to the existence of a being among beings. 2) It commences with evidence from sense experience and proceeds by logical steps 3) You are applying criteria of the scientific method to a properly philosophical or metaphysical demonstration, hence committing a category error. And call it trivial or boring all you want; you haven't begun to refute it.

[@bygonevexation114]

it is like a parent taking the time and effort to teach their son or daughter a musical instrument. It is hard work, it takes years not days. The actual teaching experience can be painful and frustrating. But it pays off in the end when a parent sees their son/daughter outperform them and branch into new realms. THAT is beauty, the reward. Not the painstaking process but the reward that follows.

[@BishopBarron]

The logic I'm using isn't the least bit tied to space and time. It's predicated upon necessity and contingency. Is the singularity a contingent event or not? If the Big Bang is correct, it is most certainly a contingent event, in which case it needs to be explained. One can't appeal endlessly to contingent causes. Therefore...

[@TheJumpRopePreacher]

Great presentation! The argument from contingency is logically air tight. The material constructs of all of existence have nothing truly within themselves that could stand as a sufficient reason for why they are the way they are. They could conceivably be different and could also conceivably not exist at all. This is a powerful pointer to the necessity of Gods unconditioned, non-contingent existence as the eternal ground for all conditioned and contingent reality.

[@gusgreen100]

How is this logically air tight? It’s just a bunch of claims and assumptions with nothing to back them up.

[@BishopBarron]

Don't you see how your position chains you to the most hopeless kind of reductionism? You have to maintain that there is nothing objectively beautiful about the Sistine Chapel Ceiling or the Mona Lisa or Chartres Cathedral or Moby Dick or Hamlet. It's all just neurological reactions and cultural predispositions! Don't you see how finally silly that position is?

[@bygonevexation114]

Belief in a supreme and transcendent Creator alleviates the pride that follows our personal achievements. In a Godless world we selfishly attribute our accomplishments to our own being or or some other tangible reason. Instead of appreciating the infinitely many variables both spoken and unspoken, hidden and evident... we arrogantly appreciate only that which is evident to our senses. By thanking God we humbly surrender that victory is not self centered. It is the sigma of ALL variables.

[@virginiaboyd]

Happy birthday bishop Barron

[@BishopBarron]

But Brent, you can't prove what you just argued on "scientific" grounds. The foundation of science--the intelligibility of the world, the integrity of logic, etc.--are known through something like a philosophical intuition. I love the sciences, but you shouldn't reduce all knowledge to the scientific mode of knowledge.

[@BishopBarron]

One can only shake one's head...

[@MrWeedWacky]

agreed this is fantastic misrepresentation of science, but ofc. that is how delusional one has to be to believe the bible babble.

[@BishopBarron]

How in the world do these analogies "get my off the subject?!" They constitute my point. The scientific method, as such, cannot tell us anything about beauty, morality, or the ultimate cause of being. Those are properly philosophical and religious questions.

[@a.borodin2435]

The cause of beauty is dopamine release in the limbic system of your brain. It's called a "dopamine rush."

[@BishopBarron]

A. Borodin The thing about scientism is that it’s just so sad.

[@a.borodin2435]

@@BishopBarron Ah, my dear bishop. Sadness is definitely in the perception of the beholder. For me, knowing the mechanism by which my firing neurons give me so much pleasure ADDS to the joy of the pleasure of the beauty! And it enables me to design great meds too! The problem with ignorance of the workings of the brain is that it's so sad. :-)

[@EVSmith-by9no]

@A. Borodin That’s not the cause of Beauty. Assuming what you say is accurate, it’s a physiological mechanism to do with our perceiving something beautiful. That doesn’t constitute a cause of Beauty but at most a mechanical cause of a pleasurable response to Beauty.

[@MarcoMCMLXXXIII]

8- no sentimentalism involved here. The sense of beauty comes from our highest faculties, not from our genes. Thank you for all of your inspiring & intellectually challenging videos Father Robert. Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord. Father, may the Lord bless you & your good works

[@doemiller2665]

Science cannot explain where and how the first human being came to be. Doesn't that indicate something more to us and suggest that we are subject to a greater creator. Thank you Bishop Barron.

[@JasonGafar]

Bishop Barron just plows through that atheistic arrogance. Love this man.

[@lukefrance9558]

Mmm no it doesn’t

[@lgnance]

@@lukefrance9558 yeah he does

[@lgnance]

@Christian Barbour ok atheist lmao

[@BishopBarron]

What an impoverished sense of reality you have! 2 + 2 = 4 does not exist "in spatial/temporal dimensions." The idea of justice does not exist in the ordinary dimensions of space and time.

[@michaelclay7822]

GDDM. Still not an argument lol. Also, I believe Bishop Barron is the only one who has not resorted to ad-hominems and has also dealt with counter arguments honestly. I’m not even a Christian but you guys are making me want to be. If your goal was to discredit you guys have done the exact opposite. You’ve helped him make his case by you lack of argumentation and by resorting to emotional name calling instead of just focusing on the argument.

[@viator1451]

Scientism's arrogance is like taking great pride in having the best hiking boots that can be made while one is utterly lost in the wilderness. "But these boots are the best! Show me something better!!! You can't, can you! You have nothing close!! I can walk anywhere with these boots!! I can demonstrate how well-made these boots are!!!" Yes, yes, yes, you have very good boots. And you are lost. See also the youtube video: Scientism: Is Science the Only Way to Know Truth?

[@viator1451]

I agree with the approach of Bernard Lonergan in Insight.: truth from below depends on reasonable interpretations based on solid understandings supported by careful attention to data provided in experience. Lonergan has subsumed the scientific method in a more general transcendental epistemology that is not hostile to higher orders of insight and knowing. You could profit greatly from him or from Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge.

[@claudepavur1322]

I follow Lonergan because I judge he has a reasonable case based on solid understandings rooted in the data of experience. Agreeing with someone who has a manifestly better articulation and explanation does not negate my personal position. You "follow authorities" too: those who established the scientific method. You didn't discover it on your own. I really don't want to be held hostage by your interrogations. If you want your position challenged, read Lonergan and Polanyi. Don't think of them as authorities but as dialog partners. I can't rewrite their books for you in this dialog and I am not going to try. That's all for me... You've got your answer. If you deny it, it is your own assertion.

[@claudepavur1322]

You are a scientist. But you did not invent science. You followed someone else. I have told you my answer several times now. Read what I wrote until you understand it.

[@naturalismforever3469]

So, Tommy....Your explanation of the origin of the Universe (multi-Verse) is a silly, evidence-free, ridiculous, contradictory 3-part god? Really?? Really?????

[@naturalismforever3469]

Tommy, you are utterly without knowledge of the aims of science. It's so very simple: Science is the single most effective, accurate, reliable and successful means of inquiry ever devised by humans. It begins with imaginative, unfettered inquiry to develop ideas about the Universe (Multiverse), then employs empiricism AND skepticism to find verifiable evidence about those ideas, and then aims for robust, powerful, broad, coherent, falsifiable, and PREDICTIVE EXPLANATIONS. That's it. No more. That's all. NO DOGMA. NO AUTHORITY. Scientific naturalism is tested and tests itself CONSTANTLY. And the result of those tests? PREDICTIVE EXPLANATIONS. Innumerable. Successful. Reliable. Supernaturalism? Not ONE. NOT ONE! predictive explanation by any of the untold hundreds of thousands of forms of supernaturalism. EVER.

[@paigebossier2924]

I'm a convert to catholicism and I see as science, particularly astrophysics, as the quest for God. I love seeing evidence of God's grace and unfathomable genius in science. A book in grade school called The Power of Limits : proportional harmonies in Nature, Art, and Architecture. I opened a text book on the Golden Ratio and thought...there is a God and civilization is at it's height when when we copy his design. Once you see it, you can't unsee it and five years later I converted.

[@JeffersonDinedAlone]

You can be fascinated with the mystery of the unknown, but you can't appreciate the unknown; the term is a contradiction. Appreciation implies not only knowing of something, but recognizing something of value regarding the something in question which elicits a personal appreciation.

[@joeyrocks7916]

Actually a great informative video

[@naturalismforever3469]

Naw, Joey, a thoughtless, deceptive video containing no verifiable evidence whatever.

[@naturalismforever3469]

Actually, Joey. A completely flawed video.

[@patrickbinter3715]

Hey everyone. Michael Montague and Thinking Human are the same person. They're supplementing eachother's comments by making it seem there's two athiestic personalities patting eachother on the back. Please make fun of him at will. Keep reading the thread. It gets better :) You're welcome!!

[@farras101]

Ole Mike strokes his sad little tadger to Dick Dawkins every night.

[@patrickbinter3715]

+Michael Montague you giving Richard Dawkins that much credit truly lends to the obvious fact that you won't get taken seriously by any of us. Also, that fluff of admiration you just spewed out shows that you have quite a secret romantic attraction to the guy. I say again, consult Dr. Ed Feser if you want to understand us correctly

[@patrickbinter3715]

+Michael Montague no. I do not think empirical science answers every problem. I trust that way of knowing, but know there are other ways of knowing, like "I love my family". Where's your verifiable evidence of that? I keep repeating myself, Montague. I just think you don't want to face the truth because it requires work

[@patrickbinter3715]

+Michael Montague Michael, you are not getting me. You don't even address my points. You are simply refusing to admit that many logical conclusions don't rely on empirical data. I keep articulating that, and you keep repeating yourself. And for some odd reason, you keep implying I base all my ideas on "authority". That's bullshit. Fuck you

[@patrickbinter3715]

+Michael Montague for one, you have no real reason to conclude that. Also, I've caught you talking to Thinking Human and you've admitted it. Also you are Richard Dawkin's gay bottom. Who's the weirdo here?

[@patrickbinter3715]

I don't get this idea these atheists get that they're more intellectually rounded than their religious peers. It doesn't make sense on the most basic of levels. Oh well..

[@viator1451]

+Patrick Binter Some in this discussion strangely seem to lump all believers in spiritual reality together: voodoo-practitioners and Thomas Aquinas...they make no distinction. The other side is all "spiritualists" to them. Talk about "unscientific"! They are more primitive in their thinking than they will ever know.

[@patrickbinter3715]

+Claude Pavur I know. It's an age old ideology too. "Logic" vs "delusion". Nothing new on these forms.

[@thinkinghuman7708]

+Patrick Binter LOL. You guys are either one and the same writer (most likely) or are two people equally delusional. Either way, I use the term SUPERNATURALIST, which includes spiritualists, religionists, superstitionists, astrologers, and many other such categories, who all share the common delusion of "things," "events," "actions," "outcomes," "beings," etc. that are not natural. Just to be clear about this. I refuse to be misrepresented by the two (one) of you.

[@patrickbinter3715]

+Thinking Human ok.. Just don't assume I've sacrificed my intellect with what I believe. That's condescending and judgmental. Hardly the way your Mom would want you to act..

[@thinkinghuman7708]

+Patrick Binter Oh, my, my. Why are supernaturalists so very thin-skinned? I notice it repeatedly on these fora. Do I "assume" that you've sacrificed you intellect? No. Do I have verifiable, and repeated evidence, that you possess no understanding of science, the standards of science, or the work of scientists? Yes. Do I have verifiable evidence that you are willing to accept the "authority" of supernaturalism? Yes. Is that consistent with my conclusion that you lack curiosity and the will to inquire without reliance upon authority? Yes.

[@bygonevexation114]

Faith in God does not distract anyone, in fact it motivates people to see patterns of his design in his creation and come one step closer to understanding him, all the while accepting and surrendering to the fact that you cannot possibly have knowledge of his infinite expanse. Trying when you know you can fail. Climbing when you know you can fall. Living when you know you can die. That sounds more like resilience and conviction than distraction :)

[@BishopBarron]

Nothing, in the strict philosophical sense of the term, cannot be "pervaded" by anything, certainly not by either potency or act. The contingent world comes into being only because it is grounded, finally, in some reality which is not contingent, whose very nature is to be. This is what Catholic philosophy means by "God."

[@thecarlitosshow7687]

The contingency argument !

[@xm377Moyocoyatzin]

Science is more than just the chemistry of paper. Science is a method for discovering reality. It's a process by which we can discern truth from untruth as it pertains to the universe itself. To say that god exists outside the universe that is literally saying god exists outside of what is real, therefore god is not real. He is imaginary. Anyway, all I ever wanted was to know whether or not god is real. At first the constant run around, the mental gymnastics, and the endless emptiness of non-answers whose void is the stuff of hell itself eventually got me fed up. So I gave up. I got to the point where I didn't care whether god is real or not. He is not in my life and that is all that really matters. If he doesn't exist I have lived all my life without him, if he does exist, again, I have lived my entire life without him. I have never, not once interacted with him. God does not speak, listen, talk, or interact with me in any possible, provable, or conceivable way. Therefore his existence is not relevant to my own which means the question of whether or not he exists is now meaningless because he does not exist to me. Having a heavenly father is as useful as having a dead or absent one. God is not here, and that is all that matters.

[@logike77]

"claims that Imaginary Skybeing exists without space, time and within absolute nothing." --I didn't say that. You did. Try again.

[@patrickbinter3715]

Montague and Standfor Reason are the same person. please make fun of this basement dweller at will :)

[@naturalismforever3469]

And Paddy Binter is no "person" at all. He's beneath being a member of the species Homo sapiens.

[@brentgrainger58]

(contd 3) Perhaps Einstein said it best: “Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.” Another of his quotes is: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” Science is much more than empiricism, or even inquiry; rather of necessity, it requires immense imagination

[@bygonevexation114]

"love is a verb. love is a doing word." love is poles apart from empty words. Love does not have a cause and is an unconditional gift that given with or without cause to do so.

[@AntiCitizenX]

Science can’t explain the beauty of a painting, you say? So in other words, Barron literally doesn’t understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. How embarrassing.

[@johnnewburn4750]

I think you're misunderstanding what truth, meaning, value, goodness, and beauty are in your critique of minute 1:44. You can't limit those things to being a mere opinion.

[@AntiCitizenX]

@@johnnewburn4750 I never said truth was opinion. I said BEAUTY. Please do not insert words into my mouth. Also, what exactly does "objective beauty" mean? There is no such thing. Beauty is not some intrinsic quality of things. It is a reaction that people have to their subjective perceptions of things. That's the complete opposite of objective, and I am kind of baffled that supposedly "sophisticated" theologians like Barron completely failed to grasp this.

[@LOZandKHfreak]

You're confusing Beauty with awe, awe is the emotion we typically feel when we experience the Beautiful, but Beauty is not the emotion.

[@mrdgenerate]

How to say nothing for almost 9 minutes

[@BishopBarron]

Because of the causal influence of that which exists through the power of his own essence.

[@TheFutureengineer20]

I believe the earliest and, in my opinion, most consistent evidence is the fact that light emitted from distant galaxies experience a shift in their wavelengths. From this Hubble was able to determine the expansion of our universe.

[@BishopBarron]

No! This is nothing (pun intended) but equivocation. Whatever the quantum flux means, it is not nothing in the proper philosophical sense. Whatever comes into being requires an explanation. To refer to the infinitely fecund ocean of potentiality out of which these particles emerge as "nothing" is simply intellectual sleight of hand.

[@BishopBarron]

"Matter" and "energy" are abstractions. In fact, both matter and energy exist in particular states or conditions. And that begs the question: what put them in that state? If you appeal to other material realities, which are themselves contingent, you're just postposing the answer. We have to come, finally, to some reality whose manner of being is not dependent upon another. This is what Catholics mean by "God."

[@libertas2011]

Father, do you think this exchange between you and PurePragma demonstrates Immanuel Kant's insight about the antinomies of pure reason?

[@kieferonline]

This video is an impressive bit of philosophical and theological reasoning. Even 10 years later it remains perfectly true. That's objective reasoning for you!

[@majmage]

How so? He seems to repeat the same logic error many of Aquinas' arguments make. Either (a) everything or (b) not everything is contingent. * if A then a non-contingent god is impossible * if B then the argument has no reason for saying a god must exist; any given thing might be non-contingent (including the possibility of multiple non-contingent things). Basically several of Aquinas' arguments make that mistake of answering "A" for the premises, but then switching the answer to "B" for the conclusion (because god is the exception to the rules established in the first part of many of Aquinas' arguments). With A being things like everything being contingent, everything have a cause, everything being moved, etc, and B being the alternate (not everything being contingent, etc). Reality is one or the other, not both.

[@jessewallace12able]

I'm so happy you did this video Barron.

[@TheFutureengineer20]

"every human thought, idea, memory, articulation etc. occurs through the firing of complex networks of human neurons." The way I was reading into this is that all of our thoughts, intentions, actions, etc are a result of neuron firing rather than humans having the ability to reason and make decisions independent of instinct and brain activity.

[@ignatiusvoice8333]

God, which is the state of to be itself, has not gotten smaller. Rather, it is the resisting mind and heart which have gotten smaller, as they have digressed into believing only in that which can be controlled and demonstrated through scientific evidence. But, love at its deepest essence is never about control it is about freedom. Freedom to appreciate and adore. I will pray for all of you.

[@BP26P]

That's what I tried to point out earlier-you can empirically verify neuronal firing, but not the philosophical assertions that correlate with neuronal firing. The dispute is whether the philosophical assertions themselves can be empirically verified, not whether neurons fire when a human subject makes those assertions.

[@bygonevexation114]

Lets start with the fact that life is sacred. Life is like an oasis within a desert. It is organized matter that tolerates chaos. That requires uniformity and structure yet yielding constructive mistakes to change through an ever dynamic and transient natural environment. Life is a balancing act from the moment of its conception to the final surrender to chaos. We have a natural OBJECTIVE affinity for balanced molecules. There is NO MISTAKE that we crave water when we are dehydrated.

[@bygonevexation114]

a life without faith is not worth living as there is no transcendence from selfish interests. You cannot possibly value human life and experience without surrendering to some higher good. The higher the better. The highest being God (which requires complete and utter surrender)

[@F84Thunderjet]

I hope you enjoy Christmas and have a great New Year!

[@BishopBarron]

No! They are decidedly not the same question. "What do humans find beautiful and why" is a psychological or perhaps sociological question. "What is the beautiful?" is a properly philosophical question. Similarly, how does the eye take in color, proportion, etc? is a biological or neurological question; whereas why is proportion ingredient in the beautiful is a philosophical question.

[@logike77]

"Einstein's postulate is about the invariance of the speed of light, independent of all reference frames. This can be considered 'absolute' in the Newtonian sense from the reference frames themselves." --Right! The speed of light is CONSTANT throughout changing reference frames.

[@F84Thunderjet]

I’m not familiar with all doctrines of other religions, but the concept of passing sin i.e.”original sin” to innocents of all succeeding generations has to be the most egregious of them all.

[@BishopBarron]

Like many people today, you seem allergic to the word "God." So drop it. I'm arguing that contingency requires an explanation, that matter is, by its very nature, contingent. Therefore, it requires, finally, an explanation that is not itself contingent; otherwise, we fall into an infinite regress. The non-contingent ground of contingency is what I am calling "God." You can call it anything you want, but show me precisely where you think the argument itself fails.

[@TheFutureengineer20]

"In other cases, what seemed impossible to the imagination turned out to be possible indeed." This is what I was talking about when I said that imagination is pretty much useless in modern science. Things such as this did not come about through the imagination but through intellectual understanding.

[@brentgrainger58]

You are confused about the term "empirical." Science is at its very root a simple method of investigation. The evidence or lack thereof for an assertion can be determined. There is no evidence whatever, however hard one looks, that science, as a method of investigation, fails to be applicable to any entity, event, or construct. It always has something to say, and always has a useful and valuable insight of some sort. That is the immense power of science and the root of its success.

[@bygonevexation114]

Emotions result from the association of the tangible with the intangible. Meaning: the tangible excitation of specific specialized neurons of the occipital lobe leads to the intangible perception of the orientation of a stimulus. Similarly the tangible excitation of neurons of your amygdala lead to the intangible perception of fear. These intangible emotions cannot exist without the tangible excitation or inhibition of your neurons.

[@brentgrainger58]

(contd 2) Cosmologists and quantum physicists are certainly approaching the question of "why there is something rather than nothing" and doing so in a powerful way that is quite astonishing to me and which wonderfully excites my imagination. Indeed, one of the missings for me when non-scientists discuss science is a certain lack of imagination regarding the potential future findings of science, which can very often be predicted simply based on the evidence that we do have.

[@BishopBarron]

No. The principle is that every contingent thing must have a cause. If we follow the logic that flows from this principle, we come to the conclusion that there has to be one non-contingent reality upon which all of contingent reality finally depends.

[@logike77]

"God did not have a cause in creating us. He does not have a need. Searching for the cause of causes within a contingent existence is futile" --I happen to agree (partly). Though God's creation is superfluous considered from the point of view of "need," he did create the universe out of an overabundance of love, that love being "agape" not "eros."

[@BishopBarron]

Your interlocutor is right: you're equivocating on the word "impossible." By it you seem to mean the highly unlikely, while he's using it to mean the strictly contradictory.

[@F84Thunderjet]

I could tell you 1000 times that punishing all innocent descendants of Adam and Eve is the epitome of extreme injustice but you would still say "the rational grounds of your rejection (of original sin) is unclear."

[@BishopBarron]

The non-contingent ground of contingency must be that whose very nature is to be. Whatever changes from state to state is marked by potentiality, which is a modality of non-being. This is why neither "matter" nor "energy" nor "the quantum flux" can be the utterly self-explaining reality that the argument demands. Which of God's attributes do you think are inconsistent with his being non-contingent?

[@BishopBarron]

Please take the time to read John Henry Newman's Grammar of Assent. You will see that serious religious people are intensely interested in distinguishing true from false claims in the arena of theology.

[@logike77]

Support for (1): This argument is cast using the principle of confirmation, a perfectly warranted form of reasoning (which we use every day), not to mention in trials-by-jury. It says whenever we are considering 2 competing hypotheses, H1 & H2, and an observation O, O counts as evidence in favor of H1 over H2 if O is more probable under H1 than it is under H2. I see no reason at all for thinking this principle is false. But this principle is what the skeptic must challenge to defeat the argument

[@bygonevexation114]

there is beauty in our genes. Without code we would not survive. Life requires a standardized code just like society requires a standardized morality.

[@logike77]

Corollary: It is not improbability alone that is evidence for design. It is improbability combined with a specified pattern that is evidnence for design. There are 30-50 constants each tuned for life. No single constant by itself suggests design bias, since it is perfectly possible (however unlikely) that a constant be propitious for life. But the fact that 30-50 constants, all of whose values are probabilistically independent of one another, favor life, does suggest design bias. Analogy:

[@BishopBarron]

The only issue here is the meaning of the word "nothing." The problem I have is that scientists equivocate constantly on this term and then, on that basis, make all sorts of outrageous claims about God or the absence of God. By "nothing," theologians mean absolute non-being. By the same term, many scientists seem to mean a fluctuating quantum vacuum from which subatomic particles continually arise. Whatever that is, it ain't absolute non being!

[@TheFutureengineer20]

For something such as the contingency argument rather than dispute the conclusion you would have to dispute the principles and facts that it's derived from. Most people don't understand just how theory-laden modern science is. Some theories and hypothesis do require verifiable evidence to justify them. Others, however, rather than have the evidence and data dictate to us whether the theory holds any merit we instead use the theory and prior intellectual understanding to make sense of the data.

[@TheFutureengineer20]

Father Barron doesn't appear to be threatened by science. He's merely pointing out a fact. That some people have a particular attitude toward science. Some believe science is capable of providing a complete answer to all of life's biggest question or that any answer that isn't scientific holds no merit. He's merely pointing the flaw in this way of thinking. Scientist such as Hutchinson, Lennox, Polkinghorne, Coyne, and Mcgrath (who has a doctorate in molecular biophysics) agree w/ him.

[@smummy2904]

It is the deep-seated craving of the man of words for an exalted status which makes him oversensitive to any humiliation imposed on the class or community (racial, lingual or religious) to which he belongs. - Eric Hoffer

[@bygonevexation114]

some things are without a definite cause. Faith in God (or true faith) is one of those things, it just doesnt need a tangible motive.

[@brentgrainger58]

Two arguments are the essence of this video. The first is that "science will never explain everything" and the second is that "god is required to avoid infinite regress of natural causation." Both are arguments / assertions, without evidence. Indeed, science clearly has something useful to say about every imaginable subject already, even though it has existed for only 200 years. The second motif is merely evidence-free argument, like so many other god of the gaps explanations.

[@BP26P]

The argument from motion explains why some things are changing. Such things are reduced from potency to act by a reality that is already in act. The argument from contingency explains why there are some things that are able to exist and able to not exist. Such things depend on a reality that necessarily exists in order to exist at all. If a cause is removed, so is its effect. If causes went on to infinity, nothing would be first in the ordering of causes, and thus no effects could follow.

[@TheFutureengineer20]

I wasn't necessarily talking about "extra-corporeal" influence. I'm merely pointing out that there are studies that show that the connection b/w neuron firing and the way we think and behave is not as direct or as clear as you assert.

[@brentgrainger58]

On the contrary, as famous physicist and science communicator Michio Kaku says in a wonderful KZbin video: "The rocket fuel of science is imagination." Einstein himself describes the functioning of his intellect as "imagination." Why do you doubt his perceptions? Again, may I suggest that you study the work of great scientists so that you understand the role of imagination in their discoveries. Such study would open your mind to how science is really practiced and would be invaluable.

[@BishopBarron]

Anything material can be otherwise, which shows that it need not be at all. That fundamental ontological instability is what I mean by "contingency." The non-contingent ground of contingency is that whose very nature is to be, which is another way of saying that which exists through the power of its own essence. That cannot, even in prinicple, be the case in regard to something that can flutter in and out of being.

[@BishopBarron]

You're missing the point. What I'm objecting to is the scientific misuse of the term in order to "prove" that there is no need for God. Quantum theorists can call the fluxuating vacuum anything they want. But what they can't do is conclude on the basis of its existence that the unconditioned ground of contingency is not logically necessary.

[@Riverification]

The best and only proof of God's existence and redemptive love is God himself. Only God is enough.

[@Riverification]

In the end the Catholic perspective is that existence of God isn't open to reasoning - circular or otherwise. It, like the sacraments are mysteries. In Catholic dogma it is God alone that reveals himself - it is an act of pure grace. Take another instance: human consciousness. At present it isn't explained - but just is: even if it were to be explained, one would have to agree it explains itself. But that just brings us back to an argument you have already said is elicit.

[@Riverification]

+sciencetrumpsfaith Your first sentence isn't a scientific fact. If you think it is, you will need to state on what falsifiable grounds you think we "clearly know etc". Good luck.

[@Riverification]

You seem to be saying two things 1) recognition=consciousness and 2) lack of self-consciousness = dead. 1) is wrong as locks 'recognise' keys but aren't conscious. 2) is wrong because its false that we die every night and are resurrected every morning. You'll have to do better than that.

[@Riverification]

ad hominem attack isn't an argument, it is just abuse. I don't waste time on trolling posts. End.

[@Riverification]

read my post again

[@brentgrainger58]

I also encourage you to view Daniel Dennett's videos. While Dennett is a scientist, he is also a philosopher, and therefore may speak your language more effectively than Krauss, Weinberg, Carroll, etc. Dennett's take on clergy who are actually atheists but are afraid to "take the plunge" is most enlightening.

[@mkeras]

I love your commentaries fr, I will for sure be piggybacking off this one when debating others.

[@BishopBarron]

Friend, that is hopelessly, even comically, reductionistic. The biological processing of data is one thing; the determination of objective standards of goodness and beauty is something else altogether.

[@bygonevexation114]

which hopefully brings me to my final point. there is a reason why it is said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," beauty cannot be objectively defined, there might commonality in brain chemistry, but WHAT exactly causes a beholder to be left in awe of at something could be a deeply subjective. If you trace and arrogantly assume that you completely understand why someone finds something beautiful based on a picture or a reference you delude yourself. You have to experience it for yourself :)

[@BishopBarron]

To accept the rules of quantum mechanics is by no means tantamount to denying the principle of sufficient explanation. In point of fact, ideological naturalists or materialists engage in all sorts of magical thinking. A good example is how a purely material brain, marked it would seem by no finality or formality, gives rise to consciousness, which is marked, at every turn, by purpose and intentionality.

[@mrwater5772]

Emergent properties are not magic you shameless fool.

[@OrigenisAdamantios]

God’s Noncompetitive Transcendence… there’s no competition between the Uncreated vs the created. In Him we live and move and are!

[@mrwater5772]

what about devil